. Can you imagine it, the F/O tries to shoot a terrorist and drills aunty mabel instead: he gets sued, so does the captain,airline, aircraft manufacturer etc...........
This poster is for a trained, proficient armed pilot if the unfortunate need arises. In this debate there are many problems to be considered such as storage, procedures, foreign countries, cockpit door openings, ect, that can increase the risk rather than lower it.
Too often to debate is clouded by statements that totally lack ANY logic or INTELLIGENT thought that may contradict ones own personal anti-gun view. Read the above statement again. The only reason the FO would have a shot at the TERRORIST would be if the cockpit door was breached. A terrorist gets in the cockpit and you are afraid of getting sued?
Let me paraphrase your statement;
Can you imagine it? A person accidently shot an innocent bystander in an attempt to shoot a killer who was attempting to murder his child.
In my example, there was a 100% chance the killer was attempting to commit a murder, much like todays terrorists. Any armed defense carrys the risks of hurting innocents that must be weighed against stopping the bigger threat.
I am a airline pilot and I am told to fly the plane, not be a cop nor constable. Why then if the FIRE light comes on, am I told to be a fireman? I 