What component of the overall security objective deserves the most attention in the environments mentioned in the article? What components would be less pertinent for these particular environments during a vulnerability assessment? Why?
I am fairly torn on what component of the overall security objective deserves the most attention when it comes to church safety, or any place of worship. The majorities of churches are small and are funded on public money. Thus, they cannot afford some of the “higher end” security measures, like a security agency or implementing metal detectors, which I believe would be scary for a place of worship to have to do.
I believe there are two important components to the overall security objective that deserve equal attention. Those being personnel security and physical security. A place of worship can make sure that all staff is aware of safety procedures during almost any attack, ranging from gunmen to fires and bombs (Phillips). This type of personnel security can be mixed with physical security measures, such as walkie-talkies. If the staff is trained, even slightly, to recognize the warning signs, a tragedy has a higher chance being avoided.
Relative to the primary component you chose above, what are some countermeasures or possible solutions for the shootings, incidences of arson, and bombing?
Unfortunately, more and more places of religious worship are coming under threat these days from those who feel compelled to make their dissatisfaction of religion or life known to those who are innocent.
Concerning the threat of arson or bombings at a place of worship, I would suggest adding more lighting to the outside of the buildings and possibly some physical security, such as surveillance cameras. I understand that the majority of places of worship are funded through public donations and congregation but if none of those who donate feel it is a safe place they can practice their religion, there is not likely to be...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document