Did airport security really need to be federalized?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Does the federal government need to step in and start employing bouncers at bars too? I mean, if they're starting to take charge of business' security...?

When terrorists start taking over bars and flying them into buildings, killing thousands of people in the process, your idea might be worth a look. Until then, it's an absurd analogy that has no relevance here.

It would interesting to see, on average, how many people die in bar fights a year vs in plane crashes a year.

Airport security doesn't prevent plane crashes...

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


Airport security doesn't prevent plane crashes...

Forgive me. Bar fight deaths vs Plane Hijacking deaths averages over the last 50 years.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It would interesting to see, on average, how many people die in bar fights a year vs in plane crashes a year.

It would indeed, and you raise an interesting point. That being said, the intent of the offender is critical here - many many more Americans die in innocent car accidents than terrorist attacks, but obviously what's lacking there is a terrorist intent on killing or striking fear into the hearts of American civilians.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: extra
Hell no. It leaves people with no choice.

I'd rather fly an airline with no security, no waiting in line......

Maybe you would. Maybe others would join you as well..

But what about the people who live/work in the buildings that your "high risk" airliner crashes into? They didn't "make" that choice. Rather, you and your kind would have made it for them, it's not fair or responsible to permit that to happen.

Security, in this regard, does not lend itself to typical "consumer" choices. The model doesn't fit.

While I can stand next to you and enjoy different choices in "consumer goods", like clothing, size of beverage or taste in music. I can't stand near you and enjoy a different level of threat from terrorist. It's got nothing to do with OUR choice, it's their choice. They try to kill everyone around, so they ALL have to be stopped for ANYBODY to be safe/have security.

The "choice model" just doesn't fit under this circumstance. It's like some of us choosing to have a strong military and others choosing not to - it doesnt work that way, either you (all) do or you (all) don't.

Likewise for polution controls. Can some choose not to have them for manufacturers of products they choose? So their product will be cheaper? No, the model doesn't work in this regard either.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

Probably not but it makes for people to feel better.

The idea was a high paying wage will attract a better and more qualified person.
I was part of the project to hire people across the country for the first push in 2002. I have to admit for a govt project they actually put their foot down on things like being blind, deaf, speaking english,completely worthless. Stuff most other govt jobs where you are required to still be considered.

But I have no real idea if it really does anything in the end and if it couldnt be done cheaper using private contractors that are regulated.