Yes, but ISIS lone wolf sleeper cells are not that sort of terrorist.
Mass shooters often make threats before hand. Nobody is saying that if Billy threatens to come in and shoot up the school, or plant a bomb, that we ignore Billy’s threat. What makes the threat credible is that Billy is making the threat. Nor do we ignore warnings like “Billy told me he was going to shoot up the school”.
An anonymous warning absent other evidence is not a credible threat. You know what would be pretty easy? Set up a spam botnet to send daily bomb threats to every school system in America. If someone did that, should we shut down every school in America, forever? No, we ignore it, because it means nothing.
What if they threatened a bombing AND a shooting? Or maybe a bombing and a stabbing? Or arson and a shooting? What about just arson? For the purposes of arson, does it matter if the accelerant comes from an infernal device or if simply some kind of fuel were used?
You see, it’s easier just to take threats of violence seriously.
It’s easier but it’s stupid. It should come down to examining the individual case, not take them all seriously. Most times, that’ll end up deciding “hoax”. When it’s so easy to send a threat, you just can’t run anything if you shut the whole operation down every time someone calls one in.
I completely agree. Taking a threat seriously doesn’t mean always fleeing for the hills.
What’s at issue is that someone has suggested that schools should take threats of gun violence seriously, but generally disregard bomb threats. I’m saying that if there is a threat, evaluate it on the evidence available, but don’t dismiss it because of the mode of the violence threatened.
Well I don’t agree with his blanket statement but shooting up a school is both easier and more common so it’s not unreasonable to treat it as a more likely real threat.
If it were me, I would not disregard any threat and I would phone in any threat to the police and follow their instructions. It would not be my job as a school admin to judge the best reaction to threat. It IS the job of police to do that sort of thing.
Bomb and shooting = Close
Bomb and stabbing = Close
Arson and shooting = Close
Arson = No close
For arson, we don’t close, doesn’t matter where the accelerant is from, and if its infernal, students should make sure to stay in school to see if the guy can actually summon a demon
Should we close schools if someone threatens to kill another kid? What about 5 kids? What about beating one kid up with a bat? Or brass knuckles? I think school administrators need to evaluate threats individually and not just close down every time someone threatens something. It should be credible, it should be doable. Bombs are pretty rare so I wouldn’t find it credible. Shootings are not rare so I would find it credible. Likewise, if someone threatens to stab someone I’d pay attention, but not if they threaten to fling him to his death with a catapult or drop a piano on his head.
I’d worry, but not enough to close the school. Historically, bombings are really really rare.
That was a long time ago, its ignorable for the purposes of calculating the likelihood of a bombing.
Or someone would keep calling in hoaxes until the school started ignoring them, and THEN plant a real bomb.
Besides, the issue isn’t just what the schools should do, it’s how do they respond to public and parental pressure on what to do. Even if it’s smart, ignoring bomb threats might not be politically expedient. Many parents might even just keep their kids home anyway.
Yes, but that’s assuming that it’s just the hoax calls that are in play.
If there are other warning signs that he wants them to ignore, then it makes sense. That unattended bag in the hallway? Don’t worry about it, all the bomb threats are just hoaxes.
They might want them to go outside so they can shoot them and blow them up more publicly though, and kill even more of them. Or hope to blow up lots of police responders.
We just can’t know for sure in every circumstance just what is going on.
Who said, just because we treat anonymous bomb threats as not credible absent specific information that makes them credible, that we then ignore everything?
Think. Please, think.
You’re not making sense. You think a bomber is going to call in 20 hoax bombings, and then, only then, plant a bomb, because now everyone thinks there won’t be a bomb?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just plant your fucking bomb in the fucking first place?
What if a kid wears a black t-shirt to school, and a bomb goes off? Shouldn’t we ban black t-shirts? I mean, a kid wore a black t-shirt and there was a bombing, and if it stops even one kid from being hurt in a bomb blast then of course we have to do it. So ban black t-shirts to prevent school bombings.
Schools should have policies to try to prevent school violence. Warnings about specific credible threats should not be ignored. Anonymous bomb threats are not credible.
We take risks with our lives, and our kid’s lives, every day. We try to minimize those risks. But shutting down the school every time an anonymous hoaxer emails a bomb threat is like keeping a magic rock in your pocket to keep away tigers. If one kid is saved from tiger attack by the magic rock, then how can we not give every kid a magic rock?
There are things you and I both may not know about how terrorists work as well. And there’s also the possibility that terrorists and bombers aren’t, you know, acting rationally.
You take this discussion stuff too seriously.
How the heck can you possibly know either of those things?