"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news:i5j1131g8v6deefbj0atibm6bhpjoheh3q@4ax.com...
> Mike Hunt writes:
>
>> Why would guns not have helped? The terrorists were armed with razor
>> blades.
>
> If they are holding the razor blades to a hostage's throat, a gun won't
> help
> much.
Depends how well the person with the gun is trained, and if they can set
aside their human emotions. Better to lose that one hostage to the box
cutter (or friendly fire), but take out the hijacker, than to lose the
entire planeload of PAX, and likely more on the ground. After all, today you
have to assume all the passengers will end up dead anyway, so you don't have
anything to lose by trying. It ain't like the old days, when all the
hijackers wanted was money and/or media coverage. I don't think any future
plane hijackers are likely to go unchallenged ever again, which is probably
one of the reasons it doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Any future
incidents will probably be like that shoe-bomb wacko- they will just try to
destroy it in flight, with no alert to the crew, and no redirection.
1 passenger vs. a planeload, the 1 passenger is expendable. 1 planeload vs.
a full skysc.r on ground, the plane is expendable. The latter is now a
matter of policy- but I'd sure hate to have to be the pilot to pull the
trigger on a 757, even if you know for certain it is on a kamikaze run.
aem sends...
|