Rusty Carruth wrote:

> Well, but *disarming everyone* is ***NOT*** the solution to violence.
> (and I'm not trying to imply that *you* said it was!)
>
> (I'm not sure that *arming everyone* *IS* the solution, but experience
> shows that bullies attack those they think they can intimidate.  Once
> nobody has ANY sort of defense, almost everyone will be easy to intimidate.
> I could go on, and probably make more sense doing so, but I'll try
> to limit my off-topicness today ;-)
>
> Perhaps the airlines should *require* at least 25% of the passengers
> on board be armed?  Then it might have been better than 1 out of
> 4 that did not make it to their destructive destination...

he he... can you see going through the security area and getting to the gate, you turn in your ticket, and one of the standard questions
is, "Have you taken a small firearms course by an NRA or other approved organization in the past year?"  If you say "Yes" they say,
"Would you like to carry a weapon aboard to use to protect the flight in case of kamikazee hijackers?"

I think things would turn out very differently if a bunch of hijackers suddenly found 25 passengers standing up pointing various weapons
at them.

I like it in principle, but unfortunately, if any one of them goes off, the plane is more than likely to suffer a hull breech from the
bullet.

I agree about the bully theory, though.  Perhaps they should amend the seat belt announcement to say, "and should the plane be taken
over by hijackers, we advise everybody to rush them immediately."  Or they could simply offer a big reward to anybody who helps subdue a
hijacker while in flight, providing the plane lands safely.

-David