"Well, one reason that occurs is that every "legal" gun on board an aircraft is one that could potentially be grabbed by a determined hijacker or "nutcase"
Okay, true given a failure to secure the weapon.
I would ask you to elaborate in the event the cockpit door is rushed after opening.
1. Aircraft #1. Has at least 1 armed pilot. Pilot responds according to to training.
2. Aircraft #2. Both pilots are unarmed.
I would like to hear some reasoned logical responses why example #2 is a much better way to go. It is also understood that being armed with a handgun has it's own limitations in stopping a determined human (s), but what I find fascinating is the total submission to failure exhibited by many regarding this subject. It is always the armed pilot who will drop the gun, shoot out windows, control lines and other crewmembers rather than attempted hijackers. If there is failure of door security, how is it that being unarmed is a better way to go? There is the repeated thought of wanting the pilots to fly the airplane instead of shooting, but who here could concentrate on piloting with unwelcome intruders in the cockpit?
I would add a request to keep on subject per DP's post. I would also note that a weapon is redundant in the event a isolated, armored bulkhead is available for lav and galley needs of the pilots. Until that day comes, I welcome rational thoughts on why this last layer of defense isn't needed.
Thank you.