I think that if you apply the Black Swan Principle to school shootings & violence, you'll find all sorts of holes in the analysis/comparison.
I referenced this article earlier, but in my reference to The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb [1] I used the Internet security threat landscape as a comparison, because I like the logic of making system "robust enough" that failure of one portion does not compromise the entire model. Also, as the Wikipedia entry explains: "The book focuses on the extreme impact of certain kinds of rare and unpredictable events (outliers) and humans' tendency to find simplistic explanations for these events retrospectively." - ferg [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_%28Taleb_book%29 On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Rich Kulawiec <[email protected]> wrote: > It's a decent piece, but it asks the wrong question and the answers > it proposes are too late. Much, much too late. > > By the time that someone has become so disconnected from society that > they'll consider a mass shooting and they've acquired the weapons to > do so, there is really nothing effective that can be done: there is > NO viable defense against a heavily-armed attacker for whom personal > survival is not a priority and who doesn't really care who they kill. > > Oh, sure, yes, eventually enough people with enough weapons will show up > and prevail by force, by that's hardly a "defense", as it won't prevent > mass casualties (inflicted either by the attacker or by the responders > or both, see [1]). > > The idea that a single or even multiple security guards, police officers, > and/or school administrators can stop such an attacker is beyond merely > idiotic: it's full-blown batshit insane. [2] [3] > > The idea that select locations can be hardened is equally ludicrous: > there are hundreds of millions of "select locations", e.g., "a rural > road in Pennsylvania" last Friday. > > The idea that more background checks will work is also ridiculous. > Like security clearances, they're pure theater. And note that nobody > has to pass a background check to take weapons from someone else who did. > > The idea that deterrents like the death penalty will work ignores > reality: someone who has already planned their own death doesn't care > what the justice system might have in store for them. > > The idea that the assholes in the gun industry/gun lobby will take care > of this is offensively stupid, given that their existence is driven by > (a) profit (b) juvenile fantasies (c) delusion and (d) paranoia. > > > What needs to done, needs to be done much earlier: years to decades earlier. > > Part of what needs to be done is making sure that the social safety net > is working...and it's not. We are now reaping what's been sown by > systematic defunding of social programs at all levels over decades, because > our national priorities have been focused on useless crap like the F-22 > and the military adventures in Iraq/Afghanistan and the "war on drugs" > instead of taking care of every child in the country. We have become > an incubator for people like Adam Lanza and Eric Harris and Dylan Kliebold > and Charles Carl Roberts IV, and we need to stop being one. [4] > > And part of that is outlawing assault weapons, which obviously have no > place in an allegedly civilized society. > > The former is an attempt to reduce the number of people who will go > so far off the rails that they'll engage in mass shootings. The latter > is an attempt to make it more difficult for them to be effective if/when > they do. Neither is a "solution" per se, but both (and much more) > are necessary. > > ---rsk > > [1] As noted in: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/the-nra-crawls-from-its-hidey-hole.html > > "In August, New York City police officers opened fire on a gunman > outside the Empire State Building. They killed him and wounded nine > bystanders." > > [2] Reasonably competent attackers who have the element of surprise on > their side and/or who bring overwhelming force to bear can often inflict > significant casualties. I don't think a single bored police officer > standing watch on day #723 at a middle school in Ohio stands much chance > against a sudden attack launched by someone with an assault weapon and > body armor. He/she will simply be casualty #1, unless he/she is *extremely* > lucky or the attacker is very careless. And his/her weapon(s) will > shortly thereafter belong to the attacker. > > [3] I'm not a fan of defensive strategies that involve adding more > easily-used weapons (such as, in this case, the possibility of arming > adminstrators or teachers, or as was debated several years ago, arming > pilots). I think these run a high risk of lowering the bar for attackers, > because they reduce the problem set. To wit: "how do I get a gun and bring > it into X?" becomes "how do I take away the gun that you brought into X > for me?" and of course in some situations the latter is a much easier > problem to solve. > > I note with interest that this is the strategy that the NRA is advocating: > add more people with more guns. Unsurprising. But it won't work, > because it has never worked, e.g.: > > http://citypaper.com/news/columns/nothing-changes-1.1418123 > > "If being heavily armed and willing to shoot back was the only > thing keeping us from mass shootings, then there'd be an empty > wall in Washington where it lists all the police officers killed > in the line of duty." > > A gun does its possessor no good in these kinds of situations unless > the holder (a) has it loaded (b) has it in their hand (c) has the > safety off (d) sees or hears the attack coming (e) has the ability > to quickly figure out which target to shoot at (f) has the ability > to hit the target under duress (g) has the ability to miss non-targets > (h) manages to do all of the above before running out of bullets > (i) manages to do all of the above before being shot enough times > to be incapacitated or dead. > > Outside of Hollywood fantasies, this is a VERY low-probability sequence > of events. Even very, very well-trained professionals often can't pull > this off, viz.: > > http://citypaper.com/news/columns/nothing-changes-1.1418123 > > "I used to work for and with a guy who was shot in the head by a > guy who was trying to kill the president of the United States; > you know, a guy who is surrounded almost 24-7 by some of the > most heavily armed, best-trained law enforcement officers in > the world. Didn't stop Jim Brady or Ronald Reagan from taking > a bullet." > > [4] http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp reports a > 2012 estimate of 76 million children in US, ages 0-17. The F-22 program > cost estimate was $62B in 2006, and no doubt that number has gone up > significantly since. So, roughly speaking, that's $1K/child just from > one program. > > Also note that the combined cost of the pointless military adventures > in Iraq and Afghanistan is somewhere in the $4T ballpark (see > http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629) > which comes out to something like $50K/child. > > Estimates of the cost of the equally pointless "war on drugs" vary, > but it's also in the trillions range over the past several decades. > (See: http://www.mattgroff.com/questions-on-the-1315-project-chart/ > for one look.) > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
