• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Airport Security - Which one do you prefer?

Airport security


  • Total voters
    18
The answer to airplane security was solved the moment that people understood that the rules had changed. Before 9/11, if your plane was hijacked, you sat quietly and didn't fight back. You would land somewhere, and be ransomed back. Now the rules are different. Now hijackers are trying to hurt or kill the passengers. Now the best defense of an airplane is 200+ passengers armed with heavy luggage. Even if a dozen hijackers have machetes on the airplane (and pre-9/11 security would most certainly have caught those), the passengers would easily defeat them. Locking the cockpit door so that no one can take the pilot by surprise was a good step, but everything else that has been done since 9/11 has been totally unnecessary.

Consider the underwear bomber. He got through security, and was found out by the other passengers. Imagine if the 9/11 hijackers had attempted their plan now. They'd probably still make it through security, but now they wouldn't be able to get to the pilot without arousing a lot of commotion, and they would be beset upon by the passengers. We already had all the security we needed in the airport. All we've done now is implement racial screening of Arab Americans, and instilled a tremendous fear in everyone. We are truly not in danger in an airplane, and it has nothing to do with making us take off our shoes.

Even the Department of Homeland Security, who put all of these measures in place, doesn't really believe we need this protection. Otherwise there wouldn't be one fifth the number of security personnel to keep airports moving smoothly. They know it's bull, and so do we. The only weapon we need is a locked door and a little bit of awareness.
 
The answer to airplane security was solved the moment that people understood that the rules had changed. Before 9/11, if your plane was hijacked, you sat quietly and didn't fight back. You would land somewhere, and be ransomed back. Now the rules are different. Now hijackers are trying to hurt or kill the passengers. Now the best defense of an airplane is 200+ passengers armed with heavy luggage. Even if a dozen hijackers have machetes on the airplane (and pre-9/11 security would most certainly have caught those), the passengers would easily defeat them. Locking the cockpit door so that no one can take the pilot by surprise was a good step, but everything else that has been done since 9/11 has been totally unnecessary.

Consider the underwear bomber. He got through security, and was found out by the other passengers. Imagine if the 9/11 hijackers had attempted their plan now. They'd probably still make it through security, but now they wouldn't be able to get to the pilot without arousing a lot of commotion, and they would be beset upon by the passengers. We already had all the security we needed in the airport. All we've done now is implement racial screening of Arab Americans, and instilled a tremendous fear in everyone. We are truly not in danger in an airplane, and it has nothing to do with making us take off our shoes.

Even the Department of Homeland Security, who put all of these measures in place, doesn't really believe we need this protection. Otherwise there wouldn't be one fifth the number of security personnel to keep airports moving smoothly. They know it's bull, and so do we. The only weapon we need is a locked door and a little bit of awareness.

No system is perfect.

Expecting that passengers will handle any threat in their airplane and thus we don't need security measures on the ground makes no sense.

What makes you think that a passenger intent on detroying an airplane would make any scene at all? Just plain BOOM!!Even if we did agree that by making that scene other passengers would 'take him out'?

The problem isn't with establishing security at the gates, it's the way we're doing it. If we aren't going to allow profiling, we're pissing in the wind.
 
Last edited:
Maybe they should have the "I'll take the chance" flights. Where security is back to where it reasonably was and we'll take the risk of some terrorist coming and blowing up the plane. It would be the flights for rational people who understand what a low probability event means.
 
Not possible. For the simple fact that our Federal Government is responsible for all border crossings not only of national borders but also of state borders. They have had that task since the founding of the US.

This doesnt counter my position on privatization of the airports.
 
Maybe they should have the "I'll take the chance" flights. Where security is back to where it reasonably was and we'll take the risk of some terrorist coming and blowing up the plane. It would be the flights for rational people who understand what a low probability event means.

There were 3 low probability events that happened on 9/11. It killed 3000+ people. So yeah, admittedly, the probability of it happening is small. But when it does happen....and it DOES happen....it has the potential to kill thousands. Sorry but thousands of lives is worth far more than a little inconvience of going through extra security. If you don't like airport security then how about taking a train? Or a car? Or if you must your feet? Those options are available to you so TSA is not really hindering any of your rights. Especially since there is nothing on the law books that gives you the "right" to fly.
 
There were 3 low probability events that happened on 9/11. It killed 3000+ people. So yeah, admittedly, the probability of it happening is small. But when it does happen....and it DOES happen....it has the potential to kill thousands. Sorry but thousands of lives is worth far more than a little inconvience of going through extra security. If you don't like airport security then how about taking a train? Or a car? Or if you must your feet? Those options are available to you so TSA is not really hindering any of your rights. Especially since there is nothing on the law books that gives you the "right" to fly.

There is no right to fly, but there are certainly privacy and property rights of my own. Additionally, my tax money keeps those damned airlines afloat; so I own part of it. Additionally, while low probability events will, given enough time, be realized; they are still low probability. So 9 years ago, a terrorist attack occured that killed almost as many people as cars do every year. Been 9 years. Given enough time, we'll have another terrorist attack. Then people will go crazy again for awhile. But until terrorist attacks on our soil get to the level of cars; it will remain low probability and something we don't need to freak out about. Be cautious about? Sure, we can take reasonable steps. But we don't need to go insane.
 
There is no right to fly, but there are certainly privacy and property rights of my own. Additionally, my tax money keeps those damned airlines afloat; so I own part of it. Additionally, while low probability events will, given enough time, be realized; they are still low probability. So 9 years ago, a terrorist attack occured that killed almost as many people as cars do every year. Been 9 years. Given enough time, we'll have another terrorist attack. Then people will go crazy again for awhile. But until terrorist attacks on our soil get to the level of cars; it will remain low probability and something we don't need to freak out about. Be cautious about? Sure, we can take reasonable steps. But we don't need to go insane.

Your privacy does not extend beyond your front door and beyond your car. A few years ago a judge showed that by telling celebrities that the paparazzi can follow them and take pictures of them where ever they go when a suit was brought up against the paparazzi.

ugh...I have more to say but I have to take my daughter to school now and help out at the school...will be back later.
 
Your privacy does not extend beyond your front door and beyond your car. A few years ago a judge showed that by telling celebrities that the paparazzi can follow them and take pictures of them where ever they go when a suit was brought up against the paparazzi.

ugh...I have more to say but I have to take my daughter to school now and help out at the school...will be back later.

Dang it. I had more to say but for the life of me I can't think of what I was going to say atm...grrrrr hate when that happens. I'll cogitate on it a bit and hopefully it will come to me. Just didn't want you think that I had skipped out on the conversation. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom