Replies

I would go at least one step further, however, and eliminate the job of flight attendant.

Okay...although they do sometimes make diverting eye candy.

I would replace the aforementioned typical cabin crew of six or eight with two or more uniformed and plaincloths security officers who are highly trained (including some with paramedical qualification), highly paid, mentally stable, and experienced in the use of the weapons they carry, namely expandable batons, tactical edged weapons, and sidearms loaded with cartridges which contain frangible bullets.

I don't see the need for these folks, however. I would be much more comfortable trusting my security to my own skill with my sidearm than I would disarming and trusting it to someone else, especially if that someone else might be the target of persuasion that involved hauling my disarmed tuchas out of my seat and blowing my head off as an example.

Frangible bullets? Not for me: too easily stopped by heavy clothing such as a leather jacket. Standard hollowpoints are what will make me feel safe--in my case, Speer Gold Dots in 9x19mm 124gr +P.

First, bullet holes in pressurized aircraft are nowhere near the danger the media has made them out to be: ask a B-29 crewman from WWII. Second, if there were lots of guns on airplanes, they'd never be fired, so the whole question of bullet holes in a pressure vessel is moot anyway.

I happen to agree with your post #11 as well. Unfortunatley, the Control-Freaks-That-Be will never cede responsibility for our security to us -- after all, they do know best.

I also agree with your choice of hollow points over frangible bullets, but this too is a bugaboo that likely will never go in our favor. I prefer the 124 gr. (hollow-point) Hydra-Shock 9 mm round.

Guess that makes me agreeable. All the best, comrade..........

"Second, if there were lots of guns on airplanes, they'd never be fired, so the whole question of bullet holes in a pressure vessel is moot anyway."

I am somewhat sympathetic to your reasoning, but I think there is a problem with it. Your plan would certainly stop sane, rational, intelligent hijackers like those who pulled off this job. However, I think it would probably cause a lot more trouble on planes in general. The vast majority of people who cause problems on planes are drunk, mentally unstable, acutely angry, or some combination of the above. These are people who would not necessarily be deterred by the knowledge that other passengers might be armed (especially if they've got weapons, too). Sure, they might be dispatched by well-meaning civilians, but I've seen enough well-meaning civilians do STUPID things with firearms to want a few of them (with no specialized training, and having knocked back a few cocktails) standing up and unloading sidearms into a bad guy from opposite ends of an aircraft.

I think the undercover air marshall idea is probably a good one, but I also think that some of this tragedy might have been prevented by having long-range tasers available at each end of aircraft, and training the crew in their use.