Maybe this is something for many of you to consider:
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - 11.6.2001
EQUAL TIME - Arming pilots a security measure that wouldn't fail
By NICHOLAS RYDER
The author is a captain for a commercial airline.
I've seen it reported that ground-based and underpaid airport X-ray screeners, the Federal Aviation Administration, the airlines, the National Guard or various other groups are the "last line of defense" for airline passengers.
Not quite.
Correct answer: the men and women sitting up in the pointy end of the airplane.
But unfortunately for all of us, pilots are not yet trusted with a viable, foolproof means of self-defense. The incredible paradox, though, is that we are trusted with $70 million airplanes and 250 or more lives. There is only one absolutely, positively guaranteed way to stop airborne perpetrators of crime: a handgun, fired at point-blank range.
Part of the beauty of the handgun deterrent is that not every pilot needs to carry one; just enough pilots so that the bad guys know there is a chance they may be facing a gun if they're so unlucky as to actually get into the cockpit. Most pilots are former military officers, are familiar with guns and are not afraid to use one if they absolutely have to.
Those pilots who are not familiar with guns can be trained, if they wish. After all, how good a shot do you have to be to hit something at three feet?
I've heard a strange argument put forward that not all pilots might be stable enough to be allowed to carry a gun. Let me get this straight: He/she is trusted by the FAA to land a complex planeload of people on a dark and stormy winter's night but can't be trusted with a simple gun? What am I missing here?
With the changes in regulations and procedures that have been initiated since the tragic events of Sept. 11, pilots will no longer leave the cockpit for any reason during a disturbance, nor will they open the cockpit door. They will, more than likely, be getting the aircraft on the ground as fast as possible.
A gun carried by a pilot would not be used to protect passengers or flight attendants on the other side of the cockpit door. That's the job of sky marshals, flight attendants and when requested, able-bodied passengers. A pilot's handgun would only be used to prevent the cockpit door from being breached and the airplane from being brought down. I haven't met a pilot yet who wants to go back in the cabin and have a shootout or arrest somebody.
The argument about a pilot's gun being taken away and used against him or her is ludicrous. Anyone unlucky enough to have forced his way into the cockpit would be shot before he could get close to the pilot to get his or her gun.
Guns in the cockpit are not a substitute for reinforced doors or trained, armed sky marshals. Pilots need something that is guaranteed to work if other measures fail.
This is not a gun control issue -- it's a survival issue. We're talking about a tool whose sole function and use would be as a last-ditch device to prevent what happened on Sept. 11 from happening again. It's that simple, and you should support it.
With the benefit of hindsight, no one can dispute that if those brave Sept. 11 flight crews had been allowed to carry handguns, they, their passengers and all the ground victims would still be alive.