By Kevin D. Williamson
Friday, October 06, 2017
In the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre, everybody is
talking about gun control. We should be talking about event planning.
With all due respect to Bret Stephens, who recently
argued in the New York Times for
repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating privately owned firearms as the
only reasonable means of reducing violence perpetrated with firearms in the
United States, nothing of the sort is likely to happen. Sentiment waxes and
wanes in reaction to the events of the day, but Second Amendment rights are in
fact widely and energetically supported today, and the prospect of the Second
Amendment being undone — with a Republican Congress, Republican president, and
a healthy Republican majority in the nation’s state legislatures and
governorships — is preposterous. The most ambitious gun-control measure with a
serious chance of being enacted in the near future is a ban on “bump stocks” —
never mind that bump-firing is a technique
rather than a product, and that it
can be done without any modification to the firearm: Here’s
a young man using his belt loop to bump-fire.
It is a truism among developers and urban planners that
crime is influenced by (among other factors) the physical environment,
including the built environment, and the opportunities that environment does or
does not provide for committing crimes. The simplest version of that principle
is the presence of the arm-rests one typically sees on city park benches:
They’re nice for resting one’s elbow on, but their real purpose is to keep
those park benches from being used as beds by vagrants. You won’t need police
to roust dozing bums from the park benches if they can’t lay down on them in
the first place. Passing through Heathrow many years ago, in the purportedly
more innocent pre-9/11 era, I overheard a young American woman complaining to
an airport staffer about the lack of trash cans. “If we had trash bins,” the
attendant answered, “we would have bombs in our trash bins.” Just as the wolves
of Yellowstone have reshaped the physical geography of the park, the wolves of
the Irish Republican Army reshaped the physical environment of much of public
London. Islamic terrorists and, to a lesser extent, other mass-killers are
slowly having the same effect on the United States.
It isn’t “blaming the victim” to recommend that people
forgo walking through dangerous neighborhoods late at night. No, the victims
are not morally responsible for the actions of criminals, but they can take
affirmative steps to mitigate the risk of victimization. In a better world, we
would not have to worry about whether a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people
attending a concert would make a tempting target to a murder-minded man in one
of the surrounding high-rise hotels, but we do not live in that world. We live
in this world, where security is a major concern when selecting a venue for a
large public event.
This already is commonplace in corporate security. There
are many businesses that simply will not take office space in an iconic
building such as One World Trade Center or the Empire State Building. Those
firms may not be likely terrorism targets themselves, but the buildings are.
And the insurance markets have taken that into account: If not for federal
subsidies through the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act — a preemptive bailout
program for insurance companies that kicks in when the damage from a terrorist
attack exceeds $100 million — tenants in buildings that are likely terrorism
targets would be paying much higher insurance premiums than they are,
effectively devaluing a big chunk of the nation’s most valuable commercial real
estate.
On top of that, there are specific building features that
are red flags for security managers and insurers. For example, hotels with
direct street access and those built on top of parking structures are
considered high risk. (The issue in both cases is truck bombs.) In some
situations, those features alone are enough to take a hotel or a convention
center out of the running for security-sensitive events.
You would not think that a country-music festival would
require the same kind of security planning as a meeting of the WTO ministers,
and maybe it doesn’t — but, increasingly, it requires something of the kind.
That is not intended as a criticism of the organizers of the Las Vegas concert
or of the authorities in Las Vegas; the usual standard in commercial law is
that parties such as concert organizers or landlords have a responsibility to
protect their customers from criminal acts that are “reasonably predictable.”
That means that if the locks on your apartment are broken, you complain to the
landlord, he fails to fix them, and you get robbed, he’s probably on the hook.
Was the shooting in Las Vegas “reasonably predictable”? It would not have been
20 years ago. Today? What’s “reasonably predictable” has been shifting for
years, and the question of whether a tightly packed crowd is vulnerable to
sniper fire is not obviously unreasonable — especially in a city already known
to be an attractive target for terrorism. Consider how different the security
arrangements would have been if it had been Donald Trump on that stage instead
of Jason Aldean.
Concerns about terrorism and similar crimes already are
incorporated into major commercial developments in the United States, affecting
everything from obvious security issues to the design of buildings’
environmental-control systems. In Asia and the Middle East, where new,
sprawling urban developments have been under way since the 1990s and where
terrorism may be more familiar, such considerations are implemented at the
urban-planning and development level. That’s harder to do in the United States
and Europe, especially in older, built-up cities such as New York, London, or
Paris. Most of the focus in this area, especially after the WTO riots in
Seattle and elsewhere, has been on civic unrest, with firms such as Pinkerton
developing specialized sub-practices dealing exclusively with that issue. Of
course, mass-murderers with no obvious political agenda are by nature much more
difficult to predict, and “lone wolves” acting independently of any network or
organization do not have much in the way of communications to intercept or
complex logistics to disrupt.
That isn’t going to be an easy problem to get ahead of.
An open and liberal society will always have soft
targets. But there are things we could be doing to make them harder. No, we
don’t want checking into a Las Vegas hotel or attending a country-music concert
to be like getting on an airplane or visiting the Capitol. (On the other hand,
my recollection is that the security screening before boxing matches at the
Blue Horizon in Philadelphia was pretty comprehensive.) We might want to move
large outdoor festivals to more defensible venues with more robust security. We
probably should give some thought to Amtrak and the stations serving it.
Boring stuff? Sure. But better site selection and more
intelligent security planning would be a lot more practical, a great deal less
disruptive, and in the end almost certainly more effective than trying to seize
the 357 million privately owned firearms in the United States, or even a
substantial fraction of them. But like health care and economic growth, there
is not going to be one big dramatic solution. If we’re lucky, there will be 100
million little improvements. That’s how real progress happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment