Amazon.com Widgets

If pilots were equipped with firearms, would this truly make airplanes safer for passengers?

  • Yes it would

    In case of a hijacking, pilots have something to defend themselves with in the rare case that they were able to access the cockpit. If they had a defense weapon, it could decrease the chances of them getting hold of the plane's controls. They should have it in a secret area for emergency situations only. (God forbid that it does).

  • I think they should be armed

    You are handing pilots a pressurized metal can with you inside. A pilot could crash it much easier than shooting each passenger with bullets that lack the penetration for more than one person. Also pilots who choose to carry handguns undergo the training Air Marshals. And know what to do they won't just toss guns to any pilot who wants one

  • Arming Pilots is a Good Idea

    Sit down with someone for an hour and they can have the basics of a handgun figured out. All this nonsense about training is just that, nonsense. Training to fly a plane is another matter; I'm sure if someone can master that they can at least grasp the basics of a handgun. I'm not referring to field-stripping, and other drills required of a soldier. Handguns in general have a few simple basic controls which anyone who isn't absolutely braindead should be able to figure out in a few minutes. Knowing when to shoot and such isn't something that teachable -it's a matter of commonsense, that in my opinion, if it doesn't exist within you beforehand, you probably shouldn't be flying a plane. I already trust the pilot with my life for flying, I wouldn't mind trusting them for security as well.

  • Yes it would be safer

    The fact that pilots would be armed in the airplane would almost one hundred percent protect the passengers and civilians from what happened during 9/11 or anything in the future. The pilots could be trained to keep the weapon secured and have a background in firearms to keep it under control.

  • I think pilots should have a gun in the cockpit.

    I agree that this would make the flight somewhat safer, though I'm not sure how much, because pilots could defend the cockpit. Although I'm more in favor of having a couple of air marshals with firearms stationed at various parts of the plane, I think giving the pilot a gun would at least protect the cockpit from being overrun, and that would give passengers some peace of mind. The plane could perhaps keep flying no matter what else was happening.

  • I do think that airplanes would be safer if the pilots had firearms, because they could defend the cockpit.

    If pilots were allowed to carry firearms onto airplanes, in the case of a hijacking, they could stop the hijackers before they took over the cockpit, thereby stopping any chance they have of flying the plane into buildings. I think 9/11 has changed the way we have to think, and the safety of the pilots, passengers and people on the ground is what we have to think about.

    Posted by: MundaneEdward45
  • I am in favor of pilots being equipped with firearms; this would allow them to defend themselves and passengers in case of a hijacking situation.

    A pilot who was properly trained and equipped with a firearm could be a huge asset in a dangerous hijacking situation. Current hijackers seem to rely on the fact that they can overtake a pilot and control the airplane. By taking that factor out of their fight, you have a good chance to reduce the amount of hijackings in the world.

    Posted by: LudicrousCaleb80
  • Keep Guns secret

    Do not tell the public that airline piolets have guns on them. Keep it secret and so that when the hijackers attempt to hijack the plane, the piolet will have a not so pleasent surprise for them. Piolots should use a small enough, special made bullit, that would not allow itself the ability to exit the human body which would then defeat all argument of a piolet hurting an inocent passenger along with the hijacker(s) being elimated. Just big enough to kill the target, yet small enough to harm others.

  • I agree that this would make the flight somewhat safer, though I'm not sure how much, because pilots could defend the cockpit.

    Although I'm more in favor of having a couple of air marshals with firearms stationed at various parts of the plane, I think giving the pilot a gun would at least protect the cockpit from being overrun, and that would give passengers some peace of mind. The plane could perhaps keep flying no matter what else was happening.

    Posted by: AlondraH
  • No, because I think locked cockpits are a safer alternative to armed airline crews.

    I think locked, bullet-proof cockpits are a safer alternative and better terrorism preventative than armed airline crews. Firearms can always be wrestled away from the "good guys" by villains, and good guys can turn bad if they are disgruntled workers, or just having a really bad day. Locked cockpits serve as a preventative because terrorists know they can't hijack the plane.

    Posted by: Th4Fire
  • No it wouldnt

    Do you know how many planes ACTUALLY get high jacked? Very, very few. Having pilots be armed is not a necessity and simply creates greater complications and risks, even the risk of someone stealing a firearm they wouldnt have been able to get on to a plane otherwise, and using it to highjacked the plane. People are overly freaked out about terrorism. The truth is, our airways are extremely safe.

  • They aren't trained for it, won't save any money, and brings up major international legal issues.

    It just seems like if you are going to protect a plane with anyone it should be people with extensive firearms training. The other problem is that this approach requires that 100 percent of pilots or co-pilots agree to have a gun on the plane. Except that 100 percent of the population doesn't own a gun and we have no reason to believe every pilot would. Once you start talking about 70-80% of pilots having guns (or whatever number it would be on a practical level) you are leaving a big hole in your security plans either way. Rand Paul has suggested that 100% of pilots should have a gun, which begs the question does Paul plan on firing pilots or co-pilots who refuse this? Seems like keeping skilled pilots should be the priority here given the frequency of hijackings in America. Not to mention the difficulties in having pilots work within international laws on handgun possession (once their plane hits the ground they are operating on another countries gun laws). At the end of the day we still need some kind of ground security to stop people from bringing weapons onto planes, so I'm not certain this will save any money.

  • They aren't trained for it, won't save any money, and brings up major international legal issues.

    It just seems like if you are going to protect a plane with anyone it should be people with extensive firearms training. The other problem is that this approach requires that 100 percent of pilots or co-pilots agree to have a gun on the plane. Except that 100 percent of the population doesn't own a gun and we have no reason to believe every pilot would. Once you start talking about 70-80% of pilots having guns (or whatever number it would be on a practical level) you are leaving a big hole in your security plans either way. Rand Paul has suggested that 100% of pilots should have a gun, which begs the question does Paul plan on firing pilots or co-pilots who refuse this? Seems like keeping skilled pilots should be the priority here given the frequency of hijackings in America. Not to mention the difficulties in having pilots work within international laws on handgun possession (once their plane hits the ground they are operating on another countries gun laws). At the end of the day we still need some kind of ground security to stop people from bringing weapons onto planes, so I'm not certain this will save any money.

  • Policemen Are Not Pilots In the Same Way Pilots Are Not Policemen

    It's been proven the unprofessional people at anything are more likely than not to turn a bad situation worse than if they did nothing at all. If the situation is so desperate that we need guns in the cockpit to stop another 9/11 attack then those guns should be in the hands on on-board trained and certified professionals - not some adrenaline pumped pilot who has the job of both safely navigating the plane while having a shoot-out in aisle three. A plane at 30,000 feet is not the Wild Wild West.

  • Policemen Are Not Pilots In the Same Way Pilots Are Not Policemen

    It's been proven the unprofessional people at anything are more likely than not to turn a bad situation worse than if they did nothing at all. If the situation is so desperate that we need guns in the cockpit to stop another 9/11 attack then those guns should be in the hands on on-board trained and certified professionals - not some adrenaline pumped pilot who has the job of both safely navigating the plane while having a shoot-out in aisle three. A plane at 30,000 feet is not the Wild Wild West.

  • The pilots can turn on the passengers and take over the airplane

    Pilots can easily take over the airplane or the pilots can be terrorist them selves. This is not a good idea people need to find a better way to stop terrorist attacks or to find a way to protect people from harmful weapons. The last thing we need is someone we never met to have a weapon on a airplane were no protection is.

  • Pilots fly, they dont shoot

    Usually terrorists have made months of planning to take over an aircraft. Simply sealing the cabin doors and having armed security guards on each flight would take care of safety. Pilots should concentrate on flying, not on preparing themselves for battle. A couple of plain clothes armed security guards would suffice.

  • I do not think pilots should have guns because

    If the pilot were to miss the target the bullet could go through the window causing air suffocation to every body inside which would be worse than the plane crashing or the passengers could feel unsafe on the plane with a man with a gun. Or the gun could be a nuisance to the pilot while it's in his holster and he's controlling the plane. That is why that is not a good idea

  • I do not think that making pilots responsible for their own security by giving them guns makes the airplane safer for passengers, because it would distract them from their job.

    I think that giving pilots guns and implying that they might need to defend themselves only distracts them from their jobs and, by extension, actually makes passengers less safe. I think having armed and trained guards on planes is a far safer choice, rather than arming the pilots.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • I do not believe that pilots equipped with firearms would make airplanes safer for passengers, since too many things can go wrong if a firearm falls into the wrong hands.

    I believe pilots carrying firearms is an excessive use of control on an airplane filled with innocent passengers. If people who wish to do harm on an airplane are aware that the pilots are equipped with firearms, they may find a way to use the firearms themselves. Also, if pilots have a problem on a plane with an unruly passenger, they may be inclined to use the power that carrying a firearm brings, and use it at the wrong time, which could possibly bring unwanted casualties to a seemingly routine problem on an airplane.

    Posted by: AbsorbedWilliams

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.