🚀 go-pugleaf

Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> Because one bullet can depressurize the cabin and probably
> kill everyone.

This is almost certainly not true.  One bullet would make a very small
hole in a cabin.  If you work out the physics, you'll see that the rate
of depressurization would be very low, taking hours to depressurize it
(the rate of outflow might even be low enough to be balanced
indefinitely by the intake capacity of the air compressors, but I'm not
sure of that).  In any case, the result of depresurization is not likely
to be death for everyone on board.  People with access to oxygen would
survive easily.  In addition, the response of the flight crew to
depresurization would be to decend to a lower altitude (pressurization
is only to 10,000 ft, so decending to that altitude would restore full
cabin pressure, and generally people have no trouble breathing even at
15,000 ft).

The biggest risk of a stray bullet on an airplane (aside from hitting
someone) is not depresurization, but damaging some critical piece of
equipment.  Even in that unlikely event, the redundency present on
aircraft would make a catestrophic loss-of-aircraft failure incredibly
unlikely.

> Also because the planes are owned by airlines,
> not the government, and they are entirely within their rights
> to restrict dangerous devices.

The government has so much involvement in the operation of airlines,
including the existance of all sorts of very specific laws and
regulations covering activities by both passengers and crew on board
airplanes that I would hesitate to give this kind of argument very much
merit.  The airlines' ability to make rules about on-board conduct is
extremely limited (and they like it that way, because it limits their
liability).