Because the other passengers were deceived. They did not think it was a life-and-death situation. There had been any number of previous hijackings in which the way they behaved was entirely appropriate.

They were not told they were being flown to their death. On the flight where the passengers figured it out anyway, they did fight back.

Remember the LA riots a few years ago? I believe the cops were sued for not responding and they won the case. Something about they are not required to respond in some situations.

nm

Where would you get the "vast majority"? Like to see some
statistics on that.

Sometimes private gun ownership even prods the authorities into action.
Remember those kooks in the Jordan valley of Montana? The ones
handing out their own version of money to pay taxes and bills etc? The ones who were cheating and threatening their
neighbors? The local
Sheriff wasn't capable of doing anything, the Feds weren't doing
anything,
so the neighbors said "We'll take care of it." Made posse's
and plans for getting rid of them. That forced
law enforcement to step in before they lost control.

http://www.adl.org/mwd/freemen.asp

Tom_L, you may not be trained or properly armed to fight back against an assailant hell-bent on raping your wife, mother, or daughter. But, that said, would you honestly sit there and watch it happen and do nothing about it?

I was in the military years ago, not some super-secret Special Forces ninja bullcrap, either. I had a normal job. But one thing I learned in the military is that when the chips are down, you fight with everything in your power.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night to do me or my family harm, if there's even a .000001% chance I can stop them, I will. If I can't reach a gun, I'll use a knife. If I can't reach a knife, I'll bludgeon them with something, anything.

I will defend the lives of my family and friends with my own if need be, I'm fully prepared for that.

I'm not a mechanic, but I fix my Jeep when it's broke. I'm not a doctor, but I've sewn stitches, gauzed and taped major cuts, and splinted broken bones. I'm not a fireman, but I've put out fires and dragged people out of burning cars. I'm not a policeman, or on a SWAT team, but I'll do my best to stop anyone trying to bring harm to my family, period.

If guns don't stop crime, why do the police carry guns? Why don't they carry some balloons and maybe some flowers? Because they know, guns DO stop crime. A dead criminal isn't going to commit many more crimes.

Whew, the campfire is getting kinda hot!

The way I see it, there are two approaches being considered here, let someone else (namely law enforcement) take care of the problem, or handle it yourself.

I would reckon that for either group, what the law actually says probably doesn't make much difference to their decision. For those who would arm themselves and defend their property and person, I figure they would do it with whatever they deemed was suitable for the task, whether that was going to result in an illegal action on their part or not. Conversely, for those who would insist that criminal behavior is best handled by law enforcement agents, in whatever form, are not likely to stand and fight when it comes to something like armed robbery or worse, but will choose either escape or appeasement until the authorities arrive to take control of the situation. In any case, neither side is going to base their decision on whether owning and using a weapon for self-defense is legal or not. I know for darned sure I never would. Not really much to debate I say.

That's why there are knife laws as well!

Although after reading the tragic story from Belguim about the 'nutjob' thinking he was the 'Joker' from the latest Batman film perhaps there should be greater restrictions on the level of violence shown in many Hollywood films as well. Gun and knife violence, murder and killing mayhem are the stock in trade of the Hollywood industry machine.

Or maybe we should just squeeze the oil out of nuts.

The Odessy. Beowulf. Gilgamesh. They all are heavy on violence. I don't think that the medium of entertainment is any more to blame than any other tool for the actions of the mentally unbalanced. It's like saying that the Cantabury Tales made kids have sex, but there are plenty of naughty bits in that. We might say that violent entertainment of any form makes it more likely, but then you've just killed about half of the basic stories out there. Get rid of sex, and you are down to pious pontification. Yuck.

Perhaps we should just make crime illegal? Ban criminals and crazies? Or at least require they be stored in a secure location?

I thought we already housed criminals and crazies in secure locations. Aren't the house and senate buildings considered secure locations these days?

What ever happened to teaching our children discretion? Out of context, yes even the classics can incite disdainful behavior I suppose. Children misbehave, and parents have a duty to society to raise children so that they learn to control their behavior in a manner that doesn't interfere with the rights of others. If a child has issues or special needs (retardation, autism, epilepsy, personality disorders), then the parent has the duty to address those issues. It is now a matter of fact that for the vast majority these days the approach to parenting is merely a consequence of irresponsible sexual activity, with the parents being mostly unprepared and unmotivated to assume their requisite duties. This is a failing of our society, and most likely uncorrectible at this point in time and certain to lead us to failure. Even planned parenthood most often only considers the most favorable conditions.