I know quite a bite about aircraft, for a laymen. Where in my post did I suggest explosive decompression? It's is a very practical thing to say that one guy with a handgun is going to have a very hard time disabling an aircraft. It is another thing entirely if the gunfight involved 10 people or more, no? You also discount entirely the fact that terrorists would be able to research schematics on the aircraft, take hostages, etc.
At the VERY best, you would have DOZENS of aircraft landing every week with cabins full of corpses.
Your argument follows the same line of "logic" as the gun grabbers who say that unlimited carry would turn the cities into Wild West fire zones.
An armed society is a polite society.
In a very small confined space, it strikes me that the odds of a running gunfight are somewhat on the low side. Even cops hit what they aim at most of the time, and at airplane cabin distances, it seems that the odds would be higher.
Bravo sierra. Terrorists look for targets of opportunity. Make an aircraft a too pricey target to take, and you eliminate that option. Period. 140 vs. 10 is pretty darn good odds and a damn sight better than the sitting ducks we are now.
Right, just like we have dozens of shootouts every week over parking spaces in the states with shall-issue concealed carry licensing systems, eh?
Different, but not so very much. On a large aircraft that 15" outlet valve, which can close, would be about equivalent to 1111 .45 caliber bullet holes. More if the bullets are smaller caliber.
Sure just like Florida, Texas and other states become "Gunshine States" with dozens of "road rage" deaths as shootouts occurred after fender benders and CHL holders being cut off in traffic. Didn't happen. Not that that fact prevents the gun grabbers from bringing it up every time another state is trying to pass a CHL law.