.
Everyone that is for guns in the cockpit are declaring, "it is a precautionary measure to protect the cockpit," while they should be stating, "it should never get as far as the plane and the flight deck in the first place," instead of adding it as an afterthought. Even after 9-11, airport security remains ineffectual to say the least. In March 2002 a test at 32 airports found that screeners missed 30% of guns, 60% of simulated explosives, and 70% of knives (Bandow). Instead of focusing on this primary problem, the Senate lobbies to arm pilots, making it their responsibility to guard the security of a flight, while this responsibility should be with the people who were in charge of it in the first place, the security screeners at the airport. After all, security is right there in their job title. That makes it their primary duty to be in charge of the security, while a pilot's main duty is to pilot the aircraft. .
It is a federal regulation that all flight desk crewmembers are strapped in during all portions of a flight. They must wear seat and shoulder harnesses during take-off, ascent, descent, and landing, while only required to wear the seat harness during cruise. How will the flight crew use their weapons? In her article for the Post-Gazette of Pittsburgh, Ann McFeatters brings up the analogy of a stagecoach driver defending against a hold-up, trying to control the horses, keeping the coach from overturning and the hysterical passengers out of the line of fire. Most people in favor of the arming of pilots point out that there are two pilots; one could fly the plane, while the other defends the flight deck with the gun. They should realize there are two pilots for a reason, and that that reason is not redundancy. One does not fly the plane while the other does the crossword; two pilots are needed to fly the plane, hence the reason for having two pilots. It seems that ignorance of a subject does not automatically stop someone from speaking about it authoritatively.