|
| | | | |
|
|
Bush’s decision to oppose
bill to arm pilots is great news for terrorists, Libertarians say
Libertarian Party Press Releases
LP.org
May 3, 2002
Bush’s decision to oppose bill to arm pilots is great news for terrorists,
Libertarians say
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's opposition
to a House bill that would allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit shows a
distrust for American pilots and a reckless disregard for the lives of
travelers, Libertarians
say.
"The president has chosen gun control over terrorist control," said
Libertarian Party Executive Director Steve Dasbach. "The flight crews of
the four airliners hijacked on September 11 were totally unarmed -- and the
terrorists knew that. The truly shocking thing is that eight months after that
horrific event, pilots are still unarmed -- and the president of the United
States wants to keep it that way."
The bill, introduced on Wednesday by U.S. Reps. Don Young (R-AK) and John Mica
(R-FL), would allow airlines to decide whether pilots could have access to a
weapon in the cockpit. However, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the
Bush administration opposes such a policy because it would create "a
potential for handguns getting loose on airplanes." Instead, he argued the
airlines should rely on federal sky marshals, stronger cockpit doors, and better
baggage screening.
But more sky marshals aren't the answer, Dasbach said.
"The government would have to hire 14,000 more federal marshals, at a cost
of over $1 billion, to put one on every flight, according to a recent study by
the Cato Institute," he said. "And pilots fear that a determined,
suicidal terrorist might still be able to sneak a gun through airline security
and penetrate a reinforced cockpit door.
"In contrast, arming pilots would be an effective, low-cost deterrent to
hijackers. But like most politicians, Bush reflexively chooses the 'solution'
that requires a bigger, costlier government."
Libertarians say the real question is: "If pilots can be trusted to operate
a $100 million jumbo jet filled with hundreds of passengers, why can't they be
trusted to carry a gun?"
Instead of putting his trust in an expanded government program, Dasbach
encouraged Bush to defer to the real experts on airline security: Pilots and the
airlines that employ them.
"Steve Luckey, security chief for the 67,000-strong Airline Pilots
Association, has said arming pilots is something that 'desperately needs to be
done,' " Dasbach noted. "And a February poll of the pilots group found
that over 70 percent favor such a policy."
Evidence also suggests that the flying public trusts pilots more than the
president does, Dasbach said.
"The fact that thousands of individuals board a plane every day shows that
ordinary Americans implicitly trust airline pilots with their lives," he
said. "So why not let the people with the most at stake -- pilots,
airlines, and passengers -- decide this issue, instead of a president who
cruises around on Air Force One surrounded by armed Secret Service agents?"
If Bush really wants to demonstrate he's tough on terrorists, he should support
the Young-Mica bill, Dasbach said.
"The presence of armed pilots would send an unmistakable message to
would-be terrorists: Americans are no longer going to be sitting -- or flying --
ducks."
Related Reading: Airplanes
& Guns archives
|
|
|
