John Whitehead's Commentary
Banning Guns in the Cockpit: When Common Sense Takes a Flying Leap
There are times when government bureaucracy goes completely contrary to common sense, and this is one of those times.
John W. Magaw, director of the Transportation Security Administration, has informed Congress that airline pilots will not be permitted to carry guns on the job. Magaw justified his decision by pointing to several precautions taken to reinforce airline security since Sept. 11.
Among them are more stringent security measures at airports. Cockpit doors are now reinforced and remain closed to intruders. Pilots have been instructed to keep control of their planes, even at the risk of passengers and crewmembers being harmed by terrorists. Air marshals have been trained and assigned to travel on some flights. And Air Force fighter jets have been given the authority to shoot down any passenger plane that comes under terrorist threat.
Perhaps the government's plan to keep the airways safe should reassure and pacify, but when carefully scrutinized, it is baffling.
News reports have shown that, even with heightened precautions, airport security is still being breached. U.S. marshals are on board only a tiny percentage of the nation's roughly 25,000 daily flights. And, once again, national security is being prioritized over concerns for individual citizens who, if trapped on an airplane with terrorists, have little to hope for and much to fear--including being shot down by American fighter jets.
This debate has been brewing for sometime now. Not long after hijackers overwhelmed pilots aboard four commercial flights on Sept. 11, the Airline Pilots Association reversed its position regarding firearms in the cockpit. In their petition presented to the United States Congress, pilots would be permitted to choose whether to carry weapons. Any who chose to do so would be required to undergo psychological testing and background checks, in addition to extensive firearms training. This petition was signed by more than 20,000 pilots.
Pilots' weapons would also be equipped with frangible bullets, specially designed from softer metals so as to impede human targets but not seriously damage the fuselage of the plane or shatter the windshield. Back in February 2002, United Airlines announced its intention to start training its pilots to use stun guns--with or without FAA approval. Two of the planes hijacked last fall belonged to United Airlines.
All kinds of excuses have been raised in objection to allowing our pilots to carry weapons. Those who oppose allowing pilots to carry firearms claim that doing so might create additional risk by unwittingly providing would-be hijackers with additional weapons to use against crews and passengers. There is even a contingent of critics who are raising concern for those who would create havoc in the cockpit. Take, for example, the incident aboard a United Airlines flight to Buenos Aires earlier this year. After a somewhat excited passenger kicked in the cockpit door, one of the pilots rendered him unconscious by using the blunt end of an ax. Had the pilot been armed, critics say the passenger might have ended up dead.
Yet this seems to underscore the very point of arming pilots in the cockpit--as a final precaution against someone breaching all other points of security and possibly repeating the terrible tragedies of Sept. 11.
It's time that we give pilots a chance to defend themselves--especially when we realize that the pilots put their lives on the line virtually every day while most passengers may only fly once or twice a year. And as long as they've been cleared to fly a plane for a commercial airline, having been through the proper background checks, training and preparation, why wouldn't we allow them some form of self-defense?
To put it bluntly, anyone we would allow to pilot a commercial airliner that is filled with hundreds of innocent passengers should be trustworthy enough to at least carry a stun gun. Otherwise, we leave it open for terrorists armed with sharpened butler knives to hijack an entire jet. Does this really make any sense?
John W. Magaw, director of the Transportation Security Administration, has informed Congress that airline pilots will not be permitted to carry guns on the job. Magaw justified his decision by pointing to several precautions taken to reinforce airline security since Sept. 11.
Among them are more stringent security measures at airports. Cockpit doors are now reinforced and remain closed to intruders. Pilots have been instructed to keep control of their planes, even at the risk of passengers and crewmembers being harmed by terrorists. Air marshals have been trained and assigned to travel on some flights. And Air Force fighter jets have been given the authority to shoot down any passenger plane that comes under terrorist threat.
Perhaps the government's plan to keep the airways safe should reassure and pacify, but when carefully scrutinized, it is baffling.
News reports have shown that, even with heightened precautions, airport security is still being breached. U.S. marshals are on board only a tiny percentage of the nation's roughly 25,000 daily flights. And, once again, national security is being prioritized over concerns for individual citizens who, if trapped on an airplane with terrorists, have little to hope for and much to fear--including being shot down by American fighter jets.
This debate has been brewing for sometime now. Not long after hijackers overwhelmed pilots aboard four commercial flights on Sept. 11, the Airline Pilots Association reversed its position regarding firearms in the cockpit. In their petition presented to the United States Congress, pilots would be permitted to choose whether to carry weapons. Any who chose to do so would be required to undergo psychological testing and background checks, in addition to extensive firearms training. This petition was signed by more than 20,000 pilots.
Pilots' weapons would also be equipped with frangible bullets, specially designed from softer metals so as to impede human targets but not seriously damage the fuselage of the plane or shatter the windshield. Back in February 2002, United Airlines announced its intention to start training its pilots to use stun guns--with or without FAA approval. Two of the planes hijacked last fall belonged to United Airlines.
All kinds of excuses have been raised in objection to allowing our pilots to carry weapons. Those who oppose allowing pilots to carry firearms claim that doing so might create additional risk by unwittingly providing would-be hijackers with additional weapons to use against crews and passengers. There is even a contingent of critics who are raising concern for those who would create havoc in the cockpit. Take, for example, the incident aboard a United Airlines flight to Buenos Aires earlier this year. After a somewhat excited passenger kicked in the cockpit door, one of the pilots rendered him unconscious by using the blunt end of an ax. Had the pilot been armed, critics say the passenger might have ended up dead.
Yet this seems to underscore the very point of arming pilots in the cockpit--as a final precaution against someone breaching all other points of security and possibly repeating the terrible tragedies of Sept. 11.
It's time that we give pilots a chance to defend themselves--especially when we realize that the pilots put their lives on the line virtually every day while most passengers may only fly once or twice a year. And as long as they've been cleared to fly a plane for a commercial airline, having been through the proper background checks, training and preparation, why wouldn't we allow them some form of self-defense?
To put it bluntly, anyone we would allow to pilot a commercial airliner that is filled with hundreds of innocent passengers should be trustworthy enough to at least carry a stun gun. Otherwise, we leave it open for terrorists armed with sharpened butler knives to hijack an entire jet. Does this really make any sense?
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
