[Kjorteo]

Yes, you personally value security (or at least security theater) more than liberty or convenience. You've said that at least three times now.

[Psudo]

Brenda wrote:

Hmmm. I can see that, but still, I rather be falsely accused and have a reason to be pissed even the next day, than being scared to fly for the rest of my life, because some asshole in the seat next to me tries to set himself on fire with the intention to blow himself to pieces...

If I were allowed to bring a concealed handgun aboard, I would never be afraid to fly. I wouldn't have to lose any freedoms to have my security.

I can understand why it would be unreasonable to allow everybody guns on a plane, though. I'd be willing to compromise and merely have people armed on my behalf.

[Brenda]

Kjorteo wrote:

Yes, you personally value security (or at least security theater) more than liberty or convenience. You've said that at least three times now.

Apparently, you personally value the feeling of shame that you felt in highschool over the lifes of people you travel with.

Maybe you just shouldnt leave the house, hmm?

[Gunnair]

Psudo wrote:

Brenda wrote:

Hmmm. I can see that, but still, I rather be falsely accused and have a reason to be pissed even the next day, than being scared to fly for the rest of my life, because some asshole in the seat next to me tries to set himself on fire with the intention to blow himself to pieces...

If I were allowed to bring a concealed handgun aboard, I would never be afraid to fly. I wouldn't have to lose any freedoms to have my security.

I can understand why it would be unreasonable to allow everybody guns on a plane, though. I'd be willing to compromise and merely have people armed on my behalf.

Well, the common man packing guns on flights deprives me of my freedom to remain free of trigger happy idiots popping shots off in a pressurized cabin 30,000 feet above the ground. (Not suggesting you're one of them)

The new rules are beyond idiotic, however, flying like driving, is not a right. Don't like it, don't fly. That's my choice.

[raydan]

I have an idea...
...there should be an airline for people who find security checks useless.

Get to the airport, show your ticket, load your baggage and hop in.
Of course, no pilot will want to fly it so the passengers will need to choose a pilot among them (hopefully, one of them will have some flight training), same thing for other on-flight personnel.

The insurance ($$$$$) costs for the plane would be evenly paid up by the passengers.

And last thing... since this plane could be used as a weapon (9/11), ground personnel could abort and blow the plane up if it ever goes off course.

[Psudo]

Brenda wrote:

Apparently, you personally value the feeling of shame that you felt in highschool over the lifes of people you travel with.

Maybe you just shouldnt leave the house, hmm?

You're the one looking for abject security. It makes more sense for you to lock your paranoid self in your fortress home.

Gunnair wrote:

Well, the common man packing guns on flights deprives me of my freedom to remain free of trigger happy idiots popping shots off in a pressurized cabin 30,000 feet above the ground.

I already mentioned it wasn't reasonable to let the common man have guns on a plane. As for the pressurized cabin, Mythbusters demonstrated that the pressure difference between the cabin of a commercial airliner and the atmosphere at 30k feet is insufficient to do dramatic damage the likes of the movie The Fugitive. Rather, it's more like opening a window in a car on the highway, except outward instead of inward.

[Brenda]

I'm far from paranoid. I just refuse to let (un)necessary security measures ruin my day. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Thanos]

This should have been entitled "More Laughs For Terrorists" instead because Bin Laden and his boys must be laughing like crazy at the braindead response they've managed to generate. Attention TSA and all underpaid staffers, please insert kop firmly into tucha.

Homeland Security: Keeping America Safe By Keeping Joan Rivers From Re-entering The Country. Oi gevalt!

[Kjorteo]

There's a certain school of thought that suggests that if the terrorists are really out there just because they hate freedom and/or the American way of life, this kind of response to their attacks and attempted attacks is pretty much giving them exactly what they want.

[Psudo]

I used to dispute that line of reasoning, Kjorteo, with the argument that it was a temporary policy change until things settled down. 9 years later, the time limit on "temporary" has run out. The ineffective over-policing of airlines needs to stop now.

[Kjorteo]

It's not like it's helping the airlines, either. The dip in how many people wanted to fly immediately after 9/11 was so bad that some of the airlines were looking at bankruptcy. (I think. My memory is a bit fuzzy.) Fast forward to now, and how many people in this thread alone suggested "screw it, just drive there instead" in response to this madness? I can't see this helping the airlines' case at all. (On the other hand, since the auto makers are still hurting....)

[ShepherdsDog]

Once upon a time, not so long ago, part of the vacation was the actual travelling part(car, bus or train). I remember stopping at road side attractions, different restaurants and such. Now everything is rush, rush, rush and being packed into flying cattle cars. Truth be told, there is plenty to see in North America alone, and if people spent their money at home rather than abroad that would be a huge boost for the domestic/local tourism/hospitality industry which only helps the local economy.

It'd be nice to see Canadians and Americans rediscovering their own homes and seeing how much they have to offer.