What might have happened on Sept. 11...

[Trei, Peter]

> Zombywuf[SMTP:0094247 at sms.ed.ac.uk] wrote:
> 
> Quoting "Trei, Peter" <ptrei at rsasecurity.com>:
> 
> > What would actually happen is that there would not be an attempt
> > to hijack the plane. The only reason the terrorists pulled it off
> > on the first three was that the usual protocol for hijacks involves
> > landing, and letting most/all of the passengers off unharmed.
> > For disarmed passengers, the best option for survival was to 
> > anticipate this protocol, and sit tight.
> 
> What would actually happen is that in order to commit an act of suicidal 
> terrorism all you'd have to do is stand up and rely on the other
> passengers to 
> shoot up the plane for you. It's a great stratagy, requires almost no
> effort 
> and no weapons. I everyone in the Us had that kind of attitude and a
> handgun 
> how many innocents would hav been killed for looking suspicious so far?
> 
Zombywuf appears to be a Brit - one of those people who have been 
disarmed for so long that he/she has no real knowledge of firearms. 
That, or he/she does not read very well.

I made specific reference to 'frangible, low velocity' ammunition. This is
to
prevent the very scenario he describes. (this is basicly a plastic dumdum
bullet with a low charge of propellent - at short range quite lethal, but 
unable to penetrate objects much more solid than cloth or meat.

If every adult in the US was armed, we'd be a much more polite
society, and have much less crime.

Peter Trei