Sorry, if you want to refer to safety, then the handgun is the more dangerous of the 2 choices (& neither of the choices are particularly good)!
Which is exactly why it is the more effective choice. If it is needed to thwart a hijacking, the "safer" item isn't the safest choice......!
Neither of them should be allowed on the flight deck.
But firearms are OK in the cabin, as long as pilots aren't the ones carrying them? The number of people that are allowed to carry guns on airliners is staggering (many with no "need" imho). At least on the flight deck, the weapon will be behind a locked door, where it is least likely to be used to commandeer tha airplane.
Unfortunately, quoting statistics (or unlike “comparibles”) isn’t going to strengthen the gun case, regardless of how/why guns were unintentionally fired. There is no statistical data-base (yet) for “shots fired negligently in the flight deck” and obviously, you can’t call a trauma team for those “Whoops, sorry, I didn’t mean for my .40” to go off” awkward cockpit moments.
There are hundreds of years worth of statistics re: leos (law enforcement officers) and firearms. FFDOs ARE trained leos. Guns do not "go off" by themselves when carried in the proper manner, any more than fire handles get accidentally pulled in flight.
However, if you want to debate the accessibility options of the gun or the taser, then I would suggest that the taser would be less liable to accidental “discharge.”
Why would a taser be less likely to accidentally discharge? For sure it will be less likely to incapacitate a determined hijacker.
To remind you - pilots are fallible, even after thorough & repetitive training, we still have too many CFIT incidences. So, even after thorough & repetitive training on handguns, pilots will, undoubtedly, make mistakes with equally fatal consequences.
OK, maybe pilots shouldn't be allowed to fly airplanes? Just how carrying a firearm will contribute to cfit isn't quite clear to me......
CFIT generally kills all on board. Even in the unlikely event of an AD, the chances of killing or even injuring someone are extremely remote.......
Spending money on arming pilots is treating the symptom, not the cause. Better screening of pax (& support elements such as catering, cleaning, etc) will reduce the already minimal risk of hijacking.
Minimal risk? It HAS happened, recently, to a number of airliners (does 9/11 ring a bell?). While I agree that better screening will help (I am still waiting for it, btw.....), it can not keep a determined hijacker off an airplane. One way or another they will figure out how to get on board, and into the cockpit.
Arming pilots is a high-profile and very political answer, unfortunately, it’s not the right answer to the problem.
Actually, the tsA is the high profile, political answer (all show, no go). Armed pilots provide a definitive last line of defense prior to the sidewinder.