I'd like to forward this, which may be helpful to the debate. It comes from the monthly newsletter of a gentleman named Bruce Schneier, who is well-known in the Information Security business. I take full responsibility for posting the text here.
--------------- (quote follows) -----------------------------
It's a quintessentially American solution: our nation's commercial aircraft
are at risk, so let's allow pilots to carry guns. We have visions of these
brave men and women as the last line of defense on an aircraft, and
courageously defending the cockpit against terrorists at 30,000 feet. I
can just imagine the made-for-TV movie.
Reality is more complicated than television, though. Sometimes, security
systems cause more problems than they solve. Putting guns on aircraft will
make us more vulnerable to attack, not less.
When people think of potential problems with an weapons in a cockpit, they
think of accidental shootings in the air, holes in the fuselage, and
possibly even equipment shattered by a stray bullet. This is a problem,
certainly, but not a major one. A bullet hole is small, and doesn't let a
whole lot of air out. And airplanes are designed to handle equipment
failures -- even serious failures -- and remain in the air. If I ran an
airline, I would worry more about accidents involving passengers, who are
much less able to survive a bullet wound and much more likely to sue.
The real dangers, though, involve the complex systems that must be put in
place before the first gun can ride along in the cockpit. There are major
areas of risk.
One, we need a system for getting the gun on the airplane. How does the
pilot get the gun? Does he carry it through the airport and onto the
plane? Is it issued to him after he's in the cockpit but before the plane
takes off? Is it secured in the cockpit at all times, even when there is
no one there? Any one of these solutions has its own set of security
vulnerabilities. The last thing we want is for an attacker to exploit one
of these systems in order to get himself a gun. Or maybe the last thing we
want is a shootout in a crowded airport.
Second, we need a procedure for storing the gun on the airplane. Does the
pilot carry it on his hip? Is it locked in a cabinet? If so, who has the
key? Is there one gun, or do the pilot and co-pilot each have
one? However the system works, it's ripe for abuse. If the gun is always
at the pilot's hip, an attacker can take it away from him when he leaves
the cockpit. (Don't laugh; policemen get their guns taken away from them
all the time, and they're trained to prevent that.) If the guns remain in
the cockpit when it is unoccupied, we have a whole new set of problems to
worry about.
Third, we need a system of training pilots in gun handling and
marksmanship. Guns require training to use well; how much training can we
expect our pilots to have? This is different from training sky
marshals. Security is the primary job of a sky marshal; they're expected
to learn how to use a gun. Flying planes is the primary job of a pilot.
Giving pilots guns is a disaster waiting to happen. The current system
spends a lot of time and effort keeping weapons off airplanes and out of
airports; the proposed scheme would inject thousands of handguns into that
system. There are just too many pilots and too many flights every day;
mistakes will happen. Someone will do an inventory one night and find a gun
missing, or ten. Someone will find one left in a cockpit. Someone may
even find one on a seat in a terminal.
El Al is the most security-conscious airline in the world. Their pilots
remain behind two bulletproof doors, and they're unarmed. It's the job of
the pilot to land the plane safely, not to engage terrorists in close
combat. For that, they rely on sky marshals, crew, and passengers. If
pilots have to leave the cockpit to solve a security problem, it's too late.
United States airlines are not comparable to El Al. Our flights don't
travel with two armed sky marshals each. We don't perform security checks
on passengers that, while legal in Israel, would violate U.S. laws. We
don't have two bulletproof doors separating the cockpit from the
passengers. Many politicians see guns as a quick fix to a problem that
can't wait for a careful solution.
Personally, I don't think pilots should be armed. But even if I thought
they did, I still wouldn't give them guns. Guns aren't designed to be used
in the cramped spaces you find in airplane cockpits. They have too high a
risk of doing unwanted damage if they miss. And there's too much risk
involved in putting thousands of guns in airports, storing them, getting
them on and off airplanes, and keeping them in cockpits. If you want to
arm pilots, it would be much smarter to give them billy clubs or
tasers. At least those weapons make sense for the situation.
------------------------ (end quote) ---------------------------------