Boxer Prefers Guns in Cockpits Over Fighters Downing Planes
August 1, 2002
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
Related Stories:
Armed Pilots Struggle Moves to Senate
Final Rollcall Vote in House On 'Arming Pilots' Act - HR4635
The House has spoken. Now the real fight over arming pilots begins. What some have considered a “no brainer” issue has suddenly become a major public debate, and it is full of surprises.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said at a press conference in Washington on July 10—the morning of the day the House voted 310-113 to arm pilots—that she is lending her support to legislation sponsored by Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH), that would, essentially, bypass a decision made earlier by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Director John Magaw not to allow guns on the flight deck.
“I think this is the first time I have ever stood with Sen. Smith on an issue that has involved guns,” Boxer said in announcing her decision. “However, I have decided that until I am satisfied with the number of air marshals on commercial flights, this bill is a necessity—indeed, it is a matter of life and death,” according to WorldNetDaily.com.
Boxer said a primary reason why she decided to support Smith’s bill was because “if a plane is considered under the control of hijackers, it will be shot down by our military.”
The Bush Administration adopted a policy after the Sept. 11 attacks calling for shooting down commandeered airliners using fighter jets.
“Imagine how the survivors of all those passengers and crew will feel if we failed to allow pilots to have guns to defend the plane and an American flight was brought down by the American military,” she said. “I know how it would make me feel as a United States senator, and it would be a heart break I would carry for the rest of my life.”
Last fall, Congress passed airline security legislation that contained a provision for allowing pilots to be armed, but left the decision in the hands of Magaw. The bill sponsored by Smith, and others such as Sens. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Zell Miller (D-GA), would bypass government regulatory agencies and permit commercial pilots to voluntarily arm themselves in the cockpit.
Magaw Veto
In April, Magaw said he would not allow pilots to fly armed in a decision that was seconded by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and most major airlines, according to industry sources.
Backers of armed pilots hailed Boxer’s decision.
“This is a huge step forward in the effort to arm pilots with firearms and to provide flight attendants with defensive training,” said Capt. Tracy Price, chairman of Airline Pilots’ Security Alliance, a group pressing Congress to allow pilots to fly armed.
“The fact that this support for S-2554 is coming from a liberal Democrat that is very much in favor of controls on handguns is further proof that arming pilots is not a gun-anti-gun issue, it is an airline security issue,” Price said. “Sen. Boxer is a clear-thinking leader that has supported arming pilots since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th.”
Media Opposition
The New York Times seems to be leading the pack of anti-gun newspapers which are trying to manipulate public opinion against arming pilots. To the anti-gunners at the Brady Campaign and VPC and their media allies, passage of legislation to arm pilots would deliver a crushing blow to their cause, even though arming pilots makes so much sense, even to many anti-gunners.
Newsmax.com carried a commentary by Phil Brennan castigating The Times for using its news pages to manipulate public opinion—“this time using a story about arming pilots in a blatantly obvious attempt to turn Americans against letting pilots have the right to carry guns against hijackers.”
In a July 12 Page One story, America’s “bell-cow” newspaper once again proved just how biased it can be, especially in pursuit of the liberal agenda.
The “news” story was entitled “Armed Pilots? Many Travelers Are Gun-Shy.” Reading The Times story, one would be led to believe that most Americans oppose pilots being armed.
The Times never mentioned in the extensive article that several scientific polls taken since Sept. 11 show that an overwhelming number of Americans want pilots to be armed, Newsmax.com said.
After reporting the House vote to pass a bill backed by the Air Line Pilots Association, and noting the bill specified that guns were to be used only in the cockpit, The Times sought to show that the idea is unpopular with Americans.
The Times claims that “the idea that those responsible for flying an airplane might also take on crucial security duties struck some travelers today as an extreme response, perhaps foolhardy.”
Hmm, “some” travelers are opposed; better drop the issue right now. That line gives away the propaganda show to come.
“In nearly four dozen interviews in seven major airports, opponents of the idea outnumbered supporters by a ratio of roughly 3 to 2, and expressed deep concern about the consequences of using a gun on an airplane,” The Times wrote. “People who favored the plan said the presence of an armed pilot provided an added layer of safety and confidence.”
The paper ran Page One photographs of two of several anti-choice interviewees, complete with large-type quotations. It ran zero pictures of the pro-choicers, but on Page A16 offered a photo of pro-choice pilots.
The article did include comments from a few people who dissented from the Times’ party line.
Newsmax.com then offered “what legitimate polls say,” noting that The Times carefully ignored polls that show exactly the opposite.
But such statistics are inconvenient for the anti-Second-Amendment-rights Times, which not only doesn’t want pilots armed, but opposes gun ownership by any and all Americans.
Letters to Editor
Immediately after The Times article ran, they must have been bombarded with letters to the editor. On Sunday, July 14, The Times ran a smattering of letters in response to the article. The six letters published were evenly divided pro and con, but that does not really measure the opinion of The Times’ readers, who probably agree with its editorial board on most issues.
The selection of letters that were published suggested an evenly divided public, but the newspaper did not say how many letters it actually did receive in support or opposition. My guess is that the balanced selection was carefully chosen to reflect a balance that was not really present in the mail room, since if The Times could have reflected a true 3-2 or 4-1 ratio, they really would have done so.
The Times is not alone in its news and editorial opposition to arming pilots; a majority of newspapers has editorialized against the proposal, and only a few have commented in favor. As noted at the beginning of this column, the fight has just begun. Let’s hope it is short and comes to a sensible end.