At 06:32 PM 8/7/04 +0100, Phil wrote:
>In message <5.2.0.9.2.20040807115354.024892b0_at_192.168.0.1>
> Ed Kelleher <Pres_at_macro-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, it is BS. If we wanted to make things safer, we'd let citizens
with
>> concealed weapons permits carry guns on planes.
>Only problem there is that a bullet would likely go straight through the
>walls of the plane. (Air pressure outside plane) < (Air pressure inside
>plane) = decompression. Not a good thing to happen on a plane. That and the
>risk of it hitting wiring, fuel lines, hydraulic lines and such on its way
>out. Or, even worse, an engine.
>Admittedly, that's a bit of a "worst case scenario"...
What you say is true but I personally would rather take my chances with a
hole in the fuselage or even in the hydraulic system than being held by
hijackers!
It's funny, pilots in all of the US military services routinely carry a
pistol and the services never worried about what MIGHT happen but now all
of the sudden it's a big "but what if" issue! You have to wonder, is the
effect on the aircraft REALLY the issue or is it just another ploy by the
antigunners to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens (and even
extraordinary citizens in the case of pilots, air marshalls etc).
By the way there is ammunition designed to be safely used inside an
aircraft. The projectile is a small "bean bag" that flattens out in just a
few feet. It will not penetrate the aircraft skin but if it hits someone
the kinetic energy will be like them being smacked with a baseball bat!
If you really want to stop airline hijacking. Lock the cockpit (that
STILL hasn't been fully impemented!), Arm all the pilots (Ha! They're still
not allowing ANY pilots to carry guns AFIK) and put one or more ARMED sky
marshalls on EVERY flight and announce that fact. How many hijackers with
paper cutters do you think would be willing to go up against an armed
marshall?
Joe
Received on Sat Aug 07 2004 - 21:20:46 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:36:33 BST