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.
"Do you believe that a commercial airline pilot should be allowed to carry a gun in the cockpit? - 2566 respondents
Yes – 82%
No - 18 %Do you believe that flight attendants should be able to carry nonlethal stun guns? - 2618 respondents
Yes – 76%
No - 24 %"
Um, except for the fact that they wouldn't be there to do anything! I'm sure that well-trained cop back at LAX is going to do a lot of good at 36,000 feet over Arizona.
"Agreed. But remember, the poll is gonna run until 9/2002. Go back and continue to FReep, even after this thread is history."
Good point! I plan to FReep it daily!
Your article on arming the pilots seems to be worthless. The poll at the right of the article already says that the people want the pilots to be armed and that the flight attendents should carry non lethal weapons. In fact, I have never seem a poll that even comes close to claiming as you do that the people don't want the pilots to be armed. Your readership of 100 people claiming anything doesn't seem like the group I would pay attention to. If I wanted to know something about the subject, I would listen to the pilots and the attendents.
Where do these morons come from? Now if a plane is hijacked (due to these pathethic, pacifistic measures) the entire planeload of people will die thanks to a US fired missile at their 6. How encouraging - hundreds die because a pilot/passenger can't defend the plane. Now we all turn around and wait with bated breath a missile fired by our countrymen.
Personally, I’d prefer to take my chances with a rapid decompression (which ain’t all that big a deal if the masks deploy and the guys up front can get it down to under 12K) than watch some madman take MY flight into a building or the ground at 500 mph. That was the final experience of 266 fellow humans on 9/11. I KNOW I – like they – won’t survive that!
And pay VERY close attention to the "solutions" being offered by those in government: They are NOT talking about REMOVING the limitations they have ALREADY placed on us as individuals to DEFEND OURSELVES. They are beginning to talk about FURTHER RESTRICTIONS on our liberties and MORE GOVERNMENT! More GOVERNMENT? The same GOVERNMENT that failed so miserably in its obligation to protect citizens that 3,000 of them died like cattle in a slaughterhouse on September 11th?
The same government – led by former BATF capo JOHN MAGAW! -- that now FIGHTS to keep pilots UNARMED because it -- ostensibly -- fears a few innocent passengers MIGHT be harmed -- but will order F-16s (often manned by OTHER commercial pilots serving as week-end warriors) to SHOOT DOWN THE AIRCRAFT, KILLING ALL ABOARD
THAT GOVERNMENT??
Mindful of Voltaire's caveat that "It is dangerous to be RIGHT when the state is WRONG," I am compelled to offer that one has to actually be IN government for ANY OF THIS to make ANY sense.
It should be pointed out that even a few bullet holes in the pressurized skin is not going to cause a problem. Even at 30K+ feet, those engine compressors are putting out excess pressurization air. And, that's right, the flying pilot (hopefully not the one shooting terrorists) would instinctively be getting the airplane down to the lower altitudes.
Gee, doesn't it make you feel safe to know that our cold-war policy is applied to airline safety?
Mutual Assured Destruction.
Yeah.
That's the ticket.
That'll really be an deterrent for suicidal Islamic serial murderers!
Uh, really?
And here I've been thinking it was George W. Bush all along.
Silly me.
In case you slept through Civics class, ALL members of an administration serve at the pleasure of -- and are essentially EXTENSIONS OF -- the guy in the Oval Office.
That INCLUDES Mineta the Mental Midget and Magaw the Man With the Plan at Waco.
Here endeth the lesson.
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.