[vbmoneyspender]

My point was that when something is right (and having armed pilots is undisputably the right thing to do), you shouldn't have to rely on the 'public square' (as you so quaintly put it) to justify having them as a last line of defense before the plane is shot down.

BTW, I don't think you are quite aware of the training and testing the passenger jets pilots have to undergo before they are given the keys to a multi-million dollar piece of equipment like a 747. That is the reason why no American passenger jet pilot has ever gone postal. Simply put, if you are against arming passenger pilots, logically you should have a problem with police being armed because alot more police have gone postal over than years, than have passenger jet pilots.

[Torie]

I don't doubt the pilots ability to handle firearms tempermentally provided they are trained for it. But I don't think anyway here has really made the case that they are needed provided the cockpits are secure. And THAT is my point. If someone really wants to make the point that the cockpits can never really be made secure, and that guns in the cockpit is statistically reasonably likely as a matter of prediction to thwart foul play that would otherwise obtain after securing the cockpits, have at it. I will respectfully listen.

[backlash]

I think 'aware' is the key word here. He smugly speaks as if the old rules are still relevant to this new threat. Thousands of dead Americans speak for self-defence. How anyone can argue otherwise is beyond me.

[dcwusmc]

Forget it. Somebody who live where Torie does has NO IDEA what REAL life is about. And never will. Pity it'll take a mugging or worse to change that way of "thinking"....