How are we to defend against Paris style attacks from happening?

That's really a needed proactive measure...

SSG Paul Ellis - You raise a valid issue. Civilian law enforcement officers in countless numbers are leaving there weapons in pubic rest rooms.....go figure.

Sgt Nick Marshall - Those soft targets are th locations local law enforcement project will be the objectives.

I was just thinking of the "patriot guard" that were "guarding" the recruiting offices. I believe one had an accidental discharge. That kind of thing is what concerns me. More Anericans die from gun accidents than terrorism, by a large margin.

It's comforting to know trained military are prepared, it's the untrained civilians that will be packing that can be almost as dangerous.

Sgt Nick Marshall I'd be interested in any case examples of untrained civilians attempting to respond to active shooters causing even half as many casualties as an unopposed active shooter, let alone a coordinate terrorist attack.

It is easy to imagine our lack of confidence of someone with less training than us trying to respond and making poor choices but remember this: one way gunfights ALWAYS have higher casualties than two way gunfights, unless the one with the gun chooses to stop the fight.

Sir, You have an excellent list of items that would reduce the number of attacks and severity. These are dangerous times we live in.

Sgt (Join to see) - Sergeant; Indeed these are "dangerous times" but they ARE NOT "terrifying times".

There is a risk of an attack - there always is. The real question is whether or not we are going to allow the "terrorists" to control our lives by cowering in fear before them.

I say that it is better to fight on our feet than die on our knees. (I don't go so far as to say that it is better to die on our feet than live on our knees because we can always stand up if we are alive but once we are dead we can't do anything more.)

[9] more veterans (for new jobs) in segment like security services which will grow after attacks in France around world. Now is right time use their experiences !

Vit Spirek - Mr. Spirek; If it wasn't for the constant "Race To The Bottom" that infects the private security industry, I'd agree with you.

The "real life" rule is that you can have all the security you are willing to pay for.

The problem is that the bean counters don't want you to spend any more than will satisfy the insurers and that isn't going to be enough because what will satisfy the ensurers is quantity NOT quality. That means that having "enough" crappy security counts exactly the same as having "enough" outstanding security as far as the insurers are concerned and "outstanding" costs more than "crappy".

You have to remember that the insurers actually "like" (in the sense of "can make one hell of a lot more money") it when there are terrorist attacks because then they can raise the rates across the board regardless of how much the actual threat to the insured properties is.

PS - If you take from the above that I am NOT the world's biggest fan of the insurance industry, you'd be right.

Jaime, why would a sensible human being strap a bomb to their body and run into a crowd of civilians? You are seeking a common sense answer of people without sense or the ability to reason. They will strap bombs on people, they will destroy items of antiquity, they punish the rape victims, being gay is a death sentence, but bacha bazi is culturally acceptable in some places. Tell me they have the same mental capacity you do.

PVT Robert Gresham - Sergeant; Exactly when was the proposal to "bring a group of terrorists into the country, and give them everything to be successful" made?

Is there any reason why refugees who are living in conditions worse than many American slums and who have fled from the threat of murder and/or rape that ISIS constitutes should NOT be helped by "the leader of the free world"?

Would you oppose helping the refugees if the only ones let in were women with children and the elderly?

Would you oppose helping the refugees if they were settled in unused military facilities and held there until it was safe to allow them to return to Syria (or they had been "cleared" [and how would you know that those who had been "cleared" had simply been successful in covering up their "real" agenda])?

COL Ted Mc - Sir, if anyone had been "cleared" at all then I would feel much better about the situation. As it is we have a bunch of people who CLAIM to be refugees, who have not had to show any type of identification, and have not been checked for ties to possible terrorist organizations. You or I would never have that much freedom. (If you disagree try getting on an airplane tomorrow for Germany with no papers, and no TSA computer check.)

You can push for the agenda of, "we are a kind and gentle nation" until something breaks, Sir. But, when the first terror incident, instigated by one of these poor, "innocent" refugees, comes to pass. When the first American is beaten, or raped, or murdered by one of those "put upon souls", I hope that you will remember that you were one of the people who pushed so hard to have them here. Because we had to be the world's savior. And just in case......just maybe, when members of this group decide to fight for Sharia law on OUR streets.....Who do you think is coming to save US?

I think if you read the other comments in this, and other posts, you will see that the majority of the RP community agrees with me.

PVT Robert Gresham - Sergeant; If one were to think only with one's head and not at all with one's heart, then the "solution" would be simple - turn the entire area claimed by ISIS into a self-illuminated, glass paved, parking lot. The fact that the casualties would likely be 99% "collateral damage" is, in that case, totally irrelevant.

And, you are correct, a large number of RP members agree with you. Of course they are "thinking with their hearts and not their heads" when they do so.

On the other hand, you could always insist that the refugees that were admitted be either Christians or Jews - that should eliminate any chance of there being any "terrorists" amongst them. Right?

PV2 Scott Goodpasture This kind of reminds me of Stargate SG-1 and you are always fearful of Senators getting involved. Politics are dangerous......

SSgt (Join to see) -

A fan of that series would get it.. PV2 Scott Goodpasture

I think that you are close but I think he wants to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. He will wait for more attacks then blame others for forcing him to take action. That way he placates his base

It's much easier for us (as military) to say and do this, as in the Thalys incident. Civilians can't do that, that is why the terrorists choose them as targets.

Agreed

Agreed. I see too many posts about arming civilians and they should have stormed the attackers, IMHO that's not reasonable.

SGT Bryan O'Reilly - We call those folks motards... Wanting to be a badass like one sees in the movies on top of big numbers entice motards.

That makes perfect sense, and god bless them they mean well, I think if we had such coordination and training this shooting sprees would diminish, not disappear, but diminish and well intended but misguided libs would not be given the ammo needed to overturn our 2nd asmend and potentially undermine our constitutions integrity.

SGT Bryan O'Reilly - Perhaps you and I need to discuss what needs to happen to get this voted in, and then begin a training course to sell, thus making America a safer place and us rich.

I think you are spot on. Coordinating with gun lobbyists and mfg you could have them underwrite the launch. I often tell people that the only thing in America that could stop an open carry advocate, are outraged unarmed American moms who would say their kids right to life trumps my right to carry. And it would be a populist movement. The libs would sing Kumbaya, Until they realized they had just set a precedent that has the ability to undermine the rest of their freedoms.