Is not there a deterrent effect here?
A terrorist has a very hard time getting a gun on board these days. Remember the weapons used for 9/11. There is little doubt that a gun in the cockpit would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists in their tracks. It doesn't even take much training - the range is about 4 feet and the target is man-size. A revolver is 100% safe until you pick it up and the load can be adjusted to stop in the first body.
Therefore, if some airlines/nationalities announce that they have guns on board and others do not, which ones are going to get targeted? It's hardly rocket science.
Of course, as was suggested in an earlier post, the terrorists could resort to SA-7 or similar weapons "as at Mombasa". Three points arise. Firstly, while it is not entirely impossible to get hold of an SA-7, it's a lot more difficult than buying a Stanley knife. Second, the Mombasa attack failed. These weapons are obviously nothing like 100% successful. And thirdly, the consequenses of a successful Mombasa, while tragic, would have been vastly less than the 9/11 disaster.
The obvious point that arises from the above is that to defeat suicide terrorists requires guns in the cockpit (which is already a sealed area).
Sky marshals have the additional problem that when the guy with a gun stands up on the plane, my reaction as a passenger will be to bottle him with anything available (will a 3.5 kg laptop do?), take the gun off him and use it as I see best for my own survival. As anyone who appreciates my handle might understand, I'm actually quite experienced with guns and wouldn't have a problem blowing away any threat. I am also a professional pilot and appreciate that much of the "technical " objection to gunfire on board is actually bollocks. Aircraft are surprisingly robust. And I have flown home with bullet holes in the fuselage.
I suggest the way to go is obvious.
Sven
