Strong arguments abound on both sides of the debate about arming commercial airlines with guns in the cockpit.
Given the fact that our nation’s security measures must drastically improve and that our House and Senate — in bipartisan fashion — have passed bills in favor of arming pilots, the debate no longer appears centered on whether to give pilots guns but when and how.
Negotiating the critical details of this new era in American aviation must be the focus now of airlines, pilots’ unions and the federal government.
We must have some type of lethal defense on commercial aircraft. Another plane might never again be used as a weapon, but we can’t depend on that hope. Our nation is still woefully lacking in adequate airport security. The recent story about New York reporters boarding planes with box cutters, corkscrews, razor knives and pepper spray emphasizes the point and serves as another reason to provide additional security on planes.
The taser guns some airlines argue is the "best overall weapon solution" is no match for a terrorist. True, law enforcement uses these weapons, but not when their lives are threatened. Officers confronted with lethal force respond with lethal force. Pilots charged with protecting their plane must be given the same option.
Of course, the measure comes with major concerns and a list of unanswered questions. Pilots must be responsible for keeping the cockpit safe, not playing security guard for the entire plane. The training they will undergo must be of the highest quality and kept current throughout their careers. This will be costly. Certainly that, and liability concerns, are among the reasons airlines are balking at the notion. But we cannot approach security with half-steps.
Pilots uncomfortable with the notion of toting a gun shouldn’t have to. Arming pilots shouldn’t discourage the use of armed air marshals, either. We need a combination of defense methods that include top-notch training and communication between all crew members on a plane.
Shoring up our security in the skies won’t deter terrorists bent on hurting us again. They will simply look for another weakness to exploit. But the changes occurring in the airline industry should serve as an example of the changes the rest of us may have to make in so many areas of our lives in the coming years.
It isn’t enough anymore to base decisions on whether people feel safe. We must employ methods and measures that make us safe, as much as possible. It is a costly, controversial and difficult process, but worthwhile.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
