|
 magine that
you're a terrorist selecting one of two airlines as your next victim.
The first airline boasts in its ads, "Our Planes Are Gun-Free
Zones." The second says that "One or More Employees Will
Be Armed on Every Flight." Not much question which one you'd
fly. Now picture yourself as a safety-conscious passenger. Still
not much question, but the choice won't be the same. That's the
case in a nutshell for armed sky marshals, and perhaps armed pilots,
flight attendants, even selected passengers.
Let's start with sky marshals. The idea seems like a no-brainer.
Indeed, it's now being implemented. But the problem is cost. One
marshal per daily flight would require 35,000 officers — more
than twice the number employed by the FBI, the Secret Service, and
the U.S. Marshals combined. Yes, a marshal might be able to average
three to four flights each day. Then again, most proposals call
for more than one marshal per flight. Put it all together and we're
talking about roughly 14,000 new employees, salaried at $70,000
and up per year, plus the cost of training. That's well over a billion
dollars annually.
What about pilots? "These men and women operate $100 million
pieces of equipment. They can sure learn to operate a .38 snub-nose
if they want to," said aviation consultant Michael Boyd. The
Air Line Pilots Association, with overwhelming support from its
members, wants armed pilots in cockpits. "Under the old model
of hijackings," said a union spokesman, the "strategy
was to accommodate, negotiate, and do not escalate. But that was
before. The cockpit has to be defended at all costs." An armed
pilots program would be strictly voluntary. It would require extensive
background screening and psychological testing, as well as classroom
and practical training, roughly equivalent to what sky marshals
would receive. Sens. Bob Smith (R., N.H.) and Conrad Burns (R.,
Mont.) have taken the first step. Their amendment to the Aviation
Security Act, S. 1447, would allow — not require — properly
trained commercial pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers to carry
firearms.
Armed flight attendants present a different set of problems. Israel's
El Al airline — the world's safest — has armed both its
pilots and its flight attendants. Still, there is legitimate concern
that a flight attendant could easily be overpowered by terrorists
to get at his or her gun. One solution is to hide the weapon, perhaps
keep it under lock. But that wouldn't frustrate a terrorist, if
he knew the attendant had access to the weapon. A better solution
— though costly and not yet technologically feasible —
is to provide attendants with "smart guns," which are
programmed so they can be fired only by authorized persons. For
now, attendants should be limited to weapons that are temporarily
debilitating, but inflict no longer-term injury.
Finally, there's the more radical notion that selected passengers
should be armed. Radical or not, the idea deserves to be considered.
Risks can be mitigated. First, insist that the passenger have a
concealed-gun permit and pass a background check. Second, require
that he be specifically trained in the use of firearms on an airplane.
And third, limit the passenger to a gun and ammunition supplied
by the airline. Special bullets are available that are destructive
to human tissue but come apart at first impact. That would eliminate,
or at least minimize, the likelihood that a bullet could penetrate
the fuselage.
Presently in the United States, there are 600,000 active state
and local law enforcement officers, who are now forbidden to carry
guns on planes. When traveling as ordinary passengers, certified
law enforcement personnel, maybe even firefighters and emergency
medical technicians, could register voluntarily and confidentially
with the airlines to provide assistance in the event of an emergency.
That's the proposal put forward by Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.)
in his "Volunteers for Safe Skies Act." Why not expand
on that proposal by allowing those persons, if properly trained,
to carry concealed guns?
The broader principle is this: On September 11, the United States
government failed at the single most important function with which
we entrust it — the protection of American citizens against
foreign aggression. If we demand too much from government, it's
partly because the need for the state to defend us increases in
proportion to our inability to defend ourselves. This is why law-abiding
inner-city residents, many of whom have been disarmed by gun control,
will beg for police protection despite the terrible violations of
civil liberties such protection entails — like curfews, anti-loitering
laws, and civil-asset forfeiture. We must not allow our anti-gun
paranoia to push us toward a police state.
Armed civilians can deter crime. Armed civilians can mean safer
planes, shopping malls, schools, and other public places. Law-enforcement
officers can't be everywhere — but an armed, trained citizenry
can be.
|
