Originally Posted by WESGATORS
We have many problems that exceed a terrorist problem on a day to day basis. Similarly, we have many problems that exceed a "gun control" problem on a day to day basis. And we certainly have many problems that exceed a "school shooting" problem on a day to day basis. Your general point is applicable to ALL of the issues that we seek to address with more security. How or why we prioritize the way we do is not easily quantifiable and certainly much less agreeable.
Much has been talked about in terms of new restrictions that need to be made; much of which is superficial BS to give the appearance of doing *something* about the problem.
I don't know how you would quantify that in either case. The only tangible "freedom" I lost after 9/11 was the increase in screening detail at airports. How about you? I think both concerns of loss of freedom are not easily measured in the short-term, but it's about managing the slippery slope potential. Loss of freedom doesn't happen in clear-cut steps, it's a gradual process. I want citizens to maintain the right and ability to let the government know "hey, you've gone too far" even if I don't always agree with the choices that are made to act on such ability.
Actually my point is that we should prioritize by the most serious issues, which I attempted to quantify, in order to point out how irrational our behavior has been. The school shooting wasn't referenced by me because by itself, as tragic it was, isn't a major issue, but it did highlight overall gun deaths, which are. And while we seem more than willing to give up money, resources, our soldier's lives for the former, we do nothing on the latter, which is more serious. I am not even saying we should have more gun control, only that the two approaches are out of whack, whether it's too much of the former or not enough of the latter.
I agree that the slippery slope argument can apply to any issue of freedom vs. security, but to date we haven't lost any freedoms with gun control so I don't see the comparison. If the question is potential gun control laws and their effect on freedoms that's a worthwhile debate, but again nothing substantive is going to pass because with guns the freedom argument wins, but for some reason it doesn't win with a far less serious issue.
As far as freedoms lost since 9/11, the idea that the government can monitor my calls if I call someone outside the country, that they can ask an ISP provider for my data without probable cause on me specifically, that I could be FISA'd etc etc etc, even that I could be summarily executed when deemed an enemy combatant of the state (I supported the actions we took because there was zero doubt about his loyalties, but wait until we do it to someone with less evidence). And the scary part is that most of these things could have already happened without me knowing, or to you for that matter. I don't want a government with that kind of power, and I don't understand why anyone would.