Archived Are we sitting ducks in a terror attack?

[On6]

Gun free zones are victim zones. A majority of the mass shootings happen in places were guns are restricted.

 

[theissueoftissue]

Not only that, but these type of terrorist attacks are almost always carried out by people who know they will not survive & their intent is to kill as many people as possible in as short amount as time as possible.

Storming a place with an assault weapon that can kill quickly is no match for someone carrying a handgun. This type of shooter isn't worried about being stopped - he/she has already managed to kill a large number of victims.

The fact that you used the phrase "assault weapon that can kill quickly" tells me that you are ignorant on the subject of guns, read a little. I would take any handgun over hopes and prayers in that type of situation.

I would never say that armed guards or police would have the ability to prevent or stop all mass-shooting type events, however, it very much COULD make a shooter think twice, which COULD prevent a massacre. Look up the word deterrent. Also, a good guy with a gun shooting back certainly could limit casualties or stop the threat completely. It's not the only solution to the problem, but why do nothing when we can do something?

 

[theissueoftissue]

While you'll never see them as "BREAKING NEWS" There are many cases where tragedies and robberies have been thwarted by legal gun owners who have the means and opportunity to not become victims. Do a google search.

 

[redeye58]

The Guest Service desk used to have a "Robbery Fund".. to hand over in case of a robbery. I don't know if it was killed off in every district, but.. It'd be smart to have at your store.
The Correct Answer... is to remain calm, and comply with demands. As soon as they leave, Radio for AP and a LOD.

The robbery fund was eliminated about the time of smart fund banking.
Funny how many states are adopting open-carry & trying to eliminate 'gun-free' zones but it's not going to make it any safer.
Only fools believe that 'an armed society is a POLITE one' because an nut-job or terrorist with a gun isn't gonna care who may or may NOT be carrying because they'll have the element of surprise - the same thing that killed Chris Kyle, et al.
Putting more guns out there only increases the chances of a gun in the wrong hands, be it an angry ex, a suicidal teen, a burglar, a reckless frat or a small child.

 

[Redzee]

While you'll never see them as "BREAKING NEWS" There are many cases where tragedies and robberies have been thwarted by legal gun owners who have the means and opportunity to not become victims. Do a google search.

Yup

 

[crumbdumb]

The fact that you used the phrase "assault weapon that can kill quickly" tells me that you are ignorant on the subject of guns, read a little. I would take any handgun over hopes and prayers in that type of situation.

I would never say that armed guards or police would have the ability to prevent or stop all mass-shooting type events, however, it very much COULD make a shooter think twice, which COULD prevent a massacre. Look up the word deterrent. Also, a good guy with a gun shooting back certainly could limit casualties or stop the threat completely. It's not the only solution to the problem, but why do nothing when we can do something?

I'm totally for gun guys with guns stopping mass shootings, but that's generally doesn't happen.

Again, mass shooters ambush their victims and attacks usually end quickly. When you're ambushed, you're ability to respond is greatly diminished.

So by the time you can collect your senses, shake the shock of being attacked, and reach the mindset that you can respond with your own gun, the shooter might have already committed suicide, fled, or surrendered to authorities.

 

[crumbdumb]

While you'll never see them as "BREAKING NEWS" There are many cases where tragedies and robberies have been thwarted by legal gun owners who have the means and opportunity to not become victims. Do a google search.

Robberies are fucking teriffying, but the dynamics are much different than ambush shootings.

Evading a guy trying to rob you is difficult, but possible if the thief makes a wrong move, is nervous, is bluffing on whether or not he's loaded, has no intend to kill, etc. Not so if a guy's only intent is to kill you and nothing else, ala a mass shooter.

 

[theissueoftissue]

I'm totally for gun guys with guns stopping mass shootings, but that's generally doesn't happen.

Again, mass shooters ambush their victims and attacks usually end quickly. When you're ambushed, you're ability to respond is greatly diminished.

So by the time you can collect your senses, shake the shock of being attacked, and reach the mindset that you can respond with your own gun, the shooter might have already committed suicide, fled, or surrendered to authorities.

Possible, OR, somebody with the proper training and equipment could put an end to the situation before it becomes another tragedy. I'm not talking a mall cop who just gets handed a gun and gets told to be a hero if needed, but I'm also not talking about a James Bond license to kill type either.

Training, equipment, and mindset are key.

Think of all the wasted dollars that go into AP. I for one would much rather support those dollars going to an armed security guard(s) who not only play a limited role in actual merchandise protection (which is what they've already been reduced to), but are actually trained, ready, and willing to protect guests and team members from the very real threats that exist in today's society.

 

[theissueoftissue]

You keep fire extinguishers around in case of a fire. Doesn't mean you're expecting one, right?

Better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

 

[theissueoftissue]

The robbery fund was eliminated about the time of smart fund banking.
Funny how many states are adopting open-carry & trying to eliminate 'gun-free' zones but it's not going to make it any safer.
Only fools believe that 'an armed society is a POLITE one' because an nut-job or terrorist with a gun isn't gonna care who may or may NOT be carrying because they'll have the element of surprise - the same thing that killed Chris Kyle, et al.
Putting more guns out there only increases the chances of a gun in the wrong hands, be it an angry ex, a suicidal teen, a burglar, a reckless frat or a small child.

Guns are not the problem. What would stop an angry ex or a suicidal teen from using other means to carry out their will? A knife, a baseball bat, how about commercial airliners? Remember 9/11?

Those intent on doing harm will do harm with whatever means they have available to them.

 

[crumbdumb]

Possible, OR, somebody with the proper training and equipment could put an end to the situation before it becomes another tragedy. I'm not talking a mall cop who just gets handed a gun and gets told to be a hero if needed, but I'm also not talking about a James Bond license to kill type either.

Training, equipment, and mindset are key.

Think of all the wasted dollars that go into AP. I for one would much rather support those dollars going to an armed security guard(s) who not only play a limited role in actual merchandise protection (which is what they've already been reduced to), but are actually trained, ready, and willing to protect guests and team members from the very real threats that exist in today's society.

I'm fine with trained armed guards, no disagreement there. But that still doesn't prevent the ambush factor.

If I'm a criminal going into a Target with the intent to kill, I could walk right by the guard unassuming (my weapon would be concealed), turn around seconds later, and shoot him in the back of his head.

Then what?

 

[HardlinesFour]

Friendly Reminder - Let's keep things civil guys. I don't want to bring down the ban hammer.

 

[crumbdumb]

Guns are not the problem. What would stop an angry ex or a suicidal teen from using other means to carry out their will? A knife, a baseball bat, how about commercial airliners? Remember 9/11?

Those intent on doing harm will do harm with whatever means they have available to them.

There's never been an attack with a knife or bat (as the sole weapon) as deadly as a mass shooting with a gun.

re: 9/11. Terrorist attacks using planes as actual weapons are very rare. The people on those planes that day had no idea what the hijacks were leading to (and claims after the fact of what was going to happen is Monday morning QBing).

 

[theissueoftissue]

I'm fine with trained armed guards, no disagreement there. But that still doesn't prevent the ambush factor.

If I'm a criminal going into a Target with the intent to kill, I could walk right by the guard unassuming (my weapon would be concealed), turn around seconds later, and shoot him in the back of his head.

Then what?

A very real scenario. However, please re-read the definition of deterrent. If I'm the bad guy, I'd go to the place where I knew there would be absolutely no opposition, not somewhere that I'm forced to hope I can slip past an armed guard unnoticed before I start killing.

 

[theissueoftissue]

There's never been an attack with a knife or bat (as the sole weapon) as deadly as a mass shooting with a gun.

re: 9/11. Terrorist attacks using planes as actual weapons are very rare. The people on those planes that day had no idea what the hijacks were leading to (and claims after the fact of what was going to happen is Monday morning QBing).

Are you serious? Google the Kunming knife attack, or the Tokyo Sarin subway attack.

Mass shooting events are statistically "very rare" too.

 

[crumbdumb]

A very real scenario. However, please re-read the definition of deterrent. If I'm the bad guy, I'd go to the place where I knew there would be absolutely no opposition, not somewhere that I'm forced to hope I can slip past an armed guard unnoticed before I start killing.

I've never committed a violent crime, but I'd take out the guard first. Not saying that would be easy, but dettering a surprise attack against me would be less easy.

 

[crumbdumb]

Are you serious? Google the Kunming knife attack, or the Tokyo Sarin subway attack.

Mass shooting events are statistically "very rare" too.

You're right on that point, knife attacks can be very deadly (the Norway attack had more casualties than either tho), but how many deadly knife attacks have there been vs deadly mass shootings (or shootings in general)?

 

[redeye58]

Nobody knows how they're going to respond to the unexpected unless you're a trained soldier or law enforcement, emphasis on 'trained'. Everything else is pure speculation.
If a shooter goes off in the middle of an armed populace, more likely it will turn out like the Waco biker bar shootout with people either hiding with guns drawn trying to figure out which one is the 'bad guy' or shooting the ones who shot AT the bad guy.

 

[Backroomkeycarrier]

The guy who shot up a Planned Parenthood last week shot 5 police officers (killed 1), they were probably all armed. Two Vegas officers were shot a couple months ago, they were probably armed.

Gun free zone vs non-gun free zone is irrelevant. Mass shooters (shooters in general, actually) usually try to catch people by surprise. When a guy goes to a random place to kill large numbers of people, he doesn't care whether or not anyone there's armed (and has little way of knowing anyway), he's on a suicide mission. He doesn't care if he lives or dies, he just wants to kill and he usually succeed by ambushing them.

Slightly off topic, but think about Chris Kyle. He went to war and came home alive but...he was killed in the US by a random nutjob *at a gun range*. There were probably 100s of guns carried by good guys at that range, but that random nut killed Kyle cuz he caught him by surprise.

I'm not opposed to people being armed for safety reasons, but if a guy comes up and shoots you from behind or ambushes you some other way, your gun is worthless.

I know that the police have guns and they are the only ones that shoot back. There have been instances where in robberies people shoot back to the robber. However some people say that there will be a good guy with a gun that is going to stop the terrorist. Thats the solution give and I highly find that a great solution.

 

[Makeshift TPS]

Any place is susceptible to a terrorist attack, the only thing you can take comfort in is the probability of it happening being slim, which it is. Terrorists and mass shooters generally tend to be cowards at the core, and will generally only attack where they are guaranteed to meet little to no resistance i.e. gun free zones, civil government buildings, schools, etc.
Target AP may not be armed, but the idea of security and a watchful eye being present may be enough to make violent criminals shy away in favor of a softer target. Not to mention many Target locations regularly have police present due to Law Enforcement partnerships. None of this is to say that this is guaranteed to deter an attack, but it does cut down on the likelihood by quite a bit, not to mention that that its highly improbable you will ever be in a terrorist or active shooter situation in your life regardless.

As for a response plan, all AP and Executive team members have some emergency response training, but the main reference will be in the Emergency Response Guidebook of which there are several in the building. The basic idea for acts of terror is get out of the building if there is a bomb threat, or shelter in place behind a locked door for an active shooter. Its simple, but its the best thing to do in those situations.

 

[Starswilldiex]

So around 10pm some time last night a idiot went into a Walmart (about 30 min from me) with 2 handguns and a machete threatening guests. Luckily police killed him before he could do anything but it makes it a little more real

 

[Nauzhror]

Unless it's a disgruntled BRTM that hates Target and their coworkers and comes in to go after the backroom specifically.....

.....not that I think there are any disgruntled BRTMs in this company (or on these boards).

I don't work at Jack's store, so I'm safe...right?

There is one there, there's also one in backroom.

There's store wish freezers at food ave? Like, big ones that are walk-in, not fridge-sized ones? Our store has two large freezers, but one's in the backroom, the other is in the front stock room.

 

[Nauzhror]

Better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

In theory, yes.

In practice? Not necessarily. Having but not needing is typically spending lots of $ that cold have been better spent.

The US spends nearly as much money every year on defense as the entire rest of the world combined. There are very seldom attacks on our soil, for the most part such spending is overkill and wasteful.

US spent $698 billion on defense in 2010. That's nearly $2,200 per person in the country. There are numerous other ways to spend that money that'd have a much larger impact on the overall standard of living of all Americans.

 

[theissueoftissue]

In theory, yes.

In practice? Not necessarily. Having but not needing is typically spending lots of $ that cold have been better spent.

The US spends nearly as much money every year on defense as the entire rest of the world combined. There are very seldom attacks on our soil, for the most part such spending is overkill and wasteful.

US spent $698 billion on defense in 2010. That's nearly $2,200 per person in the country. There are numerous other ways to spend that money that'd have a much larger impact on the overall standard of living of all Americans.

We could talk for days about wasteful government spending. I'm not sure that I follow how that relates to the discussion at hand.

 

[redeye58]

My state is debating campus carry right now.
All the private campuses have opted out - no carry.
Public schools aren't so lucky.
Because they can't work out a practical way for students to stow their weapons outside of class while still allowing them to carry them across campus, the consensus will likely be allowing them in class.
Not surprisingly, very few are comforted by the thought of attending class with 'good guys with guns'.
Why? Because they are so insistent on showing their gun & what a tough guy they are.
Because there's no way to determine who's a 'good guy' vs an asshat with a attitude, I'd rather not be around anyone carrying a gun who isn't wearing a uniform or carrying a badge because the latter has gone thru far more training than Joe Shmoe who did the minimum to get his CCL.

 

[Megaparsec]

We don't

Of course folks, you realize that the chances that you will be killed by a someone who is falling asleep at the wheel of their car is much more likely than a terrorist attack.
In fact, your chance of being killed by a terrorist is 1 in 20 million while dying in a car accident is 1 in 100.
Your priorities are way off.

Which might explain why Spot doesn't have a plan in place for the event.

We don't even sell caffeine pills to prevent disasters like THAT!!!