You ignored my response to the list which speaks to your points (sent = 6/2/2003 at 18:21 PDT): What did the September 11 batch of terrorists do? They exploited = weaknesses in the system. If word gets out security gives old folks a = free pass through security with just a cursory check, how long until = some terrorist figures that out and turns his or her grandma into a mule = to (try to) smuggle Bad Stuff through security? I have deeper philosophical issues with the whole security thing in = general and believe that with the exception of checking for explosives = that TSA is a waste of time and money, but I think scrutinizing = everyone--regardless of the perceived threat they pose--is essential. You also ignored two earlier responses to the list that spells out why I = think pilots shouldn't be armed. This first (sent recently, not sure = exactly when):=20 I'm sort of ambivalent about guns in the cockpit. Not that I'm = particularly anti-gun per se (although I do agree that the logistical = issues of arming the cockpit would be challenging), just that I think we = (as a society) are spending a whole lot of effort belaboring a moot = point. Why do I think it is moot? Because no serious terrorist group is = going to try to hijack a plane again. The rules have changed. The = pilots, cabin crew, and passengers won't sit by and let a hijack = succeed; they'll all resist. The most any would-be hijackers could hope = to accomplish would be kill a few innocents before they themselves were = killed. 9/11 succeeded because the terrorist exploited the prevailing = doctrine for dealing with hijackers. The emphasis on sky marshals and = guns in the cockpit and ludicrous security screening is, frankly, = closing the barn door after the horses have all escaped. I maintain that = a 9/11-style hijacking would fail even if we had the same security we = did before 9/11. Instead of addressing things that have already happened, we should be = emphasizing closing the next loopholes. The potential for a bombs in a = suitcase scares me the most. And when that is covered with legitimate = screening (not window dressing screening), what's next? I bet a dozen = guys armed with automatic weapons could blow by (or through) a security = checkpoint and be on a plane before anyone realized what was going on. = What about the airport perimeter? A set of bolt cutters and you're = through the fence. Load up a Hummer with guys and automatic weapons and = you think a couple cops driving around in black-and-whites could stop = them? So I contend that since the people on a plane will no longer cooperate = with hijackers, a "conventional" hijacking is no longer the path of = least resistance for a ne'er do well and so we needn't focus on = addressing that possibility. Instead we should be trying to head off the = next path of least resistance. ...and this one (sent 4/7/2003 at 15:43 PST): I'm not the least bit afraid. But I think the idea of arming pilots is a stupid solution to a = non-existent problem. No one will successfully hijack a plane again, and = it won't be because pilots are armed. It will be because passengers and = cabin crew will resist, cockpit doors have been hardened, and pilots = won't cooperate. The 9/11 hijackers exploited the prevailing regimen for dealing with = hijackers. That loophole has been closed. It doesn't matter if hijackers = have guns, box cutters, golf clubs, or finger nail files--they aren't = going to get control of another plane. So we're spending jillions of dollars beefing up security to keep box = cutters, golf clubs, and finger nail files off planes. And we're = creating a new set of procedures, policies, government bureaucracy, and = headaches having to deal with armed pilots. Now we have to deal with = guns in secure areas, what to do with them if the plane flies to = international destinations that won't allow guns in cockpits, etc., etc. = The next attack will exploit some new loophole. Instead of spending all = this time, money, and effort closing the barn door after the horse has = escaped, we should be figuring how to thwart new types of attacks. I respect your enthusiasm for your beliefs, but I'm beginning to get the = impression that your notion of debate is restating the same points with = dogmatic conviction. You may very well be in the majority with your = beliefs, but repeating yourself louder doesn't make a convincing = argument. Respectfully, Jon -- Jon Wright mailto:jwright@xxxxxxxxxxx 425-635-0338 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: <damiross2@xxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:55 PM Subject: Re: No Impact on Security, Passenger Wait Times as TSA Reduces = Screener Jobs... > The security we are talking about is aviation related. Kazinsky, et = al, didn't > attack aviation sites. >=20 > It still boils down to this: There needs to be common sense in the = checking of > pax at airports. Don't choose the old lady for a strip search. Don't = hassel > the man in his 70's and prevent him from going through security with = his Medal > of Honor. >=20 > Call me a bigot - I really don't give a damn anymore. Old white = ladies, > babies, and other non-Middle East persons should go through security. = They > should not, however, be given a random secondary security check. In = fact, the > only secondary searches should be on those who are high risk such as = those that > attacked the USA on 9/11. >=20 > David R > A BIG believer in giving pilots the tool they need to prevent = hijacking - a GUN!