Capt Pit Bull
Your argument about trusting your hand to hand skills less than your weapons skills overlooks an important point. When the terrorist is armed with a gun, they have a tactical advantage over everyone else on the aeroplane. When no one has a weapon, you now have at a hundred or more able bodied passengers able to assist you in your hand-to-hand fighting. That evens the odds up somewhat over the scenario where a firearm is involved.
Isn't that the whole point of any weapon? It amplifies your physical power. My argument is that we must ensure that there is absolutely no chance of any such "amplifier" being let onto an aircraft because it allows a minority to impose its will on a majority. Just the fact that there is one on the plane allows for the possibility that it can be used to gain control of the flight deck.
Maybe I can illustrate this point mathematically. I hasten to add that the figures I use are arbitrary and only meant to demonstate a point.
Let us suppose that, for any given flight, despite your best attempts and your military or law-enforcement training, with proper planning, intelligence and assistance, a terrorist has a 5% chance of disarming you before you manage to incapacitate him.
Now we need to look at the probablitis of an armed and an unarmed terrorist securing control of the flight deck. I believe that since Sept 11, the chances of an unarmed terrorist securing control of the flight deck are very small - say 1%. I think that recent events support my theory. However, the chances of an armed terrorist securing control of the flight deck are pretty high - let's say around 80%.
So, doing the maths: If a firearm is on board, the net probability of the terrorist gaining control of the flight deck is
0.05 x 0.8 = 0.04 or 4%
If a firearm is not on board the best chance the terrorist has is 1%, according to my estimate above.
Now, you may argue with my figures - that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate my argument, only my conclusion. If you can prove to me that my estimates are wrong then I may change my mind. Until then, I believe rationally - not emotionally - that the very presence of a firearm on board an aircraft increases rather than decreases the danger of hijack.
Roadtrip
You appear to be even more deeply challenged in analytical skills than I since you obviously are unable to distinguish betwen an emotional argument and a rational one. I defy to you point out one sentence of mine that even mentions or alludes to emotion.
The true sign of someone who is incapable of rational thought is one who descends to insult in lieu of argument. If you read back through the thread, you may get my point - assuming your critical thinking is as good as you suppose it is.
Tripower
You're ranting. Please try and calm down a little. If you get this excited about an on-line discussion, I dread to think how you would respond to a cockpit emergency.
You don't know anything about my background with firearms, so you are in no position to make reference to what I know about it. As to the "socialist" gibe, Capt Pit Bull knows me personally, and he could tell you how laughable that is.
To answer your quesiton about sky marshals, I thought my previous posts would have made that clear. I am against the idea of having any firearms whatsoever permanently on board an aircraft (or, more specifially, "predictably on board an aircraft") . If it makes you feel any better, if I was to give a list of people on an aircraft who could potentially legally posses firearms, the order of how bad an idea I think it is goes as follows:
1. Cabin Crew
2. Sky Marshals
3. Flight Crew