Slashdot Mirror


Next Step For US Body Scanners Could Be Trains, Metro Systems

Hugh Pickens writes "The Hill reports that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for US vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary. '[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,' Napolitano said in an interview with Charlie Rose. 'I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime.' Napolitano added she hoped the US could get to a place in the future where Americans would not have to be as guarded against terrorist attacks as they are and that she was actively promoting research into the psychology of how a terrorist becomes radicalized. 'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano. 'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.'"

35 of 890 comments (clear)

  1. Hi Janet Napolitano by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck you.

    Hi John Pistole.
    Fuck you too.

    And Obama. God it pains me to say it.
    Fuck you. What the fuck, man?

    And to the 82% of people who think this is good,
    Fuck all of you.

  2. Re:In every train station? LOL by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to mention that they will be unable to ensure the entire route between stations is secure. Why risk being caught boarding a train with a bomb when you can plant a bomb next to the track?

  3. Thanks Janet! by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.'

    Really? It took you ten years to realize this?
    Hint: being sold by your neighbor to the CIA, blindfolding, extraditing, torture, more flying, Guantanamo Bay, ten years of lock-down will turn ANYBODY and his brother into a so-called "terrorist".

    Full body scanners, on the other hand, don't do shit, terrorism-wise.

    As for a fear-free future: stop being afraid.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  4. We need to man up by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would love it if we had a president who said something like this:

    "Yeah, about the TSA. We're ending it. Same with Homeland Security. Folks, the simple truth of the matter is there's no possible way to secure ourselves against all risk. I think we can all agree that the Soviet Union operated as a police state none of us would want to live in and even with all that security, they still had serial killers. China routinely uses the death penalty for drug smugglers and yet they still have a drug problem.

    "The trappings of the police state represented by the TSA does not deter terrorists, it represents the illusion that government is doing something. It also is making a great deal of money for people who provide goods and services for the paranoia industry.

    "The fact of the matter is that we will get hit again. We don't know by who, we don't know where, we don't know when, but it'll happen. You know what, though? We're strong. We can take whatever they dish out. They could fly ten more planes into ten more buildings, they could set off a nuclear device in downtown New York. No, we won't like it. But we'll crawl out from under the rubble and rebuild. Living as we have before, uncowed, unbowed, not conceding a goddamn thing to terrorists, that's middle finger resolutely extended right back at them. It says 'If that's all you've got, we've got nothing to worry about.'

    "What we're no longer going to do is live our lives looking over our shoulder, jumping at shadows, giving up the way we live our lives because someone has rattled us, because we've lost our nerve, because we've been beaten.

    "Oh, and while we're on the topic, Middle Eastern nuts wouldn't have so much money to finance terror attacks if we weren't giving it to them for the goddamn oil. They wouldn't even have a reason to attack us if we weren't involved in their politics in the first place. Our post-oil energy policy is also our anti-terror policy."

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:We need to man up by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Man I would love to see the reaction on Fox if Obama did something like that. Just how fast can they switch from "Obama invading your rights" to "Obama making you vulnerable to terrorists" without causing cognitive dissonance in their audience. Actually, I'm not sure their audience is capable of cognitive dissonance.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  5. Re:In every train station? LOL by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's completely absurd. Anyone with half a brain can think of at least half a dozen reasons why they can't secure trains this way.

    • The average Amtrak station is a double wide about 100 feet of the tracks. They would have to build real thousands of real train stations at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
    • Unlike planes, which leave the airport up in the air, trains leave the station on the ground. So all someone has to do to get around security is to walk along the tracks.
    • There has never been even one single case of a terrorist boarding any train in the United States with the intent to cause it harm. There has never even been intelligence suggesting that this is a credible threat.
    • The easiest, safest, and most effective way to target a train is not to target the trains themselves, but rather the approximately 233,000 miles of unsecured railroad tracks. If we want to make it at least as secure as the U.S. Mexico border fence (with fences along both sides of every track), it would cost approximately 1.8 Trillion dollars, or about 14% of the total U.S. national debt.
    • That's not counting the tens of trillions of dollars you would have to spend on adding bridges at every railroad crossing in the nation to allow cars to go over the fences.

    In short, Ms. Napolitano clearly has not thought this through. Either that or she has thought it through and she's just the biggest idiot on the face of the planet. With political appointees, it's often hard to say. Either way, it's time to defund the TSA and Homeland Security. They're the biggest laughingstock of the security world since Windows XP.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  6. Tag article witchhunt by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, Janet! Sure we can take over boats and wreck them using mere boxcutters and explosives. I'm sure you've seen the movie Speed.

    But let me give you a hint. Trains? Didn't you watch old cartoons as a kid? When we want to derail them, we don't need to be on them, and if we are, we have wasted some kamikaze brothers who could have better employed elsewhere.

    I also think understanding what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.

    Yours,
    The Terrorists

    1. Re:Tag article witchhunt by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The TSA doesn't use behavior identification methods because they'd discover that THEY are the one's who act like Taliban.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Tag article witchhunt by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When we want to derail them, we don't need to be on them

      Exactly! All you need is a torch and a busy track near a school or government building. You'd be amazed what trains carry; especially non-passenger trains. Simply derail the wrong train near a city is enough to close down some cities for days or weeks. Not to mention, the associated death toll, both directly and indirectly.

      And that's completely ignoring that the heart of the entire US economy travels on trains. It can take weeks to clear and verify a track after an accident. If you shutdown enough tracks, you've parallelized the entire economy at worst. At best the price of goods goes through the roof as goods are shifted to more expensive transport; truck and ship (sea and river).

      Seriously, we are spending tons of money to do absolutely nothing and it doesn't even protect the largest, most important segment of our economy.

    3. Re:Tag article witchhunt by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People don't like that answer. I've actually had a friend of mine freak out at me because I explained something very similar, but on a personal level. The only reason anyone [normal, non high-profile] isn't dead is because no one has decided they need to die. Tell me, if someone decides you need killing but you don't know that, what's to stop them from walking up behind you with a garrote? Braining you with a rock? Using a large stick to beat you? Sharpening a stick with previously mentioned rock and impaling you? Or just wrapping their hands around your neck until you stop twitching? Absolutely nothing, and that's without getting into "modern" tools with metals, chemicals, and other force-enhancing tech. She didn't particularly like the idea that her existence depends entirely on the fragile sanity and civilized mindset of everyone else in her environment.

      The sooner everyone realizes you can't completely control the risk without destroying your life anyway the sooner we can get on with living. Life involves risk, you can't prevent everything, and you will die eventually; learn to live so life means something in case you do expire earlier than expected!

    4. Re:Tag article witchhunt by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the whole 'we have become our enemy' theme rings true. I grew up in the 60's in the US and the treatment of US citizens in this way by fellow US citizens (tsa) is something we'd imagine those 'dirty commies' would do - but that would NEVER happen here in the US. the US means freedom. that would not happen here.

      guess what - we are being conditioned and paralized by fear. everything that those that came before us fought for, we are gladly surrendering and at a rapid rate, too.

      most here in this forum see this. we are very small and not usually powerful or influential. will enough of the people that matter (sorry, I'm also one that does not matter) catch on and demand this 'citizen frisk' style be immediately and forever suspended?

      the education system needs to also tell people that its ok to live in a less than 100% safe society and that stuff happens and that's just how a free society is. if we can accept that crazy people will do damage and there is not a thing you can do to stop 100% of it, then we will have our 'leaders' stop with the CYA moves, which is ALl the tsa is about. its about blame shifting and cover-your-ass. all those in power pretty much know the Theater is just for show, but they are being asked by the scared soccer moms of the world to make us 100% safe and this is their only reply. if we can get the soccer moms to stop asking for 100% and accept reality for what it is, then we can maybe go back to normal again?

      admit that we have generated an out-of-hand reasonse to a problem and that we're self-correcting. but we can't even get to that step.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  7. Re:In every train station? LOL by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You'll do a hell of a lot more damage with a lot less boom if you can derail the train.

    Note that this doesn't even require explosives...

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  8. Re:Step after that by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would suggest that, since they're heading toward "universal" security measures, we take a cue from the Old West and require that everyone carry a sidearm. That'll take security down to the individual person, regardless of mode of transportation.

    Yes, there will be some irresponsible behavior at first (consider it an initial boundary condition,) but things will sort themselves out once the yahoos have removed each other from the equation.

  9. Re:In every train station? LOL by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And let's not forget "road-side bombs." I'm not sure we fully appreciate how dangerous things are in Afghanistan and Iraq, so let's just bring the whole frikken war back home so everyone can experience a little bit of it.

    I think it's important to always remember that the reason the "terrorists" are interested in attacking US targets isn't because they "hate our freedom" it's because we are affecting their freedoms and assaulting their ideals with our imperialism. And no, I don't mean "because we are imperialists" I mean because we are essentially defending and enforcing our business activities and other interests in the middle east in such a way that it causes the locals harm and stress.

  10. Re:Step after that by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Terrorists can easily target the areas where people are queuing to be scanned. I demand that everybody be scanned and frisked before entering the scanning area. It's the only way to safeguard the American public.

    Signed,
    The guy who manufactures the scanners
    (AKA head of the TSA)

    --
    No sig today...
  11. Re:Step after that by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, the direction they're heading is to broaden it from securing transportation to securing public places. Hijacking of airplanes is nothing new to the 21st century; people have been doing it for decades, but passengers didn't have to undergo the kind of scan/rape we endure now to get on planes in those days because no one had tried turning a passenger plane into a weapon capable of killing thousands. The FAA was only concerned about planes being diverted by a passenger who wanted to go somewhere, or maybe being blown up by a remote saboteur.... not being used as hand-piloted missiles. That's the underlying justification for these invasive searches: to protect the public from large-scale killing.

    So when (not if) someone in the US commits a suicide bombing in a crowded public place like an airport or train station or sporting event or political rally, the authorities will start screening people just as invasively to get into those as well. They've already started with metal detectors and bag searches in some of these places, and it's just going to get worse. Step by step, we're moving toward becoming a search-and-surveillance society, in which the Fourth Amendment might keep you secure from search and seizure in your home (because that public-safety rationale doesn't apply there), but not when you venture out into public places.

    (And it's all to treat the symptoms, rather than addressing the root causes of the disease.)

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  12. home of the brave, my ass by corbettw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to tear up with pride when I heard the national anthem, or Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA". The final line of the anthem, "the land of the free and the home of the brave", and Greenwood's line that "the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away", are both now lies. We are not the land of the free, the flag doesn't stand for freedom, they did take it away, but most of all we are no longer the home of the brave. We are a nation of cowards, so afraid of the boogeyman of terrorism we are willing to sacrifice not just our rights but our very dignity, all in the forlorn hope of being safe.

    The TSA has not stopped a single terrorist in the 9 years of its operation. The full-body scanners would not have detected any of the bomb plots of the last few years, including last year's Captain Underpants. It is a complete and total waste of time and money, and serves no purpose beyond enriching a handful of politically connected individuals.

    Enough is enough. It's time we all refuse to subject ourselves to any security measures until sanity is restored. Don't show your ID at the airport, don't go through the metal detectors, don't even submit your carry ons for X-Ray inspection. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction, it is time we push it back where it belongs.

    If everyone were to refuse to submit to these intrusions, they would be gone in a matter of days. The "powerful" who think themselves our masters are neither, and in their hearts they know it. The people still have the power in this country to stand up for what's right.

    Who's with me?

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  13. How to make regular people into terrorists. by VShael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, let's see....

    Invade their country. (Check)
    Bomb their country. (Check)
    Kill thousands of their innocent civilians, men women and children. (Check)
    Show no remorse for these acts. Indeed, be proud of them, and say the victims had it coming. (Check)
    Tell the survivors that they are going to get the same. (Check)

    How much research do you need? I thought America had drawn up this five-point-plan years ago.

  14. Re:In every train station? LOL by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's because we are affecting their freedoms and assaulting their ideals with our imperialism

    Give me a break. One of OBL's grievances against the United States was the fact that we had troops in the Holy Land. The fact that they were there at the invitation of the Government with the mission of protecting the Holy Land from Iraq didn't matter to him.

    We could pull out of the Middle East tomorrow and return to a 1930s era isolationism and there would still be some extremist nutjob that would find a reason to hate us. That's just the way the world works.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  15. Is everyone there an idiot? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, is everyone who works for "Homeland Security" an idiot? Is there some maximum IQ you can have before you're unqualified?

    Attacking a bus is completely different than attacking a plane.
    Even if these measure were useful in defending a plane (which they are not) they wouldn't apply to a bus because any terrorist WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THEM and would, instead, drive next to the bus and blow up his car.

    MAYBE they'd be useful in a subway. As long as the train never left the tunnels and all the access routes were sealed shut.

    Which still leave the malls and the after Thanksgiving crowds there.

    And that doesn't even cover things like a couple of snipers just shooting people in DC.

  16. Re:In every train station? LOL by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I had a similar thought, a minesweeper in effect, but then I thought: these are people willing to throw their lives away for a cause. What's going to stop them ramming a truck into the train if they really want to? Besides, unless the trains are escorted, it won't even matter that they have to be on site. Pick a remote spot, wait for the sweeper to go past, back the truck onto the tracks and jump out into the waiting getaway vehicle. The people on the train certainly aren't going to be in any shape to stop you.

  17. Re:More reasearch by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fastest way to defeat a terrorist is to give him a real job or business to support loved ones with out interference from corruption.

    Ah, that would explain why those doctors and engineers who worked and lived in Great Britain blew up the trains a couple years back. If you do a little research on actual terrorists, you will discover that many of them are well-educated people from middle class backgrounds who have excellent job prospects.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  18. Re:In every train station? LOL by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    • There has never been even one single case of a terrorist boarding any train in the United States with the intent to cause it harm. There has never even been intelligence suggesting that this is a credible threat.

    Even coming from a country where they did attack the trains (well, the subway system), it still sounds like a bad idea, for all of the other reasons you listed, plus, assuming you could ever make this 100% (or close enough) secure, what's next? Attacks at sporting events? Attacks on people in large offices? Schools? The terrorists don't have a playbook, they can make it up as they go along, trying to react to that is just going to cost a fortune and make everyone's lives hell.

  19. Re:In every train station? LOL by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, in your universe, propping up the Saudi government doesn't count as imperialism?

    Every single step in imperialism always looks entirely sane and just. (Usually because the unjust steps are classified.)

    And we can't seem to understand how people have come to the conclusion that we have conquered them. Sure, we're running around with guns killing the rebels at the request of the government we installed in the first place, but they have FREEDOM(TM)!

    We could pull out of the Middle East tomorrow and return to a 1930s era isolationism

    Could we? Why the FUCK don't we, then?

    and there would still be some extremist nutjob that would find a reason to hate us.

    The problem isn't who hates us, the problem is how many people and what sort of recruitment they can do.

    On 9/11, 19 people killed about three thousand...so each person killed 150, although that was partially absurd luck on their part.

    But let's assume that it's still possible to blow up airplanes, and only takes two people to do that plot, so each person can still kill 150 people.

    But the problem isn't the 150 people. There is functionally no way to stop that if the person is willing to die. You could fricking mix ammonia and bleach at a high school talent show and kill 150 many people which chlorine gas

    It's the 19 people willing to kill and give their life to do so that many that's the problem.

    And it's not really being an 'extremist nutjob' to hate the US because they blew up your house and killed your family. That's just perfectly normal hatred.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  20. Re:Next Next Step by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tons of people have worked out that this stupid policy is not a solution - why hasn't the government?

    Because they believe their purpose is to *do something*. That's why they were elected/appointed. Not doing anything means their position is pointless, and you can't sustain a bureaucracy that way.

    Simply put, nobody is going to tell the people responsible for their job that they can't find anything to do. It either makes you look incompetent, or it makes it look your position is redundant and should be eliminated.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  21. Re:In every train station? LOL by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A truly erroneous hard-left outlook, but stupidity is fitting given your account name. Jihadists are very clear about their intentions. It has almost nothing to do with forcing our economies on them. The primary driver of jihad is the desire to subjugate the entire world to the dictates of Islamic dictatorship. Radical Muslims view the non-Muslim controlled parts of the globe as the world they are at war with, and the war they are waging is to impose their religion on all non-Muslims. Other justifications for jihad are at best secondary motivators. And shame on you for whitewashing and apologizing for the unquestionably evil, outrageously heinous campaign of misery and death waged by radical Islam.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  22. yea.. but planes really are a special case. by reuteler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the difference with planes is that you can slam them into any target you wish. they're essentially piloted cruise missiles. trains and buses and metro stations are different. while you can blow them up, kill people on them or whatever you can't slam them into an arbitrary target. in that respect a train and the metro are no different than your local mall or walmart, downtown or whatever. and i can't imagine we're going to body scan people going into walmart or any other location where there are lots of people in one place. or maybe we are? hope not.

    --
    david reuteler
  23. Re:Step after that by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other options, including simply learning to accept reasonable levels of risk while traveling rather than allow a nebulous group of criminals to cheaply provoke us into destroying our own society for them in the name of "security".

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  24. Re:Step after that by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's because they are deeply afraid that the American public will grow tired of terrorists and start shooting up the government buildings where they all hide out.

  25. Re:Step after that by d3ac0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Profiling doesn't really involve spying though. It's a behavioral analysis done through observation of how you answer a set of probing questions.

    If your answers and behavior while answering fit the profile of a person who is nervous or agitated, then you are pulled aside for a more thorough analysis and search.

    There's more to it than that, of course, but none of it involves spying on American citizens or the massive 4th Amendment violations that the TSA is currently up to it's blue-gloved wrists in.

    Please keep in mind that El Al has been employing this type of profiling for DECADES and has had not a single terrorist attack yet, despite easily being the single biggest global target for Islamic terrorism.

    Israeli style profiling is demonstrably effective, and is generally regarded among those in the global security community as the gold standard to model after. Yet we are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are doing.

    Why?

    Well, since the former head of DHS is now a highly paid consultant to the ONLY company that makes these machines, and many politicians and govt. functionaries have either power or financial gain involved in reducing the freedoms of the American people and turning us all into obedient sheeple, perchance payoffs and corruption have something to do with it?

    It's called "Security Theater" for a reason.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  26. Re:In every train station? LOL by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A truly erroneous hard-right outlook, but stupidity is fitting given your account name. Imperialists are very clear about their intentions. It has almost nothing to do with forcing our social democracies on them. The primary driver of imperialism is the desire to subjugate the entire world to the dictates of American hegemony. Radical imperialists view the non-American controlled parts of the globe as the world they are at war with, and the war they are waging is to impose their empire on all non-Americans. Other justifications for imperialism are at best secondary motivators. And shame on you for whitewashing and apologizing for the unquestionably evil, outrageously heinous campaign of misery and death waged by radical Imperialism.

    Give peace a chance.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  27. Re:In every train station? LOL by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perfectly normal hatred would be hating the very specific people who blew up your house and family, hating everyone who shares the same race or nationality as the people who blew up your house and family is what defines an "extremist nutjob".

    So when a soldier, in the employ of an army, does something that he was ordered to that seriously harms you...your problem should be with that soldier? Really?

    Not the people who gave him those orders, which are, ultimately, the people of the United States?

    I can see how some people would emotionally think that way, but that's the emotional thinking, the logical thinking, the non-nutjob thinking, is 'If he hadn't done that the guy next to him would have. The people giving the orders are the problem.'

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  28. Re:The terrorists would carry illegal weapons. by Caerdwyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A friend of mine (retired sheriff deputy and Air Force reservist) explained it to me, and I've also heard this from my neighbor, who is a city police officer.

    Most police who are on the beat, actually out there in contact with the public heavily favor private gun ownership and "must-issue" CCW laws. Most police chiefs (politicians) are against private ownership of firearms. When you hear talk about proposed ordinances, etc., listen to exactly who is doing the endorsing. If it's a police CHIEFS organization, they want you under their heel. If it's a police OFFICERS association, they want you guarding their backs. In my friend's words, "an armed citizen is a police officer's guardian angel".

    Police chiefs absolutely DO NOT speak for the positions of the rank-and-file, and are usually dead opposite on civil rights issues. They claim otherwise, but they lie (and if a cop says "Hey, he doesn't speak for me", guess who's not getting a promotion that year). It's not Officer Friendly who wants a GPS transceiver in your ass and handcuffs on you any time you step out of your house. It's Chief Political Ambition, the one who thinks he's going to be Governor someday, and his hand-picked SWAT elite (who have as bad an attitude about ordinary cops as they have about ordinary citizens).

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  29. Re:Step after that by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, 99.9% is an incredible exaggeration. Obviously there was a period of panic right after the event, but even at its worst point I think more than 0.1% of the adult population recognized that it is manifestly impossible to prevent all attacks, even if we were willing to go so far as to impose full martial law in every public place—and even more would not be willing to go that far even if it were actually effective in stopping all attacks.

    Exaggeration aside, however, if the DHS is basing its policies on (outdated) panic-driven poll results without regard to cost, liberty, or the reality that some attacks will get through, whatever they may do, then that is just one more example of the many things wrong with the DHS. Just because they want one concession or the other doesn't mean we have to give them either.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  30. Re:The terrorists would carry illegal weapons. by lennier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But there is an immediacy of consequence when the impolite turn violent. When ordinary citizens are armed, there is a built-in limit as to how far a violent criminal act can go unchecked.

    Or not. My brother lives in Brazil - it is amazing just how much blue-on-blue gun crime there is between police officers, as coffee-fueled arguments escalate into gunfights - let alone the heavy weaponry like rocket launchers that the drug gangs, who are so pervasive as to practically be the lower-class government, have.

    tl;dr: guns don't make an impolite society polite. They make a walk down the street to the shopping mall into an exciting bullet-dodging adventure.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC