[RightOnline]

Also........ (not to appear as if I'm "picking" on you :) )...........the underlying concept here is "deterrence". IOW, my theory is that such a policy could help ensure that no weapon would ever have to be pulled inflight.

Attempt a hijack, you might be faced with ten or twelve handguns pointing at your skull. Pretty damned effective deterrent, I'd think. Same reason the average robber would avoid robbing a "cop bar".

[habs4ever]

You right on the money with this one.Just the thought, or potential, that someone on board is armed, could be all the deterrence you need.When that nut tried to take down the BA flight from Heathrow to Nairobi on New Year's, a weapon would have prevented him from even entering the cockpit area.

[PatrioticAmerican]

I'm not worried about people using a gun, just some morons who play with it during flight and having an ND. And, yes, according to the FBI stats, there are many NDs each year. Funny enough is that many are by cops! (Totally new thread needed for THAT subject!) I would say for flight thata gun MUST be unloaded and kept that way and any brandishing (unholstering) of a firearm would be cause for serious prosecution.

Besides, I think Travis said it best that we do not know the circumstances of the events, such as were they holding a little girl by the throat and no one even imagined these rag heads ending the flight with a crash. People might have been thinking that it would simply be best to cooperate and wait until landing.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Ever notice how hijackings declined when flights became non-smoking? Would you, as a potential hijacker, want to face a cabin full of nicotine-deprived passengers who might be packing iron?

As a smoker and frequent flyer, I can tell you that the air traffic controllers run serious risk of bodily harm if I think the plane orbits the field just once too often...