"soft target" terrorists concerns

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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!

[Double Naught Spy]

First redstategunnut stated

Beslan was a trial run.

It will be replicated

...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?

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.

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.

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?

According to http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&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...4928&type=News

[old bear]

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.

[ClayInTx]

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.

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

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

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.

[Wildalaska]

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

[Nnobby45]

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.

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) 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..

I'd better stop here and take a chill pill since I'm feeling myself starting to really get warmed up on this subject.

[raimius]

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]

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

That is what happens when you run a fast spell check, instead of really proof reading. Boy is my face RED!

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

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.

[RaySendero]

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?

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.

[pax]

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.

From a post I wrote approximately 8 years ago:

Originally Posted by pax on September 5, 2002

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.

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

[azredhawk44]

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.

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.

[BlueTrain]

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.

[BlueTrain]

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.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by ClayInTx

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...

Why is the 21-year-old boy on the college campus too immature to carry a gun, but his 21-year-old buddy is a man brave enough to drive a squad car to come try and rescue him?

[Double Naught Spy]

Why is the 21-year-old boy on the college campus too immature to carry a gun, but his 21-year-old buddy is a man brave enough to drive a squad car to come try and rescue him?

Because the 21 year old cop isn't under the control of the college. The colleges think they are minimizing risk of NDs and intentional acts of violence by disallowing guns on campus for staff and students. So it isn't really just an age issue, though age undoubtedly comes into play for the majority of the population affected. The colleges have a greater fear of allowing guns and having someone with an allowed gun do something stupid that results in an injury or death than they are about somebody with a disallowed gun intentionally committing acts of violence.

I don't agree with it, but that seems to be the pattern I have seen at several schools now.

[Tamara]

Oh, I realize that's the actual reason behind these prohibitions, I was just interested in seeing why ClayInTx and old bear thought that a 21-year-old male was old enough to lead a fire team in combat, drive a squad car, or have a CCW permit, but once he stepped onto campus he became a drunken frat boy with no judgment?

[Tom-C]

Old Bear

In Virginia it is a College rule, not a state law. Students who disobey will be expelled. Non students will be hit with a trespassing charge. No change to statue required.

At George Mason University (close to my house) there are over 100 combat veterans. So a combat Vet, over 21, with a state CCW, is not "mature" enough to carry?

[BlueTrain]

My son happens to be attending George Mason. He is a combat veteran, if you can count tankers, and is about 27. He hasn't the slightest interest in firearms.

The drunken frat boys are the ones that later on have the tailhook parties. It's something they learn in college, I suppose.

[one-shot-one]

the problem as i see it is the death of personal responsibility in this country.
if everyone was held responsible for their own action, whether they are 21 or 91 this debate would be easier.
IE. if Preppy Troy "accidentally" shoots Suzy Cheerleader while trying to stop a "terrorist" shooting, Suzy's Parents & friends want to see him fry, while Troy's parents & friends want him to escape any judgment against him.
the laws need to be plain & simple as do the penalties. but our system allows for so much personal bias that it never seems to work that way......

[wildturkey76209]

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.

This is a tired old argument that I think reflects the general feeling of LE in that they are not comfortable allowing anyone except themselves to carry. And it is absolutely more about liability for some ND or other incident versus the benefit of armed students repelling an attack, which is seen as unlikely at best.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem with the old tired argument is that is very powerful in the debate. Vivid instances of crazed college youth are hard to counter.

It is also a problem that gun storage in dorms is a particular problem, given security, sloppy kids, etc.

Liability is also a very tough one.

About 21 year olds serving, being police, etc. - that brings you into the training argument. Such fine folk are trained. That's not the case with the kid who just bought a gun and may not even have a class like the TX one.

I get folks who say they wouldn't mind if I carried as they know I put significant time into being responsible - they don't trust impulsive untrained young people or whacky old coots with guns.

Sigh - All these arguments are made against carry anywhere in general. But since schools have been designated as more unusual risks than the mall, we need arguments to counter it.

I guess my point is how do you deal with such beyond just being outraged. The SCOTUS has said special circumstance limit gun rights. So the job of the carry crowd is to move beyond just complaining about rights as pragmatically that won't work and defeat specific objections.

1. Liability
2. Untrained -young and old
3. Reckless youth (not supervised or trained)
4. Risk to innocents
5. General emotional rejection of guns as a part of a solution.

If you can't give high level cognitive rationales - you may not carrry the day in argument.

Difficult problem.

[markj]

I also work at a College, we have had problems with gang people starting trouble outside the campus like shooting two others then running onto campus as a get away plan. We do have a police force here armed and we did go into lockdown. But I sure would feel better if I had a bit more personal protection, not to go out and find the bg but for my own safety here.

My nephew will be getting out of the corps then he plans to go to college and become a teacher. Why shouldnt he have the ability to be armed for his own protection if he chooses to do so? Course as a Marine he has drank a bit but is a level headed guy.

I stay out of malls and other places large groups of people congregate.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting divide also between the young students with no life experiences vs. the returning student who is older.

I've taught vets returning to school. So this might argue for more intensive examination of the gun carrier than just getting a permit?

Talking to young ones today - a fair number don't trust their young cohort and these aren't kids unfriendly to guns in general.