Security Tips 101 for the Holidays

Here's a few simple precautions to take when shopping for the holiday season (or any other time):

Shopping Online: Do not use public computers (such as those in public libraries) to order stuff online. It's an exposure of personal information, such as home address and credit card info.

Shop at retailers that are well known and trustworthy, and don't access website via links that were sent to you in emails. Always type in the website address.

Remember to update anti-virus software every day.

Shopping in stores: Keep all receipts and check them against monthy credit card and bank statements. If there are any discrepancies, notify the bank or credit card company immediately.

"Skimming" is the criminal act of attaching a credit card reader to a bank cash machine. When a customer swipes their bank card to get cash from their account, the skimmer records the number so that funds can be stolen from the account at a later time. Always check for odd-looking devices attached to the ATM before withdrawing cash.

At stores and restaurants, keep credit cards in sight when paying for items. If the waiter or store staff must take the card away, be sure they give you your card back, and not some other card.

Especially in crowded places such as stores, cash machines and bars be aware of people around you. if someone looks or acts in a suspicious manner, put some distance between you and them.

In a vehicle, store valuables in the trunk, or at least throw a blanket over them so criminals cannot tell if there is anything valuable in the car.

Another Murder at Virginia Tech

I'm sure we all remember the mass shooting at Virginia Tech in which a student from China went on a rampage. Remember the big debate about whether or not students who have a state-issued permit to carry a concealed handgun should be allowed by the university to do so on campus?

Of course, like many universities, Virginia Tech does not allow students to be responsible for their own security, preferring to rely on campus security to keep the peace. Well here's a story that I don't think made many ripples in the national media. At the end of May, another student from China, Haiyan Zhu attacked a female chinese student, Xin Yang in the cafeteria and cut off her head.

How can this possibly happen on a campus that has already dealt with violent crime, and, presumably either improved it's security, or was already confident that the security was adequate? Well, to be fair to the university, no amount of security guards can respond instantly to every incident on campus.

The news report indicates that the couple were not alone in the cafeteria. There were other people present at the time of the attack. One onlooker said, "...he had just returned from a break at his job at Au Bon Pan in Tech's Graduate Life Center on Jan. 21 when he heard growling and screaming. He looked up to see Haiyan Zhu attacking Xin Yang."

The onlooker went on to say that,"...he dove behind the counter and called 911 while customers and his manager ran from the coffee shop. "

Why did these people run away? How can you witness a savage attack and do nothing? These are not bad people, they are not stupid people. I think the reason is that they have not been conditioned to belive that they can act against violence and prevail. They have likely been conditioned by the nanny state to give in to violence--"if I don't fight back, he won't hurt me".

How many times have you heard the victim of a mugging say, "there was nothing I could do."

The fact is that we don't know what we can do until we try. Self defense is not primarily about how big we are, how strong we are, or how well armed we are. Self defense is about having the correct mindset. It is about having that fighting spirit that says, "You will not do that to me! Even if I get hurt, or die, I will fight you until you stop being a threat to me."

Our society is teaching each generation that all violence is bad. Tell that to the bad guys because it seems they didn't get the message. We need to teach every generation that there are times when it's morally acceptable to physically hurt a person who is committing a criminal act of violence.

Surely the right to self-defense is the most basic right of all living things.

Columbine - Ten Years and a Day Later...

As previous generations can recall where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated, many of us, particularly in Colorado recall where we were on the morning that two sick, murderous teenagers carried out their plan to attack their classmates at Columbine High School. I was a computer consultant, at work in an office in downtown Denver. News began to trickle over the internet as I, and my colleagues tried at first to focus on our work. But as more details of the attack emerged, it became harder to concentrate on anything else. I knew enough people in the area to wonder if anybody I had worked with in the past was, at that moment, rushing to CHS, desperate to know if their child was safe--or not.

It seems with the tenth anniversary that our society has reached a watershed. Some of the survivors, now in their twenties, have declared that the attack will not continue to define them. They will remember the events of ten years ago, but will also put it behind them, and move on with their lives. That may be easier for the classmates of the dead to do rather then the parents. But the fact remains that there is a fine line between remembering, and allowing what happened to define the rest of their lives.

Other people have used Columbine, and other criminal acts like it to advance their agenda of disarming Americans. They have called for everything from a ban on handguns, to a renewal of Clinton's expired [sic.] Assault Weapons ban (the city of Denver still has it's own AW ban in place).

On the other hand, more progressive views have prevailed. We now have laws in 48 of the 50 states that enable law abiding citizens to carry a handgun concealed (CCW) for their self-defense. Has blood flowed in the streets since CCW laws were enacted? No, with the exception of some criminals who were shot when they tried to attack an honest, citizen. In fact, statistics show that those people who are approved for issue of a concealed weapons permit are among the top tiers of law-abiding citizens.

Another important development has been the changes that Law enforcement has made in the way that they deal with school shootings. The most significant changes are improvements in communications between various emergency responders, and changes to the tactics employed against active shooters by the first police officers to arrive at the scene. Prior to Columbine, most cops were trained to secure the perimiter of a Columbine-type incident and wait for the SWAT team to show up. Nowadays, it's typical for departments to train their oficers that as soon as four officers are present, they form up as a team and enter the building. I've personally witnessed one of our local departments training for this scenario, and Rapid Entry Deployment works.

It's easy to take a tragedy like Columbine and simply call for everybody to be disarmed. But that is not a logical, or a suitable strategy. The founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment for some very good reasons that had nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. If we take the disarmament, gun banning argument and apply it to car accidents, for example, nobody would be able to travel long distances quickly. If we applied the same argument to injuries from power tools, construction would take three times as long. Life is full of trade-offs. But trading guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens for perceived safety is a mistake. Ben Franklin talked about that.

I wonder if Columbine would have turned out any differently if a few people with concealed carry permits and handguns had been on-scene when the attack began?