enrageorange said:
SamuelRSmith said:
sperrico87 said:
If the government had allowed pilots to have a pistol in the cockpit, none of this would have ever happened.
Pre-9/11:
Feds to airlines: "Your pilots aren't allowed to carry a weapon with them on a plane, and if you're hijacked, do not resist."
Terrorists: "There's nothing stopping us now."
|
Why just pilots, and why just pistols?
|
completely valid point. All passangers should be supplied with rpgs whenever they enter an airplane. That will teach any potential terrorists.
As for the original point. The reason they were told not to resist is because prior to 9/11 most airplane highjackings involved landing in some foreign country and trying to get money and political consesions from the plane's home country. It wasn't worth it to risk having a plane go down due to a struggle.
As for the whole pilots should have guns thing, i'm no expert in aircraft saftey, but i'm pretty sure the last thing you would want is to get in a shootout with terrorists in an airplane. It will probably cause more civilian casualties than just staying barricaded in the cockpit and landing the plane safely. Especially considering every single passanger will be attempting to subdue the wouldbeterrorist.
|
On 9/11, some passengers did exactly that. They attempted to subdue the terrorists on flight 93 and the plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, and it was originally intended to crash into the White House. Unless I'm missing something here, wouldn't it be more desireable to have it out with the terrorists while on the plane then do nothing and have it crash into a giant skyscraper with thousands of people inside?
You're suggesting doing the same exact thing that Feds suggested prior to 9/11, which is to do absolutely nothing and just hand over the plane? We're supposed to LEARN from our mistakes, not repeat them.
