There is both an irony and conundrum related to active
shooter scenarios at soft targets: These types of places – and by the way,
“soft targets” refers not only to places that customarily have minimal or at
least non-aggressive security programs but also to places where the site’s
users customarily have some sense of it being a safe place (so even personal
security awareness is low) – almost “create” their desirability as targets
because they consciously choose (or, “make business decisions”) to maintain a
low security posture. And while these “reasons” are sometimes economic, that is
not always the full story: there still seems to be some prevalent thought among
proprietors of soft targets that the appearance of aggressive security somehow
conveys an impression of impending danger. And isn’t that ironic – some people
actually believe that more security equates to or implies greater danger. (I
may be wrong, but I never thought that banks were inherently dangerous because
they have armed guards!?!
No one deserves to
be a target for violence. But I tend to feel a bit less sorry for places at
which violence occurs when it is learned that those place consciously chose to
do little if anything to minimize or mitigate their vulnerability.
Posts
