Anyone else concerned about the safety of NBA/sports stadiums ?

[danglertx]

Threats and the probability of threats change constantly.  Once one attack happens then you have a model for it and copycats.  It seems to me the threat goes up much more.  The fact that Columbine happened made Sandy Hook and the VT shooting happen. San Bernardino could be the same thing for work Christmas parties.

So nothing to worry about over the next 10-15 years then?

Depends on how old your radical jihadist willing to copycat it is I guess.  If he is 5-10yrs old right now, yeah, you are probably safe at your Christmas Party for 10 years.

[KeepRondo]

You tout statistical probability and then you say the fact we can't use stats proves your point. So which is?

Unless you think that the underlying factors you cited are something fickle that changes overnight, then the the overall terror risk before and after the attacks is pretty similar. Which part of this isn't clear?

Don't get upset because you're hanging by a thread.

No one is saying or pointing to one event. Or one stat. This isn't as simple as today is no different than yesterday.

Things that are being considered are -

Multiple terrorist attacks.

ISIS extending their reach and growing.

The FBI taking a recent swipe at federal law that limits their surveillance.

The Obama administration manipulating information from top analyst and government agencies.

Oh, but it IS that simple, because the question is how concerned you should be today -- to which the obvious answer is no more concerned than you were one day before the attacks (and possibly less, but that's a different discussion). Not my fault that this doesn't work well for taking swipes against the OBama administration.

That isn't actually true because if we take your theory that you shouldn't be any more concerned today than you were yesterday and extrapolate that out, nobody should worry about anything because at one point that threat didn't exist.

Point being, things change.  At one point we weren't worried at all about Ebola, then air travel happened and now it is possible for people to come to America carrying Ebola and not showing symptoms. 

Threats and the probability of threats change constantly.  Once one attack happens then you have a model for it and copycats.  It seems to me the threat goes up much more.  The fact that Columbine happened made Sandy Hook and the VT shooting happen.  San Bernardino could be the same thing for work Christmas parties.

Exactly. Well said.

[Vermont Green]

This has nothing directly to do with a sporting event other than Madison Square Garden is on top of Penn Station but I was riding a crowded subway to Penn Station with my wife the other day and the train stopped.  After a while, they announced that there was a police situation at the Times Square stop (just ahead of where we were).  This was just a week or so after Paris.

That is the one time I was a little spooked even though it was nothing.  After a 10 or 15 minute delay, our train bypassed the stop with the police incident and everything returned to normal.

In the last few months, I have been to one Pats game and one Bruins game and for whatever reason, I felt perfectly safe.  Not so much that weekend I was in NYC.  Penn Station was heavily armed (much more so than South Station) which is reassuring in a way but also a little spooky in a way.  But it is so crowded and felt very vulnerable to any kind of terrorist attack (bomb, shooting, whatever).

Not to steer this to politics but maybe Donald Trump will suggest we don't let Muslims go to sporting events.

I read that there is a petition in UK to not let Trump into the country and it has 400,000 signatures.  Too funny.

[danglertx]

This has nothing directly to do with a sporting event other than Madison Square Garden is on top of Penn Station but I was riding a crowded subway to Penn Station with my wife the other day and the train stopped.  After a while, they announced that there was a police situation at the Times Square stop (just ahead of where we were).  This was just a week or so after Paris.

That is the one time I was a little spooked even though it was nothing.  After a 10 or 15 minute delay, our train bypassed the stop with the police incident and everything returned to normal.

In the last few months, I have been to one Pats game and one Bruins game and for whatever reason, I felt perfectly safe.  Not so much that weekend I was in NYC.  Penn Station was heavily armed (much more so than South Station) which is reassuring in a way but also a little spooky in a way.  But it is so crowded and felt very vulnerable to any kind of terrorist attack (bomb, shooting, whatever).

Not to steer this to politics but maybe Donald Trump will suggest we don't let Muslims go to sporting events.

I read that there is a petition in UK to not let Trump into the country and it has 400,000 signatures.  Too funny.

To take it even further off topic, and I hate to defend Trump because I can't stand him, but I am a lawyer and technically he was correct if he was talking about refugees from Syria or really anywhere I can think of at the moment with the exception of one country in Asia where I believe the Buddists are brutalizing the Muslim population.    Burma maybe?

Technically Christians and Yazidis(sp?) are the one's being persecuted for their beliefs and qualify for refugee status according to the treaties we've signed.  Yeah Syria sucks and there is a war there, but you have to be persecuted and in fear of your life for your ethnicity or beliefs to be a refugee as written in 1951 as a response to a certain President who didn't want to let Jews into the country even though they were being exterminated in Europe.

[kozlodoev]

Threats and the probability of threats change constantly. Once one attack happens then you have a model for it and copycats.  It seems to me the threat goes up much more.  The fact that Columbine happened made Sandy Hook and the VT shooting happen.  San Bernardino could be the same thing for work Christmas parties.

Exactly. Well said.

So you think the threat of running a plane into a major city has gone up much more since 9/11. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

The probability sure changes over time. This is about (a) understanding the time horizon of such changes, and (b) understanding when something is a tipping point and when it isn't.

[kozlodoev]

To take it even further off topic, and I hate to defend Trump because I can't stand him, but I am a lawyer and technically he was correct if he was talking about refugees from Syria or really anywhere I can think of at the moment with the exception of one country in Asia where I believe the Buddists are brutalizing the Muslim population.    Burma maybe?

Technically Christians and Yazidis(sp?) are the one's being persecuted for their beliefs and qualify for refugee status according to the treaties we've signed.  Yeah Syria sucks and there is a war there, but you have to be persecuted and in fear of your life for your ethnicity or beliefs to be a refugee as written in 1951 as a response to a certain President who didn't want to let Jews into the country even though they were being exterminated in Europe.

Nope, he's not correct, technically or otherwise:

Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum

[KeepRondo]

Threats and the probability of threats change constantly. Once one attack happens then you have a model for it and copycats.  It seems to me the threat goes up much more.  The fact that Columbine happened made Sandy Hook and the VT shooting happen.  San Bernardino could be the same thing for work Christmas parties.

Exactly. Well said.

So you think the threat of running a plane into a major city has gone up much more since 9/11. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

The probability sure changes over time. This is about (a) understanding the time horizon of such changes, and (b) understanding when something is a tipping point and when it isn't.

Your arguments are getting looser by the post. No one is specifically saying the next attack is going to be on a plane. You are basically nit picking and nothing more.

[greg683x]

Living in a major city (Chicago), I'm more concerned about terrorists getting at public transit hubs than I am with them hitting Wrigley or the United Center.  Go to almost any subway or train station in the city and you have a gluts of people (especially at rush hour) and minimal security. Woefully unprotected.  Makes the security at public sporting events look like the Pentagon. 

You could do some serious damage there.

same thing down here in DC, I cant believe there isnt more security.  The "see something, say something" crap just isnt close to being enough.

I also think about it every time I see those ridiculous black friday videos with hundreds of people storming a door front

[kozlodoev]

Threats and the probability of threats change constantly. Once one attack happens then you have a model for it and copycats.  It seems to me the threat goes up much more.  The fact that Columbine happened made Sandy Hook and the VT shooting happen.  San Bernardino could be the same thing for work Christmas parties.

Exactly. Well said.

So you think the threat of running a plane into a major city has gone up much more since 9/11. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

The probability sure changes over time. This is about (a) understanding the time horizon of such changes, and (b) understanding when something is a tipping point and when it isn't.

Your arguments are getting looser by the post. No one is specifically saying the next attack is going to be on a plane. You are basically nit picking and nothing more.

I am responding to the claim that "once an attack happens ... it seems the threat goes up much more" -- with a specific example to underline the idea that it's probably not very accurate. Don't blame me for stuff other people throw against the wall.

[KeepRondo]

Threats and the probability of threats change constantly. Once one attack happens then you have a model for it and copycats.  It seems to me the threat goes up much more.  The fact that Columbine happened made Sandy Hook and the VT shooting happen.  San Bernardino could be the same thing for work Christmas parties.

Exactly. Well said.

So you think the threat of running a plane into a major city has gone up much more since 9/11. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

The probability sure changes over time. This is about (a) understanding the time horizon of such changes, and (b) understanding when something is a tipping point and when it isn't.

Your arguments are getting looser by the post. No one is specifically saying the next attack is going to be on a plane. You are basically nit picking and nothing more.

I am responding to the claim that "once an attack happens ... it seems the threat goes up much more" -- with a specific example to underline the idea that it's probably not very accurate. Don't blame me for stuff other people throw against the wall.

You don't even know what you're responding to at this point.

[kozlodoev]

Threats and the probability of threats change constantly. Once one attack happens then you have a model for it and copycats.  It seems to me the threat goes up much more.  The fact that Columbine happened made Sandy Hook and the VT shooting happen.  San Bernardino could be the same thing for work Christmas parties.

Exactly. Well said.

So you think the threat of running a plane into a major city has gone up much more since 9/11. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

The probability sure changes over time. This is about (a) understanding the time horizon of such changes, and (b) understanding when something is a tipping point and when it isn't.

Your arguments are getting looser by the post. No one is specifically saying the next attack is going to be on a plane. You are basically nit picking and nothing more.

I am responding to the claim that "once an attack happens ... it seems the threat goes up much more" -- with a specific example to underline the idea that it's probably not very accurate. Don't blame me for stuff other people throw against the wall.

You don't even know what you're responding to at this point.

I assumed I am responding to people who have reasonable command of the English language. That is, when they say "copycats" they don't actually mean "loosely related acts of terror". Too much to hope for, I guess.

[KeepRondo]

Threats and the probability of threats change constantly. Once one attack happens then you have a model for it and copycats.  It seems to me the threat goes up much more.  The fact that Columbine happened made Sandy Hook and the VT shooting happen.  San Bernardino could be the same thing for work Christmas parties.

Exactly. Well said.

So you think the threat of running a plane into a major city has gone up much more since 9/11. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

The probability sure changes over time. This is about (a) understanding the time horizon of such changes, and (b) understanding when something is a tipping point and when it isn't.

Your arguments are getting looser by the post. No one is specifically saying the next attack is going to be on a plane. You are basically nit picking and nothing more.

I am responding to the claim that "once an attack happens ... it seems the threat goes up much more" -- with a specific example to underline the idea that it's probably not very accurate. Don't blame me for stuff other people throw against the wall.

You don't even know what you're responding to at this point.

I assumed I am responding to people who have reasonable command of the English language. That is, when they say "copycats" they don't actually mean "loosely related acts of terror". Too much to hope for, I guess.

I suppose we can all take things out of context, like you do, but I consider that a waste of time.

[kozlodoev]

I suppose we can all take things out of context, like you do, but I consider that a waste of time.

I didn't realize people come here to do anything other but waste time

[KeepRondo]

I suppose we can all take things out of context, like you do, but I consider that a waste of time.

I didn't realize people come here to do anything other but waste time

You do it very well

[Rosco917]

The subject of Soft target attacks is a political football, the left disputes what the right says, and vice versa.
That means nothing will be done. It's up to you to either step up and protect yourself and family, or be very lucky.

It's extremely difficult to protect against soft target attacks. That's why they're called soft targets. It's almost impossible for law enforcement to be 100%. You can't protect against someone with a back pack bomb, that positions themselves among fifty people waiting to enter an arena.   

A few years ago I held an FFL license, meaning I sold firearms for a living. We had ATF agents, and State SWAT guys always in the facility. Many predicted exactly what is happening now. That we will be be on the receiving end of soft target attacks by terrorist organizations in the near future, and there is little or nothing to be done about it. Short of profiling. Because the terrorist take advantage of our own constitution and laws, and the law makers will forever be debating and posturing on the subject.