"soft target" terrorists concerns

That is a good point about appearance and caution.

Currently in my classes, I have students from the Middle East - some female in traditional garb. I have students from Africa, India and Asia.

Given what we know about the tendency to shoot inappropriately based on ethnicity - it would be a risk to assume anyone is immediately a risk or not.

Certainly, we have had had Caucasian rampage shooters.

As far as changing our foreign policy, that is not the domain of this forum. While interesting, it's not for us.

I certainly don't want a SWAT team or civilian mowing down some nice young lady with a scarf.

One problem is that we don't train our kids. If I were a parent of a child from an obvious ethnic group - I would be scared about such.
 
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature,
nor do the children of men
as a whole experience it.
Avoiding danger is no safer
in the long run than outright exposure.
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
Click to expand...
--Helen Keller
 
My expectation is that the next round of real terrorism will involve big explosions, not people running around shooting everyone in sight. It has been tried and it works.
Click to expand...

My personal belief that if there is another organized large-scale terror attacks it will be a series of shootings in public areas, such as shopping malls, and or sporting events and they will happen at the same time.

The most current trend in active shooter training is for the first 3-4 officers on scene, regardless of jurisdiction, to aggressively enter the target and pursue the threat. There are even some that advocate the lone wolf philosophy, but think that it would most certainly take a special officer to do that remotely safely.
Click to expand...

Things have defiantly changes since I retired, but we were expected to protect the citizens of the community that hired us to do so. No one wants to be put in the position of having to hunt an armed gunman in a building, but sometimes you have to do things you really don’t want to do.

I have a former college and good friend who is the security manager for a large state university; shortly after the V.T. shootings he requested that I join him in a series of “brainstorming” sessions with the administration of the university in an effort to review, improve, and implement an updated security protocol for the university. Every one of us who had L/E experience were opposed to allowing students or any non L/E to carry weapons anywhere on the university grounds. We did suggest the following, the use of the existing siren warning system in conjunction with a text message alerting of the potential danger and the instillation of solid core doors with deal bolt locks on every classroom, thus creating a semi safe room in every classroom. The university implemented the first two suggestions but do the cost (?) did not approve the door replacement idea.:(
 
VT, Northern Illinios, the Amish School House, Columbine - for instance - have been in our consciousness for several news cycles.

They have not caused a massive push for armed students and teachers among the general public.

In fact, a Mumbai attack would probably lead to a push for armed guards everywhere (which we couldn't afford). If a squad of AK armed folks hose a school, a CCW type arguing that they could win the day with J frame probably would look stupid on TV.

After some school shooting, a major gun school offered free gun classes to the staff - the school principal said it really made him angry as the last thing they wanted was more guns. OH, horrors - says the choir.

But if you don't understand the emotional reaction, you get nowhere.

If people see guns misused, they usually don't MORE guns around. Human nature - deal with it.

The best thing is to push legislators to get rid of the ability of public places to ban carry. This includes business locations, schools, government buildings, etc. - unless there is a technical reason for a ban.

However, we have to shut up the private property types. They stand in the way of such and are used by the liability lawyers.
 
To Mr. Meyer, who complains that we don't teach our kids, what exactly are you driving at?

And as for armed guards, many schools do in fact have armed guards. And in the shooting spree at the Indian reservation school some time ago, who got killed first?

What were the terrorists trying to accomplish in India? Did they succeed? Will terrorists be suicidal?
 
1. How to react in a crisis.

2. No school I know of has enough of a significant armed force to respond to a serious attack by many heavily armed assailants.

3. Such resources would have to come from the outside. You may recall at Columbine the one officer was not enough.

4. To Old Bear - I'm curious - what were the objections to campus carry? How would they be different from objections to carry at church, the mall, etc.

Were there specific risk factors identified for a school or just generic anti-carry rationales?

5. What was acomplished at Mumbai - killing lots of people!
 
First redstategunnut stated
Beslan was a trial run.

It will be replicated
Click to expand...

...but when asked...
You think Ingush and Chechen rebels will attack another school in North Ossetia? That was 6 years ago. When do you think they will make another attack based on the trial run?
Click to expand...

replied with
No, I think that a degraded and less centrally organized terror network will look at less grandiose and elaborate means to inflict the terror that is their trademark.
Click to expand...

So first the grandiose Beslan event was stated that it would be replicated, then it was stated that it would not. I guess that covers the bases awfully well. Something may happen in the future and it could be bad, or it won't.

Look, you can call any past event a trial run if by that you mean that somebody might do something similar to it at some point sometime in the future even though said person may have nothing to do with parties involved in the preceding trial run incident.

2. No school I know of has enough of a significant armed force to respond to a serious attack by many heavily armed assailants.
Click to expand...

The whole of Mumbai didn't. Fort Hood had trouble stopping just one guy. So did the citizens of Austin. In short, a lot of damage can be done by a single person or small group of people in a very short period of time if they have a decent plan to make that happen. It does not have to be overly complex, though multiple terror events happening at about the same time in multiple locations are often characterized as being "highly coordinated" when they are tasks undertaken on a simple schedule.

The thing about such attacks is that nobody, city, state, nation, remains 100% vigilant and fully protected all the time. It just does not happen. Bad guys will always wait for an opportunity to strike when it is to their advantage or which they think it is to their advantage.

If we had all the protection we needed, then everyone would be complaining about being in a police state and how expensive it is to pay for all the security that does nothing more than standing around and guarding us. Nobody wants that.

What were the terrorists trying to accomplish in India? Did they succeed? Will terrorists be suicidal?
Click to expand...

According to http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...mbai+terrorist+goals&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us the political goals of the terrorist were fairly grand...anti-India, anti-Isreli, anti-US/NATO.

Were they successful? Probably to a certain extent, but without follow through and followup, such terror events remain as isolated events and what small benefits might have been gained are lost. However, what probably matters most is whether or not they think they were successful.

Were they suicidal? None planned to survivethe event. http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/mumbaiterrorstrike/Story.aspx?ID=NEWEN20080074928&type=News
 
Last edited:
Dr. Meyer, the main objection by myself and the other L/E’s was the very real potential of something very tragic and stupid happening when you allowed a group of, at best semi mature, young adults who have a well earned reputation for indulging in alcohol and drugs to go armed. The reason the administration was/is opposed to weapons on campus, it does not fit with the liberal and progressive image the school or the community surrounding school wishes to portray.

Last but not least to allow the caring of weapons on any school in the state would require a change in the states general statues.
 
We cannot establish an armed force in every school. It is questionable to allow even college students to arm their selves because it’s been well documented that these persons have not yet matured enough to make good judgments, especially the boys; ask the car insurance companies for confirmation of that.

Arming the school staff is telling them they are now the police.

As for a terrorist attack, we are in an undeclared war and persons are going to get killed in a war. It’s unfortunate that in this war the civilians are the main targets, unarmed civilians preferred.

However:
A deterrent is the result of 9-11. Whether or not we are being successful in our war in the Middle East the result is those who pulled off 9-11 got the pot stirred and stirred hard. Things aren’t going too well for folk in Iraq, Afghanistan, and environs right now.

The war there isn’t being waged the way I would do it but no one in charge has asked me yet, and probably won’t.

Last but not least:
:
Last but not least to allow the caring of weapons on any school in the state would require a change in the states general statues.
Click to expand...

old bear,
All of our statues of generals will remain as it and don’t you even think about changing that big one of Sam Houston over in Huntsville.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Clay
 
Dr. Meyer, the main objection by myself and the other L/E’s was the very real potential of something very tragic and stupid happening when you allowed a group of, at best semi mature, young adults who have a well earned reputation for indulging in alcohol and drugs to go armed.
Click to expand...

All things considered, what such institutions fear in this regard is an activity under their control and with their permission resulting in something bad happening more so that factors outside of their control resulting in something bad happening. In this case, they undoubtedly are more fearful of allowing guns on campus and there being an ND or intentional act with an allowed firearm, resulting in an injury or death than they are fearful of a UT, VT, Columbine event occurring with weapons they didn't allow.

Remember, we are a society that would rather see 100 or 1000 bad guys go free than to wrongly execute one good guy.
 
Im going to give you some odds here...any soft target attack will take place at an Airport or Large Urban area on the east Coast or in Chicago, Detroit or California, or indeed Europe

The Terrs arent stupid. They know where the gun free zones are. I havent upgraded my armament from cell phone to gun here in Alaska, plenty other folks to shoot back.

WildsodontsweatitAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
My expectation is that the next round of real terrorism will involve big explosions, not people running around shooting everyone in sight. It has been tried and it works.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Maybe true terror involves a school bus in N. Dakota where no one can possibly be prepared. Or gunmen at a Sierras ski resort. Or............well, the possibilities are endless and they don't all include large explosions. Just places we used to think we were safe.

Random attacks throughout America that involve all of us, and especially our children, can't be defended and would shock our nation.

The incompetence of those who've attempted to carry out attacks in our country is amusing, but I'm not optimistic that it will continue. It's only a matter of time before they recruit some home growns with their brains in their heads (instead of in their yingies:cool:) who could provide competent leadership.

A Fox News guest pointed out today that a few gunmen different airports, in the US., acting simultaneously, would ground aircraft and disrupt international travel.

Want your government to protect you? It can't even get permission from Mexico to retrieve the body of an American murdered by drug dealer/pirates---let alone show any interest whatsoever in supplying personnel to stop the infiltration of drugs thru Lake Falcon on the Rio Grande..:rolleyes:

I'd better stop here and take a chill pill since I'm feeling myself starting to really get warmed up on this subject. ;)
 
Last edited:
Old Bear, the irresponsible student bit is already screened by CCW laws and no-driniking while carrying laws, is it not? I have not read of many incidents involving drunk CCWers. Have you seen enough such events to warrant an outright ban?

Liability concerns are a bit out of my area of knowledge, and image concerns are purely emotional, so I'm not going to question those.

As for soft targets, I think that is the price we pay for freedom. I was actually discussing this with a friend on Saturday. Even moderately secure facilities would be hard pressed to limit casualties if a group of 4-12 heavily armed terrorists made it past the first layer of security (which is usually passive or has easily identifiable holes). We figured a group of 6, with a couple weeks of planning and $10,000 in weaponry/ammo/gear could do substantial damage, even with what most people consider decent security.
 
old bear,
All of our statues of generals will remain as it and don’t you even think about changing that big one of Sam Houston over in Huntsville.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Clay
Click to expand...

That is what happens when you run a fast spell check, instead of really proof reading. Boy is my face RED!:o
 
The incompetence of those who've attempted to carry out attacks in our country is amusing, but I'm not optimistic that it will continue. It's only a matter of time before they recruit some home growns with their brains in their heads (instead of in their yingies) who could provide competent leadership.
Click to expand...

While not a terrorist attack in that the snipers were not trying to harm non-combatants in an effort to effect change in social, political, or religious aspects, the DC snipers did a very good job of affecting a large number of people's behaviors and fairly sizeable geographic area for a fairly prolonged period of time with very little resources. Later it was determined that they had shot people previously and in similar manners outside of the DC, Maryland, Virginia area in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana.

Various bombers over the years have managed to effect terrorist attacks over more prolonged periods of time, though with much less influence such as Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph. Flying under the radar helped make it possible for them to remain free as long as they did.
 
azredhawk44:

IMO, "bad guys with guns" are the times that cops are SUPPOSED to be cops, the most. That's when they earn those guns on their hips and the "thin blue line" prosecutorial immunity reputation they enjoy.

If they can't be held accountable to PURSUE danger when innocents are being killed by it... what good are they at all?
Click to expand...



redhawk,

I agree with you!

But, I figure the first police to arrive will work harder to disarm any good guys on the scene rather than following-up on the BGs.
 
The thing about such attacks is that nobody, city, state, nation, remains 100% vigilant and fully protected all the time. It just does not happen. Bad guys will always wait for an opportunity to strike when it is to their advantage or which they think it is to their advantage.

If we had all the protection we needed, then everyone would be complaining about being in a police state and how expensive it is to pay for all the security that does nothing more than standing around and guarding us. Nobody wants that.
Click to expand...

From a post I wrote approximately 8 years ago:

pax on September 5 said:
There is no realistic way we can provide safety for all our people. Making sure that airline meals come with nothing but plastic spoons isn't going to do it. We can't afford to hire as many security guards, policemen, undercover agents, and detectives as it would take.

So what can we do?

Realistically, we can't afford to hire all the manpower it would take to protect our citizens. We neither can nor should surrender our freedoms for simple physical safety, undermining our way of life.

Our founding fathers faced a similar dilemma. How can a government protect the common man?

Answer: it can't. The best it can do is enable the common man to protect himself, then stay out of his way while he does it. That's why they passed the 2nd amendment, allowing individuals to arm themselves against a dangerous world.

Limiting our freedoms gives the terrorists what they wanted, and it won't provide the safety we need. Increasing our freedom is a far safer option.
Click to expand...

True then. True now. And -- all the bleating of the arrogant, "everyone but me is stupid" crowd trying to prevent young adults from carrying the tools to protect themselves isn't going to change it.

pax
 
all the bleating of the arrogant, "everyone but me is stupid" crowd trying to prevent young adults from carrying the tools to protect themselves isn't going to change it.
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

(BTW, for all you who don't know... it's "Hear! Hear!" as in a call to all voices to hear the words of wisdom being said... not "here, here" as in this location, right here.)

21 is old enough (by 3 years) to die (or preferably, to kill) for your country. 21 is old enough to face murder charges, by 3 years. 21 is old enough to be held accountable for all the potential sins a man or woman might commit.

Being on a college campus is no shield for responsibility. Nor is a college campus a magical innocence-projecting force field.
 
Well, I still hold to my big bang theory. However, just about every other possibility has been tried, including poison gas. And curiously, not all of these incidents have been terrorists (except in a sense, perhaps) or even foreign. Plenty of people have grudges against the government, their neighbors, their employers and against people who drive SUVs and so on. Some act on it.

I do agree with Double Naught Spy that what matters is whether the perpetrators think they are successful. If so, they'll probably try again. It can be a waiting game. All they have to do is outwait us. As long as we're the foreigners in the Middle East, all they have to do is get us to leave. I think they may be thinking that about the Israelis, too. The home-grown problems we will have to deal with. And, eventually, we usually do. They get caught sooner or later.

It is interesting and not surprising that the subject is "soft targets." Many places have become more hardened over the year. Not only are there obstructions outside some federal buildings to try to prevent another Oklahoma City-style bombing, some gun shops have grown steel posts in front of the building to prevent people turning the store into a drive-in. But soft targets abound everywhere in the world.
 
By the way, I'm not worried about it. I have plenty of other things to worry about. Even here at work we have a safety committee, which seems to have gone in abeyance, if the posted minutes are anything to go by. But plenty of other people are. It's their job.

The county I live and work in has publications about official recommendations about personal or family and community preparedness. But I don't think terrorism even makes the chart. Nothing is mentioned about it and this is one of the places the "beltway snipers" were active. More about storms and power outages. Useful stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top