I was just
about to toss up a post asking whether there was really anybody
who had any objections to letting airline pilots carry guns on flights. After reading a few articles, though, it does seem clear that there is at least one pretty good possible objection.
It changes the dynamics of hijackings entirely.
One of the things the WTC and Pentagon hijackers taught us is that getting guns on to planes is prohibitively difficult or at least needlessly risky. Yet with this reform every flight would start with a gun already on-board and in a sense in play. The question would only be who managed to get their hands on it.
On balance, I think arming the pilots is a good idea, and you could take plenty of precautions to deter or dash the plans of hijackers whose whole plan was to enter the plane unarmed and somehow get control of the captain's weapon.
The one idea that seems clearly wrong, though, is the pilots' association's proposal to leave the decision to the individual pilots over whether or not to carry a weapon. I think we want to arm 'em or not arm 'em. After all, this isn't about the pilots. It's about the safety of the passengers and even more the safety of untold numbers of other innocents in targets of opportunity across the country. Let's decide whether this makes commercial aviation more or less safe, and then tell the pilots how it's gonna be.
I mean, imagine having your travel agent telling you, it's a widebody, you're in first class by the window, and Captain Scroggins is known to pack some serious heat ...