Pistole's wanted the same thing since before he even got into his TSA office.

I think the assumption is that they would be given firearms only after being given appropriate training, and this training would improve their responsibility.

LEOs generally are more responsible than TSOs because they are better trained, not because they have guns.

Training and being responsible are not related.

No reason to arm checkpoint screeners. The threat is so low that doing so is an unneeded act.

At the moment, they're turned loose on the public after what the TSA calls "appropriate" training.

I'll have to issue a vote of "no confidence" on the TSA being able to "train" their current crop to "appropriate" levels concerning firearms.

After all, they've got an abominable record just over how it's "illegal" to photograph anything/anyone at the checkpoint.

No.

Any other questions?

Not entirely true. A responsible person entrusted with a firearm will want to be trained in how to use that firearm.

However, the converse is not true; training someone in how to use a firearm does not make them a responsible person.

Agreed. However, this wouldn't be the first TSA over-reaction to an incredibly unlikely threat.

A gun owner and hunter since about age 6, a veteran trained and familiar with a wide spectrum of firearms, small all the way to very large, sort of a fringe "gun nut", the quiet sort, my guns and opinions unobtrusive, I've become increasingly concerned about the legions of folks, official and quasi-official to whom we given uniforms and side arms. From mall rentacops to dozens of other examples of "security personnel", society has tolerated the arming of folks who may be no more responsible than teenage gang members wandering the streets of Chicago looking for a chance to demonstrate their self-importance.

Besides, faced with a guy who unlimbers a semiauto AR15 clone from his duffel, some clumsy TSA agent unsnapping and drawing an old S&W M&P or even one of thse over-priced over-rated Glocks would be dead meat on a substantial majority of occasions.

My guess is you'll see a heck of a lot more "DHS Police" roaming the terminals in the hybrid BDU uniforms, surveillance mics, digital radios and counter-assault style rifles. It's easier to grow those ranks than it is to try to bring firearms to TSA.

My suggestion, move the presence of local police from the sterile side to the more visible side by the TDC. So instead of a little stand to read the newspaper and sext your boyfriends in the back, the local leo can do the same thing and be a presence up front.

If one considers the number of shootings by under trained police officers which use excessive force for basic situations. Arming TSA (which aren't high level enforcement personnel) would be a disaster the first time they encounter a mentally disturb person or someone challenges their authority.

The focus on the AR-15 I think is just a distraction. The guy could have been just as dangerous and deadly, or more so, with a Remington 870. A gun in the hands of a person intent on doing harm is a bad situation no matter what type of weapon used.

The issue that has to be addressed is what steps can be taken to prevent a recurrence of this type of event. I suggest that this type of act is almost impossible to prevent. What can be done is to take steps to minimize the amount of damage done.

It is a bad deal all the way around but going overboard on prevention is just as bad.

Great point. This is why I hate our media and many of the inhabitants of this country. Rational thought is simply beyond them. I spent two weeks in the Bay area this past summer. During that time I think there were three fast food employees murdered in Oakland alone. Being a TSO is NOT a dangerous job by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure that will not stop DHS from taking advantage of the situation to grab even more power for themselves. :(

OT Q: Do you dig the Sig?

TSA's job is to SCREEN for WEI. This is a purely administrative task and, IMHO, it should be done by purely administrative personnel. All this BS about officers, agents, front line of security, honor guards, duty, etc. is simply a sideshow for consumption by a scared populace in order to maintain/build the empire. The fact that TSA clerks are 'feds' doesn't make them any more special. The justification for TSA having firearms is no different than gate agents having them. It's no different than arming the volunteers at the Superbowl that are checking backpacks.

Undoubtedly. I would be shocked if this incident was NOT used to gain more power, spend more money, etc., etc., etc.

We don't need more locals either. The mandate is to keep WEI off planes, not to ensure that nobody gets hurt in the airport. What's next, a heavy TSA and police presence in shopping malls? How about schools that look like prisons?

If I recall correctly, the experiment was cancelled quickly and abruptly because of the undeniable and absolutely amazing onset of power-tripping. There is an obvious correlation between the "officer" title, the LEO-like uniforms, and the increase in the power-tripping TSA clerks. Adding guns to the mix is: 1) unnecessary, and 2) far more dangerous than not doing this.

Thanks for making this point, as I think it's absolutely critical. We have to make decisions like this analytically based on facts and probabilities instead of based on emotions. Like it or not, there's a cost-benefit analysis to be done, even when human lives are at stake.

A similar process is followed when deciding what diseases should be vaccinated against. It's a combination of looking at efficacy, cost of development/treatment, expected change in number of deaths, etc. This is why there exist deadly diseases for which we don't vaccinate against.

On the cost front, arming TSA officers will not be cheap. Training and all the overhead associated with guns costs real money. Do you want to have an "LAX Shooter Security Surcharge" added to every ticket from now on?

Except, of course, when they're screening for drugs, sequentially-numbered checks, or large amounts of cash - all of which they do despite any claims they don't.