Schneier on Security

Quandary • May 3, 2007 9:39 AM

@bob, hullu

There isn’t a critical mass, and even if there were, crimes such as rape are not necessarily carried out by those who can perform a level risk analysis. Also, in the stalker scenario, even a concealed/disguised weapon would be known, because the perp has carefully staked out and monitored the target. This completely negates the usefulness of concealment. Furthermore, if I remember my statistics correctly, most rapes are carried out by someone the victim knows — it’s not a random crime, which again increases the likelihood that the perp already knows about the weapon.

Now, in the mugger scenario, the perp is going to pick a target that looks like a pushover. Body language and other indicators are how the perp is going to pick the mark out; while we’re making analogies, it’s like a wolf looking for the sick or injured-looking deer. The trick for the potential marks, then, is to look as not-sick-or-injured as possible (“I’ll fight!”). In this case, too, the concealed weapon is much less useful, except in the case where (a) you give off the “I’m a mark!” body language, and (b) you’re really a fighter. This leads back to my original comment: such a concealed device is pretty useless unless you’re looking for trouble.

Quandary • May 3, 2007 8:22 PM

@Just to add

Minor correction: deterrent implies that it will cause someone who would otherwise commit a crime to decide not to commit that crime (i.e., it will deter them and prevent the crime, as opposed to stopping the crime, which can happen only after the crime has started). A concealed weapon cannot be a deterrent, because someone contemplating the crime would (if the concealment is working) not know about it. So, apart from some minor phrasing, you’re absolutely right. I argue that a non-concealed weapon (or imitation) has the additional bonus of being a deterrent. I also argue that prevention is better than cure.

You are also correct in that tasers are weapons, which can be used for self defense. However, the only reason I can see to make a weapon look like a non-weapon is deceit — e.g., to get through airport security, or into a nightclub, or whatever (as others have pointed out). Thus, my original statement — that there’s no reason for such a thing to exist unless you’re intending to trick others into believing you’re unarmed — still holds. I also can’t think of any situation where knowingly slipping a weapon past security is legal. At what point have you crossed the line from “self defense” to “weapons smuggling”?

Ideally, we wouldn’t have to carry weapons at all. Less ideally, but more realistically, we could all carry weapons anywhere and everywhere. What we presently have is a situation where only Bad Guys are going to have access to weapons, because law-abiding Good Guys will, of course, turn over all their weapons when entering an area where weapons aren’t allowed. In some cases, certain folks who are otherwise Good Guys might sneak things past security in a push towards the weapons-everywhere way, but they shouldn’t have to (and are likely to get in trouble if caught). But I digress… 🙂