Skip to main content
Yahoo! News - U.S. Won't Allow Guns in Cockpits



WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government said Tuesday that pilots will not be allowed to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airplanes.
I want to see if I understand this. Commercial airline pilots deal with dozens (hundreds) of issues on a near-constant basis, especially during take-off and landing. They are trained not to panic, to think in a ordering, logical manner, to react in specific ways to prevent disaster. They are exceptionally motivated, trained, and skilled. A fraction of the general population could handle but a fraction of the workload they accept each and every working day.



But, by golly, they're too stupid to carry a gun at work.



If you grabbed a commercial pilot and a police officer at random, chances are you'd be happier with giving the pilot a gun. Sad, but true.



But, heck Disney's Senator has the word:



Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., who chairs the Commerce Committee, said guns would not be needed as long as pilots kept cockpit doors locked while in flight.



"You can put the rule in right now and cut out all the argument about pistols and stun guns," Hollings said.
Didn't help on 9/11, did it? Arming pilots is all about options, giving the flight crew another option in dealing with a potential take-over. Same with allowing the flight attendants to carry stun-guns. Heck, yes, let 'em! The more options the better.



The argument seems to revolve around philosophies, namely proactive (aggressive) versus reactive (passive). Locking the door is passive/reactive. You put your faith in all the other security systems (and all those in place prior to 9/11 failed, remember). Arming the pilot and their flight crews (to one extent or another) is proactive and allows a proactive response to an incident. They can actually do something. I'm not sure why so many are opposed to that?



Except, of course, that they just don't like guns.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more