4 ms·

> The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives during security audits. I know I'm expressing a view that's probably been expres

by dvdhsu 15y ago

> The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives during security audits. I know I'm expressing a view that's probably been expressed. Nevertheless, I hope you can explain how/why this statement is wrong: "The scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now. If the scanners were removed, there would be more people carrying weapons." I suppose you could argue that the people who really want to carry weapons wouldn't be stopped by a scanner. Then again, there are definitely "impulse crimes", where people are driven to commit crimes based on nothing but impulse/pent up anger. Those people would have been stopped by scanners, but are let through, if there were no/less effective scanners.

tikhonj 15y ago
Regarding "impulse" crimes--I don't see why such crimes are that much more of an issue on a plane than anywhere else. My understanding of psychology is naturally imperfect, but I don't think that a hijacking would be an impulse crime. I could see why explosives would be more dangerous on a plane than elsewhere. However, people don't generally carry large amounts of explosives with them for no good reason, so explosives also don't lend themselves to impulse crime. Other dangers, like getting shot or stabbed--something that is actually likely to be an impulse crime--are not much more dangerous on a plane than on the ground. Since we're perfectly content running the risk of being shot walking around outside, I don't see why airports would need special security just to prevent impulse crimes. Of course, this is not an argument against all airport security. While I am personally against it, I would have to spend more time and do some research before being confident of making a compelling case against it. I'm just explaining why I think preventing impulse crimes would not be a good reason for tight security at airports.
luser001 15y ago
Ok, I'll bite. Because you need to weigh benefits against costs? A certain number of people die from vaccines (side effects, negligence etc) every year. That's a fact. Do we stop vaccinating? No, we don't, because the number of lives saved is probably >10000X the cost.
roc 15y ago
> "The scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now." The scanners aren't deterring anyone who wasn't already deterred by simple metal detectors. Has there ever been a single case of an "impulse crime" committed with a weapon on a plane, prior to the installation of body scanners?

by dvdhsu 15y ago

tikhonj 15y ago

Regarding "impulse" crimes--I don't see why such crimes are that much more of an issue on a plane than anywhere else. My understanding of psychology is naturally imperfect, but I don't think that a hijacking would be an impulse crime. I could see why explosives would be more dangerous on a plane than elsewhere. However, people don't generally carry large amounts of explosives with them for no good reason, so explosives also don't lend themselves to impulse crime. Other dangers, like getting shot or stabbed--something that is actually likely to be an impulse crime--are not much more dangerous on a plane than on the ground. Since we're perfectly content running the risk of being shot walking around outside, I don't see why airports would need special security just to prevent impulse crimes. Of course, this is not an argument against all airport security. While I am personally against it, I would have to spend more time and do some research before being confident of making a compelling case against it. I'm just explaining why I think preventing impulse crimes would not be a good reason for tight security at airports.

luser001 15y ago

Ok, I'll bite. Because you need to weigh benefits against costs? A certain number of people die from vaccines (side effects, negligence etc) every year. That's a fact. Do we stop vaccinating? No, we don't, because the number of lives saved is probably >10000X the cost.

roc 15y ago

> "The scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now." The scanners aren't deterring anyone who wasn't already deterred by simple metal detectors. Has there ever been a single case of an "impulse crime" committed with a weapon on a plane, prior to the installation of body scanners?