Something Jmhm said made me think of this. . .

[xiphias]

In your opinion, which is more damaging to freedom?

1) A terrorist hijacking a plane and killing everyone on board.
2) A population getting used to the idea that going through a security checkpoint is a normal, unobjectionable part of daily life, and it is a reasonable expectation when traveling that government agents will search your belongings and person.

Comments

[porcinea.livejournal.com]

This is a rhetorical question, right?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Well, sort of.

I mean, I know what I believe. But, well, clearly a lot of other people -- sensible, intelligent people -- disagree.

Yeah -- to me, airport security screening feels like a calculated insult, because they don't let me go armed. (And, see, if you prevent someone from carrying his or her weapons, you are thereby refusing their parole, which means that you are saying that they have no honor.) But I suspect that the MAJORITY of people around me would rather not let people just carry weapons onto airplanes.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

#2, duh.

*checks outside for black helicopters*

[lietya.livejournal.com]

#2. Does anyone who isn't Bush (and supporters) argue otherwise?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yes. Most people. How would you feel about just letting anyone who could legally carry one carry a firearm onto an airplane? Me, I'd like it. But I think most folks wouldn't be comfortable with that.

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

I would hate that. I'm sure a lot of people, maybe even most people, who legally carry firearms are levelheaded, reasonable people. But some of them aren't. I live in Virginia, a state with looser gun control laws than Texas, and the location of the NRA's headquarters. There are plenty of people here who I would absolutely not want to have a gun on board any plane I or anybody I love was on, because I'd be afraid they'd use it.

Mind you, I don't necessarily think they'd use their guns to do something criminal, but something stupid, like fire it because they thought someone was doing something criminal. Firing a gun on an airplane is almost always a really, really bad idea, because all you need is one stray bullet going through a window and you can kiss the whole plane goodbye.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

I think it's a reasonable trade-off for the right to be treated as an honorable adult.

More to the point, though, it's how the question was phrased - the former is a threat to life and limb, to peace of mind, even to the stability of society if it's taken far enough. But it's not a threat to *freedom* (except insofar as freedom is endangered if society collapses, but I find that unlikely). The latter is a (willing) relinquishment of certain specific freedoms, and is therefore a larger threat to freedom as a whole, because if you can get people to adjust to giving up some freedoms, you can keep nibbling away until you've gotten them all.

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

There's of course a rather large difference between terrorists hijacking an airplane and killing everyone on board and terrorist hijacking an airplane and killing everyone on board plus hundreds of other people by crashing the plane into a building.

Regardless, you're making a false comparison. Suppose #1 said "Terrorist hijacking fifty planes and crashing some of them into buildings and some of them into bridges, killing over 150,000 people." Would your answer be different then?

I don't like security checkpoints, either. But I consider them an objectionable, but sometimes necessary, part of life these days. I think the PATRIOT Act and its ilk are much worse, because you have no control over what happens to your privacy whatsoever. When you're flying, you know ahead of time what the restrictions are, and you can (generally) avoid having your stuff poked through.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

I dislike the Patriot Act in principle.

But, in terms of those things that I personally have had a problem with, well, the airplane searches, both real and potential, have been a lot more annoying.

Kiralee

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

The worst part is that we've accepted (2) and I'm not confident that (1) is more remote a possibility than it was four years ago.

As to your seperate question of whether I want everyone on the plane packing heat -- frankly, no, I wouldn't. Not unless you've been specifically trained in high-altitude combat like the Sky Chiefs and pilots (hopefully) have. I can see how you might see that as a repudiation of your Second Amendment rights, but I don't want to hope for the well-regulation of any militia that's joining me in a pressurized capsule six miles above the earth.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with security checkpoints - I think it's a small price to pay. Growing up as a sort-of army brat may have had something to do with my forming that view, though - it re-set some of my defaults.

[ailbhe]

What, for the dead people?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

To me, the answer to that isn't obvious, EITHER way. It depends on what philosophy I look at the matter with.