SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-there-a-solution-that-is-less-bad-than-the-problem? dept.
If it seems like every week, there's another terrorist attack – well, you're not wrong. According to one crowdsourcing map, there have been over 500 attacks around the world since the start of 2017, with over 3,500 fatalities. For a period in 2016, ISIS-initiated attacks were occurring, on average, every 84 hours.
Despite improvements in methods and coordination among law enforcement agencies over the past 25 years, they're still hamstrung in a number of ways. With large public gatherings of people becoming more attractive targets for terrorists, what are the best strategies moving forward?
[...] But despite huge budgets and the presence of thousands of added security personnel, it's virtually impossible to prevent a determined terrorist, or guarantee absolute safety. While security efforts for events like the Olympic Games have escalated, terrorists today no longer wait for major events that draw global interest.
[...] The odds are in favor of terrorists. All they have to do is succeed once, no matter how many times they try. For public safety professionals to be fully successful, they have to prevent 100 percent of the terror attempts. It's a number to aspire to, but even the most experienced countries fighting terror – such as Israel and the U.K. – can't measure up to this standard.
[...] These days, it's necessary to consider any place where crowds congregate as vulnerable "soft targets" for the attackers. To better prepare for securing soft targets (and this isn't to say threats against "hard targets," like planes, buildings and infrastructure, have diminished) law enforcement agencies must improve coordination among one another, whether it's via intelligence, information sharing and training. And then there's the need for deconfliction, which refers to avoiding self-defeating behavior – from interagency rivalries and poor communication to insufficient coordination – by people who are on the same side.
[...] Given that there is no way to guarantee complete safety, and that the threat assessment expects more attacks, there are two more elements that ought to receive more attention: community resilience and community policing.
https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-better-protect-crowds-from-terrorism-78443
[Related]:
1996 Atlanta Olympic Games: https://www.britannica.com/event/Atlanta-Olympic-Games-bombing-of-1996
Secure Airport Design: https://skift.com/2016/07/04/how-smart-airport-design-can-make-spaces-more-secure/
Do you agree with this assessment of the security situation ? What do you think could be done to mitigate the effects of such asymmetric warfare ?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Monday June 05 2017, @12:25AM (1 child)
As I understand, it is required to go through some training to get the concealed carry license in the USA.
This is already the case, and it was so for as long as I can remember. You have to demonstrate safe operation of the gun that you are buying. You also have to pass a written test on the laws if you are buying a handgun.
Don't be afraid of your fellow humans. Those who want to kill you can kill you, no matter what the law says. The rest won't harm you - in fact, they will protect you if necessary. Otherwise instead of carrying a gun you need to carry a cop.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 05 2017, @02:04AM
That's definitely not true everywhere. Top search hit says 26 states [thetrace.org] don't require you to actually demonstrate you can handle a gun properly to obtain a concealed carry permit. I believe some of those still require a short training class, but many have basically no requirements other than a "clean" criminal record and no serious mental health problems. There have actually been controversies recently in some states that have even bare-bones restrictions (like requiring approval of a local sheriff to check out your record), and the NRA wanting to overturn them to REQUIRE issuance of permits (so-called "shall issue" provisions).
Open carry laws are also very permissive in many states.
That may be true where you live. It is not true in the majority of U.S. states [huffingtonpost.com]. And in states that don't require a carry permit, even if such tests exist, they wouldn't be effective when other people beyond the buyer could carry the gun.
The NRA and 2nd Amendment absolutists make sure that there's always as little regulation as possible everywhere.
I'm not "afraid of my fellow humans." I grew up around guns. I know how to handle them safely, because I was taught by my family at a young age. However, gun accidents happen. People don't lock up guns to keep away from kids. People don't teach kids about guns. People also do stupid stuff with guns. Inexperienced people frequently don't handle guns well when they try to shoot one for the first time (or even the tenth time, particularly if under stress).
I'm not in any way saying that gun accidents are very frequent, but they happen a lot more than terrorist attacks. Studies show that places with higher numbers of guns have more gun accidents (duh). And that's not even including additional shootings that occur deliberately because a gun is available and a disagreement escalates (rather than less lethal weapons).
Again, I repeat my original claim that IF the goal is to stop terrorists, having people carry around guns more often will undoubtedly result in MORE shootings than terrorist events they could possibly prevent.