🚀 go-pugleaf

"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> writes:

>>>The hijackers were armed only with knives. Had the fifty some passengers
>>>in each of the planes wanted to overpower them, they would have. But
>>>they didn't. And had the passengers carried guns, odds are they wouldn't
>>>have had the guts to use them.

>>In light of what we know now, some of those unarmed passengers
>>did perform very brave actions.  I expect the passengers on the
>>first planes thought it was a hijacking for money, DB Cooper-style,
>>rather than near-certain death, and by the time they realized otherwise
>>it was too late.

>True. Hats off to them, and apologies for implying they were not brave.

Don't worry too much about it.  Firing off a gun in an airliner
would be much more stupid than brave for most people.  Sky Marshals
have a ridiculously rigourous training program (okay, not 
"ridiculously" -- it's tremendously important) because there are
few places more dangerous to shoot a gun than in an airliner. 
This whole thing has made a lot of people say things they'd like
to take back, and we shouldn't judge anyone's statements too
harshly.  Mine included.


-- 
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch,    Joe
.. or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to        Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances."       at Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution           University