Some say last week’s attack in Paris underscores a change in terrorist tactics – from high-overhead, difficult attacks on “hard” targets (targets that are in some way defended), like the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, the USS Cole, and even US airliners on 9/11, to “soft targets” like the Nairobi Mall, schools in Pakistan and Nigeria, tourist hotels and synogogues, and rooms full of recalcitrant journalists in cities where guns are banned in fact or effect.
It’s a trend that intelligence officials say makes the fight against terrorist threats more complex and potentially more disturbing because the kinds of attacks now grabbing global headlines require far less planning and are harder to detect and disrupt.
It’s not a new trend, of course; after 9/11, Al Quada attacked a disco in Bali, buses and trains in London and Madrid, and countless other “soft” targets. And the PLO was massacring Israeli school children in their kibbutz classrooms and buses (the 1970 Avivim Massacre, the Kiryat Shmona massacre, and the Ma’alot Massacre) over forty years ago.
There are those who say the answer is to give police and intelligence even more power than they already have – which makes sense on the one hand, and pushes us further down the slippery slope toward having no freedom at all, in which case the terrorists will have not only won, but they’ll keep killing people anyway.
The Israeli examples are instructive, of course; after the three heart-wrenching massacres I list above (which killed 42 school children altogether), the Israelis started allowing teachers to carry legally-permitted guns in the classroom. Over time, that morphed into security guards, which I think is a step back, but the point is they turned “soft targets” into “hard targets”.
In parts of the US, “soft targets” are a little harder; many, many people have made themselves into “harder targets” with their legally-permitted firearms, to the chagrin of not a few murderers (spree killers rather than terrorists, although to the would-be victim, the distinction is secondary).
And Minnesota is one of those places with a fairly enlightened civilian carry permit law. It could be better – see Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming – but it’s gotten better over the past decade.
So Minnesota targets should be just that little bit “harder”, right?
Oh, no.
(Sad trombone).
Back to the drawing board there.
It would be interesting to see the polling of customers and business owners from the MOA regarding conceal and carry. Could it be the vast majority want to impose their views on a small but vocal minority? Or perhaps the MOA doesn’t want guns on their private property? I imagine the families shopping at the MOA would prefer not to have guns (no matter how well intentioned) in close proximity to their families.
Emery,
its a good thing that any malefactor carrying a shopping bag with a Mac-10 and 12 extra full magazines would see that MOA sign, turn around and leave disappointed, their dreams of martyrdom dashed.
Sound reasoning there!
“I imagine the families shopping at the MOA would prefer not to have guns (no matter how well intentioned) in close proximity to their families.”
why? because as volitional instruments guns are likely to jump out of their holsters and start killing?
Do you remember the so-called protesters at the MOA a few weeks ago? Most commenters here mentioned the *fact* that the MOA was private property and the protesters should be prosecuted for violating the law which stated they couldn’t protest on “private property”.
It would be interesting to see the polling of customers and business owners from the MOA regarding conceal and carry.
No, it wouldn’t.
Most people act on the information they get from the media, which is mostly wrong (although improving in recent years).
I’m not disputing MOAs assertion of property rights, rather just pointing out how meaningless and potentially counterproductive it is.
I’m questioning your characterization of CC permit holders as too dangerous to be “in close proximity to their families”.
Emery, yes MOA is private property, and yes they have every right to ban guns on their property. I’m unaware of any 2A group that advocating for a disruptive march through the mall to protest their policy. What we are saying is that it is a dumb policy that doesn’t make the mall safer, but in fact makes it less safe. While I fully support MOA ownership’s right to be stupid, I have no problem with anyone politely telling them that the policy is counter productive. Some of us even minimize our shopping there because of this policy.
Stephen Hunter “Soft Target.
I wonder: does Security at MOA have guns in case of an active shooter? Does MOA ban off-duty policemen shopping at MOA while carrying guns?
Is it guns they don’t want, or certain people carrying guns?
Which people?
Minnesota’s “posting” law explicitly exempts off-duty cops, IIRC.
That sign is different from Minn. Stat. 624.714, Subd 17. The only reason for the introductory clause is to imply state law Requires, not Allows, the ban. Ducking responsibility to fool out-of-state customers?
.
How old is that sign you have in this post? I’ve been to the MOA a half dozen times in the last 12 months and I’ve never seen any signs banning guns. I have looked for the signs too.
You’re right, Mitch. On-duty cops, off-duty cops, and private security can carry guns in the MOA.
So it’s not GUNS they’re worried about, it’s certain people carrying those guns they’re worried about – specifically, people likely to use guns to shoot each other at the Mall and thus endanger other customers.
That sounds reasonable and even responsible: but let me axe you this: in the Twin Cities, what group is statistically most likely to be (a) carrying guns and (b) willing to shoot each other with them?
I didn’t see the signs last time I was there, thankfully. That said, the place is such a zoo with such a high trash/treasure ratio, there is little incentive for me to go there.
And, in accordance with Minnesota law, tenants are allowed to ban permit holders, not landlords. Do not forget that at one time, MoA had a tenant that sold guns.
Unless things have changed since the last time I was at MOA and saw a MOA official security guard, that particular unit does not carry guns. They have handcuffs and pepper spray. I don’t remember if they had Tazers or batons/ASPs or not.
kel; It’s a good thing a permit holder isn’t allowed to C&C in her purse (with her children) while in the midst of the general public at MOA. Accidents happen and with the absence of a firearm, it won’t be an accidental firearm discharging.
Emery, in God we trust, all others must provide data. Provide the evidence that a well holstered firearm in a mother’s purse (or better yet, on the inside of her belt where a purse thief cannot get it) is more dangerous than banning lawful carry.
You won’t find it, because the Brady Campaign has been trying for decades and is still rolling snake eyes.
And don’t be fooled into thinking that if permit holders are not carrying at the MoA, there are no concealed guns at the MoA.
Bikebubba: This is the most recent accidental shooting (re: permit holders) where an
Idaho woman was accidentally shot and killed by her 2-year-old in Walmart.
/Concealed weapons are part of everyday life in Idaho, and that’s unlikely to change in the Mountain West state despite a shocking accident in which a 2-year-old boy reached into his mother’s purse, got ahold of her gun and shot her in the head inside a Wal-Mart.
Veronica J. Rutledge, 29, was shopping Tuesday morning with her son and three nieces in Hayden, Idaho, when the small-caliber handgun discharged one time, killing her.
Terry Rutledge, Veronica’s father-in-law, told The Spokesman-Review that the boy unzipped the special gun compartment in the woman’s purse where the weapon was kept while she was looking at clothing.
Terry Rutledge said his daughter-in-law did not put the weapon “loosely into her purse.”/
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/287184501.html
Ah, providing an anecdote…Emery, let’s be honest here. I asked for statistical data, not anecdotal. Are you saying that you are as clueless about the difference as the Brady Campaign?
“Provide the evidence that a well holstered firearm in a mother’s purse (or better yet, on the inside of her belt where a purse thief cannot get it) is more dangerous than banning lawful carry.”
You asked I responded. The rub was that the victim’s purse was made for conceal and carry permit holders. Supposedly fool–proof….
No, you gave an anecdote, silly. OK, a few hundred tragic accidents per year (many of them not as accidental as believed, just can’t prove it in court) vs. over a million defensive uses by gun owners overall, an overall 2% reduction in violent crime (or more) with shall issue concealed carry, and thousands of cases annually where permit holders use force to prevent or end crimes.
You lose. Learn the difference between anecdotal and statistical data, Emery.
I didn’t realize this was a game. The ability of a minority to protect a highly valued freedom is actually one of the things I like best about the US. A precondition for headway on this issue is for the gun control crowd to abandon their fantasy stereotypes about American gun owners. Conversely, only by changing the minds of those perfectly rational middle class gun owners to recognize that other Americans have legitimate concerns too. It won’t be easy, but start by treating them with respect.