If this is pragmatism, heaven help us.

EJ Dionne reminds one, albeit inadvertently, that the definition of pragmatism in Washington is to be seen to be doing something rather than actually accomplishing anything sensible or proportionate. To wit, contrasting anti-terrorist regulations with gun control measures:

In other spheres, we act reasonably when faced with new problems. When Richard Reid showed that nasty things could be done with shoes on airplanes, airport security started examining shoes. When liquids were seen as a potential danger, we regulated the quantity of liquids we could take on flights. We barred people from carrying weapons onto airliners long ago.

If we can act pragmatically in the skies, why can't we be equally practical here on the ground?

I'm far from unsympathetic to sensible proposals that might make it harder for the wrong sort of people to purchase guns, but the notion that gun legislation should be modeled on the sort of panicked, knee-jerk, idiocy that has become de rigeur at airports is not an idea, I think, that should be pursued. There may be a virtue in creating the impression of greater security at the expense of convenience and comfort but it's far from clear that that is, in fact, the case.

Comments

[NS]

"the notion that gun legislation should be modeled on the sort of panicked, knee-jerk, idiocy that has become de rigeur at airports is not an idea, I think, that should be pursued".

It is so easy to say that airport security is stupid. If you can come up with a better solution to correctly identify that odd terrorist among the millions of passengers, please let us know. TSA knows that it most of the people it screens are harmless. It also knows that there are'nt too many better solutions right now.

Coming to the gun rights issue, no body has called for any knee jerk solution. The only thing that reasonable gun control advocates are talking about is to make sure that mentally disabled people do not have access to guns as easily as others do.

And thats not knee jerk or stupid.

[Per Bothner]

"It is so easy to say that airport security is stupid."

You're missing the point. It's not that it's stupid to have airport security. It's that it's stupid to confiscate nail-clippers and liquids, or require people to take off their shoes. (Ok: Richard Colvin Reid had explosives strapped to his shoes, but he could have just as easily had it hidden in his underwear. It makes no sense to require people to take off their shoes unless you ask them to strip.)

[NS]

I am not sure Reid could have strapped those explosives to his underwear - in fact he would have had no chance of getting caught if that was indeed the case. Also, just because they caught one person trying to sneak in stuff with their shoes does not mean that they can safely assume that NO ONE else will try that same trick. They simply dont have that luxury.

I have'nt travelled recently but i dont think the liquids issue is as serious now as it was last year. Again, the airline security does not have the luxury to waive people off just because they think that most people are harmless.

Since there is no sort of profiling which i am sure the TSA would love to do but cannot for obvious political reasons, it has to resort to checking every one for every silly thing.

The context that i view airport security is that the TSA thinks that it is doing its best post 9/11 given its political constraints. They are not effective in the way we would all like to see, but barring some radical change, this is how it is going to be.