In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
HARDEN THE TARGET
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
HARDEN THE TARGET
Arming Pilots a Necessary Anti-Terrorist Measure
By Captain Dennis Jackson
As a captain for a major U.S. airline and a proponent of firearms for pilots, I am responding to the May 5 Tribune editorial calling for armed pilots. Most of the opponents of arming pilots cite reasons that are founded in myth, speculation and misconceptions.
The plan to arm flight deck crews involves many facets. Foremost, not all pilots will be armed and the ones that are will be fully trained, investigated and deputized as federal officers.
Pilots will be trained and forbidden from going into the cabin with a firearm to assist the cabin crew with disturbances. This will prevent the firearm from falling into the wrong hands.
An armed pilot will use his firearm to prevent criminal access to the flight deck - only!
The dangers of a negligent discharge and harm to an innocent passenger are overstated. The architecture of the flight deck ensures that if the pilot is required to shoot a terrorist from the flight deck the round will be discharged upward and not in an even plane with the passengers.
Law enforcement standards suggest that if an innocent person is killed or injured by a stray bullet, the collateral damage is acceptable if it prevents a tragedy similar to Sept. 11. Since Sept. 11 there have been numerous breaches of security with deadly weapons, including firearms. And some of these firearms have even made it onboard aircraft!
To leave the flight deck unprotected by not arming pilots is foolhardy in this global environment. Not to mention the risk from the ever present criminal element.
The major opponents of armed pilots are terrorists, airline management and the Bush administration. More than 80 percent of the American public favors this level of protection. And since the administration has indicated that we are living on borrowed time for another Sept. 11 style attack, not acting on this doesn't make sense.
The argument for less-than-lethal weapons has taken root because of those who fear guns more than they fear terrorism. Even though most law enforcement jurisdictions train their officers with stun guns, law enforcement is the first to admit that stun guns should never be used against deadly force unless you can back up the stun gun with deadly force, as well.
When you have a team of trained and determined terrorists trying to take control of a huge guided missile, you have an immediate need to apply deadly force. The suggestion to use "star wars" technology is not founded in good sense.
There is no technology that puts up a protective barrier around buildings that prevents airplanes from running into them. The use of "sleeping gas" is equally misguided in the fact that the cabin crew would also be incapacitated if it is inserted into the cabin in flight.
Why would you want to rely on technology that is nonexistent, unproven or years away - especially when law enforcement has used firearms effectively for decades to prevent crime and save innocent lives?
Long before Sept. 11 and gun control, pilots were required to carry firearms by the U.S. Postal service. During the 1970s some pilots were trained to carry firearms on duty to prevent hijackings. Is the risk less today?
Up until December 1987 pilots were allowed to bypass security and some pilots carried firearms without their airline even knowing about it. No one has ever been hurt because a pilot was armed. However, in 1954 an armed pilot prevented an armed passenger from hijacking his aircraft.
Pilots are some of the most stable persons in our society, are the most professionally scrutinized and have the ability and training to deal with multiple emergencies that affect the lives of hundreds of people per day. Pilots are proven to be trainable to law enforcement standards with firearms and judgment.
Right now aircraft, and especially flight decks, are soft targets for terrorists. The most effective way to counter the threat is to harden the target by arming pilots. There is no other way.
Even with a mandate from Congress, President Bush has been indecisive on this issue. Concerned Americans should call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 and tell President Bush you want him to act on arming pilots.
If not, an armed F-16 is always standing by to shoot down the aircraft that you may very well be riding on.
Captain Jackson is a certified NRA firearms instructor and a technical advisor to Armed Females of America. http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/archive.php?aid=451
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Arming Pilots a Necessary Anti-Terrorist Measure
By Captain Dennis Jackson
As a captain for a major U.S. airline and a proponent of firearms for pilots, I am responding to the May 5 Tribune editorial calling for armed pilots. Most of the opponents of arming pilots cite reasons that are founded in myth, speculation and misconceptions.
The plan to arm flight deck crews involves many facets. Foremost, not all pilots will be armed and the ones that are will be fully trained, investigated and deputized as federal officers.
Pilots will be trained and forbidden from going into the cabin with a firearm to assist the cabin crew with disturbances. This will prevent the firearm from falling into the wrong hands.
An armed pilot will use his firearm to prevent criminal access to the flight deck - only!
The dangers of a negligent discharge and harm to an innocent passenger are overstated. The architecture of the flight deck ensures that if the pilot is required to shoot a terrorist from the flight deck the round will be discharged upward and not in an even plane with the passengers.
Law enforcement standards suggest that if an innocent person is killed or injured by a stray bullet, the collateral damage is acceptable if it prevents a tragedy similar to Sept. 11. Since Sept. 11 there have been numerous breaches of security with deadly weapons, including firearms. And some of these firearms have even made it onboard aircraft!
To leave the flight deck unprotected by not arming pilots is foolhardy in this global environment. Not to mention the risk from the ever present criminal element.
The major opponents of armed pilots are terrorists, airline management and the Bush administration. More than 80 percent of the American public favors this level of protection. And since the administration has indicated that we are living on borrowed time for another Sept. 11 style attack, not acting on this doesn't make sense.
The argument for less-than-lethal weapons has taken root because of those who fear guns more than they fear terrorism. Even though most law enforcement jurisdictions train their officers with stun guns, law enforcement is the first to admit that stun guns should never be used against deadly force unless you can back up the stun gun with deadly force, as well.
When you have a team of trained and determined terrorists trying to take control of a huge guided missile, you have an immediate need to apply deadly force. The suggestion to use "star wars" technology is not founded in good sense.
There is no technology that puts up a protective barrier around buildings that prevents airplanes from running into them. The use of "sleeping gas" is equally misguided in the fact that the cabin crew would also be incapacitated if it is inserted into the cabin in flight.
Why would you want to rely on technology that is nonexistent, unproven or years away - especially when law enforcement has used firearms effectively for decades to prevent crime and save innocent lives?
Long before Sept. 11 and gun control, pilots were required to carry firearms by the U.S. Postal service. During the 1970s some pilots were trained to carry firearms on duty to prevent hijackings. Is the risk less today?
Up until December 1987 pilots were allowed to bypass security and some pilots carried firearms without their airline even knowing about it. No one has ever been hurt because a pilot was armed. However, in 1954 an armed pilot prevented an armed passenger from hijacking his aircraft.
Pilots are some of the most stable persons in our society, are the most professionally scrutinized and have the ability and training to deal with multiple emergencies that affect the lives of hundreds of people per day. Pilots are proven to be trainable to law enforcement standards with firearms and judgment.
Right now aircraft, and especially flight decks, are soft targets for terrorists. The most effective way to counter the threat is to harden the target by arming pilots. There is no other way.
Even with a mandate from Congress, President Bush has been indecisive on this issue. Concerned Americans should call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 and tell President Bush you want him to act on arming pilots.
If not, an armed F-16 is always standing by to shoot down the aircraft that you may very well be riding on.
Captain Jackson is a certified NRA firearms instructor and a technical advisor to Armed Females of America. http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/archive.php?aid=451
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878