Debate: Are security regulations for flying too strict?

[]

[]

[]

[]

Background and context

Following September 11, 2002, airport authorities have been very strict on what can be taken onboard aircraft to prevent many things including terrorism and drug-trafficing. Since 2002, on several occasions, there have been terrorism attempts in airports including Heathrow, New York and Christchurch (NZ). Luckily, the terrorists did get caught before boarding the plane.

Following most of these incidents, security in airports has got very tight and there are many restrictions as to what can be taken onboard now in place. These measures are put in place, in case of a rare terrorism attempt. With these restrictions, hopefully events like 9/11 will never happen again. The restrictions may tough, but they prevent the unlikely event of a terrorist attack in the sky.

But are the restrictions too strict? Very rarely would a terrorist attempt to blow up a plane and that begs the questions - are all these restrictions necessary? Most people simply find them annoying and a huge nuissance.

[]

[]

[]

Are the regulations of what you can take onboard aircraft too strict?

[]

Yes

The restrictions are a hassle and annoying. Many people, when flying, now have to abide by many restrictions. They are a big hassle and are annoying to the public. Things like not being allowed to take more than 100mL of liquids, even if a 110mL bottle is nearly empty (that happened to me) and if you take baby food, you are asked to eat it to ensure it does not contain an explosive device. It is these kinds of things that annoy people and is unnecessary. 99.999% of people are not terrorists and yet everyone is treated as a suspect.

Terrorists usually get caught before boarding their plane anyway. Since September 11, all terrorist attempts have been stopped before the terrorist got on the plane. The terrorists always get caught before boarding the plane so there is no need to have these laws in place as terrorists don't get past security anyway.

Argument: 9/11 was a one-off incident

[]

No

If we let our guard down and remove these restrictions, the number of terrorist attcacks may start to increase. If the regulations for flying weren't this strict, terrorists would be able to pass through airports with bombs, drugs and other dangerous or explosive items. The restrictions do enough just to stop terrorism. They are not to strict; banning everything, regardless of whether it is able to have explosives in it or not would be too strict. These regulations aren't too strict, just strict enough to stop terrorists.

Terrorism is a major problem and must not happen. The security regulations and restrictions may be fussy and possibly annoying to people both innocent, and guilty of terrorism, but it is necessary. The restrictions are certainly not too strict and with just one less restriction in place, that could allow a terrorist attack. Nobody wants to die in a terrorist attack, but without these restrictions, terrorism could increase and get dangerously out of control.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Do the regulations work to stop terrorism?

[]

Yes

Since these rules have been in place, all attempted terrorist attacks have been stopped before they happened. The regulations on what can be taken onboard aircraft are not what stops terrorism. All terrorist attacks since the laws have been in place have been avoided not by these rules, but before the attempted terrorists boarded the planes. These regulations do not do anything except annoy innocent passengers and do not help out the fight against terrorism, nor have they stopped any terrorist attacks - the regulations are not what avoids terrorism.

[]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

[]

[]

[]

Should we have the security regulations in place at all?

[]

Yes

• A duty to protect civilians. Governments have a duty to their citizens to protect their rights to security of person and freedom from fear. Laws designed to enhance security are not only passed by democratically elected governments, but also enjoy popular support as measured by opinion polls and in the outcomes of subsequent elections. Once the threat of terror has been dealt with, liberty can be given greater emphasis and security measures relaxed once again.

[]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

See also

• Debate: Security vs. liberty
• Debate: Airport security controls

External links