Mandatory metal detectors at Camden Yards

[schittenden]

You could easily get a gun into a baseball stadium that has metal detectors. It really would not deter anyone.

I go into the stadium early and a friend meets me there than I hand them a ticket through one of the 1,000,000 bars that fences the entire stadium. They could hand me a backpack for of guns if they wanted while I am already inside.

I could even sit something through the fence come in and get it myself if I wanted too.

Yea, you can get weapons through these bars or even just throw them overtop if you are lazy. Don't know who this kid is but I bet there are a bunch of guns in that bag...

Alternatively, they could just shoot up all the people waiting to get through the metal detector.

[El Gordo]

I think/agree/concur that a lot of the security measures they've taken in the last 13 years are as much for the effect on public perception as they are for any real reduction in risk.

What else can they do? The point of 9/11 was not the tragic loss of life so much as the image of the two tallest buildings in the world falling to the ground. The message was clear," You see how powerful we are. This could be you. We are every where, and your government can do nothing to protect you". What else can the government do but respond with equally powerful imagery. The government needs the people to believe it can keep them relatively safe, other wise what's the point? We should all become survivalists? With the instant communications of today's world, we live in a global crowded theatre, psychologically. Starting a panic would not be that difficult and the results would be disastrous.

[MrOrange82]

Yeah, it's too bad they waited until after someone flew into the twin towers before putting metal detectors in airports.

I understand that this is a touchy (and mostly political) debate that has...questionable...footing in the Orioles Talk forum, but that comment is about as close to negative-rep worthy as I've seen from a regular, solid contributor to the board.

Just Googling "stabbing" or "shooting" (parking lots) or any other number of attacks with some kind of weapon in conjunction with "MLB" or "baseball" yields enough results to establish, IMO, that asking people to walk through a metal detector before entering a ballpark isn't unreasonable.

A significant number of your fellow citizens are nothing short of deranged. Many have criminal records, and many are predisposed to violence. And even if they, in the grander scheme, constitute a tiny minority of the tens of thousands of people who attend MLB games, I certainly don't mind walking through a metal detector with those folks to help in some small way make it less likely that those damaged few don't ---- up my day (or anyone else's).

When the day arrives that someone asks you to bend over and cough before letting you into a ML stadium, then you'll have a stronger argument.

[Redskins Rick]

What else can they do? The point of 9/11 was not the tragic loss of life so much as the image of the two tallest buildings in the world falling to the ground. The message was clear," You see how powerful we are. This could be you. We are every where, and your government can do nothing to protect you". What else can the government do but respond with equally powerful imagery. The government needs the people to believe it can keep them relatively safe, other wise what's the point? We should all become survivalists? With the instant communications of today's world, we live in a global crowded theatre, psychologically. Starting a panic would not be that difficult and the results would be disastrous.

We did like Toby Keith said:

Now this nation that I love

Has fallen under attack

A mighty sucker punch came flyin? in

From somewhere in the back

Soon as we could see clearly

Through our big black eye

Man, we lit up your world

Like the 4th of July

[MrOrange82]

I think something like 700 million people flew on commercial airlines last year in the US. Let's say each of them spent an extra hour getting to the airport early to account for all of the security. That's 700 million hours. At $50 an hour that's $35,000,000,000 (billion). Is that worthwhile to attempt to lessen this risk of another terrorist attack? Maybe. But it's at least worthwhile to have the discussion.

(1) not all of those people are business travelers.

(2) the ever-increasing availability of air travel to facilitate business dealings has arguably lessened the cost of doing business over great distances, and that has to be factored into any appraisal of the "sunk time" costs of wading through airport security.

[Austin]

We did like Toby Keith said:

Now this nation that I love

Has fallen under attack

A mighty sucker punch came flyin? in

From somewhere in the back

Soon as we could see clearly

Through our big black eye

Man, we lit up your world

Like the 4th of July

Yeah, and that really worked out great for everyone. I gotta say, I'm surprised it took so long... not that I love going through metal detectors but I remember going to concerts 10+ years ago with higher security than most MLB games. I'll keep going until they start using those machines that can see your naked body through your clothes. I suppose that's where I draw the line, unless it's a playoff game.

[Redskins Rick]

Yeah, and that really worked out great for everyone. I gotta say, I'm surprised it took so long... not that I love going through metal detectors but I remember going to concerts 10+ years ago with higher security than most MLB games. I'll keep going until they start using those machines that can see your naked body through your clothes. I suppose that's where I draw the line, unless it's a playoff game.

[video=youtube;T1FxI3aVBOs]

[MurphDogg]

I understand that this is a touchy (and mostly political) debate that has...questionable...footing in the Orioles Talk forum, but that comment is about as close to negative-rep worthy as I've seen from a regular, solid contributor to the board.

Just Googling "stabbing" or "shooting" (parking lots) or any other number of attacks with some kind of weapon in conjunction with "MLB" or "baseball" yields enough results to establish, IMO, that asking people to walk through a metal detector before entering a ballpark isn't unreasonable.

A significant number of your fellow citizens are nothing short of deranged. Many have criminal records, and many are predisposed to violence. And even if they, in the grander scheme, constitute a tiny minority of the tens of thousands of people who attend MLB games, I certainly don't mind walking through a metal detector with those folks to help in some small way make it less likely that those damaged few don't ---- up my day (or anyone else's).

When the day arrives that someone asks you to bend over and cough before letting you into a ML stadium, then you'll have a stronger argument.

I agree that my comment was overly glib, sorry about that. I just question the efficacy of metal detectors in general. At best, they shift whatever violence was to occur from one area to another. As for the violence inside stadiums, I guess I am looking at a different Google than you are. If you have evidence to support a claim that metal detectors outside the stadium would lessen violence inside the stadium I would be happy to read and consider it.

I, like most members of the human race, spend much of my life walking around people that I don't know and I choose not to spend my time thinking about what would happen if one of them were to pull out a gun and kill me. I concede that it is possible, but if it did happen then that fault would lie with the individual and generally not with the administrators tasked with regulating the security of the place where I happened to be. Lacking further evidence I just don't believe that I am statistically more likely to be a victim of random violence while attending a sporting event than if I were in a public park or movie theater or mall. There is an argument to be made that stadiums may be more violent places due to the presence of alcohol, but that suggests that the issue is alcohol rather than the more spurious "crime" and "terrorism".

[DrungoHazewood]

What else can they do? The point of 9/11 was not the tragic loss of life so much as the image of the two tallest buildings in the world falling to the ground. The message was clear," You see how powerful we are. This could be you. We are every where, and your government can do nothing to protect you". What else can the government do but respond with equally powerful imagery. The government needs the people to believe it can keep them relatively safe, other wise what's the point? We should all become survivalists? With the instant communications of today's world, we live in a global crowded theatre, psychologically. Starting a panic would not be that difficult and the results would be disastrous.

I understand the need to maintain an illusion of control. But did it have to come at a pricetag of hundreds of $billions and the creation of an entirly new unconstrained bureaucracy in the Dept of Homeland Security? I guess it's just our thing to do it all in an over-the-top, bigger-is-better, mutually assured destruction kind of way.

[El Gordo]

I understand the need to maintain an illusion of control. But did it have to come at a pricetag of hundreds of $billions and the creation of an entirly new unconstrained bureaucracy in the Dept of Homeland Security? I guess it's just our thing to do it all in an over-the-top, bigger-is-better, mutually assured destruction kind of way.

I'd answer your question but I would be in violation of the rules. Suffice it to say that as long as money is being spent some one is making that money.

[Redskins Rick]

I understand the need to maintain an illusion of control. But did it have to come at a pricetag of hundreds of $billions and the creation of an entirly new unconstrained bureaucracy in the Dept of Homeland Security? I guess it's just our thing to do it all in an over-the-top, bigger-is-better, mutually assured destruction kind of way.

That's because of typical government inability to manage anything.

The government got scared, and like they typically do, they threw a ton of money and stood up a government agency to prevent this from happening again.

[DrungoHazewood]

We did like Toby Keith said:

Now this nation that I love

Has fallen under attack

A mighty sucker punch came flyin? in

From somewhere in the back

Soon as we could see clearly

Through our big black eye

Man, we lit up your world

Like the 4th of July

You know you've descended into a miasma you'll never get out of when you're quoting Toby Keith. Has anyone actually verified he's a real person, and not just a smartphone app that generates ridiculous charicatures of patriotism?

[Redskins Rick]

You know you've descended into a miasma you'll never get out of when you're quoting Toby Keith. Has anyone actually verified he's a real person, and not just a smartphone app that generates ridiculous charicatures of patriotism?

I met the guy in person and talked to him. What a night to never forget.

[DrungoHazewood]

That's because of typical government inability to manage anything.

The government got scared, and like they typically do, they threw a ton of money and stood up a government agency to prevent this from happening again.

Should read "to pretend like they could prevent this from happening again." We have very few people willing to stand up and say "we'll do what's reasonable, but you're never getting a 100% solution and we'd like to save some cash for other priorities."

[DrungoHazewood]

I met the guy in person and talked to him. What a night to never forget.

I have a feeling that if I had a conversation with him I'd say the same thing, but mean it in a totally different way.