Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DugwayDuke
At best this results in a bloody shootout.

Doesn't sound like such a plane would be hitting any buildings....

155 posted on 05/02/2002 2:23:49 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: freeeee
"Had the government not disarmed the passengers, there is some chance the terrorists would have been shot and the plane landed safely. But, thanks to the government-imposed airline-traveller defenselessness act, no such luck." - Coloradan.

My point was this, Coloradan made a logical error in assuming that the terrorists would be armed with boxcutters and the passengers with firearms. Clearly if the passengers are armed then the terrorists can be armed as well. While a "bloody shootout" would prevent airplanes from being used as flying bombs, it's not clear how allowing all passengers to carry firearms would contribute to the plane being safely landed as Coloradan claimed. Of course, one could hypothesize conditions where the terrorists would be prevented from being armed, but if you can do that, then there is no reason to allow them on the plane in the first place.

I'm not at all thrilled with allowing passengers to fly "locked and cocked". I've seen too many incidents of unsafe gun handling to be sanguine with the prospect of allowing passengers to be armed. It only takes one undisciplined cowboy to cause all sorts of havoc on an airliner. Now, pilots are another thing entirely.

188 posted on 05/02/2002 5:20:46 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson