Do you believe that a commercial airline pilot should be allowed to carry a gun in the cockpit?- 2545 respondents
Yes
82%No
18%
Posted on 06/10/2002 4:16:50 AM PDT by ppaul
The U.S. government's ruling that commercial airplane pilots will not be allowed to carry firearms in the cockpit may quiet for now the pilots' demands to be able do so.
But it likely isn't the end of the issue.
Not only have the pilots been pushing to carry guns in light of terrorist attacks and threats, but the Association of Flight Attendants also has suggested that its 50,000 members have access to nonlethal weapons such as stun guns, also known as tasers.
That's why I recently asked bCentral's readers how they feel about allowing airline employees to have weapons on board planes.
More than 100 readers responded to my inquiry — which was posted on both the bCentral Web site and the bCentral Bulletin weekly newsletter, shortly before and after the U.S. Department of Transportation's ruling. The responses were thoughtful and passionate.
How do readers feel? Overall, by a margin of more than a 2 to 1, a majority of respondents found fault with the idea of putting weapons on planes.
Coffee, tea or tasers?
Some readers do feel it makes sense to have an armed crew. Several echo the view of Dave Bulicek of Crystal Lake, Ill., who says that allowing attendants to carry tasers is "a no-brainer." He asks, "What harm can come from that?"
One thing that struck me is that while satisfaction with airlines and airline employees in general is very low, passengers' opinion of airline pilots seems to be very high. Many readers, including those who opposed having any weapons on airplanes, made a point of emphasizing the faith they have in the men and women behind the controls of passenger jets.
However, even with pilots, people were able to envision legitimate concerns. Eric Mold, a retired Air Force fighter pilot in Vancouver, B.C., points out that even if only one out of 1,000 pilots carrying a weapon is "intent on doing mischief," that number is an unacceptable risk. "I call upon the other 99.9% of the [airline pilots] to reject this stupid idea," Mold says.
Worries about weapon control
While some worry about the potentially catastrophic effects of gunshots fired into a fuselage in mid-flight, concern about pilots and attendants losing control of weapons looms larger in the minds of many.
Tom Valuch of Atlanta, for example, likes the idea of allowing a flight crew to be armed, but is opposed to attendants having control of any weapons. "It'd be too easy to overpower a flight attendant and take control of a weapon," he says.
Writing from Ottawa, Ontario, Victor Neufeld says he liked the idea of allowing attendants to carry tasers, but with an important caveat. "I would want to know how these weapons are to be secured so that they do not end up being accessed by the criminal element and applied against the people whom they are meant to protect," he says.
David Scott of Christchurch, New Zealand, advocates other measures, such as reinforcing cockpit doors. He succinctly sums up his concerns about on-board arms: "Weapons are likely to be taken away from lightly trained users by fanatics who would be highly trained."
A gun is not a security blanket
Where do I stand on all of this? Well, like any frequent flier, I want to be safe — and the safer the better. But I don't think arming either flight attendants or pilots gets us there. And I don't think government announcements that somewhere, sometime there will be some sort of terrorist attack serve much purpose beyond scaring the spit out of citizens.
We're spending a lot of time watching airline employees wipe our laptop computers in search of explosive residue, and taking off our shoes for examination (woe to the man who spends time fertilizing his lawn before heading out to the airport). But the airlines are subjecting a mere fraction of our checked bags to bomb-detecting equipment, and we're still skimping on trained air marshals. (According to a recent article in USA Today, we're also skimping on the training some of those marshals are getting.)
Ultimately, I come down on the side of people like Jim Brown, a former federal agent now living in Gallup, N.M.
Says Brown, who used to be required to carry a firearm when flying, "Law enforcement officers shouldn't fly commercial airliners, and airline pilots shouldn't carry guns. Few pilots would have the resolve not to give up their weapon to save a crew member with a box-cutter to his or her throat. Well-trained law enforcement officers are immeasurably better prepared to handle such situations."
Link to article and poll to FReep HERE.
"Law enforcement officers shouldn't fly commercial airliners, and airline pilots shouldn't carry guns..."Sheesh!
Where do they finds these guys?
Anyway, FReep the heck out of his poll.
Mr. Anthony's article about Pilots with Guns is just simply wrong.Eagles Up!
His comment that Law Enforcement shouldn't fly commercial airliners and Airline Pilots shouldn't carry guns is so pathetically flawed in logic that it would be laughable if it were not so serious.
Guns in the cockpit, in the hands of a trained pilot (trained to fly and trained to shoot) would be the most effective final deterrent to hi-jacking and terror possible. We already entrust our lives to them, most are military trained, and the guns could easily be secured for their use alone. As a final resort ... I like it much better than a sidewinder missile up a jet exhaust.
Besides ... the poll I looked at there on your own site belies Mr. Anthony's comments about his own 100 voter poll. Over 2500 respondents on your poll and 82% approve of guns in the cockpit.
Sincerely,
Jeff Head
Emmett, ID
Author of Dragon;s Fury - Breath of Fire
A novel of the next World War
Also, why is this guy interviewing Canadians? Or is this "retired Air Force fighter pilot" just some dude who moved to Canada for some reason?
Anyway, his poll was just freeped and it needs to be freeped some more. The numbers are ONLY over 80% and 70% on the right side...
This Anthony guy is just a jackass.
Some readers do feel it makes sense to have an armed crew. Several echo the view of Dave Bulicek of Crystal Lake, Ill., who says that allowing attendants to carry tasers is "a no-brainer." He asks, "What harm can come from that?"
The inmates have made their takeover of the asylum complete. Guns under the voluntary control of pilots while on duty, and in a safe in operations at other times, makes good sense. Tasers in the cabin makes no sense.
Leni
Agreed.
But remember, the poll is gonna run until 9/2002.
Go back and continue to FReep, even after this thread is history.
Do you believe that a commercial airline pilot should be allowed to carry a gun in the cockpit? 82% 18%
The attacks would have never been finalized if a means of self-defense had been in place.The sad, disgusting truth.
Yeah.
Every darn passenger should be armed.
Well, la de da....
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.