Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I go the other way on this issue. I am willing to take the risk of a plane going down to have reasonable security measures when I fly. You're not going to catch everyone and steps should be taken (the "sniffers" that detect like one millionth of a particle of explosive material or whatever seem fine) to maximize what we can catch, while balancing a level of privacy. Does that mean that every once in awhile a bomb gets through and 200 people die? Yes. And that sucks and I hate it. But this garbage is out of control.
Am I going to be a pain in the ass about it at the airport? No. But I don't think that people complaining about it are necessarily overly-sensitive assholes.
|
Agree, which is why this isn't "the other way" from my post. My risk tolerance is the same as yours -- I think the security procedures in effect between 9/11 and two weeks ago weren't an unreasonable risk, and that some of the stuff even then was purely theatrical. My beef is with the people who claim they want zero risk but also want "reasonable" exceptions to the rules based on a parade of horribles, like Mr. Doused-With-His-Own-Urine.
A lifetime of air travel is already 99.999% safe. The people who go further and want six sigmas are entitled to their opinion but also seem to think you can have 99.99966% security and not frisk nuns and children. You can't eat the cake and then complain you don't have it anymore.
Threaded Mode