Those who “fail to understand and use firearms competently” are making the case for supporters of gun control.

Your comment’s lack of logic doesn’t help your cause.

so sad, too bad.

I want to inject some facts into this discussion.

I saw a report on CNN the other day in which current Federal Air Marshals estimated that less than 1% of US flights each day actually have an Air Marshall on them. Unfortunatley the Air Marshalls do not have the manpower or resources to protect passengers.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html

Regarding a deranged passenger charging into the cockpit, anytime I’ve seen the cockpit door open mid-flight, there was an FA and usually a beverage cart purposely blocking the walkway to avoid this scenario.

Also, a pilot walking through the airport does not carry the firearm on his hip. There are strict protocols followed which include the firearm being securely locked when the pilot is not in the cockpit.

The “pea shooter” in the hands of a weapons trained pilot could have prevented this & saved a couple of hundred lives. Armed pilots are dangerous, dangerous to terrorists!!!

There is minimal danger of an errant pistol shot bringing down a commericial airliner. It would take a hole in the plane body with a diameter measured in feet (not an inch) to cause the rapid decompression necessary to bring a plane down.

Can minor accidents happen with these fire arms? Yes of course, but that doesn’t mean the alternative of unarmed pilots is safer.

As this story proves, pilots are dangerous with guns.

The comments about the pilots loosing their minds mid-flight and going bonkers are unfounded. One already did that and ditched a plane into the Atlantic a few years back. So, I’m not sure what the point is there. The plane could be a weapon. The gun allows for (or gives a greater than 0% chance) a good guy to stop it from becoming one.

The presence of the firearm in the cockpit is an attractive nuisance — a deranged passenger rushing the flight deck when one pilot goes to the lavatory, for example.

And what about the pilot walking through the airport packing heat? Grab his pistol and you’re in business.

I don’t just “feel” less safe thanks to this incident. I know it.

Really!? What if the pilot is a terrorist or is drunk or has a bad mental health day or like what just happened, has an accident of some kind, or the co-pilot is a terrorist and manages to get a hold of the gun? Remember before 9/11 terror in the skies was about gaining control over an aircraft to have demands met, not to crash it, and weapons on the plane, even by pilots, increases this chance just by the fact that the weapons are on board. And yes, we all know how everyone who gets their hands on a weapon uses them responsibly and accidents rarely happen (sarcasm).

The threat of an accident is far more statistically likely than the weapon being used to thwart terror in the skies, as evidenced by this incident (and other statistics on guns). Why don’t we put effort into really making flights safer by preventing threats from reaching the aircraft in the first place - real security measures - such as actually inspecting cargo and improving detectors to sense dangerous substances? THAT would make me feel safer!

I do think a handgun may be unnecessary for pilots. I think they should carry a multipurpose tazer/mace gun, however, if for no other reason than to hear a terrorist pleading in his durka durka voice: “Do not to tase me, bro! Do not to tase me!”

I AM more safe b/c armed pilots can stop terrorists before the Air Force shoots down a whole plane of innocent people. Which would you rather have happen?

I also agree that the pilot should have had the gun holstered & not been touching the gun during the approach.