In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
while giving them handguns is claimed to
guarantee safety.

Only by you.

No, Chad - I'm going from what I've read.

And that's the thing. While other folks are saying things like "it
would help," or "it would give another line of defense," you're reading
those lines as "WE GUARANTEE safety," and arguing from that point.

Maybe the proponents had got overheated, but they were quite genuinely
claiming that Unarmed Pilots = Certain Death while other measures were
useless and pointless.

I can only read what they wrote.


Back when I had the time and patience to read alt.disasters.aviation the
subject came up now and then, before Bertie the Bunyip and Ladypilot put
the S/N ratio beyond what I could bear.

Come back when you're ready to stop these silly strawman attempts.

I'm just going by what's claimed. You don't agree with the wilder
statements, fine, but the claims were made.

You're not going to see British or Japanese (to pick two nations with
draconian firearms controls) pilots carrying arms anytime soon; does
that not imply that the priority lies elsewhere?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk