Subject:
|
Re: The *militia* saved flight 93 from a worse fate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Sep 2001 01:34:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
986 times
|
| |
|
|
Horst Lehner wrote:
> ... however they did this without guns. So how does the firearms discussion
> get into this article? I suspect the author has some hidden agenda, and is
> trying to capitalize on the current rage. If so, shame on him ...
If those defenders had had a chance to have guns (even if many restrictions were
placed as to gun type, load type, training, etc), they might have had a better
chance of stopping the terrorists.
Who knows, they MIGHT have had a chance to land the plane, or crash it without
killing everyone (nose first into the ground is NOT a controlled decent, so if
one of the defenders did have pilot training, he obviously didn't get a chance
to get to the controls).
> Other than that, I think the article has some good points.
>
> Plane hijacking will never be what it was before, in that there is no chance
> to know what makes sense as a reaction. So, the only idea that comes to my
> mind is to prevent hijacking in the first place. As has been said, in this
> area we can probably learn from Israel's airline El Al.
Yes - strict security, and arming of passengers (flight attendants ARE
passengers).
> However, we also have to try and imagine what else terrorists could come up
> with, to improve security ...
Yes, but the harder we make it for them, the harder it is for them to DO
something. Not making it harder for them is downright criminal.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
