3 ms·

Anyone whose goal is to sneak a weapon through TSA would do a quick google and learn that they fail to catch weapons and contraband snuck through their checkpoi

Anyone whose goal is to sneak a weapon through TSA would do a quick google and learn that they fail to catch weapons and contraband snuck through their checkpoints in their own tests about 95% of the time [1]. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...

sandworm101 5y ago
Everyone has seen those results, but have you looked into the nature of the devices they were using? These weren't handguns or swords. These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks. If I was a terrorist looking to bring a bomb onto a plane, I would probably also build it to sneak past security checks. Isn't that the point?
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    That depends. TSA stops thousands of people from bringing firearms onto aircraft each year. Those are certainly not all terrorists, but it does indicate that, no matter the test results, the screening is necessary and at least somewhat effective. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firearm-catches-checkpoints-sets-20-year-record-first-nine https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firea... >> By October 3rd of this year, TSA officers had stopped 4,495 airline passengers from carrying firearms onto their flights, surpassing the previous record of 4,432 firearms caught at checkpoints in the full calendar year 2019
    - jtsiskin 5y ago
      I don’t think anyone is arguing for totally 0 checks. People just want to not need to unpack their bags, empty their pockets, take off their shoes/belt, and to be able to carry a water bottle.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        To be honest, there's not a single check when you take Amtrak and things actually work just fine there. Something about being up in the sky makes people scared enough to go through a metal detector, I suppose.
        gruturo 5y ago
        Trains are intrinsically resistant to hijacking - it's really difficult to get them to divert to Cuba, or to crash them into a high rise building, unless one was somehow built on their path. I'd really like to understand the TSA's scenario, it looks like another massive and pointless waste of money added to what that the organization already does in airports.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        I agree trains are hard to redirect but planes are too, after they reinforced cockpit doors post-9/11. In my opinion that’s literally the only useful thing that came out of 9/11 from an air security perspective.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      This goes back to our conversation upstream: nobody is saying that there shouldn't be security at airports. You shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun onto a plane, and our security systems should be sufficient to handle that case. The actual items under dispute are: (1) what is the TSA's domain (anti-terrorism? catching personal amounts of drugs? guns?), and (2) why should we put up with all of the theater that isn't making us any safer?
      - sidewndr46 5y ago
        We put up with them in the US because we have to & we don't get a choice. You'll notice that DHS & all of its component parts aren't part of the political process. Politicians never discuss their elimination. They are accepted as a intrinsic of the federal government. Removing TSA is like suggesting we don't need Congress.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        Call me a misguided optimist, but I think it’s premature to say that “we don’t have a choice” until we’ve exhausted all of our options. Most Americans don’t even know the names of their representatives. Improving the public’s ability to petition its officials is something we should try before completely giving up.
cryptonector 5y ago
Or they would try to board in states where having a license to carry gives you an "oh, I forgot" defense to trying to carry a firearm through security at the airport.

sandworm101 5y ago

Everyone has seen those results, but have you looked into the nature of the devices they were using? These weren't handguns or swords. These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks.

woodruffw 5y ago
> These were devices designed to mimic bombs, bombs built to best sneak past security checks. If I was a terrorist looking to bring a bomb onto a plane, I would probably also build it to sneak past security checks. Isn't that the point?
- sandworm101 5y ago
  That depends. TSA stops thousands of people from bringing firearms onto aircraft each year. Those are certainly not all terrorists, but it does indicate that, no matter the test results, the screening is necessary and at least somewhat effective. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firearm-catches-checkpoints-sets-20-year-record-first-nine https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/10/13/tsa-firea... >> By October 3rd of this year, TSA officers had stopped 4,495 airline passengers from carrying firearms onto their flights, surpassing the previous record of 4,432 firearms caught at checkpoints in the full calendar year 2019
  - jtsiskin 5y ago
    I don’t think anyone is arguing for totally 0 checks. People just want to not need to unpack their bags, empty their pockets, take off their shoes/belt, and to be able to carry a water bottle.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      To be honest, there's not a single check when you take Amtrak and things actually work just fine there. Something about being up in the sky makes people scared enough to go through a metal detector, I suppose.
      - gruturo 5y ago
        Trains are intrinsically resistant to hijacking - it's really difficult to get them to divert to Cuba, or to crash them into a high rise building, unless one was somehow built on their path. I'd really like to understand the TSA's scenario, it looks like another massive and pointless waste of money added to what that the organization already does in airports.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        I agree trains are hard to redirect but planes are too, after they reinforced cockpit doors post-9/11. In my opinion that’s literally the only useful thing that came out of 9/11 from an air security perspective.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    This goes back to our conversation upstream: nobody is saying that there shouldn't be security at airports. You shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun onto a plane, and our security systems should be sufficient to handle that case. The actual items under dispute are: (1) what is the TSA's domain (anti-terrorism? catching personal amounts of drugs? guns?), and (2) why should we put up with all of the theater that isn't making us any safer?
    - sidewndr46 5y ago
      We put up with them in the US because we have to & we don't get a choice. You'll notice that DHS & all of its component parts aren't part of the political process. Politicians never discuss their elimination. They are accepted as a intrinsic of the federal government. Removing TSA is like suggesting we don't need Congress.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Call me a misguided optimist, but I think it’s premature to say that “we don’t have a choice” until we’ve exhausted all of our options. Most Americans don’t even know the names of their representatives. Improving the public’s ability to petition its officials is something we should try before completely giving up.

cryptonector 5y ago

Or they would try to board in states where having a license to carry gives you an "oh, I forgot" defense to trying to carry a firearm through security at the airport.