Re: Arming pilots: Why stun guns just won\'t do the trick...
Ok,
My views on this.
The video did not contain a reinforced cokpit door, still the best defence. If the attacker cannot gain access to the flight deck, then he does not have control of that aircraft.
The video showed a cusion being used as a shield. In this case then a stun gun is ineffective. What if the attacker were using a passenger or flight attendent as a human shield. In this case, lethal weapons would also be ineffective in regards to their use. Also, the issue of a window/fuselage failure due to a 'well placed' bullet is an issue.
My theory is that the first line of defence is to stop weapons from getting on to the aircraft.
The second line of defence should be that the cockpit should not be 'breachable'.
The third and final line of defence should be weaponary of some kind, I do agree at this. But what?
Speaking from someone who knows next to nothing about guns, i'll say this.
Why can we not have a specialised weapon designed for air transport that contains
a) Lethal projectiles (bullets)
b) non lethal projectiles (tasors)
This way, if an attacker is using a human shield or a no shield then a non lethal method of force can be deployed. This will save a colleague's life or prevent undue force (in the case say, of a drunk passenger mouthing off). ie, if a passenger was to get completely drunk, and try to attack the cockpit, then instead of killing him, incapaciate him. No need to kill him, really is there? (I know the tempation may exist
)
IF the attacker is using a shield or presents a very real and imminent danger, THEN use lethal force. IF the attacker is using a flight attendant or passenger as a human shield, then drop him/her with the tasor, then the attacker with the lethal projectile, all with the same weapon.
This way the pilot will have the choice.
A) There is a risk of blowing a hole in the fuselage, or killing a colleage or passenger: I will use non lethal force.
And, with the passenger/colleage out of the way, and no risk of damage to the aircraft exists, then B)
B) Attacker is not just a trouble maker, he means business, I have no option, I will use lethal force.
All this with the same gun.
Hopefully, if the airport security and door do their jobs, the above will never come into play.
I agree with force, I just think that we should use it in moderation, and not go at his 'bull headed'.
Richard.