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

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,
Post a Comment
Read more

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

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