BEGALA:   Welcome back to CROSSFIRE coming to you live from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington, D.C. OK, look, I want to take a quick poll of the audience just like I promised during the commercial break. By applause, show me who here thinks we should allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpits.    Pretty impressive. The House of Representatives apparently agrees with you all, voted to let pilots carry guns. And it was not even a close vote: 310 to just 113. But the White House is opposed to guns in the cockpit, and the bill may hit a little turbulence when it comes to the Senate. Next in the CROSSFIRE, public affairs firm senior vice president, Peter Goelz. He's a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board. Mr. Goelz, welcome to CROSSFIRE. 
NOVAK:   I want to ask -- instead of asking you a first question, I want to cede it to the sponsor of the guns in the cockpit bill, Congressman Don Young of Alaska, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee. We're going to put his question up on the screen. Congressman Young asks, it's right up on the screen if you want to look at it -- "do you really think that 9/11 would have happened if our pilots had been armed, as they should have been armed?" What's your answer? 
GOELZ:   Well, I don't know. And I don't think anyone knows. But I think the real issue here is, what we've got is an election year. And when you have Novak and Begala agreeing, that's like cats marrying dogs, isn't it? I mean... 
BEGALA:   Oh, that's a hideous thought. 
GOELZ:   This is an unusual event, and I think it has to do more with an even-numbered year... 
NOVAK:   Even though the people want it? 
GOELZ:   Well, let's look at it. When the first bill was passed, the idea of arming pilots was tossed to the security people. And they reached out to a broad variety of folks to say, are there unintended consequences to introducing upward of 70,000 weapons into the air system? They came back with the answer and said the unintended consequences of this are greater than the security that it would supposedly bring us. And they recommended no. 
BEGALA:   I strongly, strongly disagree. First off, 70 percent of our pilots are already trained in the military. So they have some familiarity with weaponry. They can get and will get the training that they need to be just as well trained as air marshals, and they already have our lives in their hands. They are behind a 747, which now we know is a weapon of mass destruction. Why not trust them with a .45? 
GOELZ:   And we want them -- we want them to fly that plane and bring it down as quickly as possible. One of the things that happens in this whole debate is that the arguments keep shifting. Part of the time, well, we're going to keep the guns only in the cockpit. No, we'll let the pilots carry them throughout the airport. 
NOVAK:   That's a detail. 
GOELZ:   Of course, and it's just an irritating detail. How about this? What do we do if you have got pilots walking through the secure area, and the gun is gone? Do we clear the area? What do we do about that? What happens...    Well, let me give you another one. This is election year pandering. That's what's going on. On the pilots' own Web site today, this morning, the pilots' union said the truth is only a small fraction of the pilots will ever be carrying guns. So, wait a minute. So, wait a minute. So this afternoon... 
NOVAK:     the guns will be in the cockpit. 
GOELZ:   No, they're not going to be. So the answer is this is just rhetoric. If the pilots themselves say only a small fraction, where's the increase in safety? It's rhetoric. 
NOVAK:   Mr. Goelz, I have dealt with security people all my life. They are the kind of people who have made beautiful Capitol Hill look like downtown Beirut. They always have the wrong answer. But I'll tell you, somebody -- this is a golden moment for me, because if there is any person in politics I disagree with all my life, had no use for, it's Senator Barbara Boxer of California. And I'm so excited... 
GOELZ:   You're right. 
NOVAK:   Let's listen to what she has to say. 
SEN. BARBARA BOXER  , CALIFORNIA:   Imagine how the survivors of all those passengers and crew will feel if we fail to allow pilots to have guns defend the plane and an American flight was brought down by the American military. I know it would make me feel awful. It would break my heart, and I would carry that for the rest of my life. 
NOVAK:   Go, Barbara. Isn't that the argument? That whatever is wrong with a pilot carrying a gun, it's better than the plane being shot down by an American warplane? 
GOELZ:   There is no question that the idea of having an American plane shot down by one of our own is a horrific concept. 
NOVAK:   And that may be the alternative. 
GOELZ:   I don't think it is. But, you know, listen, I'm willing to reconsider if it's bringing you and Barbara Boxer together. That in itself is extraordinary. 
BEGALA:   You know, it's not -- I strongly disagree that this is simply a political thing. Because first off, everybody agrees, therefore it's not much of a partisan issue. But also, there is a deterrent effect here. 
GOELZ:   Everyone agrees except the professional security people. And one of the things -- let me -- let me give you one fact. 
NOVAK:   That has to be the last word, because we are out of time. Thank you very much for being with us. 
GOELZ:   Thank you. 
NOVAK:   Thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. One of our viewers has fired back some e-mail about guns in the cockpit. We'll get to that in a little bit. But next, does Paul Begala dare open his mouth in Pittsburgh?
