Posted on 09/08/2002 12:57:32 PM PDT by GailA
Editorial 9/08: Keep the friendly skies free of guns
September 8, 2002
A LOPSIDED Senate majority favors the idea, but there is still time to reconsider arming airline pilots - a move that would give some Americans a false sense of security and give others second thoughts about flying.
Ideological arguments, fueled by lobbying efforts of the National Rifle Association, clearly prevailed last week when the Senate voted 87-6 to allow more than 85,000 passenger and cargo airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit.
The proposal essentially would force airlines to allow pilots to carry guns if they wished to do so, but only after they underwent appropriate training.
Rules against the practice were in place long before 1987, when pilots were first required to pass through metal detectors. Prior to that time, pilots who felt more secure with a firearm had to secretly pack guns in their flight bags.
Because of the suicidal nature of last September's terrorist hijackings, pilots say they can no longer depend on their wits to get them through a hijacking incident. They need a weapon.
One of the dangers in accepting this approach is that it could lead to complaisance in much more important areas.
The emphasis now should be on the fortification of cockpit doors and the installation of security enhancing equipment, such as video cameras that would permit occupants of the cockpit to see what is going on immediately to the rear.
Another problem is, simply, the introduction of guns into the environment.
Allowing pilots to carry guns tells would-be hijackers where a weapon can be obtained in-flight. And police annals are filled with accounts of officers killed with their own weapons or bystanders shot with guns wrestled away from overpowered officers.
The assailant in an airplane doesn't have to be a hijacker. As every police officer knows, a drunk or deranged person represents a serious threat if he or she manages to snatch a sidearm from its holster.
Carrying a gun gives pilots one more thing to worry about and protect. It is a distracting presence that could interfere with the operation of a large, sophisticated piece of machinery and endanger lives.
But the idea has now been approved by the House and Senate, in both cases in the form of an amendment to bills that would create a Department of Homeland Security, and in both cases by significant, veto-proof margins.
There are differences in the two versions of the Homeland Security bill that are not likely to be resolved for weeks, however, and that leaves time to consider the ramifications of arming pilots.
Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), arguing for the bill, cited the 1994 incident in which FedEx pilot Auburn Calloway, riding as a "jump-seat" passenger, attacked the crew of a FedEx DC10 with a hammer after takeoff in Memphis.
Would the Calloway attack have had a better resolution if one or more of the pilots had been carrying a sidearm when Calloway launched his surprise attack in the cockpit? Or would things have turned out worse?
Arming pilots would come with an expensive training program - apparently to be borne by taxpayers, as the Senate bill specifies that neither the airlines nor the pilots can be charged for the training or equipment.
The Transportation Security Administration and the airlines have registered their opposition to the move. TSA director John Magaw has been more open to the idea of pilots and crew members carrying nonlethal weapons, such as stun guns or collapsible metal batons.
The idea of arming pilots with guns is considered "ill-advised" by Frederick W. Smith, chair man and chief executive officer of FedEx Corp., who joined Northwest Airlines CEO Richard Anderson and 19 other airline executives who outlined their concerns in a letter to senators last week.
As a spokesman for the 50,000-member Association of Flight Attendants put it, before that organization reversed its position on the issue: "A gun locked up behind a reinforced door does nothing to protect people in the cabin."
........ who'da thunkit.
Then, if this is true....will someone PLEASE tell me why there are Fire Extinquishers in the cockpit? Because if they're too busy fying a plane, and can't use a gun to thwart a hijacker at the same time..surely they don't have the ability to fly a plane & put out a fire either. So, WHY ARE THERE FIRE EXTINQUISHERS IN THE COCKPIT?
The more uncertain a potential aggressor is of being successful, the less likely it is that they will commit aggression.
This explains everything from why CCW laws deter crime to why alliances deter wars. It's a simple fact of human nature to avoid doing things in which (1) you are putting your entire existence at risk, and (2) there are factors beyond your control that dramatically increase the risk of failure of achieving your goal. The main purpose of arming pilots is to put more uncertainly factors into play that are beyond the control of a highjacker.
Only an utterly incompetent highjacker would ever plan to take over a plane by stealing a pilot's gun. He doesn't know (1) whether the pilot even has one, (2) where it's kept, (3) whether other armed pilots will shoot him as soon as he gets it, etc. etc.
A highjacker may be completely prepared to sacrifice his life kamikaze style, but not for nothing! He wants to go out in a blaze of glory, not as another armed defense statistic.
Anyone who claims the danger is increased by armed pilots is failing to take any of this into account, and is obviously unqualified to judge risk in the real world.
Well, now that I have heard from Mr. Limpwrist Milquetoast (Expert-at-Large), I agree.
All Marine Corps fighter pilots, Army Blackhawk pilots, Air Force Pilots please turn in your sidearms. Yes, I know you have been carrying them for nearly 100 years without incident. That you have been doing this through the flack of Nazi Germany, or dive-bombing Imperial Japanese aircraft carriers in the middle of the shark infested Pacific. Surly, while dodging telephone pole size, homing missiles over North Vietnam , Thud pilots must of said it would be easy if it wasn't for that pistol; But a liberal/leftist has spoken and that outweighs practical experiences. < sarcasm very not off >
And for the record, when I'm armed, there is one LESS thing for me to worry about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.