Lurker,
I started to respond and was interrupted. I'll get back to you. I promise.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Um, guns? No, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a whole lot simpiler to concentrate your efforts on making sure bad people don't get on the plane? Like the system we had before 9/11, which alerted us that people who were linked to bad guys were in the country in the first place, but due to a lack of communication and imagination nothing was done and instead of stopping 9/11 right there... Well, you know the rest, I'm not crying over spilt milk, all I'm saying is that guns shouldn't be relied souly upon. Besides, we already have qualified people with guns on planes, air marshalls.
Can any one tell me whats wrong with good ol' prevention by proper intellgence, and good ol' imagination of threats? Sure, it isn't quiet as exciting, but it certainly works better. To be honest, this thread is just as absurd as the teacher one, and for the same damn reasons.

I'll indulge for a moment that it is in fact easier to determine the thought processes and intentions of a select group of people within a population of 300 million. Assuming that it is, are we to also assume that our intelligence will be perfect? If that's the case, groovy, but call me a pessimist...I'm not sure I'm willing to bet my and my loved ones lives on the fact that people will know the plans of a potential hijacker. Fact is...intel is not a successful alternative to deterrance.

Yup...makes sense. Relying on an armed pilot as the only line of defense is just as ridiculous as relying on intel as the only line of defense.

Yes we do. Yet another line of defense...

The presence of other lines of defense do not negate the potential necessity of another, you can never be 'too safe' only 'not safe enough.' I'm having a very difficult time fathoming what's 'exciting' about stopping a hijacking. Are you suggesting that those that are proponents of armed pilots are under the impression that weapons are exciting?

OK Lurker, rather than dissect your posts and answer line by line, I'm going to respond in whole. Your posts make sense.

I believe that what you are saying is that there is no harm in adding this last line of defense.

Theoretically, this sounds perfectly reasonable however, I disagree because:

There can be no volunteerism about it. If any member of the flight crew elects to carry a weapon, they all should. Why? Because we can no more trust a pilot than we could a passenger to be sane vs insane or noble vs nefarious. Pilots are people too and come in all stripes. It is naive to believe they are somehow greater than a man simply because they've chosen a profession of great responsibility.

Speaking from experience I know that if the airlines can avoid an expense, they will, in fact, they MUST. Forcing pilots to carry weapons (which is what the ultimate result would be), would provide the airlines, and indeed, the government and the public, an excuse to cut expense on security. I'm absolutely convinced of this. ErikOKC illustrates this in a prior post by innocently claiming that securing cockpit doors is too expensive without consiidring for a second, the expense of arming pilots or the effects of this new responsibility on their jobs! Do you see the point?
If pilots carry guns, the FAA will cut their Sky Marshal requirements. It's been very expensive program with a budget that's ballooned far beyond the initial estimate. Remember that the impetus of the current administration is not on policing but on "taking it to the terrorists". I liken this to welfare; provide it for free and people wil stop working for it.
There have already been complaints from airlines about Air Marshals taking prime real estate in first class (where they need to be to protect the cockpit), and the TSA backing up the airline. Give them a fucking inch and they'll take a fucking mile. And...there's no big passenger uproar over this compromised safety but no problem with putting this onous on the pilots.
We've seen this happen time and time again. In fact, this issue is NOT new, it's been a continuous battle since the 1960's! What happened on 9/11 had little to do with ignorance - we had plenty of experience. Magnitude of the plot was the only surprise.

Bring this down to the view of the cockpit and the scenario of cockpit intruders; remove the liklihood of Sky Marshalls, remove the emphasis on pre-screening (and don't forget that although you've now armed the pilot you have not given him any additional authority to screen the passengers himself, or reinforce the door so he bears the responsibility and no aurthority even over his own safety); remove the emphasis on protecting that cockpit door - these things would happen. Now, in most commercial airplanes of the day, (save for the B727 and a B747), there are two pilots in the cockpit with their backs to the door. During take off and landing, (the most attention critical and accident prone times), they are very busy, meanwhile, the flight attendants - the only connection to the cabin, are buckled in for safety. Prime time for someone to make an attempt to break into the cockpit.
The pilots seatbelts aren't just lap belts like the passengers, but come up between their legs, across their laps, and down both sides to a rather large buckle just about where their nuts will collide in a crash. So a shoulder holster for a gun is really difficult for me to picture working while wearing a seatbelt. Certainly couldn't put it down the back of their pants. How about under their pantleg? - where they must fenagle the yoke, yank up their pant leg, unholster the gun, turn around and fire in the space of time it takes an intruder to travel about two feet - without fucking up the instruments or mashing down the yoke, (correctible of course...given you come out of the gun battle alive). I don't know about you but my reflexes just aren't that good. I guess maybe rig it like Robert de Niro in Taxi Driver where they could wip it out their sleeve. That could work I guess. It's crowded in there, man.
Hopefully, there's someone riding in the jumpseat which makes it more crowded but far more risky to an intruder.
I will grant one advantage the pilots have over the intruder(s); in most instances there is room for only one intruder to enter at a time.

You also run the risk of the pilot, now armed, feeling that it is his/her responsibility to leave the cockpit to protect passengers and other crewmembers. That's very noble but he has to exit through that door - and that is makes him a prime target.

Hell, when he/she leaves the cockpit to take a leak, how do they know someone isn't waiting in the bathroom to knock 'em on the head and steal their gun? Another reason that all crew members would be FORCED to carry a gun. If I can think of that, surely a terrorist who contemplates this stuff all day long, can come up with something better.

And all this means that you've set the pilots up to fail one job or the other while compromising the safety of passengers and potential targets on the ground too. It's crazy talk I tell you.

This isn't a matter of gun rights. I'm all for gun rights. This is a matter of practicality.

My husbands been a commercial pilot for nearly 20 years (except for the times like now, when he has no job at all ). We met when I was learning to fly and working for American Airlines, (or it might have been UAL at the time, it's the way of the industry I'm afraid). We both own guns and I believe he still has a concealed weapons permit and uses it. If you're interested in knowing one pilots perspective, my husband was gung ho out of the gate after 9/11 then thought better of it. I'd like to think I had something to do with that but I think what happened was reality sinking in.

I recall his first day back to work after 9/11. We pulled up to the curb at the airport to drop him off. A cop came to tell me to move on while we were kissing good bye. He saw my husbands stripes and with total reverence said "I'm sorry, God bless you man, keep them safe". We were both a little stunned to realize how quickly my husband changed from being a glorified bus driver to a potential hero. And this is what you're expecting of folks like my husband who are already hero's just getting the thing in the air and on the ground for 20 years without killing someone.

Another tidbit: there is no requirement for a private plane, freight companies, or charter services, to reinforce cockpit doors or carry Sky Marshals but those aircraft make equally accurate missiles. There was a teenage boy in Tampa who flew a small Cessna into a bank building not long after 9/11. So the whole, (mostly emotional), speech about terrorists using planes as missiles to support pilots carrying weapons is BS. Sorry for being blunt.

Did I talk your ear plumb off?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

JHC, I haven't abandoned the debate, but my reply is taking a bit more research than expected...

That's OK. I'm not even sure it's a debate. I feel the way I feel for legitimate reasons and I hope I've provided some folks here with a different perspective. I can't really ask for more than comprehension of what I'm saying and a little thought.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn