Unpleasant realiy

[kengr]

The talking heads (both news and politicians) are talking about preventing incidents like the bombs at the Boston Marathon.

The reality is that this is an *impossible* goal. It is not remotely possible to completely prevent bombings and other terrorist acts.
Two relevant data points: there were terrorist attacks (not a lot, but still *some*) in the USSR. And llook how well banning weapons works in prison.

Since the USSR and prisons are both far "stricter" than anything the public *should* be willing to accept, that pretty much proves that we can't *stop* such things.

We can discourage them. We can track down people after they occur. But anyone claiming they can prevent them is either lying (and has an agenda you won't like) or deluded.

Also, beware of the "if it saves one life" arguments. You may not like it, but saving lives has a *cost*. Sometimes in money, sometimes in less tangible things. So consider what the "if it saves one life" people are asking you to pay. Be it increased taxes, lessened freedom or other "inconveniences" (note that one man's idea of an "inconvenience" may be a showstopper of a problem for another).

I'm sure there are folks who consider it heartless, but we really *do* need to do cost/benefit analysis on even stuff like this. And yes, different people will see the "costs" and benefits differently.

Keep an important example in mind. Ralph Nader, way back in the late 60s helped *force* airbags to be added to cars. A quarter century later, he was arguing against them because there were instances where they increased the hazards. Also note that he had denigrated the car compnies for saying they needed more testing way back when.

We need to make sure we don't make similar *or worse* mistakes in adopting measures to make us "safer" from "terrorists". And we need to pay attention to the folks arguing *against* the "safety" measures.

Comments

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

I think Nader was promoting seat belts, not airbags, back in the Sixties.

Otherwise, yeah. Full agreement.

People forget just how long there have been "mad bombers" and how many bombings there have been. In pretty much every society, for nearly as long as the technology has been good enough to make such things practical. (Perhaps longer, given the delusional nature of some bombers. I have vague memories of hearing about a bomb plot where the ignition device was a flintlock mechanism connected to a crude clock. Which failed because the clock stopped when the box containing the bomb was shipped to the target.)

Even if we could identify every person with whatever mental quirks make someone plant bombs or shoot children, there would likely be so many false positives at least some would escape attention. Until they acted.

Benjamin Franklin was right.

[kengr]

Nope. I recall one of John W, Campbell's editorials that *specifically* addressed Nader's pushing for airbags (remember, seatbelts are a *1950s* tech). And mentioning that the car companies were pointing out that airbags hadn't been tested enough.

Imagine my annoyance at Nader lambasting the car companies for not doing enough testing on airbags when the "short people and kids" issue (and others) came up. Even more annoying was that since it was so "long ago" none of the news organizations remembered it either.

Then again, the news folks didn't ever point out that the first shuttle disaster was *directly* traceable to Congress refusing to fund the liquid fueled boosters that were originally specified.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

I think I was confusing efforts of others to get auto manufacturers to install seat belts in the Sixties with Nader's work. (Stunt drivers were using padded restraints by at least the late Thirties.) Most car makers didn't want to install seat belts for fear buyers would think their cars were unsafe (which they were). A few - mostly smaller companies looking for an edge - not only installed them but bragged about those and other safety measures.

I started engineering college in the Fall of 1973. Civil Engineering, in the Transportation track. We studied vehicle safety measures - which were still new and primitive compared to today - in some of my classes. However, I have a terrible memory and that was forty years ago. :-)

I remember the days of unpadded steel dashes, hard steering wheels and slick bench seats.

Two things from early in the Shuttle program:

A company in Florida submitted a proposal for solid boosters which were unsegmented. Because they were local shipping the full-sized boosters in one piece was not a serious problem. IIRC, their bid was even cheaper than Thiokol's. However, Thiokol was the big dog, with the track record.

Another company submitted a bid for an Orbiter escape system. A solid rocket motor between the main engines could ignite on a signal from burn-through sensors on the boosters. It had enough thrust and impulse to carry a fully-loaded Orbiter high enough for a safe glide to landing. If there was no emergency, it would be burned in the late stages of orbital insertion. NASA rejected the idea.

[kengr]

People forget just how long there have been "mad bombers" and how many bombings there have been. In pretty much every society, for nearly as long as the technology has been good enough to make such things practical. (Perhaps longer, given the delusional nature of some bombers. I have vague memories of hearing about a bomb plot where the ignition device was a flintlock mechanism connected to a crude clock. Which failed because the clock stopped when the box containing the bomb was shipped to the target.)

The worst school massacre in US history was the school janitor *blowing up* the school. About a century back.

And it's not just bombers. Tech is making it "easier" to slaughter lots of people. But then the fact that there are more people (and more places they gather) makes it easier too. So does the fact that the number of police per citizen has been dropping for a *long* time. False cost savings there.

Local stupid idea. The county commissioners are reportedly considering revising the county gun laws to make it illegal to have a loaded gun in public (yes, there is an exception for concealed carry permit holders).

As well as stricter requirements on locking up guns and fines for allowing "children" access to them.

Given that I learned gun safety at summer camp, and attended a high school that had a gun club, I consider that last a bit extreme unless carefully worded.

And really, the first bit (about loaded weapons) is not going to have *any* effect of folks who are going to go on shooting sprees. After all, that's illegal *anyway*. Never heard of them spotting someone *before* the spree. So all it does is restrict law-abiding citizens, given that open carry is legal.

Even if we could identify every person with whatever mental quirks make someone plant bombs or shoot children, there would likely be so many false positives at least some would escape attention. Until they acted.

More to the point, it'd be thoughtcrime. Not a good place to go.

Restoring mental health budgets and working to eliminate bullying (both at school and on the job) would be far better. Getting rid of bullying (and toxic school & job environments) would reduce the number of folks who get driven to such states.

Better & more available mental health services will aid to reduce the odds that folks will react to the stresses by killing others.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

Hope this isn't rambling. I did a *lot* of editing and rethinking.

A few years ago, there was *not* a shooting at a southeastern Kentucky college.

Oh, one of the students meant to start one. He came to campus carrying a rifle (and I think other weapons). A teacher spotted the armed man walking across a lawn, went to his car and got his own gun, got the drop on the student from cover, and made him surrender. No-one hurt.

I agree about the danger of overreacting to false positives. (How many children in the US are currently on mood-altering drugs just because they're bright, inquisitive and active?) Also about the need to improve mental health care (in fact, all health care) in the US.

I also think those psychiatrists and psychologists who are saying it's impossible to predict whether someone might commit such a crime should be fired and people who will actually make an effort to develop predictive measures be hired in their places. Even if the result is simply a better diagnostic tool, that could greatly improve the situation. We'll never know if we don't try. (This may just be the engineer in me talking. We are almost compelled to fix things.)

More generally, people need to be willing to help their family, friends and neighbors when they see someone hurting. While being careful about respecting privacy and individual rights.

Yes, it's a delicate balance. Maybe an impossible one. If we don't try then we as a society have failed some of our members.