6 ms·

The next time you stand up for your dignity before the TSA, remember that there are armed guards ready to shoot.

by betterunix 13y ago

krapp 13y ago
I don't think they want guns so they can shoot the people who complain about having to get patted down.
- betterunix 13y ago
  That's not the point. Just having an armed guy in a uniform standing there will have the effect of intimidating passengers further, even if no guns are ever fired.
  - krapp 13y ago
    That's valid, but there are already armed guards and officers in airports. An argument could be made that more guns would be overkill (pun unintended) but I don't know that it would necessarily increase the intimidation factor significantly, would it?
    - betterunix 13y ago
      Well it depends on a few things. Are the guards standing at the checkpoints, or just wandering around on patrol? Are they armed with handguns or assault rifles? For what it's worth, I did not notice a police presence or armed guards the last time I flew out of LGA (a week ago).
- nodata 13y ago
  Intimidation doesn't work like that.
  - krapp 13y ago
    Why is it intimidation if TSA agents want to be able to protect themselves from potential harm but it isn't intimidation if other people want to exercise the same right to arm themselves against potential intruders, or the state?
    - nodata 13y ago
      You're thinking about things from the TSA's perspective, think about it from the traveller's perspective: they are waiting in line, knowing full well that all of this shoe taking off and public cavity searching is unnecessary, and now they have the added knowledge that if they complain there is a man standing nearby with a gun.
      - krapp 13y ago
        I'm thinking about it from the perspective of a TSA agent as a human being who may want to be able to defend themselves against attack like anyone else.
        betterunix 13y ago
        Why should travelers not be armed then? I walk into an airport with no weapons at all, no ability to defend myself from an attack. In fact the purpose of the checkpoints, in theory, is to ensure that travelers are unarmed.
        krapp 13y ago
        >Why should travelers not be armed then? One practical reason is that no one else can parse the motives of someone walking armed into an international airport until they start shooting or don't. At least cops and (maybe, maybe not) the TSA agents are supposed to have them, and be trained to use them, and trustworthy not to start murdering people. So.. either everyone can carry everything they want anywhere they like and we all just hope for the best or else an attempt is made to restrict weapons only to those known (theoretically) to be lawful actors.

The next time you stand up for your dignity before the TSA, remember that there are armed guards ready to shoot.

krapp 13y ago

I don't think they want guns so they can shoot the people who complain about having to get patted down.

betterunix 13y ago
That's not the point. Just having an armed guy in a uniform standing there will have the effect of intimidating passengers further, even if no guns are ever fired.
- krapp 13y ago
  That's valid, but there are already armed guards and officers in airports. An argument could be made that more guns would be overkill (pun unintended) but I don't know that it would necessarily increase the intimidation factor significantly, would it?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Well it depends on a few things. Are the guards standing at the checkpoints, or just wandering around on patrol? Are they armed with handguns or assault rifles? For what it's worth, I did not notice a police presence or armed guards the last time I flew out of LGA (a week ago).
nodata 13y ago
Intimidation doesn't work like that.
- krapp 13y ago
  Why is it intimidation if TSA agents want to be able to protect themselves from potential harm but it isn't intimidation if other people want to exercise the same right to arm themselves against potential intruders, or the state?
  - nodata 13y ago
    You're thinking about things from the TSA's perspective, think about it from the traveller's perspective: they are waiting in line, knowing full well that all of this shoe taking off and public cavity searching is unnecessary, and now they have the added knowledge that if they complain there is a man standing nearby with a gun.
    - krapp 13y ago
      I'm thinking about it from the perspective of a TSA agent as a human being who may want to be able to defend themselves against attack like anyone else.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        Why should travelers not be armed then? I walk into an airport with no weapons at all, no ability to defend myself from an attack. In fact the purpose of the checkpoints, in theory, is to ensure that travelers are unarmed.
        krapp 13y ago
        >Why should travelers not be armed then? One practical reason is that no one else can parse the motives of someone walking armed into an international airport until they start shooting or don't. At least cops and (maybe, maybe not) the TSA agents are supposed to have them, and be trained to use them, and trustworthy not to start murdering people. So.. either everyone can carry everything they want anywhere they like and we all just hope for the best or else an attempt is made to restrict weapons only to those known (theoretically) to be lawful actors.