Agreed. My point was that the police have the least of all emergency services to do with protection of life and property and that a gun or a dog only helps you with the functions that they can perform.
People depend on 911 for much more than just police and if you're trying to come up with an alternate plan, it's much more important to address the questions of emergency medical services and fire protection than the relatively lower risk of threats from an intruder. Owen On Aug 5, 2012, at 05:50 , Peter Kristolaitis <alte...@alter3d.ca> wrote: > My point is more along the line of if you're depending on a service which > provides only best-effort on uptime (as Bill Herrin mentioned, some providers > can barely manage 2 nines of 911 uptime) and to which you're connected by a > single, fault-prone connection, and which provides no guarantee of service > even if you CAN contact them, calling it "critical" is kind of a joke, and > you'd probably get laughed at by a risk analyst. If you're serious about > protecting health and home, you'd better have some other plan in place that > doesn't have a ridiculous number of single points of failure. > > Pete > > > Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> I've never met a dog properly trained in ACLS and I'm pretty sure that a gun >> isn't even useful for BLS. >> >> Owen >> >> On Aug 4, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Peter Kristolaitis <alte...@alter3d.ca> wrote: >> >>> Considering that none of the services that can be dispatched by 911 are >>> legally required to help you in most North American jurisdictions (i.e. if >>> you call 911 and the police don't respond until they finish eating their >>> box of donuts, they're not criminally or civilly liable), having working >>> 911 services really doesn't guarantee you anything. Most security >>> monitoring companies have contracts that are completely worthless and >>> guarantee nothing as well. >>> >>> If you're depending on 911 for life safety and property protection, I'd >>> recommend revising that plan to include a dog and/or gun. :-) >>> >>> - Pete >>> >>> >>> >>> Nathan Eisenberg <nat...@atlasnetworks.us> wrote: >>> >>>>> Residences aren't critical infrastructure, no matter how angry the owners >>>>> get. >>>> >>>> 911 access isn't a critical service? Fire and security panels aren't >>>> critical services? >>>> >>>> If basic life safety and property protection aren't critical services, I'm >>>> not sure what is. These are peoples' lives and families and homes. There >>>> is nothing - repeat, nothing - more important than that. It is absolutely >>>> a critical service. >>>> >>>> Nathan Eisenberg >>>> >>>> >>
