Gunman Opens Fire In Concourse at LAX

[Ritterin Sophia]

You asked how the Israeli approach to airport security would stop this guy. If the Israeli approach means they wouldn't have crossed this guy's "Somebody needs killing" threshold, then it would have stopped him before he even started.

So what you're telling me is the Israeli system wouldn't help stop lone nutters at all? Thank you.

[eyl]

You asked how the Israeli approach to airport security would stop this guy. If the Israeli approach means they wouldn't have crossed this guy's "Somebody needs killing" threshold, then it would have stopped him before he even started.

So what you're telling me is the Israeli system wouldn't help stop lone nutters at all? Thank you.

The Israeli approach is somwhat more subtle than "check all brown people" ( which wouldn't, in itself be particularly usefule anyway because brown skin neither rules out all Jews nor includes all Palestians), although people with Arabic names can (not invariably) come under closer scrutiny, especially if they're not Israeli. When you get to the airport, security will talk to every passenger, asking a series of questions. Part of the purpose of these questions is at face value; for example, you're asked if you've been given something to pasd along due to at least one case where a terrorist gave someone a bomb without hrr knowledge (she was his Irish girlfriend, so just checking all brown people wouldn't have stopped the plot). Another purpose of the questioning, however, os to make a brief assessment of the passenger's mental state - e.g. if he shows any signs of agitation. So it's quite possible the Israeli system would have caught him.

[Grumman]

You asked how the Israeli approach to airport security would stop this guy. If the Israeli approach means they wouldn't have crossed this guy's "Somebody needs killing" threshold, then it would have stopped him before he even started.

So what you're telling me is the Israeli system wouldn't help stop lone nutters at all? Thank you.

No, I'm telling you the Israeli system could have stopped this lone nutter, just not at the stage of planning you're obsessing over.

You want to stop the lone nutter during the second stage, between when he decides to go ahead with his plan and when he actually opens fire. The problem with your belief that anything else doesn't count is that this is the least practical stage to stop this crime, because of the lack of actionable evidence and because the person sent to apprehend him is the same sort of person he decided to shoot.

It's like declaring you want to stop terrorism, but refusing to admit that not bombing Pakistani children might help.

[Simon_Jester]

So it appears that the first instinctive reaction is to post armed guards at every airport checkpoint. I'm sure this will do so much for our actual safety from things that can't really be stopped by a bullet, such as... you know... explosives. But it makes the TSA personnel feel better, so I'm sure it's money well spent!

If random people are going to start walking up to the checkpoints and trying to murder people, then that is a threat to safety, so assuming that the checkpoints should exist at all, having an armed guard present makes a certain kind of sense.

And in all seriousness, there was no way in Hell that the TSA would look at someone shooting a checkpoint guard and say "my God, we shouldn't have checkpoints at all," which is really the only other possible response. Even if that is/were the right call to make, bureaucracies don't work that way; violent threats make them double down.

You asked how the Israeli approach to airport security would stop this guy. If the Israeli approach means they wouldn't have crossed this guy's "Somebody needs killing" threshold, then it would have stopped him before he even started.

We have no evidence that his actions were governed by rational calculations. How do you defuse someone's desire to kill you when you don't know who they are or what they want?

Sure, in retrospect, this particular guy might (maybe!) not have done it if the TSA adopted different policies. But we have no way of figuring out in advance which people will kill someone because the voices told them to do so, or what political things will cause a particular target to pop up in their sights. I'm not sure we can even rule out the possibility that if one agency started acting in a way they'd like, they would just go target another.

So regardless of whose methods for airport security we use, we can't reasonably say "if we'd used different security policies, this guy wouldn't have been motivated to walk into a public place and start shooting." We have literally no way of knowing that.

[Thanas]

Could you say a bit more about airport security in other countries? Is it similar systems, with the difference being in the personnel, or are there different procedures?

The USA is alone in the world with how extensive, unprofessional and stupid their security is. Don't get me started on the TSA.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Could you say a bit more about airport security in other countries? Is it similar systems, with the difference being in the personnel, or are there different procedures?

The USA is alone in the world with how extensive, unprofessional and stupid their security is. Don't get me started on the TSA.

Keep in mind a great deal of that is because of how Butthurt the average American GETS about being searched in general. Part of the incompetence of the TSA is that they are constantly having to pussy foot around pissing off someone and getting sued for "Infringing on Privacy"

[Thanas]

Really? The TSA had no problem patting me down everytime I took a flight, nor did they have any problem with taking biometric data, nor did they have any problem searching and (in the process of searching) breaking me and my brother's property, which involved such sweet things like the stupid TSA agent jumping on luggage to close it. Likewise, shoe screenings.

The Americans are in my opinion easily cowed if they allow the TSA to do all these things.

[Crayz9000]

It's especially ironic given that Benjamin Franklin was the one who said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I wonder how many US schools actually mention that bit in their history classes.

[Borgholio]

I wonder how many US students even know who Franklin is...

[Mr. Coffee]

I wonder how many US students even know who Franklin is...

Anyone that's ever seen a $100 bill should know who Franklin is. Might not know what all the man did in his life, but you'd have to live under a rock to not recognize him.

[Borgholio]

Recognizing a face on a dollar bill and knowing the name "Franklin" isn't really much of anything. The man is remembered for his accomplishments, not just in helping to craft the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but also in his contributions to science and civil services. Hell, he is in some ways more important than George Washington...since without Franklin's efforts as Ambassador to France, it's unlikely we would have received French military support when we needed it.

[Simon_Jester]

We're trying, we're trying...

The problem is that the whole "appreciate your freedoms" thing can't just come from the schools, it has to be a culture-wide thing. In US culture, the love of our liberties is tied up heavily with our national origin story, and thus with nationalism and patriotism, in the minds of a lot of people. Since nationalism has been politically absorbed by the right, it is very hard to build up a solid appreciation for the real meaning of "freedom" in American politics.

[Mr. Coffee]

Recognizing a face on a dollar bill and knowing the name "Franklin" isn't really much of anything. The man is remembered for his accomplishments, not just in helping to craft the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but also in his contributions to science and civil services. Hell, he is in some ways more important than George Washington...since without Franklin's efforts as Ambassador to France, it's unlikely we would have received French military support when we needed it.

Dude, you asked US students even know who Franklin is, not how many US students could write Franklin's A&E Biography. I'm well aware that Franklin is one of, if not the single most influential guy that help found the US. Forfuck's sake, he's not only the only smirking asshole on our money that isn't a former president, his smirking bald domed head is on the largest denomination note in regular circulation.

[Grumman]

Keep in mind a great deal of that is because of how Butthurt the average American GETS about being searched in general. Part of the incompetence of the TSA is that they are constantly having to pussy foot around pissing off someone and getting sued for "Infringing on Privacy"

Yes, Crossroads. The problem with the TSA was that they were just too respectful of people's right to privacy. That's why they were perving on everyone with backscatter X-rays, groping people for no reason and thought completely arbitrary and constantly changing restrictions were a good thing.

[Borgholio]

Dude, you asked US students even know who Franklin is, not how many US students could write Franklin's A&E Biography.

I think there's a fundamental difference between knowing someone's name / face and knowing what they actually did that's important. I wouldn't say someone actually "knows" Franklin if all they can say "Oh yeah, that guy on the $100 bill".

I mean in all fairness, I know what you're saying and I see what you mean. But knowing a man's name and knowing the man himself are two totally different things.