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

[KeepRondo]

If you do statistical modeling for a living, you should know whatever model you come up with would be extremely unstable. First, you don't have information that the FBI or other agencies have regarding how many 'real' potential threats we have. Or how many people are currently self radicalized and undetected. You don't know if the numbers are growing and if they are to what extent. And you can't use reports from the FBI such as people traveling back and forth from Syria or total number of people on the Terror list. We just don't know, out of all those people, how many are real threats. Pretty much every variable in any statistical model would become an assumed number. We also don't know if recent trends will trigger more attacks.

That's precisely what I'm saying. Just because we observed a couple of high-profile terrorist acts doesn't mean that the underlying risk factors have changed overnight (they probably didn't, that isn't how it works generally). In other words, the fact that people are freaking out doesn't make terrorism more likely.

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

[kozlodoev]

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?

This is similar to tossing a coin: the probability of tossing heads depends on the fairness of the coin, not on whether your most recent toss was heads or tails.

[manl_lui]

I was thinking bout this the other day with all these terrorists attacks lately . I have been to a bunch of C's game the last few years , and was really surprised at lack of security entering the arena . They have a gate where you give your ticket and are let in , but to my knowledge there was no checking of bags , and no metal detectors .

Just last year you had two incidents in the TD Garden . One where a man was stabbed in the stands , and another where a man was knocked out because some young punks were playing the knock out game ( I believe they got away with it too because there was no security cams in the area where this occurred ).

I know people who easily sneak booze in to , because they don't check for that .

Has the security changed at all since last season ? because this had me concerned .....

I agree, I was actually at that game where a kid got stabbed...I believe that was the one against the Grizzlies and on the balconies

Besides the tickets part, I do know that they don't allow backpacks into the stadiums, though how knives gets sneaked through is beyond me.

[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.

[danglertx]

I'm not very concerned about sporting event shootings.  While there might not be "much" security there, there definitely is some and it is armed. 

Conversely, while we protect our sports heroes and banks with guns, I am deeply concerned about a terrorist attack on our schools, mainly elementary or middle schools.  One literally crazy kid was able to do massive damage at a school totally unopposed. 

If a terrorist really wants to start a war between the world and Muslims, shoot or blow up 100 elementary kids at some suburban school.  I think we'd find out really quickly we aren't doing everything we could do to combat ISIS.   Northern Iraq and Syria would be a wasteland in a month.

And if you think they won't because they are kids, ISIS hasn't had any qualms about executing children and look no further than Pakistan for how devastating a terror attack on a school can be.

[KeepRondo]

I'm not very concerned about sporting event shootings.  While there might not be "much" security there, there definitely is some and it is armed. 

Conversely, while we protect our sports heroes and banks with guns, I am deeply concerned about a terrorist attack on our schools, mainly elementary or middle schools.  One literally crazy kid was able to do massive damage at a school totally unopposed. 

If a terrorist really wants to start a war between the world and Muslims, shoot or blow up 100 elementary kids at some suburban school.  I think we'd find out really quickly we aren't doing everything we could do to combat ISIS.   Northern Iraq and Syria would be a wasteland in a month.

And if you think they won't because they are kids, ISIS hasn't had any qualms about executing children and look no further than Pakistan for how devastating a terror attack on a school can be.

This happened on a college campus. Hopefully it never happens at an elementary school.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/10/with-spotlight-on-san-bernardino-yet-more-questions-about-college-knife-attack/

[Donoghus]

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.

[kozlodoev]

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.

[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.

I guess it would be if we all fell into your interpretations for how the world thinks. The fact is, people are thinking about this as a series of events. Not just one day being the factor.

I mean you might as well say, are you safer this minute then the last minute. Why not break it down any more?

It's really kind of a trivial point you're trying to make. Why can't you see that?

[kozlodoev]

I guess it would be if we all fell into your interpretations for how the world thinks. The fact is, people are thinking about this as a series of events. Not just one day being the factor.

Yeah, and a fundamental point of my argument is that just because people are thinking about it a certain way doesn't really mean anything about the actual underlying level of risk. I agree, this is a pretty trivial point which and also one you don't seem to get or care about.

[danglertx]

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. 

[wayupnorth]

I guess it would be if we all fell into your interpretations for how the world thinks. The fact is, people are thinking about this as a series of events. Not just one day being the factor.

Yeah, and a fundamental point of my argument is that just because people are thinking about it a certain way doesn't really mean anything about the actual underlying level of risk. I agree, this is a pretty trivial point which and also one you don't seem to get or care about.

Great series of posts on this topic.

[wayupnorth]

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.

How on Earth can you come to that conclusion?

You can assume that is the case all you want, but to outright claim it as fact, is quite absurd.

[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.

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

[danglertx]

I came to that conclusion because the two shooters were fascinated by the Columbine shooting.  I wasn't saying any school shooting because of Columbine, just those two because the killers were heroes to those guys.

news.sky.com/story/1173599

also after a quick search this is from the VT shooter's wiki page "In 1999, during the spring of Cho's eighth grade year, the Columbine High School massacre made international news. Cho was transfixed by it. "I remember sitting in Spanish class with him, right next to him, and there being something written on his binder to the effect of, you know, ' 'F' you all, I hope you all burn in hell,' which I would assume meant us, the students," said Ben Baldwin, a classmate of Cho.[29] Also, Cho wrote in a school assignment about wanting to "repeat Columbine". The school contacted Cho's sister, who reported the incident to their parents. Cho was sent to a psychiatrist.[30]

So, in summary, I came to that conclusion because it was logical and supported by the facts.