4 ms·
I'd rather have less invasive searches than tiny pocketknives too, but I don't think such knives present any real risk of taking over a plane. Sure, an attacke
by Zak 14y ago
I'd rather have less invasive searches than tiny pocketknives too, but I don't think such knives present any real risk of taking over a plane.
Sure, an attacker could kill people with a small knife, but killing and/or threatening passengers and flight attendants will not gain an attacker access to the cockpit. Everyone involved now assumes that a hijacker who gains access to the cockpit will try to crash the plane in to a building, so a significant portion of people will fight to the death against any attempt to enter the cockpit. I suspect everyone who would seriously contemplate hijacking a plane knows this and would not attempt a plan using only small knives.
- eurleif 14y agoHow would a larger weapon change that?
- Zak 14y agoIt wouldn't. A hijacking attempt with say... a katana might injure or kill a few more defending passengers than a pocketknife, but the outcome would be the same.
- sukuriant 14y agoActually, I would figure it'd be easier for them to hurt you with a pocket knife than a katana. Airplanes are small spaces, and large swords are unwieldy. Even samurai used wakizashis indoors more than huge katanas. That said, I want neither in carry-on.
- JulianMorrison 14y agoNo hijacker, whether of the crash-the-plane or hostage-exchange sort, actually wants to use their weapon. Neither running around slashing people, nor shooting off bullets in a plane. So bigger, scarier weapons are more effective at the job of creating terrified compliance. People who would rush a pocket knife may balk at rushing a machete.