Tazers on United Airlines
From: <krleese@cox-internet.com>
To: <United@ual.com>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:34 AM
Subject: Customer relations email from Chris Brose(krleese@cox-internet.com)
Sent via their website, in response
to http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011115/ts/airlines_united_dc_2.html
Dear people,
I just heard about United's decision
to put tazers in cockpits. I want you to know that it won't be effective, that
it's purely a feel good measure, and an attempt to avoid allowing guns in cockpits.
And as such, I will not step spend a single dollar on a United flight until
this stupidity ends.
What possible rational reason can there be for denying pilots the ability to
carry guns? Do you doubt that they are well trained and responsible? They already
control the destiny of a planeload of passengers, the plane itself, and the
residents beneath the flight path. To insinuate that they are not responsible
enough to carry firearms is a slap in their face.
Do you believe that this nation is a safer place because pilots didn't have
guns on September 11th? Or do you subscribe to the antigun propaganda that says
guns in the hands of pilots wouldn't have made a difference?
You think a tazer or stun gun is preferable to a real gun in the cockpit. There
are various reasons why these are not adequate substitutes, but here is the
biggest, most important reason. They don't retract or recharge instantaneously.
They are basically one-shot weapons. That's fine if there is only one hijacker
(and assuming the thing works as well as you hope), but if several people are
involved, a gun is the only thing that will do the job.
Or are hundreds or thousands of lost lives part of the price you are willing
to pay to advance your antigun agenda?
Chris Brose
krleese@cox-internet.com
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.
