It seems to me that there are some who just can't wait to demonstrate their superior skills in the use of handguns.
It seems to ME that there are some who CAN"T WAIT TO HAVE THEIR THROATS SLIT!
I have been authorized to carry a handgun in public for almost 20 years. My "ego" has never made me "demonstrate my superior skills with a handgun". I can tell you, FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, that effectively using one in daily life requires much more training, judgement and mindset than would be required in the cockpit. I volunteer to be the "bad guy" in tactical simulations for the local PD. We fire "simunition" from real guns. We do MANY different tactical exercises, and I can tell you, that sitting in a car has many more tactical pitfalls than sitting in a cockpit. There have been as many dead cops in these scenarios as dead bad guys.
There is ONLY ONE SCENARIO WHERE A GUN WOULD BE USED in the airplane!!!! It is not there to calm angry drunks. It is not there to settle disputes among the cabin crew. It is not there to bolster anyones "ego" and most importantly, right now it is NOT THERE TO PROTECT AGAINST HIJACKERS! The single most effective measure that we could have taken immediately after 9/11, to prevent this from happening again, would be to arm any pilots that had prior military or law enforcement training. As soon as the details could be worked out, train and arm the civilians that choose to do so.
Real cockpit doors are years away, and as far as security goes, the exact same folks that LET THESE GUYS ON THE AIRCRAFT are still on the job, only with a fat raise! Right now we are sitting ducks.
As somebody probably already have stated, there are three lines of defense, 1. prevent the hijacker from boarding, 2. prevent the hijacker from entering the cockpit and 3. prevent the highjacker from taking over the controls.
I agree completely with that statement.....a layered defense is the most effective. The last line of defense should be in the cockpit of the hijacked aircraft, not the cockpit of the F-Teen that shoots it down!
If the hijacker manages to board a flight, it will be very easy to prevent him/her or them from gaining access the cockpit.
It does not take a lot of time, effort or money to design, manufactur and install a cockpitdoor, that could only be breached from the outside if explosives were used.
So, where are these "cheap, easy to install doors"? The only "security enhancements" I've seen are the removal of certain toiletries and small tools, and the "random" frisking of "selectee" uniformed flight crews at the gate, AFTER passing the "security" checkpoint!
No matter what we do prior to boarding the aircraft, they will find a way into the cockpit. That is what they do!
So point no 2 and 3 should be seen as one.
But of course that does nothing for ones ego.
My job is to fly an airliner full of your relatives from point A to point B safely. Ego has NOTHING to do with it. As it stands now, there is VERY LITTLE I can do to insure the security of my aircraft, should some wacko terrorist feel that my ship is perfect for his rocket ride to allah's side!
Ego and practicality are NOT one and the same.
Say, for example, some terr got by your super door, and your family were in the back of the plane, and were headed for the office building that you worked in. Would you want the pilot of that aircraft to have a last ditch weapon, or would you be comforted knowing that your family was blown up by a sidewinder fired by a "friendly" fighter (assuming that they got there in time.....if not, then you wouldn't have any TIME for comfort, since you'd likely be lost too.) so as not to compromise your principles?
Arming pilots with stun guns is the perfect example of eyewash over practicality. It might help some pilot's ego to have this "weapon" in the cockpit. However, when looked at in a PRACTICAL light, it is worse than nothing. It is a contact weapon. Using a stun gun effectively against ONE attacker, when you are standing up facing him requires infinitely more training than simply using a laser sighted pistol while sitting in the seat. When seated, a stun gun will merely be taken away from you. The crash axe is much more effective than a stun gun (It is lethal, IF used correctly), but has the same limitations (you need to be facing the attacker, standing up to have any chance of using it effectively!)
The bottom line is: If the powers that be really want to prevent civilian airliners from becoming cruise missiles, they need to arm pilots as a last resort.