Et puis... I stick my toe into the sand and find a few heads buried therein.
Security is managing risk. Risks are both "perceived risks" and "measurable risks". Risk Management is how risks are dealt with and at what level. Residual Risk is what risk you are willing to accept. Risk Mitigation is how you go about managing those risks. In some scenarios: Gun = tool for managing risks: Brian wants to have the ability to manage risks "hands-on" (pun not intended). DrSolly would like his risks managed externally. Gadi has had hands-on risk management in the past but now has opted for a "mixed solution". If (IF!!) in-duh-viduals decide for themselves what is or is not an acceptable level of risk and determine what tools and methods they would like to employ, that's well and good. But if society (as a factor of the will of the masses) decides certain risks management tools are unacceptable, then they have the choice (in our collective cases) to migrate to where they can exercise their own levels of risk management. In some cases (tip of the hat to Brian here) the in-duh-viduals are incapable of exercising their right to migrate (from oppressive societies or due to ignorance of external climates) then the point is moot. The reality (as I see it) is that we DO live in a free society when it comes to being able to manage our personal risks as we deem fit. Move to Texas and carry open or concealed and take your chances. Move to Montreal where the police are not afraid to "take out a gunman aggressively"* or live in Taos, NM where everyone suspects someone else of carrying, but nobody really does. You have the option to manage your personal risks as you please, but maybe not where you now live. The trade-off is to gain the freedoms you desire at the risk of losing the benefits of what you have today. *Disclaimer: I moved from California to Montreal and given the difference in how police act and react around here, I feel a lot safer here than I ever did in Cali. I blame this on overly litigious lawyers who still prey upon the prejudices against police and make police forces (the administration, not the officers) timid when it comes to taking decisive action. I have owned guns in the past but do not today. I have used them in war (I’d tell you what I carried, but that would give my age away), for hunting and for target practice. I was trained to use them in self-defence, but do not carry today because of the Cardinal Rule drilled into my thick skull: You carry only if you have the intent to draw the weapon; you draw the weapon only with the intent to fire it; you fire the weapon only with the intent to kill your attacker. You carry with the intent to kill and the will to do so. I don’t have that will anymore. I manage my risk by living where I do not feel threatened and where I feel my family is safe. ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Loe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 13, 2007 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [funsec] Never forget... On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True. Guns can't defend against statistically probable death > scenarios like drowning in the pool and bathtub, car accidents, > yada yada. What is their use anyhow? Countermeasure against > statistically improbable situations like marauding criminals, > Japanese halloweeners, and genocidal governments? If you're finding > that these things are not statistically improbable then time for a > change of scenery. If you are living in fear of the improbable then > your comfort, security, and freedom have already been compromised. It is statistically improbable that I will be in a car wreck tomorrow, doesn't mean that I shouldn't wear my seatbelt. That's a non-argument. You don't prepare for only the things you know are going to happen. But, I'm wasting my time here, aren't I? You are all, in theory, in the security field. You already KNOW about threat levels, defensive postures, etc., etc. - you just REFUSE to see a gun in the same way you see a firewall or proxy or wire cutters. Frankly, its not all that likely that the company I work for is going to be hacked by the next new exploit, doesn't mean we should stop updating our equipment! Its not likely that someone is going to enter the building and gain access to our network for malicious purposes, doesn't mean we shouldn't keep the data center's door locked! Its not likely that my wife will be raped, doesn't mean she shouldn't have the opportunity to save herself (and prevent the would be rapist from ever raping again)!! Frankly, and I think I've said this before, I can't believe we have these discussions on this type of list. It SHOULD be a "duh shit" argument for people who's purpose in life is to defend <something>. _______________________________________________ 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.
