Its interesting seeing the views on both sides - some good comments. Here is another rant from myself…
Looking at the vote results, you have to acknowledge there is seemingly widespread acceptance amongst US pilots. Of course, such acceptance comes from having a different attitude (and background) to firearm ownership – for people living in environments where firearms are heavily restricted/prohibited, there will always be a different attitude.
The strong “yes” vote indicates pilots want more protection on the flightdeck (FD)…should the carriage of a firearm therefore be considered as “standard” equipment for the aircraft? Rather than have individuals carry weapons in nav bags (all kinds of potential problems), why not have a firearm locked in a safe on the FD. To access the FD safe would require selection of the discrete TX code, which would unlock the safe and alert ATC at the same time.
I appreciate this may not have worked pre 9/11, however since then, the way in which potential hijackers demands are followed has completely and irrevocably changed. There should also be more time for the crew to advise ATC of the actual threat given more secure doors, severely restricted FD access and in some cases, cameras at the door entry and throughout the cabin.
And although this may sound harsh, no matter what is happening in the cabin (eg. cabin crew and/or pax being physically assaulted), the tech crew must not try and intervene in the dispute…just get the aircraft on the ground ASAP and keep the terrorists out of the FD. What happens if a pilot decides he/she can “take em out” and so leaves their position attempting to neutralise the threat but ends up in a gun fight and worse case scenario, dead with the FD door open and another gun available?
And don’t forget the other “friendly” weapons available in the cabin – other pax! Since 9/11, how many pax have assisted crews with unlawful behaviour?