In the engineering world, when it comes to designing safety into equipment, there is what is called the "hierarchy of controls". This can be represented by a graph such as this:
http://machinerysafety101.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Hierarchy-of-Controls-Slide.jpg
So i was thinking: how might this engineering concept be applied to stopping mass murders?
Well, to solve a problem we must first define the problem that is to be addressed. I suggest for this discussion, the problem on everbody's mind is what can we do to stop defenseless people from dying at the hands of evil people in mass murder events.
If we apply this hierarchy to preventing tragic events such as those at Sandy Hook how might the categories be addressed?
PPE: this is the least effective means of preventing injury. If you've worked in industry you know that even if you're required to wear safety glasses, for example, there are still eye injuries. That's because the hazards still exist and PPE is only effective if worn correctly, is correctly selected for the existing hazards, etc.
So PPE to prevent school mass murders, what can we do? I've recently seen on tv where you can buy bullet proof backpacks for your kids. Well, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see how ineffective these could be. Is there other means of PPE? I don't think it's likely you'll have teachers clamoring for body armor, especially when they find out how uncomfortable it would be to wear every day, especially when weighed against the odds of ever being in a mass murder scenerio for the average American citizen.
Inform/Awarness: For the sake of arguement, I'll pile these two together. I suggest these could include disaster plans, "fire" drills (no pun intended), first aid training, and the like. While these may help the potential victims understand what to do in the event or in the aftermath of an act of evil, it still doesn't stop the act of evil from occurring.
Often times these work hand in hand with PPE and Engineering Controls. If you aren't trained on the use of your bullet proof backpack, you may quite likely use it wrong and render it ineffective.
Engineering Controls: I contend these include things like alarms, on-site police officers, entrance controls, etc. this is the level most people in this discussion are focusing. Locking unauthorized people out is certainly better than giving first aid after the fact or trying to hide in a corner hoping he goes away. Engineering controls can be quite effective. But as in industry, to somebody intent on defeating them, are not 100% effective. One can design in all kinds of safety gates, control interlocks, etc. into the process. But if that employee decides to do something unsafe, s/he can always figure out a way to bypass or defeat the controls. The same would hold true with a cunning, maniacal, would-be mass murderer. S/he can defeat a locked door, charm his way past a guard, etc. these measures may deter and even stop some, but they can't catch them all, the smartest, the most ruthless.
So what is left? Elimination of the hazard. As an example to help illustrate this concept, suppose in order to manfacture some product, the typical process calls for some harsh chemical. This chemical may present, say-- a nervous system hazard if the employee is exposed to it for prolonged period of time. Suppose an alternative process is known that uses a benign chemical or even doesn't require one at all. The elimination of the hazard is the best way to keep the employee safe. If the hazard is never presented, then you never have to guard from it, develop safety protocols, or prescribe PPE...it always works and by definition, cannot fail.
All of the things being proposed to stop mass-murders cannot help but fail because the hazards are still out there. As long as there are people with evil in their hearts or something mentally deficient, the hazard lurks.
I wish this discussion led to a solution, but with people being as they are and our society as it is, I don't know that we can ever totally eliminate this hazard. We might be able to eliminate a repeat offense. But that won't help the victims of the earlier crimes of a particular apprehended criminal. Any attempt to indentify people that might be mass murders and prevent them from ever committing the crime is probably unconstitutional and likely cannot be 100% effective.
So I guess, in summary, no matter what our elected politicians come up with, no matter how highly touted, no matter whether it's the NRA, SAF, GOA, Joe Biden, or Diane Finestein it will fail...sooner or later. Which, I suppose, is not a surprise to most thinking people. But I thought it was interesting to explore how a common engineering concept could be applied to this problem.
http://machinerysafety101.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Hierarchy-of-Controls-Slide.jpg
So i was thinking: how might this engineering concept be applied to stopping mass murders?
Well, to solve a problem we must first define the problem that is to be addressed. I suggest for this discussion, the problem on everbody's mind is what can we do to stop defenseless people from dying at the hands of evil people in mass murder events.
If we apply this hierarchy to preventing tragic events such as those at Sandy Hook how might the categories be addressed?
PPE: this is the least effective means of preventing injury. If you've worked in industry you know that even if you're required to wear safety glasses, for example, there are still eye injuries. That's because the hazards still exist and PPE is only effective if worn correctly, is correctly selected for the existing hazards, etc.
So PPE to prevent school mass murders, what can we do? I've recently seen on tv where you can buy bullet proof backpacks for your kids. Well, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see how ineffective these could be. Is there other means of PPE? I don't think it's likely you'll have teachers clamoring for body armor, especially when they find out how uncomfortable it would be to wear every day, especially when weighed against the odds of ever being in a mass murder scenerio for the average American citizen.
Inform/Awarness: For the sake of arguement, I'll pile these two together. I suggest these could include disaster plans, "fire" drills (no pun intended), first aid training, and the like. While these may help the potential victims understand what to do in the event or in the aftermath of an act of evil, it still doesn't stop the act of evil from occurring.
Often times these work hand in hand with PPE and Engineering Controls. If you aren't trained on the use of your bullet proof backpack, you may quite likely use it wrong and render it ineffective.
Engineering Controls: I contend these include things like alarms, on-site police officers, entrance controls, etc. this is the level most people in this discussion are focusing. Locking unauthorized people out is certainly better than giving first aid after the fact or trying to hide in a corner hoping he goes away. Engineering controls can be quite effective. But as in industry, to somebody intent on defeating them, are not 100% effective. One can design in all kinds of safety gates, control interlocks, etc. into the process. But if that employee decides to do something unsafe, s/he can always figure out a way to bypass or defeat the controls. The same would hold true with a cunning, maniacal, would-be mass murderer. S/he can defeat a locked door, charm his way past a guard, etc. these measures may deter and even stop some, but they can't catch them all, the smartest, the most ruthless.
So what is left? Elimination of the hazard. As an example to help illustrate this concept, suppose in order to manfacture some product, the typical process calls for some harsh chemical. This chemical may present, say-- a nervous system hazard if the employee is exposed to it for prolonged period of time. Suppose an alternative process is known that uses a benign chemical or even doesn't require one at all. The elimination of the hazard is the best way to keep the employee safe. If the hazard is never presented, then you never have to guard from it, develop safety protocols, or prescribe PPE...it always works and by definition, cannot fail.
All of the things being proposed to stop mass-murders cannot help but fail because the hazards are still out there. As long as there are people with evil in their hearts or something mentally deficient, the hazard lurks.
I wish this discussion led to a solution, but with people being as they are and our society as it is, I don't know that we can ever totally eliminate this hazard. We might be able to eliminate a repeat offense. But that won't help the victims of the earlier crimes of a particular apprehended criminal. Any attempt to indentify people that might be mass murders and prevent them from ever committing the crime is probably unconstitutional and likely cannot be 100% effective.
So I guess, in summary, no matter what our elected politicians come up with, no matter how highly touted, no matter whether it's the NRA, SAF, GOA, Joe Biden, or Diane Finestein it will fail...sooner or later. Which, I suppose, is not a surprise to most thinking people. But I thought it was interesting to explore how a common engineering concept could be applied to this problem.
Last edited:
).. this imaginary hazardous chemical does exist and is required for manufacturing in your scenario. What types of 'safety measures' are in place in the event of a spill ? (because, we are human, and we do make mistakes).. 
