July 18, 2002
Pilots and guns revisited
>
Thomas Sowell
In a stunning reversal, California's liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara=20
Boxer has come out in favor of allowing airline pilots to carry guns if they=
=20
wish, while the Bush administration opposes it. Meanwhile, the House of=20
Representatives has passed a bill to permit pilots to carry guns by a vote o=
f=20
310 to 113.
Although Mrs. Boxer is a staunch supporter of gun control, on this=20
particular issue she clearly understands it is better to have an armed pilot=
=20
than to have to order a military plane to shoot down one of our own=20
commercial airliners, full of innocent people, because hijackers have taken=20
it over and are ready to do a repeat of last September 11.
We can only hope the administration is as willing as Mrs. Boxer to=20
rethink its position of opposing the arming of pilots. But the Transportatio=
n=20
Department remains closed-minded on the issue. When asked by Rep. Don Young,=
=20
Alaska Republican, "Do you really think that 9/11 would have happened if our=
=20
pilots had been armed, as they should have been armed?" a spokesman for the=20
Transportation Department replied: "Our position remains unchanged." It was=20
reminiscent of that famous line: " 'Shut up,' he explained."
Opponents of allowing pilots to be armed have portrayed horror movie=20
visions of pilots and terrorists shooting it out in the aisles of airliners.=
=20
But the main reason for arming pilots is not so that they can re-enact the=20
gunfight at the OK Corral. The main reason for having guns for self-defense=20
anywhere is deterrence.
In John Lott's landmark scholarly study titled "More Guns, Less Crime,"=
=20
he points out that most instances of the successful use of a gun in=20
self-defense do not involve actually firing it. Just showing an aggressor=20
that you have a firearm is usually enough to make him back off. Having it=20
widely known in advance that people in certain places have guns is a huge=20
deterrent to those who might otherwise be inclined to start trouble in those=
=20
places.
Communities that have passed laws permitting any law-abiding citizen to=
=20
carry a gun usually have immediate declines in crimes in the wake of such=20
laws. Both criminals and terrorists prefer to attack unarmed civilians.
Even mass killers labeled "irrational" by the media and by shrinks=20
almost invariably start shooting in places where other people are unarmed,=20
like schools or offices. And they stop when they encounter someone else who=20
is armed. If not, they get stopped, like the assassin at Los Angeles=20
International Airport on July Fourth.
Depending on armed marshals aboard airplanes might be an alternative to=
=20
arming pilots =E2=80=94 if there were any realistic prospect of putting mars=
hals on=20
even half the vast numbers of planes that are flying every day. But=20
hypothetical marshals are no substitute for real pilots with real guns.
Depending on stronger cockpit doors might be another alternative =E2=
=80=94 if=20
all these doors on vast numbers of airliners could be strengthened faster=20
than pilots can get guns. But hypothetical doors are no more protection than=
=20
hypothetical marshals. Tests have also repeatedly shown that the=20
effectiveness of security screening at our airports is also largely=20
hypothetical.
Part of the reason for the knee-jerk reaction to firearms may be that w=
e=20
now have a whole generation of people =E2=80=94 especially in politics and a=
mong=20
opinion-makers in the media =E2=80=94 who have never served in the armed for=
ces and=20
have no experience with guns. Fear from ignorance is understandable. But tha=
t=20
it should be presumptuous ignorance is not.
=20
Are there any possible dangers to arming pilots? Of course. There are danger=
s=20
to your holding this newspaper, which might catch fire and set off a=20
conflagration around you. Nothing on the face of this Earth is 100 percent=20
safe. We already know that flying on a plane with no one on board who is=20
armed to resist terrorists is not safe.
The only meaningful question is which danger is greater. The swiftness=20
with which the idea of arming pilots was dismissed suggests no serious=20
interest in weighing one danger against another. It may be understandable=20
that the Bush administration does not want to buck the media on this=20
emotional issue in an election year. But will the widows and orphans of thos=
e=20
who lose their lives, because there was no armed person on board to thwart=20
terrorists, be understanding?
=20
=20
=20