4 ms·

I read years ago (and can't now find the article) that the TSA screeners didn't really care about catching these guns. The TSA tested them by slipping one (or

I read years ago (and can't now find the article) that the TSA screeners didn't really care about catching these guns. The TSA tested them by slipping one (or a few) fake guns into luggage. If I recall, a screener said something along the lines of "we don't have to catch all guns. We only have to catch those guns." Sigh.

Amadou 13y ago
He's right. When there is no real threat, it doesn't matter how incompetent they are. As long as nothing bad happens you can't tell the difference between effective security and incompetence. You can tell on the micro-scale like those test weapons, but not on the macro scale where budgeting and oversight decisions are made.
- growupkids 13y ago
  I'm sorry, there's no real threat? Lack of intelligence supporting a specific threat is very different from a general threat. Is the supposition here that because we don't know if anyone is currently targeting aviation that we shouldn't defend against those threats? Even if those threats existed in the near past? I guess I'm not tracking the conclusion that there is no real threat. So there's no current intelligence showing any specific plots exist. That's good. Have there been plots in the past? Yes. Why did they stop? Does this mean there won't be any in the future? Perhaps because airliners are a pITa to target? Is the threat actor really gone? Are they targeting something else? I guess I find it hard to believe that the kind of wackjob so we've seen out there are suddenly kicking back and have retired from the terrorist scene. If the threat actor is still there, and previously target aviation, why did they stop?
  - Retric 13y ago
    We have no evidence to suggest invisible dragons are about to attack. But, that's no reason to avoid my multi-billion dollar anto dragon defense system now is there? 9/11 was a mild success but there is little reason to think it would work again simply because of reinforced cockpit doors.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Reinforced cockpit doors, and certain knowledge by passengers that they will die if they don't fight back against hijackers. Those are huge security improvements as a result of 9/11, and arguably the only security improvements. Everything else is a smokescreen and a giant waste of money, but those are effective, would stop another shot at a 9/11-style attack, and have stopped several attacks already.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > 9/11 was a mild success 9/11 caused billions of dollars of economic damage, and we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects - shuffling through airport security without our shoes, mass fingerprint surveillance, longer travel times, etc. 9/11 caused two wars, killing many thousands of soldiers, and maiming very many more, and those people now need expensive medical treatment and rehabilitation and benefits and etc.
      - gknoy 13y ago
        The only reason 9/11 caused these is because we (nationally) overreacted.
        DanBC 13y ago
        > we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects
        Amadou 13y ago
        > we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects The real damage wasn't self-imposed. It was imposed on us by poor leaders. The solution lies within. The events of 9/11 were vivid, but in terms of GDP just a blip. It was the poor leadership that caused so much economic and human damage - spending hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives for basically no return at all. We'll never have 100% control over foreign actors, but our government is an entirely different case. It exists by our whim alone. If instead we had spent just 1/100th of that money on better government accountability we'd be miles ahead of where we are today.

Amadou 13y ago

He's right. When there is no real threat, it doesn't matter how incompetent they are. As long as nothing bad happens you can't tell the difference between effective security and incompetence. You can tell on the micro-scale like those test weapons, but not on the macro scale where budgeting and oversight decisions are made.

growupkids 13y ago
I'm sorry, there's no real threat? Lack of intelligence supporting a specific threat is very different from a general threat. Is the supposition here that because we don't know if anyone is currently targeting aviation that we shouldn't defend against those threats? Even if those threats existed in the near past? I guess I'm not tracking the conclusion that there is no real threat. So there's no current intelligence showing any specific plots exist. That's good. Have there been plots in the past? Yes. Why did they stop? Does this mean there won't be any in the future? Perhaps because airliners are a pITa to target? Is the threat actor really gone? Are they targeting something else? I guess I find it hard to believe that the kind of wackjob so we've seen out there are suddenly kicking back and have retired from the terrorist scene. If the threat actor is still there, and previously target aviation, why did they stop?
- Retric 13y ago
  We have no evidence to suggest invisible dragons are about to attack. But, that's no reason to avoid my multi-billion dollar anto dragon defense system now is there? 9/11 was a mild success but there is little reason to think it would work again simply because of reinforced cockpit doors.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Reinforced cockpit doors, and certain knowledge by passengers that they will die if they don't fight back against hijackers. Those are huge security improvements as a result of 9/11, and arguably the only security improvements. Everything else is a smokescreen and a giant waste of money, but those are effective, would stop another shot at a 9/11-style attack, and have stopped several attacks already.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > 9/11 was a mild success 9/11 caused billions of dollars of economic damage, and we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects - shuffling through airport security without our shoes, mass fingerprint surveillance, longer travel times, etc. 9/11 caused two wars, killing many thousands of soldiers, and maiming very many more, and those people now need expensive medical treatment and rehabilitation and benefits and etc.
    - gknoy 13y ago
      The only reason 9/11 caused these is because we (nationally) overreacted.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        > we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects
        Amadou 13y ago
        > we are still suffering the (stupid, self-imposed) effects The real damage wasn't self-imposed. It was imposed on us by poor leaders. The solution lies within. The events of 9/11 were vivid, but in terms of GDP just a blip. It was the poor leadership that caused so much economic and human damage - spending hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives for basically no return at all. We'll never have 100% control over foreign actors, but our government is an entirely different case. It exists by our whim alone. If instead we had spent just 1/100th of that money on better government accountability we'd be miles ahead of where we are today.