Friday, February 21, 2003

Very few pilots will be able to carry guns initially & I'd imagine very few will want to submit to the additional testing & assinine regulations in the long run.

" 'There are going to be fewer pilots who are willing to go through an extensive vetting process,' Bates said. 'Unsafe and unworkable' is how he characterized the TSA's requirement that pilots carry guns in locked cases inside a bag when going to and from the airport."

"Because of financial constraints, only 48 pilots will be chosen to begin training, possibly in a month, the agency said...Though Congress didn't give the TSA any money to train pilots or pay for guns, the agency assembled $500,000 from various accounts for a test program. The agency has asked for $20 million to run a broader program."

"We're focusing on their ability to be a good federal law enforcement officer in a crisis situation at 48,000 feet," said TSA spokesman Robert Johnson.

To view a previous rant or two that addresses the first quote look here.

I'll take the third quote next: The object of arming pilots is not to make them federal, state or local law enforcement. This political manuveur is to prevent the support of the government of arming civilians, nothing more. the object of arming pilots is to give them another option besides being killed by a terrorist or an American F-16 if something happens.

Now, the middle quote concerning cost: Gunsite if I remember correctly offered free training for any pilots. The screening proposed is often redundant & totally unnecessary, so that's another big reduction in an estimate. Finally, have any pilot who wishes to be armed supply his/her own pistol & holster. Spend $100 on a lunch to come up with some guidelines for the training ( shoud we place the target 5 feet or a more realistic 5.25 feet away for the final test?) & there ya have it. $100 to arm pilots so they are able to shoot at a human attempting to get through a 2.5 foot door that's 5 feet away. I'm just wondering how did they come up with $20 million for that?

But the government could have cheap, very effective security anytime it wanted to by simply not infringing upon the citizens (including, but not limited to pilots) right to be armed & defend themselves. To bad the peoples' safety isn't really an objective.

No comments: