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.
I wish I could be so optimistic. I have yet to see a SINGLE nazi federal gun law removed from the books unless it was replaced by something worse.
Now tell me the one about the Air Marshall again ....
Once upon a time......
Foreign steel imports were being subsidized by their governments' illegal actions--that's what Bush sought to curb. But, if your livelihood does not depend on making and selling steel legally, who cares?
I have even heard that some gun-owners have more than just a single gun and I suspect that they do so in order to ensure that everyone who needs a gun during a crisis may have one.
Air marshalls have considerable training on weapon retention--far more (I would hope) than most CCW carriers. In addition, they also have the authority, once they have revealed themselves--to demand that everyone else remain outside of grabbing distance (IIRC there was a bit of a stink awhile ago because an air marshall who reacted to a crazed passenger did precisely that for the duration of the flight). Ordinary citizens with CCWs would not have the authority to forbid other people from getting close enough to grab their weapons, and lacking such authority could not reasonably keep their weapons safe.
BTW, while sky marshalls may be a useful adjunct to arming pilots, the armed pilots should be the most important component of flight security.
Seems this would create a real sight picture problem, panic in the cabin, aircraft trim adjustment needed, and great potential for the bad guys to nab hostages.
We know what the score is, keep control of the plane in the proper hands or die. Either by the terrorist's hands or by one of our own missiles.
Give the pilots the means to defend the cockpit, surely. But if you want me to get on an aircraft, you will not deny me the means to defend myself, even a pocket knife would help.
In the meantime, there is noplace I need to go I can't drive and at least retain an item which can be used as an expedient weapon. (Large Crescent wrench, pipe wrench or the like).
I can drive 700 miles west, 400 miles east, 70 miles north, or over 200 south and carry a pistol concealed the whole way, legally. I don't need a plane and refuse to place my safety solely in the hands of one other person who may be outnumbered, out gunned, or simply 'made' and neutralized by people who have shown a predilection toward doing their research.
Like the pilots, who already have control over life and death, many CCW holders would gratefully accept the additional training and responsibility, in exchange for full faith and credit under the Constitution for their licenses.
Crossing a state border does not turn me into a homicidal maniac, regardless of altitude.
I'm with you there. In the close quarters of an airplane cabin, a firearm's advantage over a bladed or blunt weapon are much smaller than in a more open environment. Allowing passengers to have at least a small blade would ensure that passengers' advantage in numbers would outweigh a terrorist's advantage in weaponry or training.
If there are more terrorists than passengers, the terorists will win (a pyrhic victory). Otherwise, the passengers should overcome.
Bloody, granted, and quite possibly a bit of a free-for-all, but cheap and effective.
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.