In one fail swoop the US knows more about the consequences of terrorism than any other nation.You think of terrorism in terms of a pub bombing that kills ten or twenty.We dont have that luxury.These terrorists are dedicated,resourceful and out to get us.This is the justification for such a controversial move.
The arming of pilots in the US is workable,contrary to what you might think.This is why:
i)Guns are,for better or worse,part of our daily lives.There is no familiarity problem here.Most of us own at least one personal firearm.The training required for such a program,although rigorous,will really only have to be supplementary,an add-on if you will.The arming of European pilots would pose a far greater problem.Training would,for the most part,have to be from scratch.And thats just the technical side of the training.The mental block to firearms,borne of ignorance and fear,would have to be addressed.No such address is required in the States.
ii)A strong sense of responsibility and sobriety are de facto attributes of the experienced airline pilot.Recent alcohol-related incidents have detracted from this but the assumption is still a valid one.This mental approach lends itself well to the responsibility of carrying a firearm in the workplace.The childish comments made by some about some sort of John Wayne shoot-em-up scenario just would not materialize.Bear in mind that US commercial pilots were authorized to carry firearms until relatively recently.
iii)The purpose of arming pilots is one of deterrence,which is a proven principle in crime prevention.Pilots are not being asked to fight the front line.Air Marshalls and airport security will do that.This fourth line of defence(airport security-air marshalls-flight deck door being the first three)is important in light of the evidence that some lines of defence have been and continue to be breached.However,terrorists are not unintelligent:they dont like overwhelming odds.They will consider an attempt to breach one or two lines of defence.But four?