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.
Why Pilots Can't have Guns
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Why Pilots Can't have Guns
By Bruce Gold
This is one of those peculiar issues were the authorities - who claim to be reasonable - cling with desperate intensity to patent nonsense. We are treated to the sober claim that arming pilots or even a few pilots with mere pistols is "too dangerous" to merit serious consideration. Conversely blowing an entire airliner out of the sky because it "appears to be hijacked" or because it "won't follow instructions" is prudent and contributes to "safety."
One wonders?
If we examine the current airport/aircraft security measures we find that the official position has an even looser grip on reality. The main thrust of airline security is to create a zone of absolute disarmament that prevents harm by denying terrorists the means to do harm. In theory, this approach is sensible, no weapons means no attacks or at least no successful attacks. All that's required is perfection.
Failing this perfection the "safe zone" becomes a trap. Failing a perfect airtight security that absolutely eliminates even trivial weapons like box cutters the "disarmed safety zone" becomes a "disarmed victim zone." The successful implementation of the strategy requires the exclusion of every weapon that human ingenuity could possibly contrive. Multiply this requirement by thousands of airports, thousands of flights, tens of thousands of employees and millions of passengers and you get an reasonably good idea how likely "success" is. The demonstrable fact that the terrorists can spend unlimited time planning before choosing when, were and how to attack does not improve the odds.
Having constructed this marvel the authorities then try to cover up its staggering costs and structural impossibility by recruiting us to the task. Henceforth, the patient and passive obedience of all is required. All must be treated like criminals and all must submit. The officials will control all, oversee all, direct all and the citizen is reduced to passive obedience. Naturally, since the creation and maintenance of this airtight security zone is a matter of life and death, the most draconian rules and laborious procedures are easily justified. After all, it is for the safety of all in the current crisis. A failure will be a failure of the public to "do its part."
A closer examination of this rhetoric reveals a somewhat different picture. While we can agree that a life and death emergency is justifiable grounds for total control, we must also give some thought to the nature of this "emergency." The trick in the reasoning is that most places, most of the time there is no emergency. A little research or reflection demonstrates just how rare hijackings or plane bombings really are. In a curious way this makes absolute control attractive, the "potential" of a life and death situation gives justification and the remote likelihood of it actually happening gives lots of cover.
Except in the rare instances of an actual attack performance standards don't have to be very high. This is an open invitation to empire building and ego inflation. Safety precautions can be reduced to bureaucratic process and street theatre and still be "adequate" most of the time.
Since the airtight "disarmament zone" strategy is a doomed exercise in futility we are left with the question of why arming pilots is so "impossible." Logically it would seem sensible to create a final defensive zone in the cockpit. Arming pilots (with whatever conditions) is relatively cheap, easy and likely to be both highly effective and administratively workable. Unfortunately such a common sense solution has insuperable flaws. The most important one being that it would require the examination of official assumptions that are outside the boundary of PC discourse.
So at the risk of being politically incorrect let us venture the forbidden discourse and examine the deeper logic of an apparently irrational insistence.
We can note that most of the objections to armed pilots rest on three truisms:
1. The ability of Officials to provide safety and order.
2. The near absolute inability of the private citizen to cope.
3. That the benefits of a top down ordered imposed through regulation outweigh the costs.
Let us examine these in turn:
1. The ability of Officials to provide safety and order.
We can begin by noting that Officialdoms' ability to provide order is beyond dispute (We shall put aside the question of what order and how achieved.). We can also acknowledge that advanced industrial societies need a fair amount of order to function. However, the claim that Officialdom also provides safety is problematic at best. If this claim were true there would be no crime. For how could crime exist if everyone was effectively and actually protected all of the time? No victims necessarily means no crimes. Despite Officialdom's waffle about "safe communities" (without safe individuals!) it's clear that every single crime successfully committed is an instance of officialdoms' failure to protect.
Police, our much-heralded "protectors" are so only in the general sense of protecting communities. In the specific sense of protecting the individuals in our communities they fail miserably. They fail to protect us in practice and have no legal obligation or responsibility to protect individuals in law. This last bit, that the police have no legal liability if they fail to protect individuals is a dead giveaway that Officialdom knows they can not and do not protect individuals. Accordingly, they specifically and explicitly protect themselves from any legal or financial responsibility.
This leads to a very nasty situation. Police are almost never at a crime until the actual crime is over. Victims, by definition, are always there. However, the victim has legal restrictions on their right to self-defense including restrictions on the means to self-defense. The Police, who have the legal authority and are supplied with the means are absent. In effect the Authorities have put the police, courts and legislature at the service of criminals by restricting their victims right and ability to self defense, without actually taking the responsibility themselves. (Legal, financial and criminal responsibility not rhetoric!)
With this pretense, that pursuing criminals after the fact is equal to "protection" Officialdom both recognizes it failure to actually protect individuals and justifies laws restricting self-defense and the means of self-defense. This is often accompanied with blame the victim rhetoric about how they "should not have been out," or they "failed to take precautions" etc.
This obvious failure combined with an "official truth" of non-failure usually leads Officialdom to expand the "crime" into easily detected substitutes. Terrorists break through but people breaking technicality laws with no criminal intent are caught. Officialdom then brags about how they have caught a "criminal" and prevented a "crime." Since it is extremely difficult to catching real criminals a number of questionable "indicators" and pseudo "technicality crimes" substitute for real success. Paying cash, no advanced booking, arrival just before flight etc all become indicators of "crime" and people with no criminal intent become criminals, trapped in an ever expanding net of new laws and regulations criminalizing activity "associated" with the actual crime. This doesn't stop real criminals but it serves to dissipate police efforts and actually helps real criminals by giving them a crowd of "suspects" to hide in.
2. The near absolute inability of the private citizen to cope.
A little reflection shows that most people cope with the problems and dilemmas of their lives. Most people, most of the time, are successful at it. Nor is there any shortage of people able to cope with crisis and danger. Any common disaster demonstrates the resilience, courage and sense of the "common people." However, the official truth of public ineptitude is proven by official pronouncement. This official doctrine of public incompetence is often supported by official compulsion. People are denied access to information or resources then criticized for their ineptitude. Much of the anti-gun rhetoric of the "impossibility" of self-defense rests on laws that systematically remove the means of self-defense. When Officials talk about "preventing public panic" it is usually a sure sign of Official panic and pure funk.
There is also a profound shift in consciousness and political order as adults are re-conceptualized as adolescents incapable of self-control or judgement. This is problematic for democracy and the future of the Republic since both rest on a certain respect and regard for the common man's ability. Some critics have expressed this as the dumbing down of civil virtue. It is a shift from people establishing their own government by their own authority to an order based on the betters governing their inferior subjects. George III would have understood.
3. That the benefits of a top down ordered imposed through regulation outweigh the costs.
This assertion rests on the first two but is also promoted in its own right. We can recognize that it has a core of truth. Complex societies need order which in turn requires an authority with both power and the will to use it. (The whole matter of government is tied to the issue of power and how best to both use and control it.) However, there is a not so subtle twist in how this is being presented. We can see that the basis of order no longer rests on the authority and consent of the governed, but shifts to the bureaucrat acting in their own right and justifying that right by the commandeering of delegated power. This is done in the name of "responsibility." The conceit is that the commandeering of delegated power is justified by the superiority of the delegated and the inferiority of the "common people." In this twisted vision, Officialdom replaces the People as the foundation on which the Republic stands. George III would have understood, although it appears George II does not.
This is not an argument against delegated power or regulations in themselves. Such things, in their place and in correspondence to common problems and sensible solutions, are both necessary and wise. It is an argument against an endless proliferation of regulations that seek to ambush problems by conceptualizing the People themselves as "the problem." It is an argument against delegated authority that tries to overcome its failures by attacking law-abiding people with a maze of laws concerning "associated activities."
The problem of criminals committing crimes with guns shifts to the "problem" of certain types of gun, which shifts to the "problem" of too big magazines. We are left with the reality that mere possession of a certain type of metal box capable of holding bullets is a "serious crime." Resources and punishments then divert from criminal use of guns to "criminal possession" of little metal boxes. "Success" shifts from stopping real criminals committing "real" crimes to prosecuting easily caught and punished citizens for easily proven "crimes." The immense, multi-billion dollar effort of gun registrations is another good example of how Officialdom "shifts the crime" to promote their claim of success. The law abiding are regulated and restricted at immense effort and cost. The truly criminal easily avoid the effort. Tiny minorities of truly stupid criminals are caught and a large number of law-abiding are criminalized over misunderstandings or decades old petty offenses.
This is not a criticism of regulation itself or the need for authority. It is a criticism of a shift from honest crime control to street theatre. That these schemes often reflect attempts at social engineering and the enforcement of minority opinions that have failed to persuade any except the Authorities is no improvement.
Putting aside the question of the "proper" order for society, the very inefficiency of this Soviet style top down regime by regulation assures its failure. There is no possibility that addressing specific and localized problems, (criminals with guns or Middle Eastern terrorists) with crackdowns on the general population or crackdowns on supposedly "related activities" is doable. The very strategy, in its basic conception, is self-defeating. The decades long drug war is a grime testimony to the falsity of the argument that we are "only one civil liberty" from success or that we are only "one more law" away from success.
~ Conclusion ~
It is clearly possible to arm pilots, just as it is clearly possible to arm police or arm security guards. Nor is it impossible because it is ineffective. It presents would be terrorists with an armed defended zone on the aircraft and leaves them trying to plan around the uncertainty of which pilots are armed. Nor does the lunatic suggestion that blowing up the whole plane is better explain why pilots cannot be armed.
They cannot be armed because doing so would undercut decades of propaganda and opinion building. They cannot be armed because it draws attention to Officialdom's failure to protect. Most importantly it might start a debate over the role and place of the Authorities. Official truth might come up against actual empirical evidence.
The real problem with arming pilots is the gap between official truth and reality. Examining this gap would lead to discussions that are outside the boundaries of Political Correctness. That in turn might lead to a questioning of official pretense, its conceits and its consequences.
Clearly, pilots cannot be armed.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3427
"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
By Bruce Gold
This is one of those peculiar issues were the authorities - who claim to be reasonable - cling with desperate intensity to patent nonsense. We are treated to the sober claim that arming pilots or even a few pilots with mere pistols is "too dangerous" to merit serious consideration. Conversely blowing an entire airliner out of the sky because it "appears to be hijacked" or because it "won't follow instructions" is prudent and contributes to "safety."
One wonders?
If we examine the current airport/aircraft security measures we find that the official position has an even looser grip on reality. The main thrust of airline security is to create a zone of absolute disarmament that prevents harm by denying terrorists the means to do harm. In theory, this approach is sensible, no weapons means no attacks or at least no successful attacks. All that's required is perfection.
Failing this perfection the "safe zone" becomes a trap. Failing a perfect airtight security that absolutely eliminates even trivial weapons like box cutters the "disarmed safety zone" becomes a "disarmed victim zone." The successful implementation of the strategy requires the exclusion of every weapon that human ingenuity could possibly contrive. Multiply this requirement by thousands of airports, thousands of flights, tens of thousands of employees and millions of passengers and you get an reasonably good idea how likely "success" is. The demonstrable fact that the terrorists can spend unlimited time planning before choosing when, were and how to attack does not improve the odds.
Having constructed this marvel the authorities then try to cover up its staggering costs and structural impossibility by recruiting us to the task. Henceforth, the patient and passive obedience of all is required. All must be treated like criminals and all must submit. The officials will control all, oversee all, direct all and the citizen is reduced to passive obedience. Naturally, since the creation and maintenance of this airtight security zone is a matter of life and death, the most draconian rules and laborious procedures are easily justified. After all, it is for the safety of all in the current crisis. A failure will be a failure of the public to "do its part."
A closer examination of this rhetoric reveals a somewhat different picture. While we can agree that a life and death emergency is justifiable grounds for total control, we must also give some thought to the nature of this "emergency." The trick in the reasoning is that most places, most of the time there is no emergency. A little research or reflection demonstrates just how rare hijackings or plane bombings really are. In a curious way this makes absolute control attractive, the "potential" of a life and death situation gives justification and the remote likelihood of it actually happening gives lots of cover.
Except in the rare instances of an actual attack performance standards don't have to be very high. This is an open invitation to empire building and ego inflation. Safety precautions can be reduced to bureaucratic process and street theatre and still be "adequate" most of the time.
Since the airtight "disarmament zone" strategy is a doomed exercise in futility we are left with the question of why arming pilots is so "impossible." Logically it would seem sensible to create a final defensive zone in the cockpit. Arming pilots (with whatever conditions) is relatively cheap, easy and likely to be both highly effective and administratively workable. Unfortunately such a common sense solution has insuperable flaws. The most important one being that it would require the examination of official assumptions that are outside the boundary of PC discourse.
So at the risk of being politically incorrect let us venture the forbidden discourse and examine the deeper logic of an apparently irrational insistence.
We can note that most of the objections to armed pilots rest on three truisms:
1. The ability of Officials to provide safety and order.
2. The near absolute inability of the private citizen to cope.
3. That the benefits of a top down ordered imposed through regulation outweigh the costs.
Let us examine these in turn:
1. The ability of Officials to provide safety and order.
We can begin by noting that Officialdoms' ability to provide order is beyond dispute (We shall put aside the question of what order and how achieved.). We can also acknowledge that advanced industrial societies need a fair amount of order to function. However, the claim that Officialdom also provides safety is problematic at best. If this claim were true there would be no crime. For how could crime exist if everyone was effectively and actually protected all of the time? No victims necessarily means no crimes. Despite Officialdom's waffle about "safe communities" (without safe individuals!) it's clear that every single crime successfully committed is an instance of officialdoms' failure to protect.
Police, our much-heralded "protectors" are so only in the general sense of protecting communities. In the specific sense of protecting the individuals in our communities they fail miserably. They fail to protect us in practice and have no legal obligation or responsibility to protect individuals in law. This last bit, that the police have no legal liability if they fail to protect individuals is a dead giveaway that Officialdom knows they can not and do not protect individuals. Accordingly, they specifically and explicitly protect themselves from any legal or financial responsibility.
This leads to a very nasty situation. Police are almost never at a crime until the actual crime is over. Victims, by definition, are always there. However, the victim has legal restrictions on their right to self-defense including restrictions on the means to self-defense. The Police, who have the legal authority and are supplied with the means are absent. In effect the Authorities have put the police, courts and legislature at the service of criminals by restricting their victims right and ability to self defense, without actually taking the responsibility themselves. (Legal, financial and criminal responsibility not rhetoric!)
With this pretense, that pursuing criminals after the fact is equal to "protection" Officialdom both recognizes it failure to actually protect individuals and justifies laws restricting self-defense and the means of self-defense. This is often accompanied with blame the victim rhetoric about how they "should not have been out," or they "failed to take precautions" etc.
This obvious failure combined with an "official truth" of non-failure usually leads Officialdom to expand the "crime" into easily detected substitutes. Terrorists break through but people breaking technicality laws with no criminal intent are caught. Officialdom then brags about how they have caught a "criminal" and prevented a "crime." Since it is extremely difficult to catching real criminals a number of questionable "indicators" and pseudo "technicality crimes" substitute for real success. Paying cash, no advanced booking, arrival just before flight etc all become indicators of "crime" and people with no criminal intent become criminals, trapped in an ever expanding net of new laws and regulations criminalizing activity "associated" with the actual crime. This doesn't stop real criminals but it serves to dissipate police efforts and actually helps real criminals by giving them a crowd of "suspects" to hide in.
2. The near absolute inability of the private citizen to cope.
A little reflection shows that most people cope with the problems and dilemmas of their lives. Most people, most of the time, are successful at it. Nor is there any shortage of people able to cope with crisis and danger. Any common disaster demonstrates the resilience, courage and sense of the "common people." However, the official truth of public ineptitude is proven by official pronouncement. This official doctrine of public incompetence is often supported by official compulsion. People are denied access to information or resources then criticized for their ineptitude. Much of the anti-gun rhetoric of the "impossibility" of self-defense rests on laws that systematically remove the means of self-defense. When Officials talk about "preventing public panic" it is usually a sure sign of Official panic and pure funk.
There is also a profound shift in consciousness and political order as adults are re-conceptualized as adolescents incapable of self-control or judgement. This is problematic for democracy and the future of the Republic since both rest on a certain respect and regard for the common man's ability. Some critics have expressed this as the dumbing down of civil virtue. It is a shift from people establishing their own government by their own authority to an order based on the betters governing their inferior subjects. George III would have understood.
3. That the benefits of a top down ordered imposed through regulation outweigh the costs.
This assertion rests on the first two but is also promoted in its own right. We can recognize that it has a core of truth. Complex societies need order which in turn requires an authority with both power and the will to use it. (The whole matter of government is tied to the issue of power and how best to both use and control it.) However, there is a not so subtle twist in how this is being presented. We can see that the basis of order no longer rests on the authority and consent of the governed, but shifts to the bureaucrat acting in their own right and justifying that right by the commandeering of delegated power. This is done in the name of "responsibility." The conceit is that the commandeering of delegated power is justified by the superiority of the delegated and the inferiority of the "common people." In this twisted vision, Officialdom replaces the People as the foundation on which the Republic stands. George III would have understood, although it appears George II does not.
This is not an argument against delegated power or regulations in themselves. Such things, in their place and in correspondence to common problems and sensible solutions, are both necessary and wise. It is an argument against an endless proliferation of regulations that seek to ambush problems by conceptualizing the People themselves as "the problem." It is an argument against delegated authority that tries to overcome its failures by attacking law-abiding people with a maze of laws concerning "associated activities."
The problem of criminals committing crimes with guns shifts to the "problem" of certain types of gun, which shifts to the "problem" of too big magazines. We are left with the reality that mere possession of a certain type of metal box capable of holding bullets is a "serious crime." Resources and punishments then divert from criminal use of guns to "criminal possession" of little metal boxes. "Success" shifts from stopping real criminals committing "real" crimes to prosecuting easily caught and punished citizens for easily proven "crimes." The immense, multi-billion dollar effort of gun registrations is another good example of how Officialdom "shifts the crime" to promote their claim of success. The law abiding are regulated and restricted at immense effort and cost. The truly criminal easily avoid the effort. Tiny minorities of truly stupid criminals are caught and a large number of law-abiding are criminalized over misunderstandings or decades old petty offenses.
This is not a criticism of regulation itself or the need for authority. It is a criticism of a shift from honest crime control to street theatre. That these schemes often reflect attempts at social engineering and the enforcement of minority opinions that have failed to persuade any except the Authorities is no improvement.
Putting aside the question of the "proper" order for society, the very inefficiency of this Soviet style top down regime by regulation assures its failure. There is no possibility that addressing specific and localized problems, (criminals with guns or Middle Eastern terrorists) with crackdowns on the general population or crackdowns on supposedly "related activities" is doable. The very strategy, in its basic conception, is self-defeating. The decades long drug war is a grime testimony to the falsity of the argument that we are "only one civil liberty" from success or that we are only "one more law" away from success.
~ Conclusion ~
It is clearly possible to arm pilots, just as it is clearly possible to arm police or arm security guards. Nor is it impossible because it is ineffective. It presents would be terrorists with an armed defended zone on the aircraft and leaves them trying to plan around the uncertainty of which pilots are armed. Nor does the lunatic suggestion that blowing up the whole plane is better explain why pilots cannot be armed.
They cannot be armed because doing so would undercut decades of propaganda and opinion building. They cannot be armed because it draws attention to Officialdom's failure to protect. Most importantly it might start a debate over the role and place of the Authorities. Official truth might come up against actual empirical evidence.
The real problem with arming pilots is the gap between official truth and reality. Examining this gap would lead to discussions that are outside the boundaries of Political Correctness. That in turn might lead to a questioning of official pretense, its conceits and its consequences.
Clearly, pilots cannot be armed.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3427
"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
Comments
The July 25 editorial cartoon depicting two intoxicated pilots carrying pistols was offensive to all connected with the airline industry.
My husband has spent his entire career either as a military or commercial pilot. He and probably 99.9 percent of his fellow pilots have never flown intoxicated and would never do so. To judge the actions of pilots by the actions of two who are clearly losing the battle of alcoholism is unfair and unjust. Judging the entire profession by the actions of two weak and ill members is a mistake. It would be the same as judging all reporters by the action of the Pulitzer Prize winner who falsified her story. To limit the ability of a pilot to defend himself and his passengers because of the actions of two individuals is jeopardizing the lives of the thousands.
In the course of my husband's career, he has dealt with mentally ill passengers, drunks, belligerent and rude passengers. He has made emergency landings due to life threatening medical emergencies on board. Each flight, as captain, he holds in his hands the lives of more than 100 people. With his hands, he controls the destiny of hundreds of people each week.
In our household, the impact of Sept. 11 has not dissipated and probably never will. Each week since September, my husband has flown over the remains of the Twin Towers, a reminder of the sobering consequences of inadequate security of the airline cockpit. It is most ironic that my husband, who was awarded an expert pistol marksmanship medal for the U.S. Navy, cannot carry a weapon to protect himself while park rangers, Internal Revenue Service agents, Treasury Department officials and a host of other officials can carry one aboard his airplane as passengers. Furthermore, arming pilots would not be simply a matter of passing out handguns. Armed pilots would undergo the same training as air marshals. The passengers and crew members of the flights lost on Sept. 11 are no better off because the pilots were unarmed. In fact, I submit that the events of that day may have changed significantly if the pilots had been armed.
In fact, a more appropriate cartoon would have depicted the ridiculous array of people who can, even today, legally board an aircraft carrying a firearm.
BETH MIXSON,
homemaker, Jacksonville
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/073002/opl_10042201.html
"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
Senator Hollings
125 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6121
Fax: (202) 224-4293 http://www.calnra.org/
Transcript: Interview with Ellen Saracini
This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, July 24, 2002. Click here to order the complete transcript.
Watch The O'Reilly Factor weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the Radio Factor!
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Back of the Book segment tonight, Ellen Saracini is the widow of a pilot that died on United Airlines Flight 175, the second plane to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11. Mrs. Saracini wanted to talk about arming pilots in front of a Senate committee. But the science and transportation committee may not let her.
Ellen Saracini joins us now from Washington. First of all, I must say, Mrs. Saracini, that I'm very surprised that Senator Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina, has not invited you to speak. I think he should show you respect, the respect that you deserve. And we're going to try to make that happen for you, and I suspect it might. What do you want to say to the senators?
ELLEN SARACINI, WIDOW OF 9/11 PILOT: Well, I want to say to the senators that we need to have the armed pilots in the cockpit. The cockpit is now the last line of defense. And we need to have it secure. We need to make our skies safe and we need to have all our citizens of the United States safe.
O'REILLY: All right. So, it's as simple as that. I mean, you don't have anything else other than your contention that everybody would be a lot safer if pilots were armed?
SARACINI: Yes, that's right. Everyone would be a lot safer. And the worst-case scenario is what do we want to wait for, a military jet to fly alongside us and have to shoot us down in case there's a problem?
O'REILLY: Now, why do you think they won't let you testify? I mean, it seems like you have a simple measure, that you would take maybe five minutes at the most to get it on the record. I mean, why are they denying you a seat before the committee?
SARACINI: Well, we know that Senator Hollings is against arming pilots. That's very clear and I think he thinks that I have too compelling a voice. And I don't -- I don't have an agenda. It's easy for me to speak. I know what I can say and that is just about anything. I don't have to be worrying about stepping on someone else's toes and not being able to say the facts.
O'REILLY: Now, have you petitioned to the senator directly?
SARACINI: Yes. I have a letter right here that was addressed to the senator. Senator Bob Smith wrote a letter, asking that I be able to testify and it was denied.
O'REILLY: It was denied, and did you ask why? Did you get any explanation why it was denied from...
SARACINI: No. I didn't get any explanation.
O'REILLY: How did you find out it was denied?
SARACINI: The guys from APSA told me that there would be no way I would be speaking in the...
O'REILLY: A guy from whom?
SARACINI: APSA, that is the Airline Pilots Security Alliance.
O'REILLY: OK. So, you went through them, you went through the organization?
SARACINI: Yes.
O'REILLY: And they said flat out no. Well, you know, I think that's pitiful, I have to tell you. And we're going to call Senator Hollings' office because I want to get your story on the record before we did call him just to make sure that, you know, we have a bone to pick with him. And we do because you should be afforded every courtesy and every sign of respect.
Now, we have -- we understand that Secretary Mineta, who is the secretary of transportation, who in the past had been against arming pilots has now changed his mind. Did you know that?
SARACINI: I don't know if he's quite changed his mind...
O'REILLY: Yes, believe me. He has changed his mind.
SARACINI: Well, that is a good sign.
O'REILLY: Yes. He -- you know, I don't know if he's changed his mind on his own. But Secretary Mineta will very shortly be coming out and saying, yes, we think that arming pilots is the good thing to do.
Now, the argument against that is that perhaps it might be dangerous for a pilot to be shooting into, you know, a cabin and all of that. Have you thought about that?
SARACINI: Sure. Well, first of all, the fuselage can handle some bullet holes without even depressurizing. But that's not the main point. The main point is that you train these pilots, many of them also are military pilots, very used to having handguns by their side anyway.
And these pilots are trained for emergencies. They go out once a year, they go for procedures that just deal with emergencies. One flies the plane, one deals with the emergency. There's no difference. This is an emergency on the airplane that they can handle.
O'REILLY: Yes. I am for that. I mean, I can't imagine any American objecting to this because if you live in a rural area or even in an urban area, you have a right to have a weapon in your home to protect yourself. And surely, in the age of terror that we live in, the pilots have a right to protect themselves and the passengers from anybody who would intrude upon them. So, I think it would pass.
SARACINI: I think it would be a big deterrent.
O'REILLY: Right. I think it will pass. But, you know, the larger question in here is why they denied you a voice in front of this committee. And believe me, Mrs. Saracini, we're going to find out. We're going to -- we don't think that's very nice, and we think that the senator owes you an apology. And we hope that you will be able to testify. And I want to tell everybody you paid out of your own pocket to do this. There's nobody sponsoring you and you're doing it on your own, is that correct?
SARACINI: Yes. It's something that I believe in. So, yes.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, we admire you, Mrs. Saracini. Thank you very much for coming on The Factor.
SARACINI: Thank you very much.
O'REILLY: Thanks very much.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58755,00.html
"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