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.
VPC Statement Opposing 'Arming Pilots Against Terr
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
VPC Statement Opposing 'Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act'
U.S. Newswire
10 Jul 15:01
VPC Statement Opposing 'Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act'
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center,
202-822-8200 ext. 105
WASHINGTON, July 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Violence Policy
Center (VPC) released the following statement today by Legislative
Director Kristen Rand in opposition to Arming Pilots Against
Terrorism Act (H.R. 4635).
The VPC is in strong opposition to guns of any kind in the
cockpits of our nation's passenger planes. Introducing guns to the
close quarters of an airliner may be even more hazardous than
putting guns in classrooms, as some urged following the 1999
Columbine massacre.
The first and foremost consideration should be the fact that the
weapon, by definition, would potentially be available to every
passenger. That includes passengers with a case of air rage or
those suffering from suicidal tendencies, as well as terrorists.
Moreover, those contemplating terrorism will know that a gun is
available and will act accordingly-and the terrorists will usually
have the element of surprise on their side.
Giving the task of defending the airliner to an already engaged
pilot is a scenario rife with potentially disastrous consequences.
In fact, highly trained police officers, whose only job is law
enforcement, all too often have their service weapons turned
against them by suspects:
-- One study found that 21 percent of officers killed with a
handgun were shot with their own service weapon.
-- Trained law enforcement officials have only an 18 to 22
percent hit ratio in armed confrontations. The cramped quarters of
a cockpit do not lend themselves to success.
Experience also teaches that when police fire their weapons,
they sometimes make grave mistakes in deciding when deadly force is
justified. It is naive to believe that pilots will perform any
better, especially when they will have the additional
responsibility of flying the plane while fending off an attack.
Recognizing the simple danger of loaded handguns at 30,000 feet,
another serious threat is unintentional discharge. Many handguns,
including popular models used by police departments, can fire when
dropped or bumped.
One brand of handgun carried by police departments nationwide is
prone to fire with very light pressure on the trigger. The dangers
of "drop fires," or guns with hair triggers going off
unintentionally in an airplane cabin's close quarters are crystal
clear. One errant bullet could damage key flight controls, kill or
injure a fellow pilot or other flight crew member, or potentially
pierce the hull of the jetliner.
There are many necessary and constructive steps that can be
taken to protect pilots and passengers short of arming pilots. If
firearms are absolutely necessary, they should be carried by
trained air marshals whose only responsibility is protecting the
safety of crew members and passengers.
Whether it occurs in a classroom or a cockpit, pinning our hopes
on the outcome of a shoot-out is risky at best. Measures aimed at
preventing attacks must be the focus lest we risk replicating in
the air the gun violence America already experiences on the ground.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
07/10 15:01
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/prime/0710-133.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
U.S. Newswire
10 Jul 15:01
VPC Statement Opposing 'Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act'
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center,
202-822-8200 ext. 105
WASHINGTON, July 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Violence Policy
Center (VPC) released the following statement today by Legislative
Director Kristen Rand in opposition to Arming Pilots Against
Terrorism Act (H.R. 4635).
The VPC is in strong opposition to guns of any kind in the
cockpits of our nation's passenger planes. Introducing guns to the
close quarters of an airliner may be even more hazardous than
putting guns in classrooms, as some urged following the 1999
Columbine massacre.
The first and foremost consideration should be the fact that the
weapon, by definition, would potentially be available to every
passenger. That includes passengers with a case of air rage or
those suffering from suicidal tendencies, as well as terrorists.
Moreover, those contemplating terrorism will know that a gun is
available and will act accordingly-and the terrorists will usually
have the element of surprise on their side.
Giving the task of defending the airliner to an already engaged
pilot is a scenario rife with potentially disastrous consequences.
In fact, highly trained police officers, whose only job is law
enforcement, all too often have their service weapons turned
against them by suspects:
-- One study found that 21 percent of officers killed with a
handgun were shot with their own service weapon.
-- Trained law enforcement officials have only an 18 to 22
percent hit ratio in armed confrontations. The cramped quarters of
a cockpit do not lend themselves to success.
Experience also teaches that when police fire their weapons,
they sometimes make grave mistakes in deciding when deadly force is
justified. It is naive to believe that pilots will perform any
better, especially when they will have the additional
responsibility of flying the plane while fending off an attack.
Recognizing the simple danger of loaded handguns at 30,000 feet,
another serious threat is unintentional discharge. Many handguns,
including popular models used by police departments, can fire when
dropped or bumped.
One brand of handgun carried by police departments nationwide is
prone to fire with very light pressure on the trigger. The dangers
of "drop fires," or guns with hair triggers going off
unintentionally in an airplane cabin's close quarters are crystal
clear. One errant bullet could damage key flight controls, kill or
injure a fellow pilot or other flight crew member, or potentially
pierce the hull of the jetliner.
There are many necessary and constructive steps that can be
taken to protect pilots and passengers short of arming pilots. If
firearms are absolutely necessary, they should be carried by
trained air marshals whose only responsibility is protecting the
safety of crew members and passengers.
Whether it occurs in a classroom or a cockpit, pinning our hopes
on the outcome of a shoot-out is risky at best. Measures aimed at
preventing attacks must be the focus lest we risk replicating in
the air the gun violence America already experiences on the ground.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
07/10 15:01
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/prime/0710-133.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
Comments
George and Sarah stand hand in hand fighting to keep guns out of airplanes.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Opps...I work for the government, I should know better than to think logic will enter into the process.
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Liberals....
Eric S. Williams
Eric S. Williams
Bottom line: Better that the National Guard shoots a hijacked plane down than admit that a firearm might be used in self-defense. The VPC has spoken.