Dear Editor:
I am completely against the idea of arming our nation’s airline pilots as protection against terrorist’s. I believe that our planes are now safer then ever from internal in-flight takeovers from terrorists.
Since 9/11/01, our conception of the goal of hijacker has been changed forever. Up until 9/11, we mostly assumed that a hijacker wanted to take a plane to a foreign or neutral country with demands for freedom or material goods. Therefore, we assumed that at some point the passengers would reach safety and that challenges to the hijackers could bring disastrous results. However, the rules have changed. We now know that a hijacking could, and most likely, will lead to death to all those involved. This is precisely the reason why we do not need to arm pilots to increase airline safety. As passengers now know, that hijackers intend on their death, they will become more reactive and unified in their takeover of potential hijackers. What are four or five hijackers with paper cutters going to do against anywhere from 60 to 200 passengers on a plane? While working in unison such hijackers could be overpowered. Therefore, the in-flight portions of our plane rides have now become less dangerous then ever and there is absolutely no need to arm pilots with guns. As with other efforts to manage threats, the course most often chosen is one that serves to reduce anxiety but does not really serve to reduce the risk. As an example, how risky would it be to have loaded weapons in the plane in the hands of pilots who would, in comparison to law enforcement, have only minimal time training in the use of such weapons? I feel much safer with the pilots not having guns then I would them having guns.
Ronald J. Coughlin, Ed.D., President
The New Jersey Violence Prevention Institute