On 26/11/2006, at 10:31 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 11/25/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, using this logic, because death from a bombing on an air craft
> is a
> statistically super-unlikely event, you would no doubt recommend
> removing *all* metal detectors and screeenings from airports,
because
> the costs of these measures do not outweight the costs of the
deaths
> prevented.....
Bag screening is in place for a number of reasons, as are metal
detectors. An overall deterrent to people (not just terrorists)
bringing dangerous items on planes is a good thing for everyone, and
it gives the *impression* that we're totally safe. But you know that.
Hardly the point... the idea that we remove security measures from
airports
because hijacking is rare is as stupid as stopping, polio vaccinations
because polio is rare.
Which is what I said when I said " An overall deterrent to people
(not just terrorists) bringing dangerous items on planes is a good
thing for everyone, and it gives the *impression* that we're totally
safe."
It's not going to stop the really determined, but it's a sensible
precaution (to follow your analogy, it won't stop ebola but it'll
stop polio...).
Looks like John's straw man sidetracks work again, then.
Charlie.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
