Lone Wolves in the USA (new title)

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

This thread was called 'Lone Wolves after Newtown, Conn', which was a murder spree at a school and the focus has been lone wolf / lone wolves activity in the USA. There is a separate thread on lone wolves beyond the USA:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=16226 and a separate thread on Terrorism in the USA:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=8828 . Thread retitled 'Lone Wolves in the USA'. A small thread was merged in today (ends).


The murders @ Newtown, Connecticut have rekindled the debate over how the USA responds before such attacks occur. SWC has debated 'Lone Wolves' before, mainly as a terrorist tactic and after the Va Tech shooting a few years ago.

I am sure there has been ample coverage and commentary - a small proportion reaching my reading screen - and sometimes on the BBC.

Via RCP I found this article 'Even Experts Can't Spot the Next Violent Shooter' helpful, even if it "pours cold water" on several "pet" policy suggestions recently advocated:http://nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/even-experts-can-t-spot-the-next-violent-shooter-20121218

Passages like this:
But even psychiatrists struggle to pinpoint who could turn violent. “We are really terrible at anticipating behavior, or predicting behavior. There’s no theory—in psychology or psychiatry—that gives us a good basis or framework” to predict what will cause a young person to act violently, said Dr. Victor Schwartz, medical director at suicide-prevention group The Jed Foundation.I do wonder - as an observer of the USA - whether public policy priorities are wrong. So much is clearly devoted to 'Homeland Security' or counter-terrorism, I acknowledge there is a threat and since 9/11 rarely successful and not enough on responding to non-terrorist, occasional, lethal attacks.

Can the leviathan of counter-terrorism be re-targeted?

[davidbfpo]

There are many relevant previous threads, especially valuable IMO are:

NYPD: Active Shooter - Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation, January 2011:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=12366

Arizona Rep. Giffords' shooter called very disturbed, September 2011:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=12229

[carl]

Can the leviathan of counter-terrorism be re-targeted?

What would it be pointed at? The article states that you can't pinpoint these people.

[carl]

Some of the things I've been reading lately about this point more, to me, to how popular culture interfaces with disturbed young men.

1. These guys know about the previous mass murderers and they study what they did. The CT. killer, the guy in Oregon and the criminal in Aurora all dressed more or less in costume.

2. They are aware of how what they do will play. The Oregon guy announced that "I am the shooter." That could have come right out of a news report.

3. These guys plan the deed. One of the things they plan is where they can do it with small possibility of effective opposition. They like so called "gun free zones." "Gun free zones" are really statements of moral rectitude by a part of the popular culture.

4. They want to kill, not fight. If they run into opposition or are about to, they surrender or kill themselves.

With all this in mind there are two things that can be done, in my opinion, that may actually reduce these killings. The first is to somehow, someway make it so their names and faces aren't known by all. I don't mean passing a law. I mean restraint on the part of the media. I don't see any reason why anybody should know their names. The should just be known as the "murderer", the "criminal", the "thing" or something else that is both anonymous and shameful. That will take away the imaginings of mass media glory the I believe drives this.

The second thing is to insert some uncertainty into their calculations. They won't fight. Right now there are places where they can be certain they won't have to fight, schools being the most obvious example. If schools were to announce that some of the teachers, all of the teachers or none of the teachers at any institution may or may not have ready access to weapons, depending on their disposition, that would be enough to remove the certainty that opposition won't be there.

These events partly result from the culture of the US. That can be changed but not by the gov. Somehow we have to change it.

[jmm99]

although they still may be too early while funeral rites are still ongoing.

In any event, these points seem valid to me:


from Carl

1. These guys know about the previous mass murderers and they study what they did. The CT. killer, the guy in Oregon and the criminal in Aurora all dressed more or less in costume.

2. They are aware of how what they do will play. The Oregon guy announced that "I am the shooter." That could have come right out of a news report.

3. These guys plan the deed. One of the things they plan is where they can do it with small possibility of effective opposition. They like so called "gun free zones." "Gun free zones" are really statements of moral rectitude by a part of the popular culture.

4. They want to kill, not fight. If they run into opposition or are about to, they surrender or kill themselves.

So, are these folks "Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity" ? No !

They are guilty, even though they may be mentally ill in any number of ways. The young man who committed these CT killings saved us a good deal of turmoil by taking his own life. That turmoil was exemplified in the trials of the CT duo of home invaders, murderers and rapists recently sentenced to death. The patterns of both these CT incidents were as laid out above.

Right now (see first sentence of this post), I don't feel like discussing Carl's two conclusionary points - both are valid areas of discussion, BTW. They parallel discussion areas suggested by Carrie Cordero (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/cordero-carrie-f.cfm#) ("In November 2011, Carrie Cordero joined Georgetown Law as its first Director of National Security Studies. Previously, Professor Cordero served in national security related policy and operational positions with the Department of Justice from 2000-2010, most recently as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security."), in these two blog posts, Carrie Cordero on the Lone Shooter (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/08/carrie-cordero-on-the-lone-shooter/) (Lawfare, 17 Aug 2012); Carrie Cordero on Physical Security at Schools (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/12/carrie-cordero-on-physical-security-at-schools/) (Lawfare, 18 Dec 2012). From the last article:


Which leaves us with physical security. Many of us go to work in places far more secure than those in which our kids go to school each day. Following 9/11, federal, state and local authorities effectively hardened potential targets of terrorist attack. We turned soft targets into hard targets. When I worked in the federal government, I had to swipe a badge and walk past several guards. Visitors to federal buildings go through scanners and show ID. Purses and bags go through security machines. It works. Congress is protected along these lines when its members and staff go to work each day. Same for local government officials. Now, when I go to work at a university, I still walk past a guard who requires me to show an ID. Universities have campus police and uniformed guard forces. Dorms in large cities are guarded. Private companies all over the country have guards at the front desk.

We protect ourselves. Why aren’t we protecting our kids? Our babies.

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

There are so many factors that contribute to these events - perhaps the greatest tragedy is that we will focus our solutions on one or two obvious symptoms rather than seek to find a holistic approach.

1. Can we come up with a more appropriate way to ensure the effects intended by the 2nd amendment while mitigating illegal or unnecessary gun violence? Probably. But we need to equally think about how interpretations of the 1st amendment have contributed to mindset behind the action.

2. When I read about mobilizations of civilians to form armies for war, one large challenge is how to train people to overcome their natural aversion to taking another human life. When one studies war one sees that once trained, the human animal can take human lives with ease (though typically not without psychological consequences once returned to "normal"society). I do not play, but see the ads on TV for modern video games rooted in the celebration of unconstrained violence. What a great training aid for overcoming social aversions to killing. Add to that a global 24-hour news cycle that drones on relentlessly about every such event around the globe, making cult heroes of the lead villains in these tragic dramas. Where are the calls for constraints on this?

3. What to do with our mentally ill. Medicate and integrate seems to be the norm. It is cheap and it appeals to a liberal sense of fairness and humanity. As a prosecutor in Portland Oregon I handled civil commitments for few months. Individuals pick up by the police for psychotic breaks that were often quite violent in nature (to the person or to others). These people were hospitalized and medicated prior to their hearing. The judge had the power to commit for up to 6 months, but only based upon the mental state of the person as they appeared at the hearing. How they were during the act, or what the act was, were largely immaterial to the finding. Most were simply released and urged to take their meds. Shows like the current "American Horror Story" or the classic One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" don't help us in getting to the middle ground that is so necessary to get people the help they need and to protect society from their breaks with reality.

We need a strategic approach, but like most things, we will simply apply intel and tactics to address the symptoms.

[Firn]

I agree pretty much with the holistic approach. (Gun) Culture, social make-up and the legal system all play a smaller or bigger role. Violence like murder is much more frequent in the US then in any other western country and the prison population is for a number of reasons much higher too.

While I won't comment on a so called new assault gun ban I want to remind the reader that Europe has, despite some EU alignment multifaceted policies on gun control. In general it is much harder to get one while a permit to carry one in daily life is extremely rare. I don't think there is much of a difference ( at least in my opinion) of what you can buy let us say in Germany, Italy and the US when it comes to rifles, even semi-automatic ones. The big differences are the entry barriers, carry permits and the sheer amount of firearms in circulation.


Standard military size magazines (http://www.midwayitalia.it/epages/MidwayItalia.sf/it_IT/?ObjectPath=/Shops/MidwayItalia/Products/MP0014), even some with 120 rounds (http://www.armeriabertocco.it/prodotti/accessori-armi/caricatori-co/) can be bought in Italy. Semi-automatic 'sporter' (http://www.bignami.it/en/target-shooting/prodotti-en/?cat0=100&cat1=288) or 'hunting' (http://www.bignami.it/en/hunt/prodotti-en/?cat0=100&cat1=288) rifles and carabines are also perfectly legal if you have the license for which you pay roughly 150 € a year. As usual there are differences between the regions/provinces on what is legal to go hunting with and what is a thus a 'hunter' rifle. ( Mostly semi-automatics hunting rifles and shotguns are subject to the 2+1 rule, two shots in the magazine and one in the barrel)

In general Italian law is a legal maze and while the controls are generally relative lax for most sometimes there are very rigid checks and some absurd legal cases. Eduardo Mori (http://www.earmi.it/default.htm) is considered to be arguably the foremost legal expert on the weapon issue, and has a collection of some. For example while you have to inform the Carabiniere of your area even of any purchase of ammunition this is in most cases far too much paperwork and is not enforced. From a hunting perspective I really see no need for any change in the gun laws apart from a big general clean-up of the often badly worded and sometimes conflicting legal norms. Suppressing the muzzle blast would be nice, but I'm now used to electronic hearing protection.

In short it is potentially not too difficult for a overtly sane person with no suspect record to buy similar weapons as used in the latest terrible tragedy. A mentally disturbed person faces a much higher barrier to get personal weapons and the general low amount of firearms, especially of semi-automatic rifles with large magazines makes it also much harder to get such from (close) relatives. In the latter case it is also relative uncomon to spend much time handling and shooting said weapons.

P.S: Illegal weapons are of course also available but it should take considerable effort and money for a 'normal' mentally disturbed personto get them.

[carl]

Firn:

the way I look at the Second Amendment is that is primarily to allow the citizens some viable recourse to oppose the government if it comes to that. With that in mind, citing European weapons laws as a model to be followed doesn't hold much water given European history over the last hundred or so years.

[carl]

So, are these folks "Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity" ? No !

Exactly. As you said, their insanity only extends so far. Their reaction to the exigencies of life is irrational, but all of their actions are those of perfectly rational people. They don't like the way the world makes them feel and they want to feel better. The way they choose to feel better is nuts but that is as far as their insanity goes.

Then their actions become those of a sane and evil person. How can he feel better? He can hurt them. How can he hurt them? He can kill them. The more he kills the more they will hurt. If he kills children, they will feel even worse. He can feel even better if he can anticipate that everybody will know him and want to want to learn about him.

So where can he go to kill many and not take the chance that there will be a fight that will keep him from killing many? There are lots of places and most of them advertise. Then is becomes a simple matter of scheduling.

He knows that he will run into no opposition. He knows he will be famous and his face will be known by all. The media can be counted on to do that for him. And that same media makes it easy for him to research.

So to me, the key to preventing these things is to make a situation that would dissuade the rational planner part. Remove the certainty that there will be no opposition and make these actions anonymous.

[carl]

Bob:

These are crimes committed by self absorbed individuals. There is no holistic, root causes, 'what is it about our society that makes them do this?' approach. They want to hurt and be known and we have set up easy spots to hit and we make them famous.

The tragedy is the dead people, not that we don't come up with something relatively simple that will deal with the problem, rather than coming up with something complicated that will make us feel smarter than the next guy that won't deal with the problem.

Your point 1 is a little to breezy about fundamental human rights. Personal self defence against criminals and group self defense against government tyranny both ultimately mean the ability to do effective lethal violence if needed. I don't know how you are going to ensure that effect another way.

When you say something about rethinking interpretations of the First Amendment you are talking restrictions on free speech. Period. That I don't like at all. The problem of publicity for killers can be solved by voluntary restraint on the part of the media. They can report the crime without mentioning names of killers and showing their photos. They don't show photos of murder victims, nor do they publish names of some sex crime victims. They can restrain themselves. It won't matter if some things leak out via the net. Most people get their news from the standard sources, that is where the fame is. If it isn't in the mass media, it isn't famous.

Your point 2 makes the same fundamental error about humans that Grossman does. Humans are not naturally averse to killing. What aversion they have is taught to them in varying degrees by whatever culture they happen to live in. Aversion to killing is not a product of human nature. It is a product of cultural teaching and as such it can be stripped away pretty quick.

But that is subordinate to the point you make in point 2. there is an aversion. I don't think the games have much effect. All the people I know who play are perfectly capable of discerning the difference between the game and real life. They are pretending. The media giving huge amounts of publicity is a much more important effect.

Your point 3 is very right. We have to be able to commit dangerous people like we did in the old days. Ken Kesey has something to answer for.

[Firn]

Firn:

the way I look at the Second Amendment is that is primarily to allow the citizens some viable recourse to oppose the government if it comes to that. With that in mind, citing European weapons laws as a model to be followed doesn't hold much water given European history over the last hundred or so years.

As a matter of fact I'm not at all concerned about this or that Amendment. I just pointed out an aspect from a European point of view which may explain partly the stark difference in terms of murders and mass murders between the two big Western continents in the last fifty or so years.

How to deal with it is a different, American problem. Other countries reacted various ways, we will see how things go in the US after this tragedy.

P.S: European history is hardly a factor in this case and it is pretty hard to see a positive effect of a more liberal gun policy during the last hundred years. In a much poorer Europe price would have in any way kept the volume down, especially in the Eastern areas. A slightly bigger availabilty for small wars against a foreign aggressor mght have been the only plus while it would have changed even less in internal affairs.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

Reasonable minds differ. Unreasonable minds even more so.

We can discuss symptoms and tactics, and certainly there are symptoms that must be addressed and one should have the best tactics possible for dealing with those symptoms.

We can also explore and discuss the fundamental aspects of such symptoms and the strategic frameworks that must be addressed to get to better trends over time.

I for one agree with Sun Tzu: "Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." Currently the airwaves are swamped with a lot of "noise" on this topic. Not much strategy though. To say there are no root cause for anything is simplistic and a dodge of taking on the hard work necessary to break a problem down to its components and attempt to understand why it is and how it works. We do this avoidance often, and nearly as often achieve predictably poor results.

[carl]

Bob:

I don't like looking at the big picture in these things because I don't think there is a big picture. These are crimes committed by individuals and looking for a so called 'root cause' is a distraction from that. What motivates these criminals is irrational and their objective is evil, but the planning and execution are a perfectly rational series of decisions and actions by an individual. They decide and they decide what they can pull off. It seems to me that it is much more productive to look at these occurrences as crimes that take advantage of some obvious vulnerabilities and the most productive way to address them is to remove those vulnerabilities to the extent possible.

Beyond that the additional factor is the specific publicity given to these crimes. The world knows the name and faces of these criminals. Some of this is the result of a simple reward system. If you want everybody to know who you are, there is a surefire way to do it. The media will oblige the desire to be known. If something is rewarded, there will be more of it...so stop giving the reward.

As far as specific remedies, except for streamlining commitment procedures, I don't think there is much more than that. If you want more that is to be found in religious philosophy and perhaps the concept of original sin. People do evil.

[Bob's World]

Well, then by all means, attack the symptoms (repeat as necessary).

[jmm99]

The NRA's Press Conference today was headlined by the Wash Post, NRA’s Wayne LaPierre: Put ‘armed police officers’ in every school (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/21/nras-wayne-lapierre-put-armed-police-officers-in-every-school/) (Sean Sullivan, December 21, 2012) (LaPierre has proposed this before).

The Post also has provided the transcript, Remarks from the NRA press conference on Sandy Hook school shooting, delivered on Dec. 21, 2012 (Transcript) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_print.html). It includes closing remarks by Asa Hutchinson (Wiki bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Hutchinson)), which outlines a two-pronged approach to school security:


HUTCHINSON: We all understand that our children should be safe in school. But it is also essential that the parents understand and have confidence in that safety. As a result of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, that confidence across this nation has been shattered. Assurance of school safety must be restored with a sense of urgency.

That is why I’m grateful that the National Rifle Association has asked me to lead a team of security experts to assist our schools, parents, and our communities.

I took this assignment on one condition, that my team of experts will be independent and will be guided solely by what are the best security solutions for the safety of our children while at school. Even though we are just starting this process, I envision this initiative will have two key elements.

First of all, it would be based on a model security plan, a comprehensive strategy for school security based upon the latest, most up-to-date technical information from the foremost experts in their fields. This model security plan will serve as a template, a set of best practices, principles, and guidelines that every school in America can tweak as needed and tailor to their own set of circumstances.

Every school and community is different, but this model security plan will allow every school to choose among its various components to develop a school safety strategy that fits their own unique circumstance, whether its a large urban school or a small rural school such as we have in Arkansas or anything in between.

Armed, trained, qualified school security personnel will be one element of that plan, but by no means, the only element. If a school decides, for whatever reason, that it doesn’t want or need armed security personnel, that, of course, is a decision to be made by the parents and the local school board at the local level.

HUTCHINSON: The second point I want to make is that this will be a program that does not depend on massive funding from local authorities or the federal government. Instead, it will make use of local volunteers serving in their own communities.

In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local group called Watchdog Dads (ph) who volunteer their time at schools, who patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security. President Clinton initiated a program called Cops In School, but the federal response is not sufficient for today’s task.

Whether they’re retired police, retired military, or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country who would be happy to serve if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certifications to do so.

The National Rifle Association is the natural obvious choice to sponsor this program. Their gun safety, marksmanship, and hunter education programs have set the standard for well over a century. Over the past 25 years, their Eddy Eagle (ph) gun safe program has taught over 26 million kids that real guns aren’t toys, and today child gun accidents are at the lowest levels ever recorded.

School safety is a complex issue with no simple, single, solution, but I believe trained, qualified, armed security is one key component among many that can provide the first line of difference as well as the last line of defense.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Well, then by all means, attack the symptoms (repeat as necessary).

Bob:

I done my bit by providing some superficial tactical things that attack only the symptom, mass shootings.

How about some stategicals to go with it?

[slapout9]

IMO carl is generally right. It is very hard to use Strategy and stuff against Psychos!

[Bill Moore]

We continue to perpetuate the myth that we can address underlying issues for all things. It is definitely worth addressing as many symptoms as holistically as possible, but the fact remains we don't have a cure for mental illness, stricter gun controls may have a limited impact in select cases (but we'll never know when it works), guards at schools "may" work sometimes, etc. I suspect the government will aggressively pursue improvements and should, but we'll still mourn losses to these type of hideous crimes in the future. The reality is a lot of the so called underlying issues that drive people to act this way are well beyond our control.

[Ken White]

Can't guard against nut cases with ANY Strategy; the NRA missed a chance to be part of the solution sez this Endowment Member, Slap and Bill as always add common sense. This isn't going away, the media does more harm than good and the fact that most the recent crowd of shooters were big time gamers isn't a strategic pivot...

[Bob's World]

I take a unique perspective on strategy (I find how unique this is as I deal with others who blend the word into their job titles with no apparent impact on it actually affecting the jobs they do, or with no particular training, experience or aptitude for strategic thought)

Some thoughts:

1. on "Root Causes" vs. "Energy Sources": Most things have roots of some sort, and many things have common aspects in their roots. But roots are below the surface and therefore impossible to see and hard to assess. Better, perhaps, to think in terms of "energy sources." Do not ask "what are the root causes" as this will spark knee jerk responses on complexity, impossibility, difference of opinion, etc. Instead look for and discuss what energy sources might be at work driving the particular activity one is concerned about.

2. One key way Strategy and Planning are the same: Like planning, it is not having a strategy that is important (most strategies are, IMO, vague, highly biased documents of questionable value; while most plans are overly detailed guidelines for some program of tactics with little connection to truly solving a problem in any kind of enduring way); but rather it is the process of thinking about a problem in holistic and fundamental ways to better understand the energy sources behind it that is important. Too often we skip this step, and either just go with what the boss or some "expert" feels, or we take a doctrinal answer off the shelf and dive straight into a hasty plan followed by a long, frustrating program of engagement.

3. Thinking about questions is often more important than knowledge of answers. I admit, I sometimes state what I currently think in far too certain of terms. That is a flaw I am working on. But I also abandon concepts when necessary and evolve them continuously as this is all part of thinking. Once one "knows" the answer they are almost certainly wrong. The military is a culture that prioritizes knowledge and action far more highly than understanding and thought. Nature of the beast. There is a time when action is critical, but most times we could use a lot less smoke and noise and a little more pause and think.

So, do not presume one can find the "root cause" of excessive gun violence and mass murder such as this recent event. But do resist the urge to knee-jerk action and pause to think about it holistically and in ways that force one to step outside their particular paradigm to do so. Identify some energy sources and considers ways to disconnect from or to turn down those sources. To just put armed guards in every school and to put greater restrictions on guns is the same type of senseless, symptomatic approach we applied to 9/11. Have we learned nothing? We cannot simply cling to things we do not want to change while generating powerful programs to guard against and attack the products of those things. We must evolve. But first we must think.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World


I take a unique perspective on strategy (I find how unique this is as I deal with others who blend the word into their job titles with no apparent impact on it actually affecting the jobs they do, or with no particular training, experience or aptitude for strategic thought)

This statement comes across as extremely arrogant. All struggle with both strategy and planning for a wide range of reasons. Plans are flawed largely due to our doctrinal process for writing them and the expected formats driven by JOPES. Furthermore commanders are seldom engaged in the planning process, so their impact are often nil or at best minimal. The fact is DOD is more focused on fill in the blank products that add up to a plan (product) they can put on a shelf than a plan they can actually operationalize. I think an argument can be made that those trained to do planning/strategy or actually handicapped by their training.

As for strategy, our nation will continue to struggle with it until we have a functional interagency process; however, you assume incorrectly in my view that you have unique insights that others don't, and you assume some things aren't happening because you're not aware of it. In our system the military doesn't do what you often recommend, but it is being done by others (admittedly often executed poorly and rarely synched, and military activities often don't support strategic objectives, etc.). More people get strategy than you give credit for, but the system doesn't facilitate its execution. If you want to see our nation blossom strategically, then direct your energies at fixing the broken system. Until then good ideas will be nothing more than good ideas.


1. on "Root Causes" vs. "Energy Sources": Most things have roots of some sort, and many things have common aspects in their roots. But roots are below the surface and therefore impossible to see and hard to assess. Better, perhaps, to think in terms of "energy sources." Do not ask "what are the root causes" as this will spark knee jerk responses on complexity, impossibility, difference of opinion, etc. Instead look for and discuss what energy sources might be at work driving the particular activity one is concerned about.

Root causes are generally readily apparent in my opinion, but can't be fixed. Causes are often just that, causes, and are something that can be repaired with our current level of knowledge. I surfaced the energy concept years ago on SWJ, and argued when we put more energy into a system we'll get an equal reaction (unless we apply overwhelming energy to a military problem), which is why small footprints for enduring operations, and short duration for large operations are generally best. "When" the root cause can't be addressed we scope the mission to address the threat and minimize the potential of creating other problems. A strategist addresses the problems that can be solved and is wise enough not to waste national resources on the problems that can be solved.


2. One key way Strategy and Planning are the same: Like planning, it is not having a strategy that is important (most strategies are, IMO, vague, highly biased documents of questionable value; while most plans are overly detailed guidelines for some program of tactics with little connection to truly solving a problem in any kind of enduring way); but rather it is the process of thinking about a problem in holistic and fundamental ways to better understand the energy sources behind it that is important. Too often we skip this step, and either just go with what the boss or some "expert" feels, or we take a doctrinal answer off the shelf and dive straight into a hasty plan followed by a long, frustrating program of engagement.

Select text, right click, hit paste repeatedly, and you effectively captured the history of both our foreign and domestic policies. It just isn't the boss, but often what the media drives the boss to focus on, because the media (gun violence) will describe the problem to the public and the public will want that problem (even if it is defined incorrectly) solved.


3. Thinking about questions is often more important than knowledge of answers. I admit, I sometimes state what I currently think in far too certain of terms. That is a flaw I am working on. But I also abandon concepts when necessary and evolve them continuously as this is all part of thinking. Once one "knows" the answer they are almost certainly wrong. The military is a culture that prioritizes knowledge and action far more highly than understanding and thought. Nature of the beast. There is a time when action is critical, but most times we could use a lot less smoke and noise and a little more pause and think.


So, do not presume one can find the "root cause" of excessive gun violence and mass murder such as this recent event. But do resist the urge to knee-jerk action and pause to think about it holistically and in ways that force one to step outside their particular paradigm to do so. Identify some energy sources and considers ways to disconnect from or to turn down those sources. To just put armed guards in every school and to put greater restrictions on guns is the same type of senseless, symptomatic approach we applied to 9/11. Have we learned nothing? We cannot simply cling to things we do not want to change while generating powerful programs to guard against and attack the products of those things. We must evolve. But first we must think.

Again this comes across as arrogant and misinformed. You are confusing a public statement by the NRA with government strategy. The government TF groups working this now at the national level emphasized the importance of a fresh and holistic look. Once again you are pointing to yourself as the only one who gets this, yet the reality is the vast majority of our government officials get this. They also get the real world limitations that will limit their courses of action. You already demonstrated bias by writting off the potential value of putting an armed guard in schools as a temporary or enduring tactic to help mitigate future attacks, which surely are coming. Very opinionated, but not supported by any facts. All options need to be on the table, as you said above there are times to take action and this may be one of them, on the other hand it may not.

You would be more convincing if you toned down the I'm smartest cat in the world language, and it wouldn't be that hard to do if you actually listened to what others are saying. All of us have the same struggles.

[davidbfpo]

Rightly Carl asks, after I had posted:
Can the leviathan of counter-terrorism be re-targeted?

What would it be pointed at? The article states that you can't pinpoint these people.

My point from afar was that some of the CT leviathan effort, political as much as other parts of government, could be refocused. In my reading there are obviously gaps in the legal and administrative structures - not just to regulate guns.

To give two examples. There is no legal requirement for gun owners to report a firearm stolen; I'm not sure whether this means ATF, FBI, state or local have responsibility. Sorry I cannot link to a source article. Secondly the reporting to the FBI of mental health concerns for NCIS use is haphazard and clearly flawed. See:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mental-health-background-check-newtown-shooting-adam-lanza

[Dayuhan]

So, do not presume one can find the "root cause" of excessive gun violence and mass murder such as this recent event. But do resist the urge to knee-jerk action and pause to think about it holistically and in ways that force one to step outside their particular paradigm to do so. Identify some energy sources and considers ways to disconnect from or to turn down those sources. To just put armed guards in every school and to put greater restrictions on guns is the same type of senseless, symptomatic approach we applied to 9/11. Have we learned nothing? We cannot simply cling to things we do not want to change while generating powerful programs to guard against and attack the products of those things. We must evolve. But first we must think.

Have you any course of action to suggest?

Lots of people out there thinking, and lots of proposals, but I'm not seeing anything terribly compelling. Given that we're dealing with a tiny number of deeply disturbed individuals, I'm not sure we're going to accomplish much by looking for root causes or energy sources, which are likely to be different in each case.

Better mental health care is desirable certainly, but even mental health professionals admit that they cannot reliably predict who may be involved in these events. My concern when we discuss greater alertness or anticipation on the mental health side is that kids that just happen to be a little strange (there are many of them) may be stigmatized as potential mass murderers, which is going to mnake already difficult lives even harder. Aside from being unfair to those individuals, that could provoke precisely the behavior we seek to avoid.

Those with pre-existing biases against guns and video games will have predictable suggestions, but I personally see few solutions there.

I don't have any good ideas, and I'm not seeing many I think are good. I think it would be great if the identities and histories of those involved could be kept out of the media completely, but realistically I can't see how that is to be done.

[jmm99]

The "Cops in Schools" projects (plural; a number of different pilot projects developed) came to life because of President Clinton's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as part of "Community Oriented Policing Services" (COPS).

According to the Sep 2000 AG's Report to Congress (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e12990066_f.pdf):


p.12 pdf

COPS has been at the forefront of one of the most pressing issues facing our country today – violence in our nation's schools. Through its COPS in Schools program, COPS has funded the addition of over 2,600 officers in our nation's schools. These school resource officers are partnering with students, teachers, and parents to become an important part of the fabric of the daily school environment.

See p.18 pdf: COPS in Schools was initially awarded (Oct 1998) $294.4 million (Salary/benefits costs over $125,000 for a 3-year period).

The program continued into the Bush II Admin with a 2005 258-page guide, A Guide to Developing, Maintaining, and Succeeding With Your School Resource Officer Program - Practices From the Field for Law Enforcement and School Administration (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/ric/ResourceDetail.aspx?RID=231). E.g., p.116


Finally, programs may wish to consider providing training in other areas addressed in COPS in School trainings, including:

- community policing in the schools (e.g., the SRO as a community liaison and problem solver),

- youth culture and diversity (e.g., the challenge of school bullying), and

- promoting mental health in schools, including intervening with at-risk students (e.g., detecting early signs of trouble).

Obviously, there is much more in the 2005 Guide from Bush II.

The website for the Obama Admin's version of "COPS" (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=34) appears as I write this. I was especially interested in "The Latest Information on Community Policing (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/cp_topics/Community-Policing-Topics.asp)"; but alas, after going there, I found of material interest to me only "Campus Safety (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2462)":


With over 15 million students and several million more faculty and staff at U.S. institutions of higher education, it is not surprising that campus safety is a field of great interest within community policing. That is why the COPS Office provides a range of resources to help administrators and security personnel create safe and secure environments on our nation's colleges and universities.

The Scope of the Problems

Security services on the nation's campuses vary considerably in size, role, authority, and quality. They include full-service police departments, private security operations, contractual services, and more. Campus police departments also vary greatly in how they relate to and share information with local and state public safety agencies.

In light of tragic violent events on several campuses, more than 20 institutional, state, professional association, and governmental reports have recommended that colleges and universities develop and implement threat assessment and management tools to enhance campus safety. The COPS Office offers a variety of resources aimed at helping the campus public safety field address these and many other issues.

COPS programs focused on institutions of post-secondary education have included the 2004 National Summit on Campus Public Safety hosted by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Community Policing Institute, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement's Fellowship Program and Accreditation Pilot, the United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation's Campus-Community Policing Partnership Program and, most recently, the Margolis Healy and Associates Campus Threat Assessment training seminars.

So, there is some current Federal LE emphasis on "higher education" safety.

However, in the publications, I scored more success re: school safety (at the secondary and primary levels). Thus, we have 2009 COPS Secure Our Schools Grant Owner’s Manual (SOS) (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/ric/ResourceDetail.aspx?RID=549):


Abstract: Provides funding to municipalities to assist with the development of school safety resources. SOS funding will allow recipients the opportunity to establish and enhance a variety of school safety equipment and/or programs to encourage the continuation and enhancement of school safety efforts within their communities.

and, 2010 Assigning Police Officers to Schools (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/ric/ResourceDetail.aspx?RID=567):


Abstract: Nearly half of all public schools have assigned police officers, commonly referred to as school resource officers (SRO's) or education officers. Assigning Police Officers to Schools summarizes the typical duties of SROs, synthesizes the research pertaining to their effectiveness, and presents issues for communities to bear in mind when considering the adoption of an SRO model.

Exactly what the present status of this program is = ? to me. Is it funded, defunct, etc. ?

This little backgrounder may help in reading through the extreme left and right wing posts on this specific topic.

Regards

Mike

PS: I thought it a bit humorous to see an argument develop on the application of doctrinal (and non-doctrinal) military strategy and the military planning process to what is such a basic local domestic political question. Well, what the hell !; this is a military site and it's the holiday season - so, go to it. :)

[Bob's World]

Have you any course of action to suggest?

Lots of people out there thinking, and lots of proposals, but I'm not seeing anything terribly compelling. Given that we're dealing with a tiny number of deeply disturbed individuals, I'm not sure we're going to accomplish much by looking for root causes or energy sources, which are likely to be different in each case.

Better mental health care is desirable certainly, but even mental health professionals admit that they cannot reliably predict who may be involved in these events. My concern when we discuss greater alertness or anticipation on the mental health side is that kids that just happen to be a little strange (there are many of them) may be stigmatized as potential mass murderers, which is going to make already difficult lives even harder. Aside from being unfair to those individuals, that could provoke precisely the behavior we seek to avoid.

Those with pre-existing biases against guns and video games will have predictable suggestions, but I personally see few solutions there.

I don't have any good ideas, and I'm not seeing many I think are good. I think it would be great if the identities and histories of those involved could be kept out of the media completely, but realistically I can't see how that is to be done.

I fall back to where I began in post #6. A call to look at the problem holistically and to not leap to any program of activities designed to simply mitigate or prevent the obvious symptoms. There are many factors coming together within the context of American history and culture to feed this problem. We could begin that analysis by building a list of as many of the factors as possible, and then working to backtrack each of those, both independently and in the context of how they interrelate with each other in a effort to better understand how we got to where we are, and then also how to better get to where we want to be.

I believe that both the 1st and 2nd amendments play critical roles in keeping a healthy balance of power between those who govern and those who are governed; but recent trends have been to increasingly remove restrictions on the first, while increasingly place restrictions on the second. We tend to think of these amendments in isolation, or at least not in the context of why they were created in the first place. The result is that we are out of balance. We need to find a balance across these important rights that is tuned to the overall mission.

We need to see this trend of these tragic attacks as a powerful metric that the health of our society is trending in the wrong direction. We overly focus on the individuals who act out. We can't prevent individuals from acting out, but we can look to ways to address the trends in society as a whole. This very thread is named in the context of the individual, the "lone wolf." That is tactical thinking: How do I stop the lone wolf. I think strategic thinking would be: how do I change this trend in the society as a whole.

The approach to the attacks of 9/11 share this same flaw. We focus overly on how do we "defeat, disrupt, deny" organizations such as AQ, rather than on how do we better understand and address the trends in society that are fueling the rise of such organizations.

The tactical approach provides immediate gratification of action, and also allows us to not have to take responsibility for how we have all contributed to the conditions that feed the problem. It enables the same type of avoidance of personal (or societal) responsibility that one sees in people wrestling with addiction.

We all want better answers, but first I think we need to spend more time working on getting to better questions.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

I don't claim to be, nor do I think I am smarter than others who work in "strategy" related fields. I claim only that I think about thing differently than most, and that I tend to spend more time attempting to sort out why things are the way they are in a quest to find insights to offer to guide the efforts of the decision makers above me.

Most strategists focus on identifying and cataloging lists of things that are, and then applying against those lists the framework of guidance from their own boss and bosses higher in the command structure. This is important, but is the science of strategy. What can I measure, what have I been told to do, how do I apply that at my level. This is objectively assessable.

What I am talking about is the art of strategy. What does one understand about the things going on around them, how does that make them think about the guidance they have received, and what recommendations or questions does that suggest to inform how everyone can get to a better place at the least possible cost and with the lowest likelihood of negative consequences.

I don't think we prioritize the art of strategy as highly as we should, nor do I think we attempt to identify early and nurture over time that type of artistic talent in the US military.

Instead we seem to think that once one achieves a certain rank or educational degree, or is assigned to a headquarters commanded by a person possessing a certain number of stars that one is automatically "strategic." That, IMO, is "arrogant."

We are, too often, the very type of "intelligent fool" as discussed by Mr. Einstein below. I too often count myself within that number of intelligent fools. The only difference in me is that I actively seek to avoid that natural tendency that Einstein described. I realize sometimes that makes others uncomfortable. Just shut up and color, right? There is a comfort in following orders and applying tactics with vigor and effectiveness. We have become too comfortable in that regard. We need to start trying to make ourselves uncomfortable, as that is what leads to discovery and growth.

[carl]

To give two examples. There is no legal requirement for gun owners to report a firearm stolen; I'm not sure whether this means ATF, FBI, state or local have responsibility. Sorry I cannot link to a source article.

There is no requirement to report stolen property of any kind. Even if there was, I don't know what good it would do with firearms. Almost nobody knows what the serial number of the weapon was. One thing I always thought would be helpful was if the manufacturers made the serial number big on the gun and in some sort of contrasting color. That makes it easier for the owner's to see and record the number. It's great when you get a guy and can actually prove that any weapon he had is stolen, frustrating though because you mostly can't.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World


I think about thing differently than most, and that I tend to spend
more time attempting to sort out why things are the way they are in a quest to find insights to offer to guide the efforts of the decision makers above me.

I don't disagree and your insights are often helpful and informative, but as you know one size seldom fits all. This gets to my or our next point.


What I am talking about is the art of strategy. What does one understand about the things going on around them, how does that make them think about the guidance they have received, and what recommendations or questions does that suggest to inform how everyone can get to a better place at the least possible cost and with the lowest likelihood of negative consequences.

No daylight between us on this observation. At least in the military, and I see it in other government agencies also, we're quick to label a problem (insurgency, terrorism, gun violence, drunk driving, drugs, etc.) and then apply some doctrinal approach and adjust our foolish measurements or what we measure so we can demonstrate success (and maintain funding for our efforts). Despite lip service to the contrary we spend very little time gaining understanding of the problem, to include the real root causes (even if we can't fix them, we should endeavor to understand them). Einstein allegedly said something along the lines that if I had an hour to solve a problem I would spend 59 minutes gaining understanding of it first, and then a minute to solve it. We don't produce thinkers like that in our mass education system, and that includes the military PME system. I don't know if it is possible to produce thinkers like that, but when they're identified they should be treated as a high value item that needs to be protected, but more often than not we send them to our version of re-education camps to ensure they conform to our "group think."


Most strategists focus on identifying and cataloging lists of things that are, and then applying against those lists the framework of guidance from their own boss and bosses higher in the command structure. This is important, but is the science of strategy. What can I measure, what have I been told to do, how do I apply that at my level. This is objectively assessable.

I think, but I'm not sure, what this paragraph is getting after?


I don't think we prioritize the art of strategy as highly as we should, nor do I think we attempt to identify early and nurture over time that type of artistic talent in the US military.

As stated above we tend to destroy it, the only ones that can openly express this type of talent are Admirals and Generals (assumed they had and retained this ability after years of suppressing it). The critics in the media still serve us well.


Instead we seem to think that once one achieves a certain rank or educational degree, or is assigned to a headquarters commanded by a person possessing a certain number of stars that one is automatically "strategic." That, IMO, is "arrogant." Couldn't agree more.


We are, too often, the very type of "intelligent fool" as discussed by Mr. Einstein below. I too often count myself within that number of intelligent fools. The only difference in me is that I actively seek to avoid that natural tendency that Einstein described. I realize sometimes that makes others uncomfortable. Just shut up and color, right? There is a comfort in following orders and applying tactics with vigor and effectiveness. We have become too comfortable in that regard. We need to start trying to make ourselves uncomfortable, as that is what leads to discovery and growth.

Lot's of people are uncomfortable, discovering, and growing. Perhaps more than you give credit for. The issue is changing the system that does become more complex and engrained overtime. That is the nature of bureaucracies. They don't tend to gravitate to simple and effective, rather their processes and rule books just get thicker and thicker, and result in serious snagnation.

[carl]

We need to see this trend of these tragic attacks as a powerful metric that the health of our society is trending in the wrong direction. We overly focus on the individuals who act out. We can't prevent individuals from acting out, but we can look to ways to address the trends in society as a whole. This very thread is named in the context of the individual, the "lone wolf." That is tactical thinking: How do I stop the lone wolf. I think strategic thinking would be: how do I change this trend in the society as a whole.

I don't see the murderous actions of mostly deranged young men as a metric of anything other than a trend among deranged young men. As frightening and disturbing as these things are, they are still the actions of very isolated individuals. There is nothing society wide about it. Something like murder rates as a whole going up and down says something about society. These don't because they are individuals taking advantage of some fairly obvious vulnerabilities.

Individuals can be prevented from acting out. That is done every day in prisons and families and everywhere. Individual humans aren't a like cells in a Portuguese man 'o war, each an animal in its own right but acting as a whole. Individuals humans aren't Borg parts. They are individuals and make individual decisions. If they are likely to get frustrated or thumped, they probably won't act in a way that will get them frustrated or thumped. Getting thumped hurts.

It is nice to think about the big picture but what is the object of the big picture thinking? It is to stop those little picture things that hurt. If short sighted superficial tactical things reduce greatly mass shootings, then the object is accomplished.


The approach to the attacks of 9/11 share this same flaw. We focus overly on how do we "defeat, disrupt, deny" organizations such as AQ, rather than on how do we better understand and address the trends in society that are fueling the rise of such organizations.

An object of things done after 9-11 was to prevent attacks of a similar magnitude from happening in the US again. That has been (knock on wood that it continues) accomplished. That isn't a flawed approach. It has worked.

[slapout9]

Bill,

I don't claim to be, nor do I think I am smarter than others who work in "strategy" related fields. I claim only that I think about thing differently than most, and that I tend to spend more time attempting to sort out why things are the way they are in a quest to find insights to offer to guide the efforts of the decision makers above me.



Bob, I love you man:D but........you think like a prosecutor!!!you think everything can be analyzed into a pure cause and effect. When it comes to dealing with people especially very disturbed people that kind of thinking is going to break down. Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that really bad stuff can happen to really good people.

[slapout9]

There is no requirement to report stolen property of any kind. Even if there was, I don't know what good it would do with firearms. Almost nobody knows what the serial number of the weapon was.

carl, you can work around that somewhat. If the weapon was bought at a legal gun store,etc. the serial number will be recorded by the seller, which can be matched with the name of the purchaser.

[carl]

carl, you can work around that somewhat. If the weapon was bought at a legal gun store,etc. the serial number will be recorded by the seller, which can be matched with the name of the purchaser.

Now i find this out. How long do they keep the records?

[slapout9]

Now i find this out. How long do they keep the records?

Can't remember the exact time limit but it is a good while(years) ATF will know it is done by their regulation.

[jmm99]

I'd be willing to bet that somewhere, someplace a warehouse exists that houses seller's records showing that I purchased .22 cal rimfire match ammunition by the "brick" - late 70s and early 80s.

I'd also bet that the bet can't be proved one way or the other because the old handwriten records are not in a form that can be "data mined". On the other hand, those records may be in some landfill or gone up in smoke.

Not that it makes any difference because all of that ammo was expended on punching paper decades ago.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

I just got back from the grocery store and at every check out stand there were two racks of the National Enquirer with the name and a big photo of the criminal who killed the children in Connecticut displayed on the front page. There he was, where everybody could see. He made it up there with Oprah. And every disturbed evil young man sees that and will be imagining his face there.

I talked to the store manager and told her of my outrage at this sight. She said she understood, agreed and would pass it on but there was nothing she could do about it. All the suits were at home and wouldn't be in until tomorrow. So I will do my best to follow it up tomorrow.

There is nothing anybody can do about the Enquirer doing what they do but the stores that sell that paper maybe can be got to. My local store is King Sooper, a branch of Kroger. If you care to, maybe that is something we as individuals can do, tell them that they don't have to dance to the tune the Enquirer plays. They don't have to sell that issue.

[davidbfpo]

Carl,

Elsewhere I have read, possibly on Mother Jones, that a Californian public workers pension fund has withdrawn support for an investment in a gun-maker and others using the power of the US$ have taken action.

[carl]

David:

That is true and it is the left coast unions being self righteous, mostly. Let's see if they do something that will affect the future actions of the disturbed young men like go after the Enquirer. They won't.

[davidbfpo]

An attempt to provide some answers by a post-grad LE student, before the Newtown murders; 'Analytical Method for The Identification of Lone Wolf Terrorist', just over ninety pgs, double-spaced and it can be downloaded from:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2041939

From the Abstract:
A case study approach is used to explore and reveal common themes across three different incidents of lone wolf attacks. The research results revealed what has been termed as rhetoric shifts that act as markers in the evolution of a lone wolf terrorist. Based on the results of case study, an analytical method is explored and proposed for the identification of lone wolf terrorist from within the broader population they exist

On my first read it is interesting, although without direction and resources (including training and data-sharing) it is easy to see this approach floundering. At least the author has tried, which makes his paper of value.

The shorter version is:
The Newtown school shooting has re-awakened debates not only on gun control and mental illness, but also on the role of law enforcement in detecting and eliminating emerging threats. Quietly emerging is a solution that means not more guns, but more militarization.

Link to an article:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/jeremy-pennington/death-in-school-in-post-911-america

The author, now in the private sector, has a short bio on:http://www.pennassoc.com/OwnerAndFounder/index.html

[carl]

A friend of mine in CA was able to get three stores in his town to pull the Enquirer from the news stand or turn the issues so the back cover was showing not the front. All he did was ask them.

[davidbfpo]

I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine..And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry.

I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.

I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough.

Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee:
I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.

Stanley McChrystal said this today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Will this make a difference? The article says:
..he is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.

Link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html

[Kiwigrunt]

Always good to get some expert opinion (from the vid on David’s link, based on McChrystal’s remarks on .223):



“…You get hit with a modern weapon and it will take your arm off….”
“I know…”
“…it won’t just leave a bullet hole….”
“…we don’t need to be told that….”

:rolleyes:

[slapout9]

To be accurate he was a FIRED retired soldier who didn't have the common sense not to insult his own commander in chief.

[Ken White]

Anyone who makes or supports the statement:
“…You get hit with a modern weapon and it will take your arm off….” is likely not an expert...

That's an ideological or political statement, not a factual or accurate comment.

So a guy who got where he was by playing politics then left because he was playing politics is again entering a political fray. Smart. Real smart...

[carl]

Stanley McChrystal's new career depends upon his uttering the conventional wisdom as it is understood by the inside the beltway elite. He is going to do that anyway because when they get to multi-star level, they are in the heart of that elite. In other words, he will be the media darling if he says the right thing which he is inclined to do anyway. It is good for his career.

As far as his remarks about the fabled lethality of the 5.56 round, a lot of that comes from the initial effort to sell the M-16 to the military and can be directly traced to a pilot program that they ran in VN in 1962 or 63. They gave the weapon to some ARVN troops and used the results in promoting the weapon. The 'hit in the arm and the arm comes off' stuff came from there

This is very well related in The Great Rifle Controversy, which was a great book by the way.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Rifle-Controversy-Edward-Clinton/dp/0811707091/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357742897&sr=1-1&keywords=the+great+rifle+controversy

Ken White at one time somewhere or other said that as far as lethality goes, a 30.06 tops a 7.62x51 which tops a 5.56x45. I figured he would probably know. If you want a really lethal bullet try a modern big or medium game cartridge in something like 7mm or 25.06. Or if you want to go back further, I've read that the old British .303 cartridge was very bad, a 174 grain bullet with an initial velocity of around 2500 fps with an unstable bullet that tumbled on impact.

McChrystal sensed an opportunity to further his career and he grabbed it.

[carl]

Ken! There you are. Every time you go off the comments for a while I worry that something has happened to you.

[Ken White]

Selling house and getting ready to move to be near the kids to help us old folks cope. Whoever came up with that 'Golden Years' foolishness was a blithering idiot. :wry:

Agree with your comments on system and Stanley. Sad. Bad...:mad:

Guns and mag capacity aren't the problem, lack of familiarity with firearms among kids and an appreciation for the damage they can do and the state of mental health support are far greater issues. Can't stop nut jobs by limiting the tools, they'll just use another if the one they'd prefer isn't readily available.

Media repetitive over hyping doesn't help. Nor do gratuitous specious comments by public figures.

[carl]

lack of familiarity with firearms among kids and an appreciation for the damage they can do...are far greater issues.

That is a very good observation. I read somewhere once (I wish I could find the ref) that kids who have had some kind of formal firearms training, and it doesn't have to be very extensive, are far less likely to abuse firearms, even in the criminal sense.

[jmm99]

All modern bullets have a tendency to "tumble" (yaw) when impacting something that will deflect them. The .303 British (which is very similar to the 30-06) had more yaw tendency because its lead base was relatively heavier than most comparable bullets. E.g., the difference in handling of a rear engine - rear drive vehicle vice a front engine - front drive vehicle. Basic Wiki stuff: Ballistic trauma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_trauma) and Yaw (rotation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaw_(rotation)).

Regards

Mike

[Kiwigrunt]

I think the silly myths regarding evil military projectiles may have started with the dum-dum (http://www.thegunzone.com/dum-dum.html) nonsense. And the myths just won’t die.

The evilness of the 5.56 can perhaps be seen as America’s own equivalent to the dum dum myth.

Here (http://pfoa.co.uk/248/dum-dum-bullets) is another excellent write-up about dum-dum bullets, with some other interesting links on that page, some of which may help to highlight the (historical) contrast regarding gun culture in the UK versus US.

[davidbfpo]

A short FP article by Dr. Jeffrey Simon, I assume prompted by the Boston bombing and this passage caught my attention - citing their creativity:
What makes lone wolves so dangerous is their ability to think outside the box. Since they operate by themselves, there is no group pressure or decision-making process that might stifle creativity. Lone wolves are free to act upon any scenario they can dream up. This freedom has resulted in some of the most imaginative terrorist attacks in history. For example, lone wolves were responsible for the first vehicle bombing (1920), major midair plane bombing (1955), hijacking (1961), and product tampering (1982), as well as the anthrax letter attacks in the United States (2001).

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/17/an_army_of_one?page=full and the author's website:http://www.futureterrorism.com/

[TV-PressPass]

Arg! I'm a member of Foreign Affairs but not Foreign Policy!

Looks like an interesting article. But content behind a paygate makes me sad

[davidbfpo]

A NYPost story 'Could the Kenya attack happen here? It did' and in:
On the evening of Feb. 12, 2007, a young Muslim man walked into the Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City.....Yet the attack garnered few national headlines. Local media wrote it off as the act of a madman, parroting the quick conclusion of law enforcement. Officially, the FBI declared the mass shooting was not an act of terrorism.

Link:http://nypost.com/2013/10/12/could-the-kenya-mall-attack-ever-happen-here-it-already-did/

SWC have a number of threads on lone wolves, the Mumbai attack, Westgate and school massacres. I don't recall the Salt Lake City attack being mentioned.

[Rex Brynen]

The police and FBI investigation found no evidence of jihadist motivations in this case. Contrary to the New York Post report and some of the right wing blogosphere, video of the incident (which I've listened to) does not clearly record anyone shouting "allhu akbar" (the shouts sounded to me more like "come on out" by the responding police officers). None of the officers on scene near the suspect reported any such utterances by the suspect.

The FBI report can be found here (http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2009/0515/20090515_122103_FBITrolleysummary.pdf).

[AdamG]

The police and FBI investigation found no evidence of jihadist motivations in this case. Contrary to the New York Post report and some of the right wing blogosphere, video of the incident (which I've listened to) does not clearly record anyone shouting "allhu akbar" (the shouts sounded to me more like "come on out" by the responding police officers). None of the officers on scene near the suspect reported any such utterances by the suspect.

So close to impartiality, but so far. Had you have left out the 'right wing' bit, I wouldn't have to point out the daily white-washing found in the main stream media.

That aside, let's go on to the FBI report. Page 3, Pt I. para. 3 indicates that he was off on his own little Jihad, so the whole bit about what he or anyone else was yelling is completely and totally moot.



I don't recall the Salt Lake City attack being mentioned.

Are we highlighting this topic separate from the Terrorism in the US? Just curious as to why it's by it's lonesome.

[davidbfpo]

Adam G asked:
Are we highlighting this topic separate from the Terrorism in the US? Just curious as to why it's by it's lonesome.

I am following your advice on creating a new thread - when a significant item appears, as this is IMO - and so feeds into the Twitter SWC feed. You may have noticed it is my habit to merge short, stand-alone threads into existing, main threads. That is a hint what will happen soon.:wry:

[AdamG]

I am following your advice on creating a new thread

Thus joining the ranks of the Illuminati. Hear my golf applause.

[davidbfpo]

I don't think this has been caught before:
The School Shooter:A Threat Assessment Perspective

A FBI document, no clear publication date, but it refers to a 1999 SME conference and was Tweeted just after the Santa Barbara murders:http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter

[AdamG]

A footnote on Boston:

Pols convinced Boston Marathon bombers received training and inspiration abroad

: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boston-bombers-training-inspiration-pols-article-1.1329853#ixzz331MRqCEa

[Bill Moore]

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/police-woman-beheaded-at-oklahoma-workplace

Police: Woman beheaded at Oklahoma workplace


"Yes, she was beheaded," Lewis told The Associated Press before a Friday news conference.


While questioning the suspect's co-workers, investigators learned he had recently started trying to convert several employees to Islam, Lewis said. Moore police have asked the FBI to aid in the investigation and look into the man's background because of the nature of the attack, Lewis said.

I'm sure there will be much to follow about this apparent lone wolf attack. There is an element of psychology that we seem to be missing, and one you have one attack, just a like a school shooting, there will likely be others.

[davidbfpo]

Bill,

The beheadings in Syria of three victims gained massive, global publicity and no doubt the worst imagery will remain online for a long time.

As a Pakistani writer remindes us beheadings are not new:
While IS sparked global outrage following the release of the recorded beheading of Foley, last year the TTP had released an even gorier video of militants playing football with decapitated heads of Pakistani police officers.

I will post her commentary elsewhere in a moment as it relates to another topic:http://strifeblog.org/2014/09/26/the-arrival-of-is-in-pakistan-and-the-politics-of-the-caliphate/

How many other murder victims in the USA have been beheaded, say in the last year?

About a month ago a mentally deranged man beheaded an old lady in north London. No-one has commented since on his motive. First link is to her funeral:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29343759 and an earlier report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29068391

Leaving media hype aside I think it best to wait today before deciding what the man's motivation.

[slapout9]

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/police-woman-beheaded-at-oklahoma-workplace

Police: Woman beheaded at Oklahoma workplace





I'm sure there will be much to follow about this apparent lone wolf attack. There is an element of psychology that we seem to be missing, and one you have one attack, just a like a school shooting, there will likely be others.

It's already happened. This is the second radical Muslim attack in about a month or so. It only received limited media coverage. I think this is the first actual beheading and it is getting some widespread media attention.

[Bill Moore]

Bill,

The beheadings in Syria of three victims gained massive, global publicity and no doubt the worst imagery will remain online for a long time.

As a Pakistani writer remindes us beheadings are not new:

I will post her commentary elsewhere in a moment as it relates to another topic:http://strifeblog.org/2014/09/26/the-arrival-of-is-in-pakistan-and-the-politics-of-the-caliphate/

How many other murder victims in the USA have been beheaded, say in the last year?

About a month ago a mentally deranged man beheaded an old lady in north London. No-one has commented since on his motive. First link is to her funeral:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29343759 and an earlier report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29068391

Leaving media hype aside I think it best to wait today before deciding what the man's motivation.

I'm relaying what was written, so it may or may not become major news. I suspect Fox News will blow it out of proportion scale wise. I suspect since he was trying to convert people at work it is fair to make an initial assumption extremist views had something to with it. The Europeans for the most part have moved past their state of denial and accept that the threat is very real.

For these lone actors I think it has more to do with psychology than religion. People are searching for meaning in their lives, which is why some of these kids (and some aren't kids) are buying books like "Islam for Dummies," and then convert and commit a crime supposedly in support of a higher cause.

I read some of Sayyid Qutb's writing, and his comments about our society being morally bankrupt has a touch of truth to it, and if someone is at angry at the world they can identify with the message, and of course the messages of the more current radicals who are basically insane. It only needs to sound rational to the person who wants to believe it.

We don't need people telling us to relax, we need people to tell Americans to remain vigilant, to look for signs of radicalization (and hopefully intervene), and to keep it in perspective. You're still much more likely to get shot going to 7/11 at night by a robber than killed by a lone wolf in America, and damn it we want to keep it that way.

Controlling social media is insufficient, the fact is that the conflict is playing on the T.V. media 24/7 is enough to inspire some of these people seeking something more in their meaningless lives to do something idiotic, and just like other crimes such as school shootings there is the risk of it going viral.

[slapout9]

It is worth noting that the only reason more women were not beheaded is because the business owner had a gun and shoot the bast#$%$# while he was in the act with his second women victim!

[AmericanPride]

The crime, while sensational, is not important. The motive is important for the reasons Bill stated. Apparently the perpetrator's firing from his job was the trigger. So is this a case of Islamic extremism or another case of workplace violence?

[Bill Moore]

The crime, while sensational, is not important. The motive is important for the reasons Bill stated. Apparently the perpetrator's firing from his job was the trigger. So is this a case of Islamic extremism or another case of workplace violence?

He was reportedly fired because he was arguing at work in favor of stoning women for violating the Koran. Obviously that would result in a hostile work environment and the firing would have been justified. What will be interesting is to see how people with different worldviews interpret this event. We see two on this discussion already. One is basically is sticking his head in the sand denying there is a threat. The other wants to wage a religious war. Other's will see this as a case of racism although if a white male would have made those comments they would have demanded he be fired.

It is hard for us earthly humans to interpret these events objectively. My subjective opinion based on what I think I know is that he was a troubled individual, who was fired for inappropriate behavior at work, so he sought revenge. It is clearly workplace violence. Based on his arguments and his Facebook comments his motivation was also based on his extreme interpretation of Islam and his desire to support terrorizing non believers. So at least two issues converge into motivation for a specific act. I'm sure other factors played a role that we will never know.

Like it or not it is now a national issue that cannot be swept under the rug. How we perceive and respond to this as a nation will in part define who we are. Hopefully not cowards acting out in fear against Islam writ large, and hopefully not embracing denial there is a threat we need to address. Can we as a nation develop appropriate and nuanced approaches or will mass media drive us ineffective extremes?

[slapout9]

The other wants to wage a religious war. Other's will see this as a case of racism although if a white male would have made those comments they would have demanded he be fired.



Bill,
I have never said thatnor do I want that. I do want my Government to recognize and respond appropriately to the fact that the enemy has declared a Religious war on us! whether we choose to recognize that or stay in denial is part of the problem.

[Bill Moore]

Slap your proposal for so called counter value targeting was nothing short of declaring war a religion by attacking their holy sites. You are right we have to recognize the character of the war we are in. Our adversaries are trying to impose their will upon us through the use of both organized and unorganized violence, and what they are attempting to impose is their religious world view. We are trying to impose our democratic and human rights values. They are not compatible, and that has implications that should make us rethink the underlying logic of the war.

[omarali50]

it seems that there is some phenomenon wherein some mentally ill people (hard to see how this person was "sane" by any measure) find ISIS-type Islamism very attractive. An interesting topic and thinking about it rationally (as rationally as possible?) may lead to new insights, but what will those insights be? I don't think it is immediately obvious.

There can be no doubt that there are some Muslims who have declared war on the United States and some of those Muslims are in the US (likely very few..though the qualification "very few" may not apply equally to the UK), but what to do in response is still an open question.

Given the current state of Western civilization, it may be necessary to discuss "counter-value targeting" much more before it is implemented. For example, the targeting of cities and sacred symbols of the Nazis or the Japanese occurred in the context of total war and clearly defined enemy states..and in a setting where the culture broadly accepted that A. We are at war B. Our enemies are evil and ruthless and have attacked us first. C. This is what one does when fighting evil enemies who are equally determined to do this if they had the chance (and in fact have already done so at places). All three elements are currently disputed at home; This may be a bad thing, but it is a thing. It may have to change before such targeting makes sense...and, more to the point, before it works (instead of splitting apart the home front or the allies, for example).

Just a thought.

PS: what is disputed is not the fact of an attack on the US. After 9-11, obviously US has been attacked.... But by whom? Bin Laden and his group were not a state. If the cities and symbols of a state have to be attacked in response, then which state? (Afghanistan was already attacked for harboring him, Pakistan was spared for various reasons, Saudi Arabia as a state was not really harboring or supporting his network...and of course, Iraq or Syria had nothing to do with that particular attack). Mecca (for example) is a central symbol for many who had nothing to do with him, or actively opposed him. If the government of Saudi Arabia is fully on board with attacking Bin Laden (and it probably was), is it OK to attack Saudi cities? ..and so on.
Suppose ISIS manages an attack on the US. Would it be OK to carpet bomb cities under their control? Mosul? Raqqa? Much less bomb Mecca (whose controlling state is actually bombing ISIS?).. (I bring up bombing Mecca because I think slapout may have mentioned that as an option at some point. My apologies if my memory is faulty)
Leaving aside any moral objections, wouldnt it be desirable to spell these options out in advance, to make such deterrence work? (if it works at all). Could the US and its allies really spell such things out in their current incarnation?
I think the US is capable (as in able and willing) of bombing cities right now, but not capable of saying it out loud and clear before or after the fact, which makes it rather less effective as a threat, no?
They really didnt have to spell it out in 1944, likely because times were different?
Thinking out loud.

[Bill Moore]

Thinking out loud with you. We're not fighting a state and we're not waging war on Islam. We are waging war on extremists who happen to be Muslims. Our critical alliances in this fight are the 90% of Muslims who don't support the extremists, so how would we conduct counter value targeting without alienating our allues?

We need to kill terrorists on a larger scale, but in a way that doesn't make the situation worse, which means getting the narrative right first and then attack hard, versus attacking and then developing a narrative to explain it. We are closer to doing that in the fight against IS, but unfortunately the killing part is falling way short. We have a green light from the Arab world and beyond so we should have our foot on the gas pedal and be much more aggressive to include using ground troops to rapidly degrade them. I think we are leaving too much space for IS to regain the initiative.

[slapout9]

Slap your proposal for so called counter value targeting was nothing short of declaring war a religion by attacking their holy sites. You are right we have to recognize the character of the war we are in. Our adversaries are trying to impose their will upon us through the use of both organized and unorganized violence, and what they are attempting to impose is their religious world view. We are trying to impose our democratic and human rights values. They are not compatible, and that has implications that should make us rethink the underlying logic of the war.

Bill,
I didn't say that..... I said retaliatory equivalence counter valuetargeting.......### for tat after an attack. In other words if the enemy wants to make this a holy war and they attack us then we attack back in kind or if we dont want to do that then at least attack something equal in value according to what the enemy values not necessarily what we value.

[slapout9]

Suppose ISIS manages an attack on the US. Would it be OK to carpet bomb cities under their control? Mosul? Raqqa? Much less bomb Mecca (whose controlling state is actually bombing ISIS?).. (I bring up bombing Mecca because I think slapout may have mentioned that as an option at some point. My apologies if my memory is faulty)Leaving aside any moral objections, wouldnt it be desirable to spell these options out in advance, to make such deterrence work? (if it works at all). Could the US and its allies really spell such things out in their current incarnation?
I think the US is capable (as in able and willing) of bombing cities right now, but not capable of saying it out loud and clear before or after the fact, which makes it rather less effective as a threat, no?
They really didnt have to spell it out in 1944, likely because times were different?
Thinking out loud.


omarali50,

Yes I said that but please read what posted for Bill Moore. It would only be done in special circumstances.

[AmericanPride]

Like it or not it is now a national issue that cannot be swept under the rug. How we perceive and respond to this as a nation will in part define who we are. Hopefully not cowards acting out in fear against Islam writ large, and hopefully not embracing denial there is a threat we need to address. Can we as a nation develop appropriate and nuanced approaches or will mass media drive us ineffective extremes?

Workplace violence has been a problem, and a growing one, in the U.S. since at least the middle of the 20th century. And the causes have nothing to do with ideological extremism; the origins are in decreasing job security, diminishing benefits, increased stress and demands placed on employees. Obviously this incident has an outward religious component to it, but is religion the cause, trigger, or mechanism? Far more people are killed for reasons of workplace violence than religious extremism (of any religion generally but specifically Islam) in the U.S. every year.

This was a similar major controversy with Nidal Hasan and the evidence clearly indicating that a hostile workplace encouraged his radicalization. That radical Islam may emerge as an outlet for frustrated and alienated segments of the populations is a problem, sure, but it's a symptom of the underlying disease in the American workplace of increasingly difficult conditions. Some turn to racism and white power; others to violence; still others to radical Islam. This case in OK may turn out to be different but that's the general trend in workplace violence.

[Bill Moore]

AP

your an economic determinist and Bob is a political determinist, and you both blindly cling to your models as simplistic views to explain the world. Just because you reject idealism as motive doesn't mean everyone does. Our arrogance is insisting the world conform to our democratic and economic views, so we continue to make policy decisions on our rather naive views because we can't perceive that others may actually be inspired by ideology. I guess in this case because he convert his coworkers or convince them that stoning women to death made it a hostile work environment?

[AmericanPride]

AP

your an economic determinist and Bob is a political determinist, and you both blindly cling to your models as simplistic views to explain the world. Just because you reject idealism as motive doesn't mean everyone does. Our arrogance is insisting the world conform to our democratic and economic views, so we continue to make policy decisions on our rather naive views because we can't perceive that others may actually be inspired by ideology. I guess in this case because he convert his coworkers or convince them that stoning women to death made it a hostile work environment?

There's a fine line between determinism (economic or other) and agency. For investigative and criminal justice purpose, the focus will be on the suspect's agency in order to establish culpability. But if we're concerned about identifying the root causes of this problem (whether it's religious extremism or workplace violence) to reduce future incidents, then we also need to investigate all of the contextual factors that led to this incident. As I said, it may or may not be related to a hostile workplace. That information is not yet available. But it has some of the indicators of other workplace violence incidents. And workplace violence already has well-researched and established causes.

And since you mentioned idealism and ideology; the general consensus in academia is that ideology emerges from social practices and human activity not vice versa. So we can grant that an individual may act on idealism, but to understand the specific ideology, its characteristics, and its appeal, it's also important to explore its relationship to the material world. Why radical Islam and not radical Christianity? Why beheading and not shooting? Why target the workplace and not neighbors? Why did the suspect feel compelled to promote conversion at his workplace in the first instance? People do not behave in a vacuum and they are constantly responding to and assessing their material conditions.

[Bill Moore]

But if we're concerned about identifying the root causes of this problem (whether it's religious extremism or workplace violence) to reduce future incidents, then we also need to investigate all of the contextual factors that led to this incident.

Agree, and it is seldom one thing that leads to a behavioral change. This is my concern with what I'm calling deterministic models. They attempt to isolate a specific variable, and then context is lost and the truth is in the larger context. There is also a good chance that the truth can't be determined.


And since you mentioned idealism and ideology; the general consensus in academia is that ideology emerges from social practices and human activity not vice versa. So we can grant that an individual may act on idealism, but to understand the specific ideology, its characteristics, and its appeal, it's also important to explore its relationship to the material world. Why radical Islam and not radical Christianity? Why beheading and not shooting? Why target the workplace and not neighbors? Why did the suspect feel compelled to promote conversion at his workplace in the first instance? People do not behave in a vacuum and they are constantly responding to and assessing their material conditions.

I'm not yet convinced by academia's chicken or egg claim. Ideology is a worldview, and regardless of the character of the material world the will perceive it and act upon it through that lens. Is their an interdependence between the material world and ideology? Most certainly, and each shapes the other, but to claim ones must first doesn't seem provable to me.

[Bill Moore]

Bottom line for me at this point is I'm not comfortable ascertaining underlying causes, and since every actor is different I think the utility of attempting to do so beyond academic study is limited and could be dangerously misleading.

Just out curiosity I viewed recent shooting news for 5 cities, and over well over 30 people have been shot in the past 24 hours in those 5 cities alone, so needless to say we have a high level of violence in some segments of our society. If those shootings stay in certain segments of society, then America largely turns a blind eye. I think we do so at our own risk, moral and otherwise, since we are allowing this norm to perpetuate into the future, yet none of this is newsworthy because it is so common.

The beheading, like a mass shooting at a school, is newsworthy, and that is where the risk is. As indicated by a recent FBI report on the increase of mass shootings, the copy cat syndrome is real. If you put it in perspective it was one of many murders, and while a beheading does have some shock aspect to it, I think many Americans would be shocked if they were aware of the torture that some of the organized criminal groups put their victims through before they kill them. They do it for the same purpose, to instill terror to enhance their control of the their target audience.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/09/25/fbi-report-examines-mass-shootings/

FBI Report Examines Mass Shootings


Law enforcement officials who specialize in behavioral analysis say the motives of gunmen vary but many have a real, or perceived, personally held grievance that they feel mandates an act of violence. Though it’s hard to say why the number of shootings has increased, officials say they believe many shooters are inspired by past killings and the resulting notoriety.

“The copycat phenomenon is real,” said Andre Simons of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit. “As more and more notable and tragic events occur, we think we’re seeing more compromised, marginalized individuals who are seeking inspiration from those past attacks.”

[AmericanPride]

Bill,

I think you're right with regards to the copy cat syndrome. The media plays a major role in this although there is a fine line between free speech and responsible reporting (which can be a code word for self-censorship).


Just out curiosity I viewed recent shooting news for 5 cities, and over well over 30 people have been shot in the past 24 hours in those 5 cities alone, so needless to say we have a high level of violence in some segments of our society. If those shootings stay in certain segments of society, then America largely turns a blind eye. I think we do so at our own risk, moral and otherwise, since we are allowing this norm to perpetuate into the future, yet none of this is newsworthy because it is so common.

That's part of the problem. And violence is not limited in "some segments of society"; it affects every segment of society. But it's normalized, as you've mentioned, through a mainstream narrative, at least when it fits into those preconceptions about which "segments" 'deserve' the violence visited upon them. Where does a workplace beheading fall into narratively speaking? The narrative about the threat of radical Islamic terrorism or the one about workplace violence?

Now what's interesting to me about terrorism in the United States is just how widely the media actually ignores self-proclaimed terrorism. Militant right-wing populism has been the largest source of violence in the U.S as far as terrorism is concerned. Just recently, a self-proclaimed survivalist targeted police officials, killing one of them, in the mid-West somewhere I believe. This did not receive widespread media coverage, however. These kinds of acts have all the conventional components of a terrorist attack, including most importantly a political agenda (what's the OK attacker's political agenda?). As we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan (and in previous terrorist campaigns), the aim is not always a spectacular attack to scare the public at large. But often is directed at local officials and institutions with the aim of subverting government authority.

So if we're to be concerned about terrorism in the U.S., let's focus on the actual perpetrators of terrorism in the country.

[AmericanPride]

Just some statistics of terrorism in the U.S. from the Global Terrorism Database between 2006 and 2013:

Year: # of attacks (# of deaths)

2006: 6 (1)
2007: 9 (0)
2008: 19 (2)
2009: 11 (18)
2010: 17 (4)
2011: 9 (0)
2012: 13 (7)
2013: 15 (7)

Of the 99 attacks, 68 (68.69%) were conducted by individuals or an unknown group. of the remaining 31 attacks with a known perpetrator, 7 (22.58%) were conducted by anti-abortion activitists, neo-nazis, the KKK, or a militia. And of the 68 individual/unknown group, 21 (30.88%) were directed at the government or abortion providers. And out of general interest, of the 99 total attacks in the time period, 20 (20.20%) involved firearms while 62 (62.62%) involved incidenaries or explosives. Only two attacks were conducted by an Islamic group (AQ or TTP).

The top five deadliest incidents:
o Fort Hood shooting (13)
o Sikh temple shooting in Milwaukee (7)
o attack on church in Knoxville, TN (2)
o attack on a Mexican family (2)
o Plane crashing into IRS building in TX (2)

Of the 15 (15.15%) attacks that caused a fatality, 12 (80%) were perpetrated by firearms.

[AdamG]

He's a big mamma's boy.


(CNN)For months, 20-year-old Christopher Lee Cornell had been on the FBI's radar. Authorities said he left alarming posts on social media, talking about violent jihad.

On Wednesday, agents arrested the Cincinnati, Ohio, man before he could put his alleged plot into action.
Authorities say Cornell, who ostensibly tweeted under the name Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah, hatched a simple scheme. It was similar to the Paris attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, but at a key location -- the U.S. Capitol, said a criminal complaint filed by an FBI agent.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/us/capitol-attack-plot/

[davidbfpo]

A rather sad account of the suspect, which appears based on his parents explanation to AP, hence the title 'Parents of terror defendant say they saw a change in him':http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6ff9dfd3146444d1af6b4e5d6259d230/fbi-ohio-man-planned-bomb-us-capitol-kill-officials

[davidbfpo]

Last week I attended a closed academic and practitioner conference on Lone Actor Terrorism; officialdom dislikes the phrase Lone Wolves and amidst the presentations was an excellent one by Professor Mark Hamm, from Indiana State University 'Radicalization Model of Lone Wolf Terrorism: The Prevention of Six Cases'.

I have obtained his Powerpoint, with his consent to use it via here, alas it is 5.4Mb so cannot be uploaded, so if you are interested PM me with an email address.

Link to his university mini-bio:https://www.indstate.edu/cas/ccj/ccj-faculty-and-staff/hamm-mark-s

What I found very interesting were the figures on attacks and that there were several historical attacks, which I'd not heard of - notably a woman stabbing Martin Luther King and a New Yorker bomber who evaded detection for sixteen years whilst he planted thirty-three IEDs. Let alone a Nazi, James Cummings who assembled a "dirty bomb" to set off at Obama's inauguration.

[AdamG]

officialdom dislikes the phrase Lone Wolves .

Rhetorically, why is that?

[davidbfpo]

Rhetorically, why is that?

It certainly was stated at the conference's opening, but Raffaello Pantucci (RUSI who was not there) in December 2014, in a commentary after the Sydney siege, has written with my emphasis in bold:
Lone actor (the preference by governments is to not use the term “lone wolf” as it is seen as glorifying) terrorism is not new. Right wing extremists have long liked the idea, drawing back to Cold War thinkers who were keen to prepare America for the possibility of an invading force that would require loyal survivors to take to the hills to wage an undercover insurgency against invaders. Initially developed under the concept of “leaderless resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance)” in the 1960s by a US Army Cold Warrior called Ulius Louis Amoss, the ideas were further advanced by a Ku Klux Klan member called Louis Beam in the 1980s. For Beam, the concept of single man (or small cell) fighting units was a perfect way around the need to fight a strong and pervasive state – because there were fewer opportunities for security forces to intercede.

Link:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/17/the-sydney-siege-fits-the-new-confusing-global-norm-the-lone-actor-attack

Maybe helpful:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulius_Louis_Amoss

Given the history, which is new to me, perhaps it was seen as best to separate the current description from the past? It does resonate with some ideologically.

Just how a "Lone Wolves" is seen as glorifying escapes me, but in terms of media imagery wolves can be portrayed quite differently, e.g. the film 'Dancing with Wolves'.

[AdamG]

Three people were killed after a man went on a shooting spree in downtown Fresno, California on Tuesday while shouting "God is great!" in Arabic#before he was tackled and taken into custody, police said.
Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said officers took Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, into custody in connection to the shootings. Dyer said Muhammad went by the nickname "Black Jesus" and shouted "Allahu Akbar" as police tackled him to the ground.
Dyer said at a news conference Muhammad has made posts against white people and the government on his Facebook page. All of the victims of the shooting rampage on Tuesday were white men, according to police.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/18/fresno-shooting-spree-3-people-killed-suspect-in-custody.html

Before anyone points out that this guy wasn't your stereotypical Middle-Eastern self-motivated muj wannabe and more of a garden-variety racist nutcase, his actions still fall into the 'win' category for ISIS. Too bad he wasn't turned into pink mist.

[AdamG]

Just how a "Lone Wolves" is seen as glorifying escapes me, but in terms of media imagery wolves can be portrayed quite differently, e.g. the film 'Dancing with Wolves'.

Someone has to justify their higher degrees and current job position, so they produce another 'Do something!' feelgood NEWSPEAK proclamation that keeps reporters busy.

[davidbfpo]

The full title of this academic article is 'Foreshadowing targeted violence: Assessing leakage of intent by public mass murderers' and alas it is behind a pay wall. The authors make it worth looking at, given their expertise.

The Abstract states:
The idea that identifiable behaviors presage violence is a core concept in the threat assessment literature. Especially meaningful from an operational perspective is “leakage”, which concerns whether offenders intentionally or unintentionally reveal insights into their thoughts or feelings that suggest impending targeted violence. Previous research has generally been limited to assessing the prevalence of leakage in various offender populations. The present study more thoroughly describes leakage in a sample of 115 public mass murderers in the U.S. whose activities took place between 1990 and 2014. We disaggregate leakage into three distinct forms (written statements, verbal statements to the public, verbal statements to family/friends), and examine these in relation to theorized correlates of leakage. The only significant predictor of leakage we found is the presence of a grievance, specifically a grievance against a person or entity, as opposed to a grievance against a category of people or a grievance against an idea, movement or religion. We discuss implications of these results as well as directions for future research.Link:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178917300502

From The Daily Beast a story about a school shooter last week in New Mexico, who had advertised his problems and desires on-line. The FBI once interviewed.
Link:https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-mexico-school-shooter-had-secret-life-on-pro-trump-white-supremacy-sites?

[davidbfpo]

The cited article above is now free o access and download for fifty days via:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178917300502

[AdamG]

The cited article above is now free o access and download for fifty days via:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178917300502

Care to walk us through that? Because I'm still seeing it for the low-low price of $19.95.

[davidbfpo]

Care to walk us through that? Because I'm still seeing it for the low-low price of $19.95.

John Horgan's tweeet says:
Our new piece on threat assessment & foreshadowing targeted violence is FREE to access for 50 days.

Puzzling. Using the same link, in the UK obviously, I get access:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178917300502

I have downloaded a copy, so if still no good PM me with an email address.

[davidbfpo]

Raffaello Pantucci's latest commentary (which is posted here and on the similar US thread), which is sub-titled:
Recent attacks perpetrated by extreme right wing terrorists in the US are undoubtedly linked to the upcoming mid-term elections, reflecting the reality that the country’s charged political scene may be pushing would-be terrorists into action.
Link:https://raffaellopantucci.com/2018/11/27/lone-actor-terrorists-and-extreme-right-wing-violence/

[davidbfpo]

This post covers several topics so in a moment it will be copied to other threads on CT, lone wolves (inside the USA and beyond).

Bruce Hoffman has two articles on the rise of the extreme right as a threat.

The first is quite short and the second via WoTR is longer.

So No.1:https://www.cfr.org/article/how-serious-white-nationalist-terrorism and No.2:https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/back-to-the-future-the-return-of-violent-far-right-terrorism-in-the-age-of-lone-wolves/

Paul Gill, a UK-based academic writes on lone wolves after Christchurch:https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018689150/lone-actor-terrorists-a-behavioural-analysis

Raffaello Pantucci (RUSI) adds his commentary, which mainly applies to the UK:https://raffaellopantucci.com/2019/03/17/the-extreme-right-was-once-a-loose-group-of-loners-not-any-more/

Then Steve Metz on why lone wolves and a somewhat pessimistic viewpoint IMHO:https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-age-of-the-lone-wolf-terrorist/

A NYT graphic on the links between white extremists:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/world/white-extremist-terrorism-christchurch.html