Many of you have already heard of Friday's events at LAX, so I'll try to be brief. A 23-year-old gunman walked into LAX airport on Friday morning with a rifle and, what's reported to be, about 100 rounds of ammunition. One TSA agent was killed and multiple injuries were reported after the gunman opened fire. The gunman was shot in the head by police and remains in critical condition.
In the aftermath of largely publicized shootings such as this one, the gun debate will inevitably resurface. Do you think that the tragic events at LAX will put more pressure on Washington to pass effective legislature?
Friday's events have also pointed out major discrepancies in the management of airport security with open areas along drop off points outside and lack of patrolling officers around screening areas. What kind of new security measures do you expect to see?
6 comments:
Tragic events such as these always create a ripple effect. Immediate effects following the shooting could be seen in airports around the country, with increased patrol and flight delays.
Despite over a billion dollars invested in increased security measures after 9/11, and armed officers patrolling at various locations throughout the airport, this incident was still able to occur. The key issue is that no matter what, the public can easily access areas such as ticketing counters, lobbies, and baggage claim without going through security, and even the sidewalks and roads surrounding the airport. It would be infeasible as well as irritating for the public to secure the whole area. In addition, gunmen could shift their attacks elsewhere, so I am skeptical that additional legislature will be any more effective.
I feel like no matter how many gun related tragedies we encounter as a nation, people will shove the Bill of Rights and the "unconstitutional" argument up your you-know-what until the day we die. It's depressing really. I am neither pro-gun nor pro-restriction, however what ticks me off is how the majority of the pro-gun people are only pro-gun for their own selfish reasons, and not because it might be the best choice for the people. I don't really know. Frankly, I'm so over this gun thing. Obviously something needs to be done, but it will forever be a political impasse.
Gun control is a discussion that deserves our attention, but in the interest of this article, I would like to focus on security at airports and other hubs of transportation.
Sean brings up a valid point in saying that increased security measures do not guarantee a safer airport. However, this has certainly not kept airports from trying. According to the Airport Security Chronology produced by The New York Times (see link below), the Transportation Security Administration (the infamous TSA) made an announcement on Oct. 22 that it plans to increase passenger screening. The article states: “The Transportation Security Administration is expanding its screening of passengers before they arrive at the airport by searching a wide array of government and private databases that can include records like car registrations and employment information.”
While this sounds well-intentioned, I imagine it will cause some frustration about privacy. Apparently, this level of scrutiny was previously only reserved for those who were entering the United States as non-citizens or residents. Are Americans willing to give up more privacy rights for what may or may not be more safety?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/business/security-check-now-starts-long-before-you-fly.html?_r=0
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/airport_security/
I guess I have to bring in a view point that is probably unpopular here.
I don't feel any safer with "heightened airport security measures." I truly believe that all this does is a) raise anxiety b) create the semblance, or illusion of safety. (To an extent, I am not arguing to abolish security altogether!)
I wish I could say that that the more security measures that are lopped on are "worth it" and are beneficial. Although I doubt any of my friends and relatives—who have told me about that time they forgot to take their full shampoo bottle or even a small knife, yes my friend's dad realized this after passing through security on his way to NYC, out and put it into their ship through and they were NOT caught—were only guilty of forgetfulness (in other words they weren't mal-intentioned), but these clear gaps in security demonstrate to me that this system is not incredibly effective.
I am constantly drawn to the BF quote, "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
While I think some security at an airport is logical and practical, it does not feel right or beneficial to lay on still more measures. As it is I hate feeling like a criminal when I step through the backscatter, spread my feet and hold my hands up in a way that says, "I surrender!"
I believe that this will evoke more gun talk and hopefully lead to an agreement that will put things at bay. I thought it was interesting how instead of fighting foreign terrorism toward the US gun laws are now targeting "the mentally unstable," instead of outright saying Caucasian males.
I believe that despite the government's best efforts, effective gun laws cannot be met due to the complexity and many opinions on the matter. We can only hope for something to ease tensions while greater matters are being discussed.
Like Annika discussed, I think the safety of airports should also be in question. Unlike carrying a gun in public, airports pose a different security risk due to the number of people, both resident and visiting, and international relations that may be happening in said airport. I think it is ironic that despite the increase in airport security measures, the effectiveness is yet to be seen on a large scale. This could also be due to the media not reporting airport success stories.
I think that events like this boil down to the American public's inability to stomach a certain degree security at airports. One of the beautiful things about the U.S. is that Americans are raised to question authority, but this has a negative effect on the security of our country. Any attempt to put armed police or troops at our airports or public places would be met with public outrage and lawsuits However, I feel that until we are willing to put some conspicuously armed police in between innocent people and shooters, events like this will be a recurring issue. LAX police responded quickly in this case and probably saved the lives of many but this is not an issue that can be left up to chance and a few minutes in response time. If you go into international airports in Europe such as the ones in Rome and Paris, there is an obvious police presence, with well armed officers standing watch on platforms over security lines. The message is clear: those who wish to do harm to people at this airport will be met with immediate lethal force from police.
But Americans like to feel safe in their airports, with smiling TSA officers in nice blue uniforms. Guns terrify us, because they look scary and they remind us that there actually are some nasty people out their that would love to hurt people. But it is absurd to expect absolute safety until we're willing to get dirty and accept that sometimes the best guarantee of safety is the armed police officer on the catwalk.
Post a Comment