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.
Disarmed & Dangerous - Another Call to Arm Pilots
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Disarmed & Dangerous
Kyle Lohmeier
USA Today reports that an airport security screener employed at one of the nation's 32 largest airports will, on average, miss a simulated weapon 24 percent of the time. At Los Angeles International Airport the rate is 47 percent. Talk about unsurprising.
It's obvious that security personnel responsible for checking passengers before they get into the terminal are still woefully under-trained and ineffective. With the conclusion of the Transportation Security Administration's study, the government should be painfully aware of this fact. However, that same government is still staunchly opposed to allowing pilots to carry a handgun onboard as a last line of defense against a would-be hijacker. What's scary is that a hijacker is about 24 percent likely, if not more, to get his weapon of choice onboard whereas pilots are strictly prohibited from carrying a means of defending themselves and their cockpits. Ostensibly, the Bush Administration feels it's too dangerous to allow a pilot to defend his cockpit with a pistol.
Fortunately, the House of Representatives disagrees and they've passed a bill that would allow pilots to carry pistols aboard an airliner, to the delight of the Airline Pilot's Association. The Senate will take up the bill soon. That Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge are so opposed to the concept of arming pilots that it required an act of congress to get some common sense measures past the Bush Administration speaks volumes about the ineptness of the aforementioned men.
It's mind-boggling that the Bush Administration would oppose arming pilots, especially given the alternative should a plane be hijacked. The government's current contingency plan is to simply blast a passenger jet out of the sky using Air Force fighters. Now, given my background in firearms, I can state conclusively that a pilot with a Glock 19 is far less dangerous than the flaming wreckage of a jumbo jet plummeting to Earth after being hit by a Sidewinder or AMRAM missile-less dangerous to the passengers and crew of the plane and less dangerous to the people living where the burning remnants of the plane land.
While arming pilots will provide a sensible last-ditch defense of an aircraft's cockpit, more needs to be done to shore up security before passengers get anywhere near the plane. Since the government never does anything quickly or well, it would be delusional to hope that the quality of airport screeners is going to increase in any significant way in the next few months. It's also unlikely that there will be any marked increase in their skills after the TSA takes over airport security in November. If we give the TSA the benefit of the doubt and assume they can ever train the nation's airport security personnel to an acceptable degree of competency; how long will it take? Another six months? A year? More? That's a long time, in any case, for our guard to be down. Unless the government can guarantee an air marshal on every single domestic and international flight, which they so far cannot, then the only rational choice is to allow the pilot to pack a pistol.
Logically, a hijacker cannot gain control of the aircraft unless he gets into the cockpit. In the absence of air marshals, I for one would feel a lot better if I knew the would-be hijacker had to deal with a pilot who was training a Glock on the cockpit door, waiting for someone to kick it inward.
So, while the experts assure us that the terrorists know we're so fixated on airport security that they'd consider another 9/11 impossible, we'd better hope Usama bin Laden doesn't read USA Today. Statistically, if al-Qaeda tried to send four or more armed guys onto one plane, at least one would make it through, and at LAX, maybe two. Given that air marshals aren't present on every flight, and pilots being unarmed is currently mandatory, why wouldn't al-Qaeda try another 9/11-style attack with fuel-laden jetliners used as guided missiles? Mineta and Ridge, by standing in the way of allowing pilots to arm themselves ever since the idea came up, have made it easy for al-Qaeda to give us an encore performance of 9/11. The government is scrambling to come up with ways of countering all the various possible terrorist scenarios they can dream up. For us to be hit in the exact same way we were on 9/11 would be evidence of a wholesale failure of the government, whose only important job is to protect us from such things. Given the USA Today article, and that pilots are likely to remain unarmed for the foreseeable future, we are indeed very much at risk from Bin Laden, or someone like him, running the exact same play against us as was done 10 months ago. Something needs to be done, sooner rather than later.
Kyle Lohmeier
http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/lohmeier/KL20020714.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
Kyle Lohmeier
USA Today reports that an airport security screener employed at one of the nation's 32 largest airports will, on average, miss a simulated weapon 24 percent of the time. At Los Angeles International Airport the rate is 47 percent. Talk about unsurprising.
It's obvious that security personnel responsible for checking passengers before they get into the terminal are still woefully under-trained and ineffective. With the conclusion of the Transportation Security Administration's study, the government should be painfully aware of this fact. However, that same government is still staunchly opposed to allowing pilots to carry a handgun onboard as a last line of defense against a would-be hijacker. What's scary is that a hijacker is about 24 percent likely, if not more, to get his weapon of choice onboard whereas pilots are strictly prohibited from carrying a means of defending themselves and their cockpits. Ostensibly, the Bush Administration feels it's too dangerous to allow a pilot to defend his cockpit with a pistol.
Fortunately, the House of Representatives disagrees and they've passed a bill that would allow pilots to carry pistols aboard an airliner, to the delight of the Airline Pilot's Association. The Senate will take up the bill soon. That Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge are so opposed to the concept of arming pilots that it required an act of congress to get some common sense measures past the Bush Administration speaks volumes about the ineptness of the aforementioned men.
It's mind-boggling that the Bush Administration would oppose arming pilots, especially given the alternative should a plane be hijacked. The government's current contingency plan is to simply blast a passenger jet out of the sky using Air Force fighters. Now, given my background in firearms, I can state conclusively that a pilot with a Glock 19 is far less dangerous than the flaming wreckage of a jumbo jet plummeting to Earth after being hit by a Sidewinder or AMRAM missile-less dangerous to the passengers and crew of the plane and less dangerous to the people living where the burning remnants of the plane land.
While arming pilots will provide a sensible last-ditch defense of an aircraft's cockpit, more needs to be done to shore up security before passengers get anywhere near the plane. Since the government never does anything quickly or well, it would be delusional to hope that the quality of airport screeners is going to increase in any significant way in the next few months. It's also unlikely that there will be any marked increase in their skills after the TSA takes over airport security in November. If we give the TSA the benefit of the doubt and assume they can ever train the nation's airport security personnel to an acceptable degree of competency; how long will it take? Another six months? A year? More? That's a long time, in any case, for our guard to be down. Unless the government can guarantee an air marshal on every single domestic and international flight, which they so far cannot, then the only rational choice is to allow the pilot to pack a pistol.
Logically, a hijacker cannot gain control of the aircraft unless he gets into the cockpit. In the absence of air marshals, I for one would feel a lot better if I knew the would-be hijacker had to deal with a pilot who was training a Glock on the cockpit door, waiting for someone to kick it inward.
So, while the experts assure us that the terrorists know we're so fixated on airport security that they'd consider another 9/11 impossible, we'd better hope Usama bin Laden doesn't read USA Today. Statistically, if al-Qaeda tried to send four or more armed guys onto one plane, at least one would make it through, and at LAX, maybe two. Given that air marshals aren't present on every flight, and pilots being unarmed is currently mandatory, why wouldn't al-Qaeda try another 9/11-style attack with fuel-laden jetliners used as guided missiles? Mineta and Ridge, by standing in the way of allowing pilots to arm themselves ever since the idea came up, have made it easy for al-Qaeda to give us an encore performance of 9/11. The government is scrambling to come up with ways of countering all the various possible terrorist scenarios they can dream up. For us to be hit in the exact same way we were on 9/11 would be evidence of a wholesale failure of the government, whose only important job is to protect us from such things. Given the USA Today article, and that pilots are likely to remain unarmed for the foreseeable future, we are indeed very much at risk from Bin Laden, or someone like him, running the exact same play against us as was done 10 months ago. Something needs to be done, sooner rather than later.
Kyle Lohmeier
http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/lohmeier/KL20020714.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
As the last line of defense against hijackers, airline pilots who have been trained and deputized by the federal government should be allowed to carry firearms in the cockpit. The House of Representatives passed such a bill last week, and the Senate should follow suit.
The Bush administration, through the Transportation Security Administration, opposes the House bill. The TSA argues that heightened screening of passengers, reinforced cockpit doors and plainclothes federal air marshals on guard in airliner cabins are better and presumably safer means to thwart hijackings. The TSA also argues that pilots should not be distracted by security duties and should focus only on flying the aircraft.
But the men and women who fly the planes overwhelmingly favor arming pilots who volunteer to be trained for the task. They reason correctly that hijackers with weapons could slip through security, and that despite the presence of air marshals, pilots should be armed to defend the cockpit of an aircraft in a last-ditch attempt to prevent hijackers from taking control. Commercial airliners carry two pilots. While one flies the plane, the other could try to stop an intruder.
Under the House bill, deputized pilots with firearms would not be required or even allowed to use guns outside the cockpit itself. They would not be allowed to leave the controls to use a firearm to deal with a disturbance in the cabin. Their only role would be to defend the cockpit.
It is legitimate to worry whether a hijacker could overpower a pilot and take his firearm or whether gunfire could injure or kill a pilot or passenger or could damage the aircraft. But those risks already exist with armed air marshals. While it is true that pilots would not have the depth of training or combat experience of a marshal, many pilots are military veterans, and their use of firearms in the cockpit presumably would only occur when the efforts of the marshal, if one were present, and the rest of the crew to protect the cockpit had failed.
As a last line of defense, training and arming pilots is a justifiable risk.
http://www.sltrib.com/07182002/opinion/opinion.htm
"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
Thomas Sowell
In a stunning reversal, California's liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has come out in favor of allowing airline pilots to carry guns if they wish, while the Bush administration opposes it. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to permit pilots to carry guns by a vote of 310 to 113.
Although Mrs. Boxer is a staunch supporter of gun control, on this particular issue she clearly understands it is better to have an armed pilot than to have to order a military plane to shoot down one of our own commercial airliners, full of innocent people, because hijackers have taken it over and are ready to do a repeat of last September 11.
We can only hope the administration is as willing as Mrs. Boxer to rethink its position of opposing the arming of pilots. But the Transportation Department remains closed-minded on the issue. When asked by Rep. Don Young, Alaska Republican, "Do you really think that 9/11 would have happened if our pilots had been armed, as they should have been armed?" a spokesman for the Transportation Department replied: "Our position remains unchanged." It was reminiscent of that famous line: " 'Shut up,' he explained."
Opponents of allowing pilots to be armed have portrayed horror movie visions of pilots and terrorists shooting it out in the aisles of airliners. But the main reason for arming pilots is not so that they can re-enact the gunfight at the OK Corral. The main reason for having guns for self-defense anywhere is deterrence.
In John Lott's landmark scholarly study titled "More Guns, Less Crime," he points out that most instances of the successful use of a gun in self-defense do not involve actually firing it. Just showing an aggressor that you have a firearm is usually enough to make him back off. Having it widely known in advance that people in certain places have guns is a huge deterrent to those who might otherwise be inclined to start trouble in those places.
Communities that have passed laws permitting any law-abiding citizen to carry a gun usually have immediate declines in crimes in the wake of such laws. Both criminals and terrorists prefer to attack unarmed civilians.
Even mass killers labeled "irrational" by the media and by shrinks almost invariably start shooting in places where other people are unarmed, like schools or offices. And they stop when they encounter someone else who is armed. If not, they get stopped, like the assassin at Los Angeles International Airport on July Fourth.
Depending on armed marshals aboard airplanes might be an alternative to arming pilots - if there were any realistic prospect of putting marshals on even half the vast numbers of planes that are flying every day. But hypothetical marshals are no substitute for real pilots with real guns.
Depending on stronger cockpit doors might be another alternative - if all these doors on vast numbers of airliners could be strengthened faster than pilots can get guns. But hypothetical doors are no more protection than hypothetical marshals. Tests have also repeatedly shown that the effectiveness of security screening at our airports is also largely hypothetical.
Part of the reason for the knee-jerk reaction to firearms may be that we now have a whole generation of people - especially in politics and among opinion-makers in the media - who have never served in the armed forces and have no experience with guns. Fear from ignorance is understandable. But that it should be presumptuous ignorance is not.
Are there any possible dangers to arming pilots? Of course. There are dangers to your holding this newspaper, which might catch fire and set off a conflagration around you. Nothing on the face of this Earth is 100 percent safe. We already know that flying on a plane with no one on board who is armed to resist terrorists is not safe.
The only meaningful question is which danger is greater. The swiftness with which the idea of arming pilots was dismissed suggests no serious interest in weighing one danger against another. It may be understandable that the Bush administration does not want to buck the media on this emotional issue in an election year. But will the widows and orphans of those who lose their lives, because there was no armed person on board to thwart terrorists, be understanding?
Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020718-27574432.htm
"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
18 Jul 11:27
Coalition of Airline Pilots Association Encourages Senate Members
to Co-Sponsor S.2554
To: National Desk
Contact: Captain Bob Miller of CAPA, 800-285-4472, ext. 6835
WASHINGTON, July 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Captain Bob Miller,
president of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association (CAPA),
which represents more than 21,000 pilots, said he was pleased that
additional Senate members have co-sponsored S.2554, the "Arming
Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act 2002". With the
addition of Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe
(R-Okla.), attention will continue to focus on the necessity for
passage by the Senate this year and I encourage other Senate
Members to add their names," stated Miller.
"CAPA has always advocated that security should be multi-layered
and believes that proper airline security consists of multiple
concentric circles of defense," said Miller. "This will insure
that if one or more of the layers is compromised, then other
defenses are in place to avoid a catastrophic occurrence. Both
passenger and cargo aircraft must be included in this requirement.
One level of security must be the standard for the aviation
industry in our country", stated Miller.
"S.2554 is a critical step in making our aviation system safer.
We need to go further, both in terms of broadening this legislation
and in improving other aspects of aviation safety in areas such as
screening of aviation workers, passengers, luggage and cargo. But
this legislation recognizes the important role that the pilot can
play in protecting the cockpit and the plane," said Miller.
Members of The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations include
the Airline Professionals Association (Teamsters Local 1224), the
Allied Pilots Association, the Independent Pilots Association, the
National Pilots Association and the Southwest Pilots' Association.
These associations represent the pilots of Airborne Express,
American Airlines, United Parcel Service, AirTran and Southwest
Airlines, approximately 22,000 pilots in all.
For further information, contact Captain Bob Miller, president,
CAPA, at 800-285-4472, ext. 6835.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
07/18 11:27
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/prime/0718-114.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
By Norman Turner c 2001
Published 07. 17. 02 at 21:48 Sierra Time
Why does our federal government, especially the White House, have so much trouble understanding the need to arm airline pilots? What is it that makes people who otherwise seem reasonable, fight against this most logical and reasonable of steps to provide a means to defend the flight deck from terrorists? Until 1987 it was legal for an airline pilot to be armed and there was no rash of problems that I recall from those relatively peaceful times.
Now that thousands have been killed by religious fanatics who are willing to commit suicide to do us in whenever and wherever they can, the FAA and high level minions of the Executive Branch raise obstacles to giving the men and women we trust to deliver us safely, another logical tool to do just that.
These same officials are quite happy to provide F-16s and F-15s to "escort" an airliner on which suspicious activity is taking place. The most recent example occurred within the last two days when some airline passengers became suspicious of others who were passing notes to each other and acting strangely, they thought. F-16s were scrambled to "escort" the airliner to its destination. As a former Air Force fighter pilot and combat veteran let me explain what that means.
If something goes wrong on a flight you are on, you may see a sleek fighter flying just outside the wingtip of your airliner. Inside that craft will be a young officer who is in all probability a really nice guy (or girl). If you wave at him, he may wave back. He may have a wife and a couple of kids. He may live down the block from you and shop in the same stores you do. You may see him and his family in church on Sunday, if he happens to be in town that weekend. You may notice that he looks like a kid, with his short hair and ready smile. If he is your neighbor he may stop to help you if you have a problem with your car. In short, he is a decent, friendly guy who has the same values and concerns you do; maybe a mortgage, his kid's braces, the argument he had with his wife last night or being upset that his favorite baseball team may go on strike next month.
There is one major difference about him and the others his age. Underneath the wings of that fighter are some long thin thingies, probably painted white, with names like Sidewinder, Sparrow or AMRAM. They are missiles designed to down enemy aircraft in time of war. Let me tell you that they work just dandy. Should he need it, he also has a really neat cannon the will spit out exploding little projectiles at one hundred shots per second. His job is to kill you if things get out of control.
If terrorists happen to gain control of an airliner in which you are unfortunate enough to be riding, perhaps because your unarmed pilots are unable to stop them and the sky Marshall didn't make that flight, guess what you are now? You are a hostage in a flying passenger carrier that has become an enemy aircraft in a time of war (Remember the reason for those missiles?) Why? Because some religious fanatics named Abdullah and Omar are planning to fly it into a crowd of people in the name of Allah.
Now once this is confirmed, that friendly, handsome young man flying out there, and his buddy who is back about a mile, are each going to reach down with a gloved hand, move two or three switches (kind of like working your TV remote) and that instantly arms those missiles and/or guns and turns them into deadly instruments of destruction.
When authorization is given by representatives of some of those same governmental departments who are fighting the idea of arming pilots, one of those nice young folks is going to smoothly drop behind your airliner, place it inside his gunsight and when he hears a buzzing tone in his headset, indicating a lock on he will squeeze the trigger on the front of his control stick with his right index finger. When he does that he will hear a loud whooshing sound over the engine and jet stream noise and see a streak of fire and smoke rocketing toward you and your airliner. In about 6 or 7 seconds, your aircraft will be transformed into a large orange fireball. You will hear the loudest explosion you have ever heard and things around you will start to disintegrate. It will be frightening but don't worry about that because you won't hear it long.
Your flight will not be used to kill anyone on the ground and the fighter mission will be called a success by the same people who would deny airline pilots the ability to defend their own craft from inside. The man or woman who fired the missile will feel terrible about it. He or she will be traumatized, perhaps needing counseling. Don't give it a thought though because you won't care. You, along with your children, wife or husband and everyone else aboard, will have been reduced to pieces of flesh too small to tally.
And it all might have been prevented by a $400 pistol in the hands of a professional airline pilot. Feeling safer now?
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/07/18/turner.htm
c 2002 SierraTimes.com
"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
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878