In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote:
"You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the
airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even
unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft."

The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host.

What would you challenge? The fact that you don't want guns on board?
The possibility of explosive decompression?


What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
control of the airplane?



JKG