>It's debatable... obviously. But I'll repeat an earlier comment regarding the
>deterrent value of firearms: would you live in a neighborhood that advertised
>itself as a guaranteed gun free neighborhood? And promised that no cops
>would patrol to violate the rule?
No - but I would live (and have lived) in places where cops were allowed guns, but nobody else was. Your analogy is weak, because pilots are not cops, and nor should they be. I am fine with marshalls being on aircraft with guns, because they are properly trained, not identifiable by would-be hijackers, and they are not attempting to fly the plane. I am not fine with pilots having guns.
It is an easily-proven statistic that where guns are allowed to people other than law enforcement officials on the grounds of safety, innocent people are *more* likely to be shot, not less likely.
>I think there is no very good solution, but this is better than the
>alternatives. Having some guns would make airlines more difficult targets
>than having no guns, and as you say, having *all* guns just might
>encourage a terrorist to count on it. Hopefully, they'll stick with other
>methods and leave airliners alone again, and no pilot will have cause to ever
>draw a weapon.
What evidence is there to suggest that having guns will make airlines more difficult targets? I've seen none whatsoever. Let's stick to verifiable facts, not offer speculative statements as fact, please.
>That would be a moot exercise. Airlines cannot prohibit their pilots from
>being trained as FFDO's and carrying their issued sidearms. Your odds are
>good though, that your pilots won't be armed. We now have 45 or so out of
>90,000 pilots who are armed. But you won't know for sure. That's really the
>only value of the program: nobody will know which have firearms and which
Incorrect. Airlines flying overseas will have to abide by the laws of the country or countries to which they are flying, and I will fly on non-US carriers that have to abide by laws overseas which do not allow their pilots to carry guns. If I have to travel inside the US, wherever possible I will do it by car, bus or train rather than fly on a US carrier that allows weapons on its aircraft.
There is no value whatsoever to the program. Potential hijackers knowing that they have a 99.9% chance of the pilots being unarmed will not even slightly be disuaded by this program. (That figure isn't just pulled out of thin air - 45 of 90,000 pilots is only 0.05%. Figure on average two pilots on each plane in modern aircraft, and you have a 0.1% chance of being on an aircraft with an armed pilot.)
Do you really think hijackers would care in the least that their suicide hijackings *might* fail because of an armed pilot on one out of every one thousand aircraft that they hijacked? Of course not.
This is a shameful PR
exercise orchestrated by the gun lobby, nothing more.