Yesterday we took a look at the effect gun free zones can have on the target selection process by terrorists, whether foreign or domestic. Since the goal of such an attack is to cause as much death and destruction as possible, it is logical that a location where civilians are prohibited from owning firearms would be a more attractive target. Examples of terrorist attacks and shooting sprees halted by armed citizens, whether law enforcement or otherwise, support this hypothesis.
One thing that our public officials can be maddeningly good at is taking the wrong course of action in an attempt to "do something." Some nutcase tries to light his shoes on fire on an airplane and the next thing you know millions of people are shuffling through security checkpoints in their stocking feet. So the next amateur terrorist sticks the destructive compound in his underwear instead. Net result: zero.
If a terrorist like Nuradin Abdi did succeed in attacking that mall in Columbus, the official response is easy to predict. As we've discussed, odds are he would have selected a mall with a "no guns" policy to ensure maximum casualties before police could arrive.
Had he gone with his initial plan to stage a shooting, it is likely that law abiding citizens would have obeyed the gun-free zone policy and not been armed. Abdi would have paid no more attention to the policy than he would have the laws against murder.
In the aftermath, officials would have declared their intention to "do something" to prevent another attack. All malls in Ohio would be mandated as gun-free zones, this time enforced by metal detectors. Of course, all this would do is ensure compliance by the citizenry and enforce the ban on them. The next terrorist would either smuggle a gun in, switch to explosives, or simply walk up and shoot the guards operating the metal detector first.
One positive step would be that most major malls would have armed security or police assigned at all times. What this really means is that they would intentionally be putting guns into a gun free zone because the gun free policy is really only a feel-good measure and they know it.
The end result is that it would take a little more planning by the next terrorist to learn patrol routes and holes in security, but would make the job easier in the end by making sure there was little to no possibility of a civilian response. Overall, the soft target remains soft enough to be attractive and the terrorist is ensured of being one of the few with a gun.
Comments
good post, it couldent have bin sayed better,,,,
I pooped a bit reading this and realizing that I'm in a gun free zone right now.
When the government declares gun free zones at any level of government they know the risk they are putting citizens at and it is intentional. Why? Because teh government will come in after the fact and while people are horrified the government will impose stricter laws/regulations while saying it is for the safety of everyone. What they are doing is further setting the public up to be victims again because while the public will obey the law/regulations criminals and terrorists will not. More innocent people will die and the government will get what they want. The right to take away your rights.
gun free zones are to homicidal monsters what traffic patrol is to cops. A free ride.
Daniel,
Terrorist will always be looking for ways to kill us. My theory is because they percieve us as weak and immoral. How do they come to this conclusion? Government policy.
The nanny state wants to control every facet of our lives and look after us because we just don't know any better. To them we are just a bunch of unruly misfits who would go shooting up the joint given the opportunity.
If we want to stop the terrorist, the US government should do its job and protect us, stop worrying about our PR image. They already hate us, enough of the olive branch!
Our mantra in the US is now, "Walk tall, carry a big stick, but makes sure no one sees the stick because we may look like bullies."
I say enough of that non-sense, it hasn't worked thus far. It would be hard to terrorize us if you relied on camels and snail mail because we bombed you back to the stone age. You want to stop terrorism, punish the enablers and sponsor states. Punish them severely.
They have no mercy for us.
Mr. White,
Evident within your statements are projections of the honest nature of your character; an absence of knowledge and careful scrutiny of the revelatory details specific to the most major terrorist acts both in the U.S. and abroad; a blurring of vital distinctions between certain intentional acts of qualifiable terrorism and relatively isolated incidents; and at least one highly erroneous presumption amounting to a major flaw in perception and subsequently soundness in reasoning.
Officials have responded and taken the exact course of action anticipated by those who planned and orchestrated every major terrorist event.
The only wrong course of action possible by government is that of not further empowering itself by allowing any part of a crisis to go to waste.
Terrorists essentially gain nothing but government always benefits.
People might do well to begin idealistically thinking in terms of establishing government-free zones while the evils are still sufferable.
We're vulnerable to terrorist attack with or without gun free zones. So what?
I look to the overall relative risks. Paraphrasing Captain Sullenberger, "the most dangerous part of my job was driving to and from the airport".
I didn't start carrying because of the risk of terrorism, but I won't stop because of the likely futile effort it would be resisting a group of terrorists by myself.
The Beslan Massacre was bold but overall crude. It involved between 32 and 76 terrorists and lead to the deaths of 350 to 400 people, maybe more, depending upon whose report one reads. If such an attack occurred in the U.S., even if all the teachers, administrators and staff were armed and trained at someplace like LFI and off-duty SWAT officers worked as undercover security at schools, the terrorists would likely and easily murder a bunch of innocent people, whether they seized the school or not.
It's unlikely the teachers would all carry and be LFI grads. It's possible that a few teachers would carry, and the 4 to 5 million concealed carry licensees nationwide testify to the fact that overall very few people get a license and carry when they can. Only a minute fraction would train to the level of LFI, which also squares with the reality in the U.S. where only a very few train to the level of LFI, Firearms Academy of Seattle, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, et al.
I guess I'd have to conclude it's impossible to say whether terrorists are attracted by gun free zones. I would also note it probably doesn't matter all that much.
If one tries to insert themselves into the mind of a terrorist, with the goal of causing the maximum amount of injury and death, then I'd have to conclude the best method would be a nuclear weapon (which aren't all that easy to come by or build) detonated in a large population center. I understand the basics of how a nuclear explosion is created, but by no means do I possess the skills necessary (which also aren't all that easy to come by) to construct even a crude device if I had both the determination and the wherewithal.
A fallback plan might be to hijack a commercial aircraft and crash it into a large population center, but this too requires a great deal of training, preparation and money.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!