"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

I was driving home from Cannon Mountain yesterday afternoon, and
listening to NRP (National Partisan Radio) as I went. The subject of
air marshals came up. The Talking Head was a London-based security
consultant. He said in effect:

"You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the
airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even
unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft."

The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host.


And yet it raises several questions in rational minds. The question, "But
what's to stop the terrorist from getting into a shootout with the air
marshal?", concedes that terrorists can get weapons aboard aircraft. That
being the case, what's the downside of having an armed air marshal aboard?
That it may cause passengers to be sucked out of the aircraft? Please. If
the terrorists gain control of the aircraft to use as a weapon the
passengers are all doomed anyway.