xiphias: (Default)
xiphias ([personal profile] xiphias) wrote2005-04-29 11:20 pm
Entry tags:

Something Jmhm said made me think of this. . .

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.

[identity profile] xiphias.livejournal.com 2005-04-30 04:06 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] mattblum.livejournal.com 2005-04-30 05:07 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] lietya.livejournal.com 2005-04-30 05:09 am (UTC)(link)
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.