Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
"Red Dawn" is a movie (well, alright, two movies) (two BAD movies), not a blueprint for successful insurrection. In the real world, the annoyances known as the "Wolverines" would be promptly and easily exterminated. (Two REALLY bad movies, jebus, didn't anybody in the room have the nerve to point out that remaking worthless drivel three decades later was highly likely to result in far more expensive worthless drivel?) Oh, wait! I know! Let's remake "Zardoz" and "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo". What could possibly go wrong? ---rsk p.s. And "Coneheads". ___ 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.
Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
dOn Sun, 12 May 2013 09:09:10 -0700, "Steve Allison" said: > The military and law enforcement may end up having an horrifying dilemma. > When they took the oath of enlistment (military and law enforcement), as I > did, they swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States > against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and > allegiance to the same." But in the next breath, we had to say, "I will obey > the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed > above me." Could be a terrible dichotomy for our military. What it *actually* says: "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" http://www.army.mil/values/oath.html I do believe that the Uniform Code clearly states that you have both the right and the obligation to refuse an illegal order. So not much dichotomy there. pgptmQQClJdDs.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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.
Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
I fail to see how this is an appropriate topic for a mailing list intended to discuss and enjoy of the lighter, more humorous side of security. This is you pushing a political agenda under the charade of risk analysis. (Your ability to deny this was nullified with the "Oh, hey, what do you know…" lead in.) The fact remains that in the United States citizens have the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has further ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia; and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. On May 11, 2013, at 2:23 PM, "Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah" wrote: > Oh, hey, what do you know? There's actually scientific data showing that > having > lots of guns around is a bad idea ... > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gun-science-proves-arming- > untrained-citizens-bad-idea > > or > > http://links.email.scientificamerican.com/ctt?kn=59&ms=NDE0ODIzNDQS1&r=N > TY1MTYxMjE0MQS2&b=2&j=MTg3NjgxMjA4S0&mt=1&rt=0 ___ 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.
Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
The military and law enforcement may end up having an horrifying dilemma. When they took the oath of enlistment (military and law enforcement), as I did, they swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." But in the next breath, we had to say, "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed above me." Could be a terrible dichotomy for our military. That said, if the US federal government attempted to revoke our 2nd Amendment rights, what would the US military and law enforcement community do (federal down to Local police)? Most folks just seem to think that our federal government can make an order, and our military and law enforcement follows it to the letter. They've never tried to pass a law (or lawful order) that removes the constitutional rights these guys fight for. Keep that in mind. I don't count on our government to use common sense but I do believe in our military, and they will follow the protection of a 200+ year oath to protect our way of life rather than the orders of a guy who will be out of office in a few years. Too optimistic? Steve -Original Message- From: funsec-boun...@linuxbox.org [mailto:funsec-boun...@linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Walton Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:13 AM To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org; rmsl...@shaw.ca Subject: Re: [funsec] Risk analysis On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:16 AM, wrote: > On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:04:03 -0400, Jeffrey Walton said: >> When I lived in Georgia in the 1990s, one of its counties passed an >> ordnance requiring all citizens own a gun. Around the same time, a >> county in Chicago passed a ordinance banning guns. Do you want to >> take a guess at which county experienced an increase in crime, and >> which experienced a decrease? > > Multiple studies have shows that access to guns is only one very small > part of what drives the *reported* crime rate. Economic and > educational conditions in the area, and the resident's relationship > with the police, have a much higher impact on how many crimes get committed, and how many get reported. > >> Anyway, the debate is not a religion to me as long as I can own one >> to rise against the government if needed. > > Oh, bother. If more of the "rise against the government if needed" > crowd was realistic about that, we could actually have rational > discussions about gun control. Sometimes the threat of action is more compelling than the act itself (Sun Tzu). > There's a whole lot more to doing an effective resistance than just "I > have a gun". But except for some militia groups that actually train, > none of the "rise against the government" crowd want to admit it. Yes, you're right. There are better ways to approach that problem (http://www.aeinstein.org). > Remember - if it comes to that, you're going against people who do > that shit day in day out for a living. And yet, mandating a tour in > the National Guard so people have seen it and learned it *before* the > bullets start flying doesn't go over very well with the gun-rights > crew (who see any sort of mandatory training requirement as an infringement). Right. There are better ways to approach that problem (http://www.aeinstein.org). The citizens, the military, and law enforcement are all victims of the same hypocrisy. There's no reason that they should fight amongst themselves. Jeff ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Marc wrote: > The error in the 'science', IMHO, is the blaming an inanimate object for the > actions of people. By definition, an inanimate object is just that. This > is like blaming the pen for bad legislation. One of the founding tenants of > science is 'root cause'. At this point, gun safety has been reduced to an > emotional subject, nothing more. The popular discussion has nothing to do > with the root cause of the issues around accidents or that cause someone > think it's OK to kill. Criminal control (and perhaps people control, to the extent allowed by law) would probably work much better. Jeff ___ 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.
Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:16 AM, wrote: > On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:04:03 -0400, Jeffrey Walton said: >> When I lived in Georgia in the 1990s, one of its counties passed an >> ordnance requiring all citizens own a gun. Around the same time, a >> county in Chicago passed a ordinance banning guns. Do you want to take >> a guess at which county experienced an increase in crime, and which >> experienced a decrease? > > Multiple studies have shows that access to guns is only one very small part > of what drives the *reported* crime rate. Economic and educational conditions > in the area, and the resident's relationship with the police, have a much > higher impact on how many crimes get committed, and how many get reported. > >> Anyway, the debate is not a religion to me as long as I can own one to >> rise against the government if needed. > > Oh, bother. If more of the "rise against the government if needed" crowd > was realistic about that, we could actually have rational discussions about > gun control. Sometimes the threat of action is more compelling than the act itself (Sun Tzu). > There's a whole lot more to doing an effective resistance than just "I have > a gun". But except for some militia groups that actually train, none of > the "rise against the government" crowd want to admit it. Yes, you're right. There are better ways to approach that problem (http://www.aeinstein.org). > Remember - if it comes to that, you're going against people who do that > shit day in day out for a living. And yet, mandating a tour in the National > Guard so people have seen it and learned it *before* the bullets start flying > doesn't go over very well with the gun-rights crew (who see any sort of > mandatory training requirement as an infringement). Right. There are better ways to approach that problem (http://www.aeinstein.org). The citizens, the military, and law enforcement are all victims of the same hypocrisy. There's no reason that they should fight amongst themselves. Jeff ___ 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.
Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
The error in the 'science', IMHO, is the blaming an inanimate object for the actions of people. By definition, an inanimate object is just that. This is like blaming the pen for bad legislation. One of the founding tenants of science is 'root cause'. At this point, gun safety has been reduced to an emotional subject, nothing more. The popular discussion has nothing to do with the root cause of the issues around accidents or that cause someone think it's OK to kill. To put things a little more into perspective, about 292 people are killed every year by people backing over them with their SUVs (103 of these annual fatalities are children) - another 18,000 are injured - every year. We could discuss the many perceived evils of SUVs, including their implication in the deaths of so many of our innocent children and other loved ones every year (i.e. make it an emotional discussion), but instead of banning them under emotional pretext, educational programs are undertaken, and efforts are undertaken (pardon the pun) to make them easier to operate safely, such as backup cameras, sensors, and reduced blind spots: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/backover.aspx http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Child+Safety/Keeping+Kids+Safe+-+Backove r Once the discussion gets to root cause, there will be progress in not only firearms safety, but several other related areas. Until then, I believe we are wasting time and energy, not to mention money. Just my $0.02. >-Original Message- >From: funsec-boun...@linuxbox.org [mailto:funsec-boun...@linuxbox.org] >On Behalf Of Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah >Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 17:23 >To: funsec@linuxbox.org >Subject: [funsec] Risk analysis > >Oh, hey, what do you know? There's actually scientific data showing >that having lots of guns around is a bad idea ... > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gun-science-proves- >arming- >untrained-citizens-bad-idea > >or > >http://links.email.scientificamerican.com/ctt?kn=59&ms=NDE0ODIzNDQS1&r=N >TY1MTYxMjE0MQS2&b=2&j=MTg3NjgxMjA4S0&mt=1&rt=0 > > >== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) >rsl...@vcn.bc.ca sl...@victoria.tc.ca rsl...@computercrime.org >A scholar is just a library's way of making another library. >- Daniel Dennett >victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://www.infosecbc.org/links >http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/ >http://twitter.com/rslade >___ >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. ___ 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.
Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:04:03 -0400, Jeffrey Walton said: > When I lived in Georgia in the 1990s, one of its counties passed an > ordnance requiring all citizens own a gun. Around the same time, a > county in Chicago passed a ordinance banning guns. Do you want to take > a guess at which county experienced an increase in crime, and which > experienced a decrease? Multiple studies have shows that access to guns is only one very small part of what drives the *reported* crime rate. Economic and educational conditions in the area, and the resident's relationship with the police, have a much higher impact on how many crimes get committed, and how many get reported. > Anyway, the debate is not a religion to me as long as I can own one to > rise against the government if needed. Oh, bother. If more of the "rise against the government if needed" crowd was realistic about that, we could actually have rational discussions about gun control. OK. Everybody's got guns. They got a supply of ammo? They had recent marksmanship training, including shooting from behind cover, not just standing there at the range? They got a supply line? They got a leadership cadre? They got training in small-unit tactics? There's a whole lot more to doing an effective resistance than just "I have a gun". But except for some militia groups that actually train, none of the "rise against the government" crowd want to admit it. Remember - if it comes to that, you're going against people who do that shit day in day out for a living. And yet, mandating a tour in the National Guard so people have seen it and learned it *before* the bullets start flying doesn't go over very well with the gun-rights crew (who see any sort of mandatory training requirement as an infringement). pgpsR0W1gs5lR.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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.
Re: [funsec] Risk analysis
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote: > Oh, hey, what do you know? There's actually scientific data showing that > having > lots of guns around is a bad idea ... > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gun-science-proves-arming- > untrained-citizens-bad-idea When I lived in Georgia in the 1990s, one of its counties passed an ordnance requiring all citizens own a gun. Around the same time, a county in Chicago passed a ordinance banning guns. Do you want to take a guess at which county experienced an increase in crime, and which experienced a decrease? ARTICLE> Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute ARTICLE> Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home ARTICLE> was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, ARTICLE> there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal ARTICLE> assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed ARTICLE> suicides.” Stepping out of society via suicide is every person's right, regardless of what the states say (remember, many are they same states that murder its citizens with a death penalty). As for assaults and homicides - ATF's Project Gunrunner FTW? Anyway, the debate is not a religion to me as long as I can own one to rise against the government if needed. I don't care much about hunting :) Jeff ___ 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.
[funsec] Risk analysis
Oh, hey, what do you know? There's actually scientific data showing that having lots of guns around is a bad idea ... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gun-science-proves-arming- untrained-citizens-bad-idea or http://links.email.scientificamerican.com/ctt?kn=59&ms=NDE0ODIzNDQS1&r=N TY1MTYxMjE0MQS2&b=2&j=MTg3NjgxMjA4S0&mt=1&rt=0 == (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rsl...@vcn.bc.ca sl...@victoria.tc.ca rsl...@computercrime.org A scholar is just a library's way of making another library. - Daniel Dennett victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://www.infosecbc.org/links http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/ http://twitter.com/rslade ___ 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.
[funsec] Risk analysis in the stars
For roughly the past thousand years, all those of you who have been doing your security planning and risk analysis based on astrology have been doing it wrong. The stars have moved. newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horoscope-hang-up-earth-rotation-changes-zodiac- signs/ (I've been telling people this for quite a while, so I'm not sure why it's news, but it's nice to get some validation for my position :-) == (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rsl...@vcn.bc.ca sl...@victoria.tc.ca rsl...@computercrime.org He who asks is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask remains a fool forever. victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/slade/index.html http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/ http://www.infosecbc.org/links http://twitter.com/rslade ___ 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.
