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

Have I mentioned I saw Monsters vs. Aliens?

It’s possible that Pixar is becoming a blight on the world of animation. Yes, they do some really great work ( The Incredibles , Ratatouille ), but they’ve also done some clunkers ( Cars , Wall-E ). Their greatest sin, though, is that they apparently radiate a variation of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, so that any other animated film – especially if done with CG – is automatically judged inferior. There is some justification to this, but you don’t see every live action film being compared to, say, the films of Ingmar Bergman (well, except by brooding people wearing dark glasses sitting in dim coffee shops smoking clove cigarettes discussing cinema, damn you ). In the traditional film world, it’s accepted that different artists turn out different products. In the animated world, everyone is supposed to match or surpass Pixar, or so it seems. Needless to say, that’s just a crock. Monsters vs Aliens is to your typical Pixar production as Spielberg is to Scorsese. And I h...
2 comments
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered....
Post a 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