Jump to content

Mandatory metal detectors at Camden Yards


crowmst3k!

Recommended Posts

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".

My first thoughts were of alcohol, honestly. And most of the search results you'd find would be attacks in parking lots (which makes sense, as most people, even the dangerous ones, aren't completely without self-preservation instincts, and fewer witnesses = good for them). But what if someone carries a knife into a stadium and then stabs somebody after the game? If that person had known in advance that they'd be searched prior to the game, maybe they'd have decided to skip the game altogether.

Regardless, I think it's fair to also note that we've seen an uptick in more...sensational crimes over the last 10-15 years. School/mall shootings and, more recently, the Boston Marathon bombing. Even if you don't think that kind of attack would be likely to happen, and even if you don't think metal detectors would do all that much to prevent an attack, I'd rather trade a small inconvenience for the small prophylactic benefit of metal detectors than simply go without. On the "intrusion" scale for personal searches, that one's pretty minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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."

You will never ever find a single person in the government to say, let's save some cash for other priorities.

How much money have they thrown into Amtrak to try and keep fixing it and making it work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Toby Keith is a real person I'm sure, but he is also an icon for a myth that has outlived it's usefulness. Just like Horatio Alger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toby Keith is a real person I'm sure, but he is also an icon for a myth that has outlived it's usefulness. Just like Horatio Alger.

My godson just graduated from Army Boot Camp this summer, and let me tell you, American Patriotism is still held and respected by our troops.

It will never out live it's usefulness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I might say almost the same thing, but I'd definitely avoid splitting an infinitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...