Originally posted by lazs2
the idea is to have the advantage not to compete with the skyjackers on equal terms. 4 of them with boxcutters are no match for one armed and trained marshal. When the 4 guys with boxcutters jump up and one sky marshal jumps up with a gun.... I am gonna lend my help to.... the marshal. If no one jumps up I might hesitate a bit attacking 4 boxcutter weilders with my bare hands. It is proven time and time again.... when an officer is in trouble that bystanders risk death to help but... they rarely initiate the attack against armed criminals.
star... you have good points but... you say that if a skyjacker had a 20 round clip... or 15 or whatever... that is all the damage he could do and that adding guns to the mix only increases the danger.. maybe but... most gunfights last only a few rounds... turkey shoots of unarmed sheep last as many rounds as there are bullets for the armed nutcase. If the only person on the plane armed is the bad guy, whether with gun or other implement.... you pretty much got to go along with his plan.
If the pilot wants to comit suicide and take everyone with him... or if a meteorite is gonna strike the plane.... it won't matter much if the pilot is armed or not.
lazs
For the most part I agree with you lazs. I wouldnt mind so much the Air Marshal being there and armed, since I know a couple guys who have gone into the program and I know they are pretty well trained when to reveal their presence, when to use the gun and when to sit still and keep their mouths shut and pretend to be "just another passenger." I also agree that if the guy is armed, no matter if its a gun or a box cutter, its going to be hard to get a group together to attack him. I mean, somebody's probably gonna die if he has a gun. Nobody wants to be the guy in the front. The main point I wanted to make was against just having guns on the plane (even for the pilot). This isnt the old days when a hostage could fool himself or herself into thinking if they just sit still and shut up that they will sit on some runway in Cairo for a day or two and have a good chance of surviving. It'll be "the other guy" that will get shot as an "example". These days if they hijack a plane, you have to at least consider its a good bet that you are going to be part of this guy's protest against the land of 2 cars in every garage and apple pie, and die anyway. Just like the people in that plane in Pennsylvania, if I'm gonna go anyway I'd like to think at the end that maybe I kept somebody else, or maybe a whole lot of somebody elses from dying too. If nothing else, simple survival instinct has to kick in at some point and say if you have a chance at surviving, it depends on this guy waving the gun/knife/box cutter/plastic fork around taking a header into the floor, and being unable to get back up again. Given the actions of people on flights that have been "disturbed" since 9/11, I dont think its too far fetched.
With a trained Air Marshal to lead things, I have no doubt you'd find plenty of volunteers willing to take a chance and get to slug a terrorist. Without one, I think having a gun in the cockpit is a moot point. You'd have to open the door to use it, and at that point you allow Mr. Terrorist a chance to get in. Just nullifies the whole concept of reinforcing the cockpit door so no-one can bust in. Plus, you potentially give the terrorist access to that many more bullets if you dont succeed in taking him down. The best thing a pilot can do for his passengers is land the dang plane at the first airport and let a SWAT team or DELTA Force or Chuck Norris or whatever deal with him.
