Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • November 28, 2011 7:03 AM

@ John Gault III, Nick P,

You are bringing normal distrubution tail arguments to the table…

Yes there are people who are naturaly wired up to go out to kill for pleasure but by and large they are very thin on the ground these days. In times past they were important to the defence of a community from external aggressors often providing the “lead into battle”.

These “berzerkers” / “nutters” actually provide a catalyst for others who whilst their brains are wired up more normaly have a very poor aversion to risk. And again in times past they provided protection for the community and were between 20-30% of the general male population (remember life expectancy for men back then was early fourties).

Usually they were in their teens and twenties and represented a significant percentage of that population (ie over a half). It has been argued that the strange behaviour of teenagers that usually develops into risk taking sports is a hangover from this.

However most street and home breaking criminals are actualy career cowards with bravado, that is they basicaly want to get away with stuff of value, not suffer broken bones or oozing blood.

Thus they put up a front to provide distance between them and those who actually represent a threat to them. In nature a deep booming voice generaly discorages rivals not so well endowed irespective of their actual physical state.

However where gang culture exists and LEO presence is low it changes the game dynamics from modern society back to tribalism, it’s nolonger a case of “act tough to stay safe” the gang hierarchies usually have atleast on “nutter” who’s brain is not wired up correctly, and the gang members know that that person will turn on them and kill them if they don’t walk the walk as well as talk it. Often the nutter can be identified by their age, as unlike the other members who grow out of their teens and the violence the nutter is locked in by their brain.

Hence the “tail probabilities” you describe respectivly.

What you don’t cover is the victim type probabilities.

That is there is a question of the potential victims behaviour, ordinary people do not routienly see let alone practice violence. Even if they have had training they generaly don’t keep up the required level of fitness or practice in dealing with violence.

Often the victim has been selected as a victim because they look like they have an inability to fight back (or the opposit in the case of “nutters with something to prove”).

To be honest though most people are proto-victims simply because they neither pay attention or can run at a sprint for 300meters (effective maximum range for the majority of hand guns) and not colapse in a heap let alone take avoiding action whilst doing it.

Then there is the question of their mental performance, not only are they not paying attention, by far the majority of people are bystanders not reactors. They stand their with their mouths half open whilst their brain trys to deal with what their eyes are telling them, by which time their goose is cooked.

Thus they have lost the significant first few seconds, thus can not get the mace out of their handbag reach for the whistle or even use anything they actually have in their hands as a weapon. As for getting a gun out of a pocket or bag not a chance. Even those with the appropriate holsters forget to put the appropriate weights etc into their clothes etc to prevent fouling. As for “quick on the draw” forget it few people do the two or three hours daily practice required, look up the British SAS “Killing House” training to get an idea of what’s required, and even they stand down on rotation because you just cannot maintain the level of mental alertness.

The best weapon any potential victim (which is all of us) has is always first and foremost situational awareness, ie pat attention to your immediate environment and what’s in it. It gives them advance warning whilst their potential attackers are still sizing them up at a distance, and robs the attackers of the first few vital seconds.

And this is in it’s self a problem, due to lack of experiance the potential victim cannot tell an actual threat that has to have action taken, a potential threat which will not progress if proportianate action (such as crossing the road) is taken and what they think is a threat but is not.

As I’ve remaked before the best place to be when violence is about to kick off is somewhere else, preferably in a calm physical and mental state, without the fight or flight hormones pumping around your system potentialy shortening your life (stress is a way way bigger killer than violence even on modern battle field levels of violence). Those stress hormones have to be “burnt off” if they are not to do you longterm harm and that means hard excercise in most cases and most especialy not caffeine or alcohol.

But what distance is a minimum, well consider it beyond the effective range that an attacker may use to “project violence”. So beyond the mad dash with flailing fists (20meters), beyond the distance of slow run and slashing movments of knife wielding (50meters), and if they have one beyond the range of any hand gun they might be carrying (300meter). The problem with much city life is many people can be well within 20meters of you when you are walking on the street which is what the likes of some street criminals (pick pockets etc) rely on.

The downside of “carrying concealed” is “Walter Mitty” mentality even well trained soldiers suffer from the mistaken belief they are better than they realy are as the cautionary saying goes “there’s old and there’s bold, but never old and bold”. The old saw about “he who runs away lives to fight another day” is more likley to see you right than a view point of “I’ve done the course now I’m walking tall”. To be in reality, what the “Walter Mitty types” daydream they are, requires long hard and continuous training that very few are physicaly or mentaly prepared for, or if they are have the time for.

If you want to know just how bad the “Walter Mitty” effect is versus training, have a look at Afghanistan, most Afghan men carry loaded AK47’s, but few actually know how to use them even remotly effectivly. They have a habit of firing “John Wayne style” from the hip in “spray and pray mode” the result is the Talib have a very very high mortality rate, often running into a hundred to one against trained foot soldiers in non ambush fire fights.

However the Talib are learning and tend to prefere ambush attacks these days with heavy machine guns and RPG’s. So even with the open fire fight statistic the prefered method of dealing with Talib these days from the ground is precision use weapons such as 0.5 inch sniper rifles at and beyond 200meters, and smart weapons such as javelin missiles. Failing that from the air with other precision or smart weapons such as 70mm rockets, 500lb pound air burst iron bombs with smart guidance such as paveway IV or 1000lb+ iron bombs equipped with smart weapons such as the paveway II or JDAM systems. But at the end of the day it is a war of attrition and the Talib appear to have no difficulty in using money (from drugs), drugs, terror and indoctrination to find young male recruits to stand there and take a bullet for their cause.