I just heard Tom Ridge say on Fox that "I don't feel [emphasis editor] that pilots should have guns in the cockpits..."

Yeah, that's the problem. Too many government boobacrats, like you and Norm Mineta, are making decisions on feelings, instead of thought.

I hope the pilots strike over this.

This wouldn't bother me so much if we had undercover air marshalls on every flight. But as it stands, I don't trust a "stun gun" to stop a suicidal marauder. Wasn't there talk at one point about arming pilots with guns that hold frangible bullets? Why was that shelved? Anyone?

Undercover air marshalls aren't that great either. If there are multiple hijackers, they can flush them out by initiating the attempt, and have another hijacker take them out when they reveal themselves. Ultimately, it's always going to be up to passengers and crew, and I'd rather have them armed. The danger of a stray bullet to an airliner is greatly overstated.

In the case of multiple hijackers, wouldn't they just be flushing out the only guy on the plane with a gun. Unless of course the pilot had one, I mean.

And I certainly meant to suggest that the passengers, too, should be all over anyone who intitiates a threatening act.

It just seems to me that -- for precisely the reasons you raise -- an air marshall would almost force a multiple-hijacker team to make an attempt (rather than a lone nut, who would be promptly shot out of his sneakers). Groups of terrorists together are probably easier to spot pre-emptively, too.

Now add an armed pilot, a reinforced cockpit, and vigilant passengers, and you're own to something.