3 ms·

You can buy glass, you can get knives from restaurants. I can't speak for US terminals but in many international ones. The glass you get isn't large enough to

You can buy glass, you can get knives from restaurants. I can't speak for US terminals but in many international ones. The glass you get isn't large enough to cause serious damage e.g. snowdomes and the knives in restaurants have deliberately dull blades. And cockpit doors whilst locked from the inside are routinely opened in order to provide food/drinks to the captain. So it's hardly a fool proof system. But hey don't let me stop with your confused anti-TSA crusade.

betterunix 14y ago
That's funny, because the last time I went to an international airport I saw a duty-free shop with big glass bottles full of liquor. Hey, I must be confused about how much glass is needed to make a useful weapon. I have seen plenty of glass that a clever terrorist might steal from restaurants at small regional airports as well. As for knives, any knife that is sharp enough to cut a steak is sharp enough to be used as a weapon. The thing is, I am not a terrorist. What I see as potential weapons are probably just the tip of the iceberg of things that can be turned into a weapon. Prisoners manage to make weapons out of all sorts of seemingly innocuous objects. What makes you think that the things I can identify as possible weapons are an evenly remotely exhaustive list? What makes you think that a terrorist could not find more weapons on the other side of security?
- taligent 14y ago
  It is non trivial to smash a liquor bottle to produce a long shard strong enough to cause mass damage. And it has to be smashed without rousing attention amongst passengers. And even if you did cut someone it would take minutes to bleed to death. And the knives rely on serration to cut through steak so are very dull. And given that every country in the world has a TSA and abides by almost identical rules I would guess that there is a lot of people thinking about ways to make us safer. Why isn't the status quo the safest yet reasonable measures we have ?
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "It is non trivial to smash a liquor bottle to produce a long shard strong enough to cause mass damage. And it has to be smashed without rousing attention amongst passengers." I am pretty sure a terrorist would (a) practice smashing bottles until he can reliably create a weapon and (b) smash the bottle before boarding the plane, in an empty bathroom (I have been to international airports where no flights depart from an entire section during the night, yet passengers are free to wander around or sit in those sections), and just carry it on board because there are no security checks before boarding the plane. "And the knives rely on serration to cut through steak so are very dull." So you think a somewhat dull serrated edge could not be used as a weapon? Prisoners manage to use far less effective weapons to kill each other; why couldn't terrorists do it? "given that every country in the world has a TSA" What is your point? Everyone has a public display of their airport security? Do you think that it is impossible that everyone just wants their citizens to feel safe and that the point of a public security check is to do just that?

betterunix 14y ago

That's funny, because the last time I went to an international airport I saw a duty-free shop with big glass bottles full of liquor. Hey, I must be confused about how much glass is needed to make a useful weapon. I have seen plenty of glass that a clever terrorist might steal from restaurants at small regional airports as well. As for knives, any knife that is sharp enough to cut a steak is sharp enough to be used as a weapon. The thing is, I am not a terrorist. What I see as potential weapons are probably just the tip of the iceberg of things that can be turned into a weapon. Prisoners manage to make weapons out of all sorts of seemingly innocuous objects. What makes you think that the things I can identify as possible weapons are an evenly remotely exhaustive list? What makes you think that a terrorist could not find more weapons on the other side of security?

taligent 14y ago
It is non trivial to smash a liquor bottle to produce a long shard strong enough to cause mass damage. And it has to be smashed without rousing attention amongst passengers. And even if you did cut someone it would take minutes to bleed to death. And the knives rely on serration to cut through steak so are very dull. And given that every country in the world has a TSA and abides by almost identical rules I would guess that there is a lot of people thinking about ways to make us safer. Why isn't the status quo the safest yet reasonable measures we have ?
- betterunix 14y ago
  "It is non trivial to smash a liquor bottle to produce a long shard strong enough to cause mass damage. And it has to be smashed without rousing attention amongst passengers." I am pretty sure a terrorist would (a) practice smashing bottles until he can reliably create a weapon and (b) smash the bottle before boarding the plane, in an empty bathroom (I have been to international airports where no flights depart from an entire section during the night, yet passengers are free to wander around or sit in those sections), and just carry it on board because there are no security checks before boarding the plane. "And the knives rely on serration to cut through steak so are very dull." So you think a somewhat dull serrated edge could not be used as a weapon? Prisoners manage to use far less effective weapons to kill each other; why couldn't terrorists do it? "given that every country in the world has a TSA" What is your point? Everyone has a public display of their airport security? Do you think that it is impossible that everyone just wants their citizens to feel safe and that the point of a public security check is to do just that?