Posted on 06/04/2002 8:51:50 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
In recent testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee, John Magaw, the undersecretary for transportation security, announced the Bush administration’s policy that pilots not be permitted to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airplanes.
The White House offered two mealy-mouthed rationales for this position. First, Bush administration spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that the administration opposes guns in the cockpit because of “the potential for handguns getting loose on airplanes.”
What about the potential for Arab terrorists getting loose on airplanes? Imagine a different scenario on September 11th, say on Flight 93. The savages jump up and yell “Allahu akbar” (God is Great) and attempt to burst into the cockpit with boxcutters. But instead of following the hijackers’ orders, the pilot grabs his handgun and shoots each terrorist in the face, resulting in their bloody bodies falling to the ground. Good guys—1, Allahu akbar—0.
Instead of considering this situation, Johndroe has visions of guns “getting lose.” How would this happen? Would the guns walk to the rear of the plane and coyly hide under dinner trays? No, the pilots—most of whom have military training and all of whom would receive handgun training—have control of the guns. If airline travelers trust pilots at the helm of a 200,000-pound 747, why not give them the choice to trust them with pistols?
John Magaw offers the second bizarre rationale for the administration’s opposition to armed pilots, saying “[pilots] really need to be in control of that aircraft.” Ann Coulter astutely observes “that is like saying women walking home late at night in dangerous neighborhoods shouldn't carry guns because they ‘really need to be getting home.’” Simply put, a pilot cannot be in control of his plane if his throat has been slit.
Others, like Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), have argued that guns in the cockpit are unnecessary if cockpit doors are locked during flights. But as economist John Lott—author of More Guns, Less Crime—points out,
“Doors can be blown open. Security can be breached, and terrorists could get the keys or codes used to open the doors…One choice is to arm pilots as a last line of defense. Their job is not to police the entire airplane but the much more limited and relatively simple task of defending a single narrow entrance to keep terrorists out of the cockpit.”
For those anti-gun zealots fearing that bullets may pierce the fuselage, Dr. Lott notes that,
Specialized bullets are designed not to penetrate the airline’s aluminum skin. And even if a regular bullet penetrated the skin, there is unlikely to be any noticeable change; an air outlet at the back of the plane, which draws air through the cabin, would automatically shrink to a smaller size to compensate.
Even Handgun Control, Inc. and the Brady Bill crowd do not oppose armed pilots! Chris Core, the President of the Brady Campaign, told listeners on Washington D.C.’s WMAL radio station that he would support the voluntary arming of pilots.
The Bush administration’s policy is the latest in a troubling string of departures from a reliance on free market capitalism as the best mechanism to allocate society’s resources. First, the monstrous education bill, next the federalizing of airport security, then campaign finance reform, then steel tariffs and quotas, next farm subsidies, and now the banning of guns from cockpits.
"What are you talking about, Sabia?” you ask, “What do steel tariffs have to do with guns in the cockpit?”
In each case, the federal government has intervened to tell consumers what they can and cannot have. In the case of steel tariffs, the federal government is reducing (relatively cheap) steel imports. By cutting off foreign supply, the government is forcing American consumers to face a higher price for goods produced with steel. The government will not permit consumers to obtain steel at the market price.
In the case of guns in the cockpit, the federal government is preventing consumers from freely choosing to purchase a ticket aboard a plane with armed pilots. This is command-and-control economic policy, decided from the top-down, with the government deciding what individuals can consume. Free market capitalism operates on a bottom-up principle where consumer demand for products drives the types of goods that firms produce.
According to the Winston survey, 75 percent of all Americans support arming pilots, with women supporting it more strongly than men. The same poll finds that 49 percent of consumers would switch from their usual airline carrier to one that permitted armed pilots. Why not allow Americans to select the level of safety they prefer?
We trust American consumers to choose among different types of cars. Some people want lots of safety features—air bags, high crash-test scores, antilock breaks, etc. Other people don’t care so much about these features and prefer to save some money by foregoing them. We believe that consumers are competent enough to select among the various bundles of safety features and choose what they do and do not want.
The same principle ought to apply to airline security in general and armed pilots in particular. Let consumers choose what they want. Some consumers might want to fly on airlines that strip search passengers, have five-hour lines, and use unarmed pilots. Other consumers might want fewer checkpoints, armed pilots, and even pistol-packin’ stewardesses. Whatever. Let consumers decide what they want and let them pay for they safety they desire.
Still not convinced?
“You’re out of your mind, Sabia! This is national security, jerk. The federal government should handle that.”
Wrong. True, the federal government should provide national defense, but this is because national defense is what we economists call a “pure public good.” That is to say, it is characterized by nonexcludability and nonrivalry in consumption.
Nonexcludability means that it is impossible (or rather, infinitely costly) to deprive any single American of the benefits of national defense once it is produced. For instance, as much as I might like to exclude Ithaca from the benefits of a missile defense shield, it is infinitely costly to do so.
Nonrivalry in consumption means that one American’s consumption of national defense does not diminish the availability of national defense for another American to consume. For example, if I eat a juicy Georgia peach, then your ability to consume that peach is diminished. But if I enjoy missile defense, your ability to consume it is unaffected.
Airline security fails both of these tests. You can exclude people from enjoying airline security once it is produced. How? By charging various prices for different levels of security. You cannot get on the plane without paying for the ticket. Hence, you can be excluded.
Similarly, if I take seat 10A on US Airways, then you cannot sit in seat 10A. Thus, my consumption of airline security on that flight does diminish your ability to consume it.
There is little or no rationale for government intervention in airline security. Consumers ought to be left to decide how little or how much security they want. The government should simply ensure that the airline market remains deregulated so that firms can enter the industry and compete on the dimensions that consumers care about.
As on almost every other domestic policy—save the tax cut—George Bush has been hopelessly addicted to big government. Once again, we must look to conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives to bring some semblance of freedom to this debate. Reps. Don Young (R-AK) and John Mica (R-FL) have introduced legislation that would permit airlines to decide whether their pilots will be armed. It is truly horrific that in America, we are now at a stage where we must beg the federal government for a little more freedom.
Libertarian Party Executive Director Steve Dasbach summed up the issue quite well:
”Why not let the people with the most at stake—pilots, airlines, and passengers—decide this issue, instead of a president who cruises around on Air Force One surrounded by armed Secret Service officers?
President Bush campaigned on a pledge to trust the people, not the government. He ought to keep that pledge by championing free markets in airline security.
He's tweakin' some of us pretty hard buddy. I'm ready to bolt.
I want the pilots armed. That said, the pilots should try to stay in the cockpit and fly the aircraft. Me and my fellow "victims" will kill the terrorists.
I never say never, but I cannot now think of any circumstance that would make me purchase a ticket to fly anywhere until I'm allowed to carry my handgun, without hassle or govt "permission".
Either way, the tyrannical politicians responsible for such a decision should either resign from their office, or be removed through Acts of Congress.
My standard is a little lower. I will settle for arming the pilots right now. Incrementalism got us where we are and incrementalism can get us back to where we were.
And often has fighter aircraft in attendence, to protect the aircraft, rather than to shoot it down.
It is unwise for a armed person to allow a hostile person within grab distance. The pilot and copilot can insist that anyone else maintain a certain distance from them when they're in the cabin, and can back up such demand with lethal force if needed. As coach passenger 23E, you wouldn't have such an option.
The cockpit is the key fortress. If it falls, all is lost. Arms kept within the fortress cannot be used by terrorists outside unless those terrorists have already breached the defenses. By contrast, arms outside could easily be taken since planes have insufficient room to allow armed people to protect themself from surprise attacks.
I'll make my own decision.
I don't disagree, but my life is more than "incrementally" in danger.
If law abiding passengers are allowed to carry, I would bet that about a fourth of the passengers would be armed. It would take a small army of terrorists to defeat that many armed opponents, whom the terrorists can't readily identify or locate specifically.
Even if I'm the only one, I like my chances better armed than a helpless victim. In fact, given today's circumstances, I would fight with whatever is at hand rather than just meekly submit to being flown into a building...no matter the odds.
Only once since the 11th, (pre-paid trip prior to 9/11) and not since. I want no part of the circus that passes for airline travel these days.
While I surely agree that the cockpit should be well defended, and that Pilots should be free to carry sidearms, I'd like to ask:
What group of Hijackers would attempt to gain control of a Jetliner, if it became common knowledge that an armed citizenry was free to carry their own sidearms while on Airplanes?
It seems to me, that guns should'nt be banned from air travel... only certain types of ammo, should be banned. All citizens who are armed, should check their weaponry through security, and only authorized ammo should be allowed on the plane. In this way, any would be terrorist plot, would certainly fail. The terrorist's wouldn't have a clue which passenger might start blasting first, or which ones might join in the fray!
The threat of Hijacking Airplanes would be history! at little or no cost to the taxpayers or the Airline industry. They could even make some money... charging a few bucks more for flight insurance to passengers who are packing heat!
Exactly. I have never heard of a shooting at a gun show. There have been some suicides at gun ranges, but the only armed attack I have heard of locally ended when a customer used his own firearm to shoot the perpetrator. The owner of a local gun store wears one of those hunting vests. Gee, I wonder why?
John Magaw, the former reichminister of the BATF, doesn't want any more civilians to be armed than already are, which is, in the mind of that argument for retroactive abortion, already too many.
This globalist toady knows that the only thing stopping their, the globalists, conquest of this nation is the millions, I heard lately it was 140-million, of guns and gun owners, many of which would offer up stiff resistance to such a treasonous act.
It's much easier to committ genocide when your prospective victims can't shoot back.
Apparently, the Gramscian change-agents in the government training camps and the Quisling politicians and bureaucrats haven't done their job as quickly as originally intended because, these evil creatures are doing things now which speak of desperation.
The gungrabbers he's got calling the shots? This business could be the fall of the Bush Presidency, if some common sense doesn't prevail here. A pilot's first and foremost concern is the safety of passengers and crew, and the 'Captain of the Ship' should be an armed individual.
It's really very simple. Just take the lefty liberal politics out of this issue, and allow the pilots, crew and passengers to defend themselves!
OOOoops! Maybe that's the problem? Maybe we need a 'Bogey Man' to fear, so the Feds can protect us?
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.