01-18-2015, 12:28 AM
A surprise terrorist attack could go down anywhere.
I personally don't think an overseas terrorist organization or a local terrorist cell or lone wolf is gonna consider gun laws heavily in choosing attack sites. I think that opportunity, bang for the buck, and location of named/specific targets will continue to be the factors that determine where most future attacks and attempted attacks go down.
In San Francisco, we've been on alert plenty of times due to Islamic terrorist threats made in regards to the Golden Gate Bridge, foreign embassies, Yahoo, etc... Right now, members of IS are issuing threats against Twitter headquarters here. Twitter has been aggressively shutting down jihad accounts (though the jihadists only turn around and open new ones). Twitter HQ is in the Tenderloin district -- it's the district with the highest crime in the city; lots of guns on the street and lots of armed cops on the street.
If IS really wanted to hit Twitter and they had operatives ready and willing to strike like AQAP did in Paris, I don't think IS members or sympathizers would be dissuaded because there are guns in the area. I think the AQAP terrorist cell in Paris was well aware that Charlie Hebdo had a security door, that Charb had an armed body guard, and that there were armed police nearby -- the Qaeda-linked terrorists struck anyway. The gunmen happened to hit their targets and escape the scene, but in my opinion they likely figured they might die in the Charlie Hebdo building and were prepared to do so.
Good intel and tight security protocols are by the far best means by which to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. Once terrorists are already on the scene and ready for action, the element of surprise and a willingness to die goes a long way in pulling off a successful terrorist hit against any target, armed or not.
I personally don't think an overseas terrorist organization or a local terrorist cell or lone wolf is gonna consider gun laws heavily in choosing attack sites. I think that opportunity, bang for the buck, and location of named/specific targets will continue to be the factors that determine where most future attacks and attempted attacks go down.
In San Francisco, we've been on alert plenty of times due to Islamic terrorist threats made in regards to the Golden Gate Bridge, foreign embassies, Yahoo, etc... Right now, members of IS are issuing threats against Twitter headquarters here. Twitter has been aggressively shutting down jihad accounts (though the jihadists only turn around and open new ones). Twitter HQ is in the Tenderloin district -- it's the district with the highest crime in the city; lots of guns on the street and lots of armed cops on the street.
If IS really wanted to hit Twitter and they had operatives ready and willing to strike like AQAP did in Paris, I don't think IS members or sympathizers would be dissuaded because there are guns in the area. I think the AQAP terrorist cell in Paris was well aware that Charlie Hebdo had a security door, that Charb had an armed body guard, and that there were armed police nearby -- the Qaeda-linked terrorists struck anyway. The gunmen happened to hit their targets and escape the scene, but in my opinion they likely figured they might die in the Charlie Hebdo building and were prepared to do so.
Good intel and tight security protocols are by the far best means by which to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. Once terrorists are already on the scene and ready for action, the element of surprise and a willingness to die goes a long way in pulling off a successful terrorist hit against any target, armed or not.