Have you ever wondered why we call someone who runs around shooting people an “active shooter” and why our schools, universities, corporations, law enforcement, and government agencies constantly have active shooter training drills? Sometimes they have drills because of a specific threat, fear of the people who work there, or just to have a plan to limit the loss of life in the event that a disgruntled or disgruntled person tries to shoot a group of people on the spot. . in question.
Here is the definition according to the United States Department of Homeland Security [DHS] which defines an active shooter as: an individual actively involved in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method for victim selection.
A non-active shooter is someone who has a gun, has made threats or is acting suspiciously, or has been arrested, captured, incapacitated, or killed. A non-active shooter could be someone who has just committed an act or is feared that they may do so in the near future. How to prevent a non-active future from becoming an active one? Ah, there’s the $64 million question, and yes, people are working on it; IARPA, for example, IARPA is the Intelligence Advanced Research Programs Agency, similar to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) but for intelligence services.
There was an interesting article in the IHSL Startups Accelerator on January 17, 2017 titled; “Thermal Cameras – Will They Prevent Shootings in Public Places?” which pointed to new infrared technology, specifically thermal imaging cameras, and how such surveillance technologies could be placed in high-density, high-risk areas to see if someone had a weapon under multiple layers of clothing. The piece noted:
“Cameras could detect temperature differences between weapons and human bodies, allowing officers to target those carrying weapons, according to SecurityInfoWatch. [dot] com”.
Metal detectors at checkpoints are often circumvented, and so directly that it makes people unnecessarily nervous. What if the surveillance system was hidden and did not produce false positives? Can you recall a time when you walked through a metal detector or anti-theft device in a store and an alarm sounded?
What if I just had the device and security came out to stop the gunman and see what’s going on? You could say the shooter would just run away, which is the same thing a person with a gun might do in a metal detector anyway. Okay, think of this as a potential way to prevent active shooters.
