Guns vs ?

[enigma]

Who is really pushing to keep guns out the cockpit, and why?

One hint, it wasn't law enforcement.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

How long do we have to wait for the answer?

 

[Huck]

Federales, and management. Both would be held accountable when Captain Psychotic goes berserk and shoots his ex-lover flight attendant at Hotpants Airlines. Pan Am had a pilot put her in a wood chipper. It could happen. (But I still want guns in the cockpit!)

 

[TWA Dude]

It's the Communists!
No, it's the Fascists!
Anarchists!
Existentialists!

But seriously, I think it'sthe conspiracy theorists that are ruining this county.

(that's a joke, folks)

 

[EagleRJ]

It's simply the liberal hand-wringers in Congress who can't bear to admit that they've identified a valid need for firearms outside of law enforcement. Hopefully they can park the partisan politics before anyone else gets killed. This is a national security issue- it's not to be confused with the Second Amendment or the left's "proliferation of guns" fears.

 

[kilomike]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Nope! Incorrect on all counts above. It's the airlines. It's a cost issue, folks. It costs money to have the training, manuals, and the guns themselves.

Sorry folks, it just comes down to money.

 

[alimaui]

I dont know, but I think the major costs involved would probably be the training.

Possibly some federally funded grants could cover the overhead costs of this, and I am sure that the pilots who seriously want this would be able to do the training on their own time. I doubt the pilots pushing this are doing so for an extra paid day off every couple months....

Ali
who thinks there are a few more "windows" to open even if the "door" is closed...

 

[prodigal]

2nd amendment

Of course it's a seccond amendment issue. If there were not a second amendment issue in this country we wouldn't even be discussing guns in the cockpit; they would have been there already and some 3,000 lost souls would most likely still be alive.
Assinine government-think.

 

[enigma]

Who is really pushing to keep guns out the cockpit, and why?

One hint, it wasn't law enforcement.

According to a press release from the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, the main lobbying force against the TSA allowing guns in the cockpit (which by the way, is legal according to the law that established the TSA.) was......................................

Drum roll please,

The Air Transport Association.

It seems that the ATA has been trying to limit Captains authority for years and they saw guns in the cockpit as a step in the opposite direction; therefore they lobbied the Bush Administration vigorously against allowing guns in the cockpit.

http://www.secure-skies.org

 

[skydiverdriver]

Actually, it's the President. It seems a bit strange, since he was the one that got the Texas CC permit law passed, but also Mineta, who used to be an anti-gun congressman, and the new head of the TSA, all say guns are a bad idea. I agree with Enigma, and think it's a good idea, but with all these repubicans against us, I don't see how it will ever happen. It's funny that the law allowing guns was passed by congress, which is mostly run by Democrats these days. Perhaps there is some deal going on where they agreed to never let it actually happen.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: 2nd amendment

Of course it's a seccond amendment issue.

I disagree. Is the fact that passengers aren't allowed to carry guns on board a 2nd Amendment issue?


This isn't about gun rights or liberals or even the NRA. It's about cost and risk.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Re: Guns vs ?

It seems that the ATA has been trying to limit Captains authority for years and they saw guns in the cockpit as a step in the opposite direction

I certainly agree about the ATA and captain's authority but guns are a completely unrelated issue. The ATA hates paying for anything like TCAS and EGPWS thus only does so reluctantly. Their goal is profit. Pesky captains can cost an airline money. If guns in the cockpit were a money-maker we'd have them.

 

[enigma]

I certainly agree about the ATA and captain's authority but guns are a completely unrelated issue. The ATA hates paying for anything like TCAS and EGPWS thus only does so reluctantly. Their goal is profit. Pesky captains can cost an airline money. If guns in the cockpit were a money-maker we'd have them.

Almost, but guns equal power, and management is more afraid of pilots having power than they are of another 9/11. I think that this is a case of being more afraid of the devil you know, than the devil you don't. Management knows that an all powerful pilot group can give them fits, while they can only surmise what amount of trouble the terrorists can give them. It seems that they would rather take the chance on giving terrorists a break, than take the certainty of more powerful pilots.

regards

 

[avbug]

Respectfully, I'd suggest that weapons don't equal power. Weapons equal an option, which may be used to sieze power, abuse power, or support power. Firearms are only tools.

The posession of firearms, and the regulation for or against it, is part of the leverage of power.

Risk, money and power aren't issues. It's all about leverage for each party of interest. The only exception to that rule would seem to be those in the cockpit who feel that the issue is one of personal security. I won't disagree, but before this can be broached, the leverage must be balanced.

Political interests must be allowed to save face, corporate management must be assured that their interests are protected, and the public must be educated. It can all be done, but will require a more concerted effort than what is presently under way. The APSA is on the right track, but it's going to take a much broader effort to gain acceptance than what has been felt, so far.

Nothing is set in stone.

 

[enigma]

Respectfully, I'd suggest that weapons don't equal power. Weapons equal an option, which may be used to sieze power, abuse power, or support power. Firearms are only tools.

The posession of firearms, and the regulation for or against it, is part of the leverage of power.

I guess that I was being a little too simplistic. Thanks for the clarification.

regards