[newday]

Not an American, but it really comes down to fear, and the illusion of safety; the TSA is a perfect example. A gun doesn't keep you or your family safe, but it gives you the illusion of safety. Government surveillance is the same, since the rhetoric is that it will keep America safe from terrorists, yet like the TSA and guns, when we look at the data, all of these provide no tangible benefit, and often great harm.

[caskance]

Why value tangible benefits over intangible ones?

Calling it an illusion implies that air travel is not safe, when in fact it is very safe. However, people did not feel safe, so the government constructed an agency (perhaps deliberately, perhaps not) to provide security theater and help people feel safe.

In general, American citizens today are safe from terrorism. If anything, the greatest danger comes not from terrorists themselves but from the American peoples' unjustified fear of terrorism. We could use some more security theater.

[rmxt]

This is either sarcasm, or, the most perverse and backwards logic for government sanctioned security programs that I've ever seen.

The ostensible reason that the government has created the TSA and its ilk is for actual security. Claiming that it's been created to intentionally achieve security theater is quite a extraordinary claim to be making. Furthermore, the origin of danger does not come along a single axis running between "terrorism" and "people's fear of terrorism". The government programs themselves can have negative impacts (c.f. any discussion on the TSA, NSA, border controls), which you are conveniently ignoring.

[caskance]

Firstly, I said "perhaps deliberately, perhaps not" because I am not claiming that they intentionally wanted to provide security theater. I don't think that motive is relevant. I'm replying to a specific statement to explain that there is a benefit, even though it is intangible. Of course there are other bad effects, like inconvenience to travellers, and other good effects, like providing stable jobs to otherwise unemployably stupid Americans who live in or near airport-bearing cities.

In retrospect, I should have mentioned that last bit instead as a tangible benefit, but I only just now thought of it.

[dllthomas]

I'm fine with the reasoning, but on balance I'm not convinced the TSA reduces fear. They're motivated to scare us to keep (or grow) their budgets.

[MCRed]

> A gun doesn't keep you or your family safe

Defensive gun use is far more common in the USA than murders by firearms:

http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

> when we look at the data, all of these provide no tangible benefit, and often great harm.

No tangible benefit? Even 100,000 people saved by guns annually (the low end number) is "tangible benefit".

According to the CDC, there are 11k homicides by firearms: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

If you look at other countries, when guns are banned there is a shift from guns to other methods of killing ,but not a significant decline in homicides.

This is what you see when looking at the data.

[newday]

A perfect example of what I'm talking about. If we look at western countries, the US leads in homicide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention.... You're narrative doesn't fit the data.

[WhyDoiPostHere]

> A perfect example of what I'm talking about.

It's certainly a perfect example that people see what they want to see, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'm talking about you, by the way.

[newday]

Like facts?