"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
You might wish to know that civilian "gun toters" are about one SEVENTH as
likely to have a "bad shoot" than their "highly trained" brethren that tote
guns AND badges.

That's an excellent point, and precisely the reason I don't care for
the idea of a special class carrying weapons in areas/situations where
the ordinary citizen may not. If airplanes are too dangerous for
weapons carrying, then they're too dangerous for anyone to carry a
weapon. Certainly if the PIC can't have one, then nobody can. The
argument that the air marshalls are "highly trained" does not impress
me, for the exact reason you cited.

This is a matter of survival and we're talking about survival
strategy, not politics. Politics are all about compromise; strategy
can't be. If you have two diametrically opposed stategies (for
example - everyone is armed, or no one is armed) either strategy may
be right. They may even BOTH be right. But a compromise solution
(only arming those who are "highly trained" for example) is guaranteed
to be wrong.

For extra credit, try to identify the political figure, author, and
aviator I am paraphrasing.

Michael