In message , Jim Yanik
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
news
A very few have, and have done a lot of damage as a result. The
clearance routine is good but not perfect.

NO system is perfect.But because we cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean
we should do nothing.

Consider the 34 US states that allow concealed carry;the number of those
people who commit gun crimes or get their permits revoked due to gun misuse
are extremely low,fractions of one percent.They haven't gone mad and shot
up places.Vermont doesn't even require any permit,one can carry if they
wish.

Trouble is, the UK's firearm law is the shape it is because of two mass
homicides by permit-holding gun owners, without regard to the many
law-abiding folk like me who just liked blowing holes in paper with
like-minded people. Doesn't make it right, but that's democracy for you.

Yet,people worry that pilots,many with former military service,might misuse
their weapons aboard a commercial flight.(but won't fly their plane into a
building)

I'm not particularly pro- or anti- armed pilots. There are significant
administrative issues (how do you secure the weapons between flights?
What happens when you fly to a country that doesn't recognise personal
carry?) but answers could be found: my main concern is that other more
effective measures for protecting the pilots and their aircraft get
ignored as too difficult or expensive, because "the pilots can be armed
so now there's no problem".

I don't see it as a hugely effective measure - you can't shoot well over
your shoulder while strapped into a seat - but I'm more worried about
airline pilots being drunk than armed


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk