Man, for me that last line watered down the whole article.

To me the laughable part of metal detectors at movie theatres is they wouldn't have gotten the Aurora guy, He broke in a side door.

Speaking about wearing a seat belt, several years ago I read a book about risk. It basically said there were seven things you should do prevent risk and everything else was pretty much meaningless. If I remember correctly, there were:
1. Wear your seat belt.
2. Don't smoke.
3. Don't be obese.
4. Don't have unprotected sex.
5. Don't drink to excess.
6. Have you blood pressure checked.
7. Exercise at least moderately.

Does any one remember this book and know the name?

Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book)

I remember then-Attorney General John Ashcroft giving a speech in Minnesota -- where I live -- in 2003 in which he claimed that the fact there were no new terrorist attacks since 9/11 was proof that his policies were working

I tend to agree with John Ashcroft. Compare the number of terror attacks in USA since 9/11 with other countries...way less. I am not saying that justifies TSA groping, just that probably there is a lot of targeted intelligence also involved which has been preventing attacks(just like the one where a guy tried to blow up a car filled with explosives in times square) or the underwear bomber was stopped(though he would have probably not had any impact on anything other than himself anyway). And because of this reason, muslims still probably are trying really hard to come up with the next successful scheme to wreak some havoc in USA and are probably getting frustrated in their efforts.

Certainly the Risk vs. Reward[Consequence] equation is NOT used very much by people... but it should be noted that most people understand that some of this is low hanging fruit.

When something bad happens far away, people take note of that, and since they probably will never do that particular thing in that particular place, they don't have to change what they are doing.

But they HAVE reinforced their own perception of a risk they will never face, and then they use that to inform themselves what to do in the future.

Schneier does make some interesting points, but his points on guns are garbage [the inset link is about death by assult, NOT gun] and the thing about 9/11 and our reaction is kinda interesting, because it doesn't take into account that jihadi's might be motivated by something other than the average Joe on the street is. See: the theory of the "Strong Horse" in the middle east. Massive retaliation was the correct thing to do in Afghanistan, maybe not Iraq... but, that doesn't mean it would ever be easy, or even possible to win.

When fighting Jihadi's what would a win ever look like? The risk/consequence setup for that, NEVER works out, other than KTA, and that's not practical.

Meanwhile, it is true that everyday Joe, will probably never need to worry about that lightening strike, unless he does something stupid.

But does that mean he should act stupidly?

KTA?

KTA?

Short for KTALGIO:

Kill Them All, Let God Sort It Out.

> I tend to agree with John Ashcroft.

No no no. It's much more likely that there have been no attacks because we responded to 9/11 with a continuing invasion of the nation that hosted its planner, with a special shindig for Iraq on the side.

Piss us off, and we'll rock your region... Apparently without concern for our budgets, our interests, or the benefits that might accrue to people who take pride in being our adversaries (such as Tehran).

("Don't fuck with the 'States... Those people are whack!")

That's for the primitives. People in modernity who might want to stage such an assault are restrained by other moderating forces. First, they know that they can't move through modern life and compose an attack without leaving a trail or being observed. Second, such an effort would be much more trouble than surrendering your grievance, going out and earning some money, and then getting laid.

The TSA procedures are much worse than worthless, but they are certainly that: They do nothing to make Americans more safe. Nothing.

Nothing.

One thing that has been overlooked or generally ignored by many people in the wake of the Aurora shooting is that both the theater chain and the mall it is co-located with all have gun-buster signs. To a bad guy, that says everyone inside is generally a target.

Even if Holmes' fantasy included the CIA is out to get me, knowing that 15% of the population around you are armed will creep into your consciousness.

Even with the body armor -- multiple impacts from a .32 may not kill the attacker, but will most likely incapacitate the person.

The problem is that a law abiding citizen tries to carry a fire arm legally at all times. They will leave their fire arm in a vehicle, or not go somewhere that they are disarmed. That leaves them among the disarmed sheeple.

The point that I am trying to get at is that an armed society is a polite society. And the sheepdogs among them will probably step up to protect the sheeple from the wolves.

I'm glad you shared this article, Amy. Among my liberal friends, people were just aghast when the event was being discussed and my response was that yes, it was terrible, however we really don't need to do anything about it.

The point is these events ARE rare, and because one crazy psycho managed to pull it off, that is not our call for more laws, more legislation, etc. In particular, the gun control maniacs were outraged. Here I was, telling them that there is no need for additional gun laws because some lunatic actually managed to get one. The fact that these incidents ARE so rare is proof that the existing laws are sufficient.

"I tend to agree with John Ashcroft."

And again, no!

Just as with gcotharn about his ideas about God™, you have to show your work if you make a claim.

An armed society is a polite society, as observed by Robert Heinlein, but let's not reverse cause and effect: an armed society is, by definition, one recognizing and demanding personal responsibility, and it would further be disabused of the current mythology of gun use.

For all you regular readers of the Goddess' blog you can skip past this post. I'm going to post my regular rant about not needing the TSA. For all you new readers, please read it carefully and refute any statement or misstatement. ;-)

=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!

The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.

The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.

Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.

The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.

At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.

The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?

The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.

If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.

There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.

=================================================IIf I'm getting this wrong, please let me know.