Yahoo! News - U.S. Won't Allow Guns in Cockpits

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government said Tuesday that pilots will not be allowed to have guns in the cockpits of commercial airplanes.

I want to see if I understand this. Commercial airline pilots deal with dozens (hundreds) of issues on a near-constant basis, especially during take-off and landing. They are trained not to panic, to think in a ordering, logical manner, to react in specific ways to prevent disaster. They are exceptionally motivated, trained, and skilled. A fraction of the general population could handle but a fraction of the workload they accept each and every working day.

But, by golly, they're too stupid to carry a gun at work.

If you grabbed a commercial pilot and a police officer at random, chances are you'd be happier with giving the pilot a gun. Sad, but true.

But, heck Disney's Senator has the word:

Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., who chairs the Commerce Committee, said guns would not be needed as long as pilots kept cockpit doors locked while in flight.

"You can put the rule in right now and cut out all the argument about pistols and stun guns," Hollings said.

Didn't help on 9/11, did it? Arming pilots is all about options, giving the flight crew another option in dealing with a potential take-over. Same with allowing the flight attendants to carry stun-guns. Heck, yes, let 'em! The more options the better.

The argument seems to revolve around philosophies, namely proactive (aggressive) versus reactive (passive). Locking the door is passive/reactive. You put your faith in all the other security systems (and all those in place prior to 9/11 failed, remember). Arming the pilot and their flight crews (to one extent or another) is proactive and allows a proactive response to an incident. They can actually do something. I'm not sure why so many are opposed to that?

Except, of course, that they just don't like guns.