JS,
I’m not actually disagreeing with you, but I think it is an interesting discussion point.
You’ve just said that it does make sense to trade liberties for security. Above and beyond using metal scanners, checking ID, x-raying luggage and so on, we also will have our security improved by impinging on the rights of citizens, so we should do it.
Doesn’t that sound like slippery slope to you? Do you decide these issues on a case by case basis, such as whether or not it appears to make the nation safer? Why not apply this thinking in all cases where lives can be saved?
Heck, maybe less lives would be lost every year if guns were collected and destroyed. I mean, yes, criminals will still have them, but over time it would slowly be harder to get them. Young criminals would have to kill the old ones to get them. So, if it saves lives, shouldn’t it be done?
Maybe we should ban steroids, since that could save a few lives. Also, ephedrine was obviously a huge killer (not), so lets ban that. Is there anything we should not do in the effort to save lives, especially when it isn’t all that difficult to do?
So, questions, questions, I know. As I said, I don’t think I actually disagree, but it is a conundrum that I find hard to answer. What makes the airport scenario okay, while others not? Is it the level of risk? The amount of fear in the populace? The amount of distrust or hatred towards muslims by some?
What is it, really?
What types of security should the government focus on, only those caused by terrorists? If so, why is it different? A lot of people die due to drunk drivers, but we don’t simply pull everyone over driving around closing time – even though there are often (non-profiled) spot check programs.
Oh well, I guess nobody really gives a shit about the points I make anyway. That’s what I keep hearing around here.