Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals? I say no.
Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals? I say no.
Should the government be allowed to put a city on lockdown to catch a few criminals? I say no.
I don't mean to sound cold and heartless, but... How many people die in Boston from car accidents per day? Smoking? Drinking? I'm guessing a few. Locking down a city because a terrorist will try to kill people seems like giving into terrorism. I think it's an overreaction.
Shutting down millions of dollars in business because a couple people might get killed? If we did that for every minor risk, no one would ever leave home.
you consider a cold blooded killer with a penchent for using explosive devices, probably is armed to the teeth, roaming the streets of a major city a minor risk?
you consider a cold blooded killer with a penchent for using explosive devices, probably is armed to the teeth, roaming the streets of a major city a minor risk?
The better people cooperate and let police get this guy, the sooner Boston can get back to life as normal.
Yes. The odds of being killed that day in a vehicle accident far exceed the likelihood of encountering the terrorist unprepared.
Shall we compare causes of death in Boston and re-assess the need to halt millions of dollars in business? Please, don't give me the "if it saves one life" routine.
the same thing could be said of the chances of a group of determined maniacs hijacking and flying commerical airliners into the tallest buildings in new york, the building that serves as the heart of our military, and into a field in the same day.
And I'm about as scared of terrorists hijacking my plane as I am of being struck by lightning. Actually, being struck by lightning is FAR more likely.