Re-opening the debate to arm pilots?

Some are apparently questioning whether pilots should be armed. My friend Tracy Price looks at the arguments in a new argument.

In a recent interview, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida stated: "The need for guns in the cockpit is just nearly not [sic] as acute as it once was. There are all kind [sic] of screening systems, there is now the reinforced cockpit door, there are air marshals, we now have a lots of checks and balances." Hearing this, some might ask, "Do airline pilots still need to be armed?" The answer is, "Absolutely — now more than ever."

Consider this: Arming pilots is not a new idea. In fact, airline pilots flew armed in large numbers from the dawn of commercial aviation to 1987 with no record of incident. When the federal government disarmed pilots in 1987, many pilots predicted cockpit takeover attempts — including the late Captain Victor Saracini, who, in horrible irony, was the captain of United flight 175 on September 11, 2001 when his Boeing 767 was hijacked and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. It was the disarming of pilots in 1987 that inevitably led to the September 11 cockpit takeovers. . . .

Labels: ,


Anonymous Keith said...

Coming at that from first principles, if someone is not fit to be armed, are they fit to be out of parental supervision, jail or mental institution? let alone fit to be trusted to pilot a plane?

1/03/2008 1:13 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Thanks, Keith. As I have written many times, commercial pilots were required to have a handgun with them from the 1920s to 1963 and allowed to have one with them up until 1979, and yet no one can point to one single problem that developed for this policy. All these pilots were trustworthy without any licensing requirements.

1/03/2008 3:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home