« Our kind of lizard | Main | Gee, maybe the sky isn't falling. »

If planes are hijacked, only hijackers will have planes

Airline pilots want to be armed. Twenty thousand of them signed a petition to Congress demanding that they be allowed to keep guns in the cockpit. Showing that they don't really understand the issue, flight attendants disagreed:

Responding angrily, the union for flight attendants declared that it would fight the proposal unless the pilots agreed to use their guns not only to defend themselves, but also to ensure the safety of passengers and crew throughout the airplane.
So let me get this straight: the flight attendants (nee stewardesses) would rather have the plane hijacked than have pilots be the only ones not defenseless?

Besides, that response misses the point entirely; pilots wouldn't be using the guns to defend "themselves." They'd be using the guns to defend the cockpit. And defending the cockpit does "ensure the safety of passengers and crew throughout the plane." But most importantly, defending the cockpit protects us on the ground. If potential hijackers (nee Saudis) know that the pilots are armed, they may think twice about trying to hijack the plane in the first place, making everyone safer. 

Predictably, the disarm-Americans crowd was opposed, listing all the things that could go wrong, but ignoring the reasons why pilots would want to be armed.

Although a number of House members spoke in favor of arming pilots, Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, opposed the effort.

Oberstar said arming pilots would give "new meaning to the flying shotgun in the days of the Wild West." Oberstar called the bill "impatient" because it would distract the TSA from the larger tasks ahead, such as using machines to screen all checked luggage for explosives by year's end.

But the award for mindless cliche of the day goes to the nonvoting delegate from the nation's gun-free crime capital:
Another Democrat, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, said a gun in the cockpit could harm innocent bystanders. "We know guns in the homes are more likely to be used for killing relatives and for suicide," she said. "We have to consider guns in the cockpit might be used for more than the purpose intended."
We know that statistics in the Congress are more likely to be used for killing the truth, and for demagoguery. Perhaps we should ban Eleanor Holmes Norton, just to be safe.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (1)


Let me get this strait: the pilot has a gun, the hijackers are in the main cabin killing flight attendants and passengers, but the pilot can't come out of the cockpit to defend them. What is the purpose of him having a gun? Yes, if the hijackers storm the cockpit door to take the plane down, but they could kill all the passengers or set off a bomb and the pilot and his gun remain behind a locked door,oh yea-the gun is also in a locked case. Where does that make sense? In the meantime, he has a 2 day layover in Kansas City with his loaded gun in a hotel room, and he brings it home after his trip where his 2 small children also live. I am a flight attendant and they have to go thru me and alot of passengers to reach the cockpit. I don't see where it is going to be of much use for security now, the rules have changed.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 3, 2002 5:27 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Our kind of lizard.

The next post in this blog is Gee, maybe the sky isn't falling..

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.31