Hacker News Reader

Comment by kiba | Hacker News Reader

I mean this just doesn't add up. There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security.

The poor latency of police response means that rampage killers(or anybody bent on harming anybody, really) can get away with killing several unarmed civilians before they can be stopped.

In theory, concealed carry individuals can put a stop to the rampage or at least keep the killer busy until the police arrive. You can google news stories about concealed arm carriers defending themselves. So it does works.

View on HN

You know what else works?

Locked doors. More guns is not the only, nor necessarily the most effective, solution.

That obviously depends on the door. Do you really think your home offers physical security?

I think perhaps you misunderstand what locks are for.

Locked doors are deterrents. Governments and lock makers do not assume/guarantee that locks are unassailable, they guarantee that they are unassailable for some unit of time.

Active shooter situations are usually counted on the order of minutes, and when you're dealing with minutes, locked doors certainly do matter.

They guarantee no such thing. A bump key will open most residential locks almost instantly[1]. A brick through a window works even faster.

You stated that locked doors were a solution to security when they are little more than security theater. They keep out only the people who would passively attempt to enter your home.

[1] http://youtu.be/131j0htYIoU?t=30s

We are talking about MIT, not my home.

I am well aware of bump keys, and how easy it is to bypass locks. That's what the whole scandal is. Companies are guaranteeing their locks are good for a certain amount of time, and their locks do not live up to their guarantees. But again, we are not talking about my home.

I would also love to hear figures on how many mass murderers carry bump keys on them? How many shootings do you recall where a gunman gained access using a bump key, or otherwise picked a lock?

Again, the lock is a deterrent.

There's plenty of discussion of the roles of locked doors in these sorts of situations. here's one: http://www.npr.org/2013/02/15/172130144/would-more-secure-do...

I'm not convinced locks are a sufficient deterrent in stopping people bent on mass murder. What if the attacker simply waited for a class period to end and pick people off walking between buildings? What if they were a student with authorized access to the building? What would prevent an unauthorized person from tailcoating an authorized individual into a building when it is busy?

You offer up locks as a solution to this problem and I'm merely pointing out that I think they are grossly inadequate.

The claim I am making is not that locked doors will stop a shooter from shooting anyone. I am saying that locked doors will make him less effective at shooting many people.

Once someone decides they're going to take a gun and start killing people, it's non-trivial to stop them. That doesn't mean that we can't reduce the number of people they can shoot at and kill. That's where closing off the avenues that a shooter can take is effective.

And even if someone did wait for classes to let out, firing a gun and killing people at a distance is not easy. You start shooting at people, and presumably they'll scatter.

Locks are deterrents in the same way that a software firewall is, they only work when you are viewed as a random target. Most people are excessively lazy, so a random criminal, might not want to take the 15 extra seconds it would take to break into your house.

If, however, someone had a reason to break into YOUR house specifically(could be as simple a motive as you having a really expensive car parked in your driveway compared to the neighors), a locked door would be a laugably ineffective security measure, because he could get through one of your windows in just a few seconds.

Agreed, but the mass murders that we've seen in the past several years do not typically (I'm not aware of any cases at least) involve lock circumvention.

Additionally the process of circumventing a lock requires time, effort, at least a little practice and familiarity with the tools, which most of these guys do not invest into their murder sprees. Whether a lock can be broken is a different matter from whether a lock will slow down an assailant unless the lock offers no resistance.

I agree that there hasn't been a precedent for mass murderers circumventing locks, but that's partly due to the fact that mass murders typically occur in public, where doors are kept unlocked for the most part.

Some lock circumvention techniques take almost no skill, and no time at all. I've seen cipher locks that cost thousands circumvented by lightly tapping the housing with a rubber mallet or sticking a paperclip through a gap near the LED to create a short. I've seen people open locks with a piece of toilet paper or a key that was milled using a photograph taken of a key-chain on someone's belt from across a parking-lot.

Right, but think about the mechanics of this.

Shooter has his gun(s) out, he approaches door, he now has to holster gun, get out bump key, focus on and fiddle with door, and once it's unlocked, open up the door, unholster his weapon, and then enter the door.

How many times do you think the shooter is going to expose himself like that? Does that feed into the fantasy of stalking people through the hallways shooting them?

Soldiers used to struggle with this issue, but someone (probably a Soldier) invented a new type of sling that eliminates it. With the old slings, basically every time you needed to use your hands, you had to sling your weapon on your back, but the newer version keeps your weapon suspended in front of you, a little lower than chest level. All you have to do is let go, and your weapon stays exactly where you need it.

If a shooter is using a handgun, well with just a little bit of practice, you can learn to draw a handgun in a fraction of a second.

Basically, I don't think it's a good idea to assume what will or will not be reasonable in the eyes of a mass-murdering lunatic.

We can't be indoors all the time. Perhaps a locking endoskeleton, like knights-in-armour would suit your taste? I've read of such in sci-fi.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com