The TSA is still dragging its feet in allowing pilots to be armed, despite the Congressional mandate, which they continue to interpret, apparently, as an option.

Price said the response to the mechanics of how the weapons will be handled, transported and stored has been mixed.

"We are pleased that we will have immediate access to the weapon on the flight deck," he said. "But in terms of [transportation], it's a huge problem."

Storing the weapon inside a locked box, rather than on their person - where law enforcement officers and armed private citizens transport their handguns - poses a number of problems for pilots, Price believes.

"That just makes us a huge target. It just paints a bulls-eye on every pilot, whether he happens to be an armed pilot or not," he argued.

"Now, all of the sudden, my pilot's uniform gives the criminal element - that may be in the employee parking lot at three in the morning when I show up for work - some idea that I may be carrying a very high-value weapon," Price explained, "and they know that that weapon is unavailable to me to use in self-defense."

Gee, is it possible that they're trying to discourage pilots from carrying guns? Couldn't be...

One of the many reasons to dislike this Administration. Not, of course, that any Democrat would be any better.

Why do they need to have thier guns locked up. Law enforcement people carry concealed anywhere in the country. The pilots should to.

The excuse will be so that they don't get taken away from them by the hijackers. You know, the ones who slipped through security without guns...

The reason is obviously to make it as dangerous (to the pilots) and unattractive as possible for the pilots to be armed.

Why wouldn't a pilot be a serious target for muggers already? THey're known to make good money and have a higher probability of having a wallet worth taking.

Because now the mugger gets to rob a pilot that he knows is functionally unarmed, and gets a free gun as a bonus.

I am a pilot. I have also been shot at. (I surprised a burglar in my house, who took a pot shot at me with a .38. It missed me by about a foot.)

On the basis of whatever credibility those experinces grant me I say that arming pilots is not quite the most incredibly stupid idea I have ever heard, but it comes damn close.

OK...

Premise 1: I'm a pilot
Premise 2: I got shot at once
Therefore: Arming pilots is a stupid idea.

Great argument there, Erann--I'm now persuaded that I should completely change my mind.

Oh, but wait!

There are a lot of pilots, you know, like real professional pilots, who do it for a living, and stuff, who were prepared to go on strike because they thought it was a good idea.

What a dilemma. How can I possibly know which side to take now...?

> Therefore: Arming pilots is a stupid idea.

No, not "therefore."

> Great argument there, Erann

That was not an argument, it was a proclamation.

> There are a lot of pilots, you know, like real professional pilots, who do it for a living, and stuff, who were prepared to go on strike because they thought it was a good idea.

Yeah, well, they were wrong. It's a terrible idea. The pilots need to fly the plane.

It would make a whole lot more sense to arm the flight attendants. Or even the passengers. Anyone by the pilots. Once again, with feeling: you need the pilots to fly the plane.

Of course, what makes the most sense is keeping weapons out of airplanes to begin with. (Duh!)

What makes the least sense is spending piles of money to keep weapons out of airplanes only to intentionally reintroduce them in the hands of pilots. It's a no-brainer.

Yes, "no brainer" is exactly what I'd call it...

There's not much to flying a modern airliner, Erann. The pilot is primarily a manager. Again, why do you think you understand the problem better than the people who do it for a living?

> There's not much to flying a modern airliner, Erann.

Right. That's why any shmuck can do it. No special training or abilities required at all. No sir.

> The pilot is primarily a manager.

Right again. That's why pilots (and managers) get paid no more than, say, burger flippers, because there's not much to it.

The truth is, flying a jetliner is a hell of complicated thing to do even when everything is working perfectly. When something goes wrong (like, say, terrorists attack) things can get really hairy really fast.

> Again, why do you think you understand the problem better than the people who do it for a living?

Precisely because I don't do it for a living. A professional pilot's judgement on this issue is clouded by emotion and ego. It's just completely obvious that if you're going to arm anyone aboard a plane (and notice that word "if") it makes a lot more sense to arm the flight attendants than the pilots if for no other reason than that they can deal with terrorists without having to open the cockpit door. (Duh!) But that idea is a non-starter (at least with pilots) because pilots are control freaks. They want the gun in their hands not because they've thought it through coldly and rationally, but because they want to be in control.

The professionals don't always know best. (Think trial lawyers.)

I didn't say "any schmuck can do it." I said that there isn't much to it (meaning, under normal circumstances). The pilot's job is to deal with abnormal ones. He has a backup, called a copilot. To say that the pilot should not have access to the most effective means to defend his cockpit is as ludicrous as saying a ship's captain shouldn't be allowed keys to the gun locker.

And thanks for the group psychoanalysis (from someone unqualified to do so, as far as I know) on a bunch of professional people you have never even met.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous and laughable your argument is? If you're so afraid of those power-mad, irrational pilots, I'm surprised you're willing to fly at all, guns or no guns.

> I didn't say "any schmuck can do it."

That's true. You didn't say it. I did. I said it to highlight how ridiculously wrong it is to claim that "there's not much to flying a modern airliner".

>(meaning, under normal circumstances)

That's not what you originally said, and if it's what you meant than that's even more ridiculous than what you actually did say. Under "normal circumstances" you pretty much don't need a pilot at all, not because "there's not much to it", but because computers can do the job nowadays. Yet we still have pilots. Why? Because the abnormal circumstances are the ones that matter when it comes to flying -- and just about any other profession for that matter.

> To say that the pilot should not have access to the most effective means to defend his cockpit is as ludicrous as saying a ship's captain shouldn't be allowed keys to the gun locker.

I never said that the pilot should not have access to the most effective means to defend his (or her) cockpit. But 1) it's not at all clear that a gun is the most effective means to defend a cockpit and 2) there's a big difference between having a key to the gun locker and having a gun on your person.

> And thanks for the group psychoanalysis (from someone unqualified to do so, as far as I know) on a bunch of professional people you have never even met.

For someone who has never met me you sure seem to think you know an awful lot about me, like who I have and haven't met. You should ask for a refund for your ESP lessons. They are serving you poorly. (Particularly since I have already told you that I am a pilot it doesn't take too much of a stretch to imagine that I might know some pilots, and maybe even have some insights into their personalities and culture.)

> If you're so afraid of those power-mad, irrational pilots, I'm surprised you're willing to fly at all, guns or no guns.

For all you know about me I'm not willing to fly with those irrational and power-mad pilots. Maybe that's why I decided to get my pilot's license.

The fact is I've actually become pretty reluctant to fly commercially lately, but it's not because of the irrational, power-mad pilots. The odds are still pretty good despite the fact that the pilots are irrational and power-mad. (Actually, I didn't say they were power-mad, I said they were control freaks. It's not quite the same thing.)

The reason I don't like to fly (commercially) nowadays is because of all the stupid, worse-than-useless security measures.

[rest of silliness snipped for lack of time]

The reason I don't like to fly (commercially) nowadays is because of all the stupid, worse-than-useless security measures.

Well, we're agreed on one thing. Of course, one of the most idiotic is not allowing the pilots to be armed...