Transportation Dept. sides with terrorists
A spokesman for the US Dept. of Transportation said today that Secretary Norman Mineta would officially announce within a week that pilots of commercial airliners would not be allowed to be armed in flight. The department has opted for "non-lethal" means to halt terrorists and for making the cockpit door penetration proof.

The problem with non-lethal devices, such as sprays or stun guns, is, well, that they are non-lethal. They are not guaranteed effective. And I doubt that cockpit doors can be made truly penetration proof. Al Qaeda has a lot of money and can do a lot of research into how to get through such doors, and will probably have the assistance of one or two national governments in the research and testing.

Typically, the government sees the question as either-or instead of both-and. Why must there be a choice between reinforced cockpits with non-lethal devices in the cabin, and firearms in the cockpit? Why not all of the above?

Also, the government has, as usual, dealt with the issues on terms of absolutes. "No, you may not be armed," as compared to, "Yes, you must be armed." Why not rule that pilots may be armed at their own discretion? (I am recalling a sign on a country store out west: "Attention, burglars. A live rattlesnake is left loose in this store three nights per week. You pick the night.")

Announcing that pilots are helpless can only encourage our enemies. If I were an airline pilot, I'd go armed anyway. If a terrorist broke through the cockpit door I'd shoot him. Do you think I'd get in trouble?