That sounds like a recipe for carnage. I could easily see 10 or 20 passengers dying from crossfire. As compared to no one dying if you just ban all weapons. I'd say the math is pretty simple. Even if you disagree, the airline companies know that even one bullet fired on thier plans could cost them millions in bad publicity. It will not happen.

How do you figure no-one will die?


Terrorists hijack a plane...
Nobody is armed...
Terrorists ram plane into building...
????
PROFIT!!!


Weapons exist as a practical form of self defense. Just because we ban weapons, doesn't mean terrorists are going to ban weapons. If anything, they'll see an oppurtunity to bully us even more, because we're fish in a barrel.

What kind of idiotic statement is that? They all died.

All weapons were already banned on this plane and because of it the terrorist were able to take the plane over with a baby and a box cutter.

So your theory is 10 passengers die while killing terrorists is worse publicity than plane hi-jacked, flown into World Trade Center killing 3000 plus the fact that 300 passengers died. I love this forum because it exposes the brain dead.

__________________
ABoyNamedSue - Speaking of Crestwoods posts - And then there'll be some link to some page, written in hindu or something, talking about sherpas and A&W root beer, and how George Bush is to blame for some Jewish neo-nazi death camp, run by Elvis Presley, on the far side of the moon that's been busted for killing kittens or something

The thing is, they would be aiming at the TERRORISTS, and not at the PLANE.

__________________
^My First Knockout Victory!^

Terrorists are not police officers. Never make that mistake again!

__________________
^My First Knockout Victory!^

I thought thousands died?

__________________
^My First Knockout Victory!^

Yeah, but it means that fixing the problems is like brain surgery.

__________________
^My First Knockout Victory!^

So the terrorists would be aiming at the terrorists?

Well anyways. If the gov wasn't involved with any security requirements. Who thinks the Airline Companies would allow passengers to carry guns? What do you think they would allow on their property?

Edit: My guess is that it would probably be the same. PR pressure would cause them to make sure that their scanning systems and staff would be up to par. Tho Northwest would probably still suck balls :P

I meant that the passengers in the cartoon are aiming at the terrorists. Anyway, the terrorists might aim at themselves because they ARE suicide terrorists.

__________________
^My First Knockout Victory!^