*~bUmMeR dUdE~*

I think you hit the nail on the head. Terrorism is effective partly because people see the death and destruction on the news and misassess the threat on an emotional level. That happens even to people who are aware of statistical facts.

I'm pretty sure that if airport security didn't exist we'd want to invent it. Before we had metal detectors at airports, hijackings were stunningly common: between 1961 and 1973, there were more than 160 hijackings, which amounts to more than one a month. Even at that rate, the chances of being on a plane that was hijacked were low. But so what? There was also a much higher rate of fatal air incidents several decades ago, and deliberate efforts have been taken to minimize them, so that flying is now much safer than it's ever been. It's hardly wasted effort that some engineers didn't decide "oh, well, **** happens, planes crash, nothing we can do about it!" I'm definitely glad the FAA didn't decide, for example, after TWA 800, that flying is already "low risk", that it was a freak accident, and there's no point in investing money to try and learn from it and make flying safer.

False equivalence.

Improving aircraft design is a small cost that amortizes across an entire fleet. Improving maintenance processes is a net productivity gain. Basic security screenings and metal detectors are a relatively low impact change that most people would agree is worth the tradeoff.

The fact that these things are reasonable does not mean the TSA is. Especially when, by all accounts, they are WORSE than what the US was doing before.

Given that Obi was talking about lowering the speed limit on highways 15 mph within the larger context of a discussion about averting risk, it hardly seems like false equivalence. But I'll take that up with him rather than you.

But, no -- I'm not saying whatever the TSA does now is optimal and shouldn't be changed. Quite to the contrary, it does seem absurdly inefficient and ineffective. But airport security as such is a valuable thing to have, and we know what happens when it doesn't exist: it looks a lot like what happened in Las Vegas on Sunday night, except with planes, and it happens more frequently. And, in both cases, we expect -- rightfully -- that our government should do what it can to prevent needless deaths, especially when the cost to citizens is as trifling as "arrive at the airport an hour before your flight".

Nobody is saying it shouldn't exist at all, only that many TSA practices are more harmful than helpful.

Obi is.

The TSA shouldn't exist at all. Instead everybody should bring guns onto the plane so they can shoot any terrorists who get on board.

Also why aren't we talking about the real issues here. The events in Vegas have affected real estate prices, hitting the wallets of very rich people.

If you think a 747 is safe with 1 air marshal, wait until it has 243!

If everybody is police, then nobody can be a criminal. Instant safe society!

No that means everyone is criminals.

When police are outlaws, then only outlaws will have police.

I found this to be a fair and well-written piece on a serious, tragic problem and it's complicated and tricky solution(s).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

Circumstances such as this one are unfortunate, because (as someone mentioned earlier) it sounds like the guy just cracked. No warnings, no obvious patterns. Further, this is a difficult issue because it's about the constitution - air travel, drivers licenses, health care, even marriage or abortion can be interpreted as being protected under the constitution, but firearms are deliberately and specifically mentioned. People often say "the second amendment is about muskets, not assault rifles." That's absurd. If that argument holds merit, then the first amendment is about quills and pressed newspapers and town criers, not the internet or television or kneeling at football games. The patriots had just finished fighting a war for "freedom" against their own government, and wanted to make sure subsequent citizens would have the resources necessary to maintain that "freedom." It is the supreme law of this land - literally. Rather than blame guns, the NRA, gun-toting republicans, or elected officials, we should lobby to amend the second amendment. Guns or insufficient laws are not the argument, the constitution is.

No I'm not. I'm saying that everything is a trade off, and waiting forty five minutes in line and getting molested isn't a reasonable tradeoff, especially since it buys us almost nothing over pre 9/11 security.

Well I'm not going to argue with you about what you were or weren't arguing for.

It buys you billions of dollars worth of X-ray backscatter machines that don't work and give their operators cancer, and it bought Michael Chertoff and friends a lot of big houses.

Oh

You were probably talking about security.

Oh.

Grifting is hot business in the U.S.