Guys guys..(and ladies..)
I think some of you are getting too over-focused on some aspects of this issue.
Let's make some attempt to encourage our authorities to work out a plan of action rather than get over-emotional about the opinions about guns and weapons.
First..do we have an international security crisis here...YES
Are we trying to prevent ourselves from being killed by suicide hijackers..YES.
Ok..so..some people want guns, some want marshal, some want zappers, some want the cabin crew to be armed, some want armed doors, and others want pepper spray..others want to do nothing and rely on the ground staff to keep us alive. Each suggestion has very strong opinion both in favour and also against....and for good reason. Now let's stop for a minute and look into the history of aviation. Has it ever been safe? Didn't people protest both for and against virtually every safety measure that's ever been pioneered in flying, including the introduction of Glass cockpits..."Not real instrument flying, " they said. "It'll cause eyesight problems, cataracts etc"
"Fly-by-wire?...must be dangerous...not in full control.."
And the introduction of CRM invited cries of, "It'll never work, it's no use...you won't catch ME doing that..." etc.
Now we have a new debate. And while people are still working to improve every other aspect of aviation that's ever been tried, this is one that will continually be amended, and it's not going to be as simple as merely "arming pilots" or whatever.
Pepper sprays, electronic stun guns are things I have no knowledge of, but there must be ways of activating such defences via devices on the cabin side of the (locked) cockpit door to intruders trying to get in (as seen by pilots via small camera in appropriate cabin location.)
Guns in cockpit? Well, without getting into the "Rambo" and "last resort" aspects of the argument,the fact is that it's possible to regulate ammunition such that it would have man-flattening ability ability without peircing the aircraft skin. (Ok, perhaps windows should be strengthened)
And as for leaving gun as part of flight-deck equipment...personally I believe (as an ex-gun owner prior to the British Ban) a handgun should "fit" it's owner for best results as we all have different sizes and shapes of hand etc. Then each owner would be responsible for making damn sure they never leave it in cockpit. This was part of the responsibility for gun owners when they were legal.
Ok, so not everyone wants to own a gun, and perhaps some characters (even professionals) would be not of "suitable character" to own such things, so nobody should be forced to have them if they don't want.
Also, what security measures would work well in one aircraft probably wouldn't work so well in the confined spaces/layout of another aircraft. And let's not forget our single-crew colleagues who are no less responsible just because they fly small but-hijackable aircraft like crop dusters, training aircraft, survay aircraft etc.operating out of smaller airfields which don't have the security screening capabilities of larger airports.
So what are we going to do?
Well, somehow the authorities and airlines will have to agree on a minimum security level per airline/operation/aircraft type, and allow the airlines and their pilots some sort of flexibility about what sort of defence technique they'd like to employ.
Pilots would be able to carry with them a choice of security measures...perhaps a combination of those already mentioned.
Nobody needs to know what that combination is. So a would-be hijacker doesn't know that on any one flight there may be a Captain with gun, an armoured door, a co-pilot with spray, a steward with a zapper, and probably a marshal (or other airline employee) on board with another device, or a blackbelt in Ramboism. Perhaps a combination of all.
So does the hijacker carry a gas mask, or a bullet proof vest,or a gun, or an electrically insulated space-suit, or metal cutters, or all of the above?
It's really going to be a pain for hijackers to plan an attack with any guarantee of success.
As for the gus debate. Some people are under the impression that only qualified ex-military people are appropriate to carry them. What a load of utter nonsense.!!!!
Have individual applicants properly vetted by police, insist upon proper training, not just in use, but in all aspects of gun safety, regular recurrent training, etc and stop trying to tell me that we aren't responsible people. Remember that the general idea here is not to actually play at "Rambo tough guy" and shoot people, but to creat a deterrent. If a professional hijacker still manages to get into the cockpit and get that gun of me for the purpose of a suicide dive, then I was going to die anyway!
And let's not use the tragedy of the Dunblane be an excuse to say that "one nutter will manage to get a licence like the guy who shot the kids". Let the police learn from that lesson to impose more stringent vetting. It was already known that he was a weirdo but our laws at that time weren't sufficient to stop him. This is different. And this time we're talking about educated responsible individuals.
I have myself been in a situation where I've used my semi-automatic pistol for a life-threatening paction of self-defence. I'm NOT Rambo-tough-guy...never tried to be. And I wasn't all cool and unafraid like the actors in the movies. I was absolutely f***ing terrified and trembling for about 2 hours afterwards, but I had been given military and police training for the situation...one which had a happy ending with nobody getting hurt. It's not just a question of becoming John Wayne...like flying, even these situations have procedures. And in my moment of need, my gun was a huge comfort to me, one which at the time I would have paid any amount of money for.
So please folks, let's treat this debate with an open-mind. I don't want to see aircrews suddenly being given all sorts of equipment without rigorous training. But treated sensibly, and distributed sensibly, this might save a lot of lives.
May all your landings be intentional.