Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
Well, I situated it well enough in my first paragraph, but I'll restate it since you didn't quote that section:
A terrorist doesn't need to be a very good shot to approach a flight attendent from behind in a friendly and normal fashion, quickly place one's hand a few inches (or even less) from any number of lethal spots in a typical gesture (take your pick: feigns a stumble, tap on the back, butt grabbing and hand to the throat, etc.) to kill someone.
I don't know if you understood my point that the utility of such a weapon is essentially useless for "stopping power" or protection or whatever other conventional use you might be envisioning. The use would only seem to be in a specific, stealthy, highly planned/coordinated attack perpetrated on an unsuspecting victim(s) using very common human behaviors and responses to them.
[that is, when someone starts to stumble, we tend to try and stop their fall, especially when our job is an attendent of some sort; when someone violates our personal space in a predictable, but non-violent manner (pinches one's butt, for example) we tend to turn and slap the person or brush the hand off--not do some martial arts spin and stance]
|
Wow I didn't realize the first paragraph said so much. Those are a lot of implications within the statement "suffice the needs of a terrorists hijacking something".
Hijacking something (post 9/11 more than ever) takes more than just killing an unsuspecting flight attendant or two. How would you propose that they get through the cockpit doors without drawing attention to themselves? My point was that as soon as there was ANY indication that something was wrong they'd be set upon by passengers. The weapon you describe would be ineffective. You made no mention nor implied anything about stopping power. That's why I brought it up.