simonov jr
New member
:barf:
Am I the only one who thinks taking this position on this issue at this time will cost them...LARGE?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/home/archives/pdf/021202.pdf
Here are some exerpts:
February 12, 2002
Public Docket Office
Department of Transportation
Re: Request for Comments, Firearms, Less-Than-Lethal Weapons, and Emergency
Services on Commercial Air Flights
The Brady Center submits these comments in response to proposals to allow
pilots to carry firearms on commercial flights. In the wake of the horror of September 11,
it is entirely appropriate to subject our air travel security system to rigorous
reexamination to ensure that airliners never again become terrorist weapons of mass
destruction. However, we have serious concerns about the wisdom of a policy that would
require, or even allow, commercial pilots to carry guns onto airliners as a means of
ensuring the security of planes and their passengers.
First, there is no question that there are risks associated with bringing a firearm
onto an airliner, even under color of legal authority. The firearm brought on board for
the use of the pilot may itself end up being used against the crew or innocent passengers.
There is a grave risk that the legal firearm brought
aboard the plane by the pilot or crew will itself be the object of a terrorist’s skyjacking
plan or even the disruptive conduct of an intoxicated or hostile passenger.
Second, it may be unwise to invest the pilot or crew, as opposed to trained law
enforcement personnel, with the responsibility for the use of lethal force in defense of the
airplane and its passengers. Even if pilots and their crew were trained in
firearms safety and use, appropriate use of force and shoot/don’t shoot scenarios, it is
difficult to imagine that their competence could approach that of trained law enforcement
personnel. School systems faced with violent acts committed by students did not respond
by arming teachers and administrators. Companies faced with the possibility of violent
acts from customers nevertheless have insisted that their employees remain “gun free”
while at work.
Third, it is problematic to implement a high-risk strategy of enabling pilots and
crew members to bring guns onto planes, when other low-risk strategies to prevent
terrorist violence are not being pursued. The highest priority of homeland security
should be prevention. In the specific context of air travel, this means intensifying
passenger and luggage screening at airports, and perhaps changing the design and
equipment of airplanes to prevent easy cockpit access for unauthorized personnel. The
threat of terrorism, however, is hardly confined to the commandeering of commercial
aircraft. In the broader societal context, homeland security also requires sensible laws
and policies to prevent terrorists from having access to guns. Guns and terrorism go
together. There are obvious and sensible
strategies that should be implemented to reduce access to guns by terrorists and criminals.
These include requiring background checks on all gun sales, retaining records of gun
purchases for law enforcement purposes and repealing senseless statutory constraints on
the regulatory and enforcement powers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
www.sarahbradycampagin.org: Make fun of an anti; it really pisses them off.
Am I the only one who thinks taking this position on this issue at this time will cost them...LARGE?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/home/archives/pdf/021202.pdf
Here are some exerpts:
February 12, 2002
Public Docket Office
Department of Transportation
Re: Request for Comments, Firearms, Less-Than-Lethal Weapons, and Emergency
Services on Commercial Air Flights
The Brady Center submits these comments in response to proposals to allow
pilots to carry firearms on commercial flights. In the wake of the horror of September 11,
it is entirely appropriate to subject our air travel security system to rigorous
reexamination to ensure that airliners never again become terrorist weapons of mass
destruction. However, we have serious concerns about the wisdom of a policy that would
require, or even allow, commercial pilots to carry guns onto airliners as a means of
ensuring the security of planes and their passengers.
First, there is no question that there are risks associated with bringing a firearm
onto an airliner, even under color of legal authority. The firearm brought on board for
the use of the pilot may itself end up being used against the crew or innocent passengers.
There is a grave risk that the legal firearm brought
aboard the plane by the pilot or crew will itself be the object of a terrorist’s skyjacking
plan or even the disruptive conduct of an intoxicated or hostile passenger.
Second, it may be unwise to invest the pilot or crew, as opposed to trained law
enforcement personnel, with the responsibility for the use of lethal force in defense of the
airplane and its passengers. Even if pilots and their crew were trained in
firearms safety and use, appropriate use of force and shoot/don’t shoot scenarios, it is
difficult to imagine that their competence could approach that of trained law enforcement
personnel. School systems faced with violent acts committed by students did not respond
by arming teachers and administrators. Companies faced with the possibility of violent
acts from customers nevertheless have insisted that their employees remain “gun free”
while at work.
Third, it is problematic to implement a high-risk strategy of enabling pilots and
crew members to bring guns onto planes, when other low-risk strategies to prevent
terrorist violence are not being pursued. The highest priority of homeland security
should be prevention. In the specific context of air travel, this means intensifying
passenger and luggage screening at airports, and perhaps changing the design and
equipment of airplanes to prevent easy cockpit access for unauthorized personnel. The
threat of terrorism, however, is hardly confined to the commandeering of commercial
aircraft. In the broader societal context, homeland security also requires sensible laws
and policies to prevent terrorists from having access to guns. Guns and terrorism go
together. There are obvious and sensible
strategies that should be implemented to reduce access to guns by terrorists and criminals.
These include requiring background checks on all gun sales, retaining records of gun
purchases for law enforcement purposes and repealing senseless statutory constraints on
the regulatory and enforcement powers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
www.sarahbradycampagin.org: Make fun of an anti; it really pisses them off.
