3 ms·

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 guar

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-doors-have-slowed-newtown-shooter http://www.npr.org/2013/02/15/172130144/would-more-secure-do...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Simucal 14y ago
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.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  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.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Simucal 14y ago

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.

knowtheory 14y ago
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.