Keep and Bear Arms Home Page
This article was printed from
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit

Tazers on United Airlines

From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:34 AM
Subject: Customer relations email from Chris Brose(

Sent via their website, in response to

Dear people,

I just heard about United's decision to put tazers in cockpits. I want you to know that it won't be effective, that it's purely a feel good measure, and an attempt to avoid allowing guns in cockpits. And as such, I will not step spend a single dollar on a United flight until this stupidity ends.

What possible rational reason can there be for denying pilots the ability to carry guns? Do you doubt that they are well trained and responsible? They already control the destiny of a planeload of passengers, the plane itself, and the residents beneath the flight path. To insinuate that they are not responsible enough to carry firearms is a slap in their face.

Do you believe that this nation is a safer place because pilots didn't have guns on September 11th? Or do you subscribe to the antigun propaganda that says guns in the hands of pilots wouldn't have made a difference?

You think a tazer or stun gun is preferable to a real gun in the cockpit. There are various reasons why these are not adequate substitutes, but here is the biggest, most important reason. They don't retract or recharge instantaneously. They are basically one-shot weapons. That's fine if there is only one hijacker (and assuming the thing works as well as you hope), but if several people are involved, a gun is the only thing that will do the job.

Or are hundreds or thousands of lost lives part of the price you are willing to pay to advance your antigun agenda?

Chris Brose

To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.