Hacker News Reader

Comment by modoc | Hacker News Reader

They aren't. Not in any useful way. You are always responsible for yourself, and flying is risky. Not as risky as driving a car, or showering, but there is a risk at putting yourself in a tin can 30k feet up etc...

But yes, the TSA is a mockery of actual security, and the general american public is the one being laughed at.

View on HN

True that you're responsible for yourself, but would you rather go to an airport with no metal detectors, no X-ray machines or armed personnel?

You mean a train station? Yes I would.

Blowing up a plane/train/stadium/airport security waiting line/etc... is easy. The "real" risk I guess is people using jets full of fuel as flying missiles. However, post-9-11, no passengers will permit that use. Hijacking planes is over.

So the scenario you describe: getting onto a rapidly moving tube of metal with a couple hundred people who haven't gone through metal detectors or x-ray machines is exactly what happens every time I take the train. In fact, the lack of hour long security lines, having to remove my coat, belt, shoes, etc... is one of the reasons I strongly prefer the train.

On top of the passengers and crew not permitting another hijack, there's also the sadly-new lock on the cabin door.

You mean a train station? Yes I would.

Get on L'Eurostar at StP and you'll get your bag X-rayed. Get off at GdN and there are soldiers with assault rifles guarding the place.

The least-hassle way to cross a border is usually by sea. It'll just take much longer.

Here in the US, the land of the TSA, I've taken trains both domestically and internationally (Canada) and never been x-rayed, metal detected, told to remove my shoes, or seen anyone with a gun other than the occasional cop. Even the border crossings are super easy when you're on a train.

I wonder if that's true on the Mexican border...

Honestly, yes.

If someone wants to kill lots of people, they'll find a way. There are no metal detectors in a train station, but a bomb on a speeding subway car is just as lethal. There are no metal detectors in the mall, yet it'd be trivially easy for terrorists to fire off a couple shots in a mall and then mow down people with submachine guns at the exits. There used to be no metal detectors in schools, but then some teenagers found out it was trivially easy to kill lots of people there too.

The only reason I can think of why planes are any different is that a plane crash is much more sensational. "300 killed in mall shootout" would make headlines, but it doesn't inspire the same fear as "300 killed in downed airliner", particularly since it's virtually certain you'll die if your plane blows up in midair.

"300 killed in mall shootout" would be at least as big a story as an airline crash, probably dramatically bigger. The numbers killed in shootouts before the gunman is killed or otherwise disabled is usually in the single digits or double digits in extreme cases. As far as I know, there's never been a shooting incident in a first world nation with more than a few dozen killed or injured.

Those shootouts are usually poorly planned suicide/attention attempts. With a couple of trained guys with good weapons, armor and tactics it would be pretty easy to rack up a serious death toll in a crowded mall.

A few dynamite and ball bearing bombs dropped in trash cans in the food court could probably get you into the hundreds pretty quick.

> With a couple of trained guys with good weapons, armor and tactics it would be pretty easy to rack up a serious death toll

Indeed, the 2008 siege of Mumbai by about 10 terrorists lasted 3 days and brought the city to a halt. Death toll was somewhere near 200, with 300 wounded.

> A few dynamite and ball bearing bombs dropped in trash cans in the food court could probably get you into the hundreds pretty quick.

Indeed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Nor...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com