I'm sort of ambivalent about guns in the cockpit. Not that I'm = particularly anti-gun per se (although I do agree that the logistical = issues of arming the cockpit would be challenging), just that I think we = (as a society) are spending a whole lot of effort belaboring a moot = point. Why do I think it is moot? Because no serious terrorist group is = going to try to hijack a plane again. The rules have changed. The = pilots, cabin crew, and passengers won't sit by and let a hijack = succeed; they'll all resist. The most any would-be hijackers could hope = to accomplish would be kill a few innocents before they themselves were = killed. 9/11 succeeded because the terrorist exploited the prevailing = doctrine for dealing with hijackers. The emphasis on sky marshals and = guns in the cockpit and ludicrous security screening is, frankly, = closing the barn door after the horses have all escaped. I maintain that = a 9/11-style hijacking would fail even if we had the same security we = did before 9/11. Instead of addressing things that have already happened, we should be = emphasizing closing the next loopholes. The potential for a bombs in a = suitcase scares me the most. And when that is covered with legitimate = screening (not window dressing screening), what's next? I bet a dozen = guys armed with automatic weapons could blow by (or through) a security = checkpoint and be on a plane before anyone realized what was going on. = What about the airport perimeter? A set of bolt cutters and you're = through the fence. Load up a Hummer with guys and automatic weapons and = you think a couple cops driving around in black-and-whites could stop = them? So I contend that since the people on a plane will no longer cooperate = with hijackers, a "conventional" hijacking is no longer the path of = least resistance for a ne'er do well and so we needn't focus on = addressing that possibility. Instead we should be trying to head off the = next path of least resistance. Respectfully, Jon -- Jon Wright mailto:jwright@halcyon.com