pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:34:21 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "AssholeT#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is
how
having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would
those
passengers have died twice?

How would having a SM on board have helped?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.

Cool which means when the pilots/passengers open up it will be a free fire
zone and we won't have to worry about innocent bystanders.

Isn't it interesting how your notation of how things would work in the air
have absolutely no counterpart on the ground. So tell me, why the change in
attitude? Is it a function of altitude?

What the hell is the matter with you? Of course the situation is
different in the air as opposed to on the ground. I've explained this
to you twice already and explaining it to you again is a waste of
time. You don't seem to be able to comprehend human nature. You're
in an environment where the passengers have nothing to loose. You
draw a gun or weapon on a plane today and you will get attacked and
subdued. I've already told you of three instances in the US where the
passengers took care of the threat immediately.

I've given you my opinion based on experience and personal knowledge.
I don't intend to argue it further with you.