Is Security enough?

D

Double J

New member
After 911 armed security guards were given a pistol and sent to guard our local Federal buildings. The threat was airplanes.
After 911 armed guards protected our airports as well. It's hard to believe a trained, dedicated force of well armed militia could be detoured by a couple guys packing flashlights and pistols.
Schools have the policy of asking a person to leave the property if certain ID's aren't shown. And our own court houses are pretty lax with the deputy sitting in a chair as the metal detector buzzes.
Is the present security standard enough?
 
I think you answered your own question. If you postulate an attack by a dedicated and well armed force of reasonable size - what level of security can schools, etc. afford. You can't have a squad of armed troops at each.

We have seen such attacks in the USA based on terrorism. We do see lone nutty rampage kilers (sometimes two at a time). The best response for those would seem to be allowing concealed carry in most places and for such concealed carry types to take it on themselves to be trained. Several rampages were interrupted after the initial event by the CCW type. A couple of them came to ill due to tactical mistakes even as they helped others.
 
Question or Commentary?

Not sure if you actually meant to ask a question, but any level of security might be better than none; and no level can be sufficient against all possible threats. Those of us whose job it is to formulate, design and execute different levels of security well realize that you have to design your basic system for the anticipated level of exposure.

Prior to 9/11 airline personnel were taught to comply with demands and everything would probably work out O.K. That changed that day in September, 2001.

Most security is designed to instill fear of being caught - hence, CCTV monitoring at remote sites. It is not designed to prevent acts for which the perpetrator is willing to die. That willingness to die in the process alters the necessary preparation for prevention.

Security costs dollars and frequently inhibits freedoms. How much do you wish to order?

John
 
pistols at least gives some security and may help to stop an attack but if terrorists attacked, like the attack Carlos The Jackal staged in France I think it was, on an OPEC meeting, they had grenades and submachine guns and explosives, even when the police arrived shortly after with rifles they had to retreat because they said they would blow the place up.

Having men with rifles around wouldnt really help.
 
enough security

We had a saying when planning security. "It's never about having enough security, it's about how much can you afford."

I have got to admit most of the security changes I have seen or heard about at airports seems to me more about feel good than acually making it safer.
 
Double J, I'm really confused by your reference to "a militia". I agree our security is just window dressing, but all the "militia" I'm aware of would be a terrorist's worst nightmare.:confused:
It's hard to believe a trained, dedicated force of well armed militia could be detoured by a couple guys packing flashlights and pistols.
Click to expand...

badbob
 
Guys, Sometimes I get confused but it seems some of our safety measures don't do much. Kind of like filling pot holes, done to keep people satisfied.
When I refer to a malitia, I mean a group with military training dead set to get a job done. So far as noted we've been fortunate to keep large scale incidents down.
The schools have little defense. The idea for here is to bunch up in classrooms and be quiet. Perhaps staff should carry a few weapons. There just should be a working plan in public places to limit the damage. We have tornado drills, why not terrorist drills?
 
I just thank God there are people willing to stand in their way, pistol or no. Engagement is the key, keep them occupied until the bigger guns get there.
 
Within the last 2 weeks, homeland security sent out an alert to local law enforcement about an increase in activity. Groups sympathetic to terrorists are obtaining drivers liscenses to drive school busses. The alert went on to assure the public that we are safe. :confused:
 
Not Just School Buses

Augustus, the "alert" was not just about school buses, it was about commercial driver's licenses which would include gasoline tankers and other heavy trucks - possibly carrying chemicals.

Much of what could be done and perhaps should be done to enhance security is not done due to political correctness (there is an oxymoron if there ever was one!) and cries about "rights".

If you truly believe that security at the airports is little more than window dressing (and I agree that much if not most of it is); if you believe that our schools represent the greatest target and largest vulernability (and they do); if you think cargo ships are poorly inspected (and they are) and you want something done about it; don't tell us ...... tell your elected officials and while you are at it, ask them what type of disaster evacuation plan they have disseminated to the community. Most likely your answer, if you ever receive one, is "we have a plan". Unfortunately it is usually a well kept secret!!

If you are a parent you should be quite concerned about the lack of planning and preparation for a Beslan type incident. Don't tell us, demand some action and keep asking about it.

John
Mayberry, NC
 
Security in this country is a joke. We talk about doing something but what we actually do is based on appearances and politics, not on real security. If we wanted to do it right, we would send our experts to study how the Israelis protect their airports and schools. They've been living with terrorism much longer than we have and they have figured out what works and what doesn't. They aren't perfect but they have a lot more experience than we do.

Suicide bombers don't attack schools there anymore because there is a physical barrier located far enough from the school to provide protection. You don't get past it without the proper I.D. School teachers (who are ex-military just like everyone else) carry or have access to assault rifles with which to defend the schools. The terrorists switched to softer targets like outdoor markets but the schools are safer.

Every school in this country probably has 8-10 ex-military men and women who would gladly sign up for training 3-4 times per year. They could be deputized by the local LE organization, carry concealed HGs and they could keep 2-3 shotguns and patrol-rifles locked up on each hall. BGs often plan on committing suicide so they don't care about that part but research by Dr. Gary Kleck and others suggests that they would be hesitant to attack a school if they knew they wouldn't be successful.
 
There is no chance in the current situation that school hallways with be stocked with rifles.

Unless, we saw a continuing and high level of attacks on schools with firearms on the par with Israel awhile ago, it is just a fantasy to propose such.
 
There is no chance in the current situation that school hallways with be stocked with rifles.

Unless, we saw a continuing and high level of attacks on schools with firearms on the par with Israel awhile ago, it is just a fantasy to propose such.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is a fantasy but only because we aren't really serious about security. To my knowledge, there hadn't been a 'continuing and high level of attacks on schools' in Russia but it only took one Beslan to show the need for aggressive deterence.

Every few years there has been an attack on a school in this country which might have been prevented or casualties minimized by having a rapid reaction force already trained and in place. Instead, we are whistling past the graveyard taking comfort in the fact that attacks are thankfully rare and playing the averages. After all, the chances are that it won't happen in your town and it won't happen at your child's school but the fact is that it will happen somewhere and somebody's child will die.
 
I have got to admit most of the security changes I have seen or heard about at airports seems to me more about feel good than acually making it safer.
Click to expand...

To an extent. Most of the more intrusive ones fall under this. Some of the others are actually effective.

is security enough? Maybe. We have not had another attack since then. Something is working.
Click to expand...

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Attacks were not necessarily common prior to 9/11. Is it due to luck? Increased security? Little bit of both?

Obviously I think it's that last one. But I think that many of our "new" security measures have very little to do with it.

Every few years there has been an attack on a school in this country which might have been prevented or casualties minimized by having a rapid reaction force already trained and in place. Instead, we are whistling past the graveyard taking comfort in the fact that attacks are thankfully rare and playing the averages. After all, the chances are that it won't happen in your town and it won't happen at your child's school but the fact is that it will happen somewhere and somebody's child will die.
Click to expand...

Attacks on schools are vanishingly rare. They make huge headlines, but (and this will probably come off as callous) statistically they didn't even happen.

Put another way, more kids will probably be killed this year by drunk drivers (and I mean other drivers, not the kids) than have been killed in the last five or ten years by school attacks. If you're actual concern is preventing the premature death of people's kids, there are many better uses of scarce resources.

We cannot prevent all school-shooting deaths, much as we cannot prevent all terrorist attacks, all drunk-driving deaths, or all deaths from negligent discharges. The question is how much effort it's worth to try, and whether that effort could be better spent elsewhere (with a greater number of lives saved).


As regards security guards, a single guard with a flashlight and pistol will stop a majority of attackers who aren't willing to risk death (and nearly all that aren't willing to take a high risk of imprisonment) for their goal. Two or three similarly equipped will stop a majority of those that remain. It's a situation involving diminishing returns. Once you start getting into the extreme cases of people willing to risk death and come heavily armed, even a similarly heavily armed team may not be enough, and will be extremely expensive in the 99.9999% of cases where they are not needed.

I think perhaps arming (say, pistols) the dedicated security personnel for schools that have them (my school had four, for instance) isn't a horrible idea...but the taxpayers probably wouldn't be willing to foot the bill for the training and insurance that would be necessary. Taxpayers barely want to pay for teachers and desks. Especially considering how rarely it would even be needed.
 
Good post I especially agree here,

We cannot prevent all school-shooting deaths, much as we cannot prevent all terrorist attacks, all drunk-driving deaths, or all deaths from negligent discharges. The question is how much effort it's worth to try, and whether that effort could be better spent elsewhere (with a greater number of lives saved).
Click to expand...


Taxpayers barely want to pay for teachers and desks
Click to expand...

Waste Key the word for school bonds and moneys spent. "waste"
Teachers are not paid enough, but to much is spent on sports and other such things that do nothing to help a kid prepare his/her future. Isn't this the primary purpose of going to school? Sports are a good thing don't get me wrong but it should be secondary to education. Please don't take this out of context I think sports should be part of school and growing up. It was meant as am example of a program run amok and moneys wasted.

More needs to be spent on educators salary and the actual education of students.
 
Statistics mean very little if you are the 1 in a 100 who is hurt or killed. The question was, if I remember correctly, "is our security enough?" That touches my profession and my answer is "enough for what"?

Today we face a threat that is foreign to our logic and our basic beliefs. How many of us can imagine drowning our own children? How many can see themselves pulling up a chair to watch a young woman being stabbed to death instead of doing something to stop the attack?

How many will consider an attack on the school attended by our children? If it were to happen, how many would tell themselves that they had saved some money by not deploying a proper defense or that "statistics were in our favor"?

As a nation, we spend money on studies to find out why monkeys love their mothers but we don't want to spend money on a really workable system of security.

No, our security is not enough and will only improve when we demand it.

John
Mayberry, NC
 
Actually, the studies by Harlow on why monkeys love their mother and the consequences of bad child rearing were more influential in saving more kids than the number of kids shot in school shootings.

The numbers of children who are ill raised or abused is staggering. That we understand child rearing better based on the animal models is important.

We are not going to plant infantry squads or have patrols of internet commandos at each school given the current risk rate.

We would cut the total pain to our children if we did do a better job at supporting quality parenting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top