NoVA Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Messages
- 178
But one more time, it is completely irrelevant to the FBI's recommendation.
Hmmm. We could have avoided all this back and forth if were up front about your involvement with FBI team that made the decision.
Seriously though, neither you nor I can say what was and was not relevant to the FBI's recommendation. If you believe that all considerations were published in the official report, I've got a bridge to sell you at a great price. That does not mean it was maliciously left out, but how a person weights and prioritizes risk/factors in a decision making process are influenced by many things.
Again, I'm not claiming anything. This whole time I've been simply been saying that likelihood of incidents CAN be used in the decision process and CAN be relevant.
Nor would anyone experienced in risk management ever take that into account.
It is a true fact, but it is irrelevant.
So, why doesn't the FBI issue full automatic weapons to all its agents? Might it have something to do with the fact that the likelihood that that type of firearm will be needed is not very high? The likelihood of needing suppression fire in a shooting incident is so low that arming their agents with said weapon would be wasteful. Seems like it could be relevant.
If the decision has been made to mitigate a risk, the method of mitigation will not be influenced by the likelihood of occurrence.
Sigh. You cannot see the forest for the trees. You have made a very general and incorrect statement.
1. Mitigation is OF COURSE influenced be likelihood of occurrence. Remember that priority matrix I mentioned? If a risk is a high priority, mitigation may be more aggressive than if a risk is low priority. And what is one factor that influences priority? PROBABILITY. Let's look a a simple example.
Risk: When I go over the speed limit, I may get a speeding ticket.
Impact: (for sake of the example) Low. I pay a $100 fine.
Probability A: Low. Hundreds of cars are speeding and LEO only stop cars going more than 10 MPH over the limit.
Mitigation A: Don't go more than 10 MPH over the speed limit as long as I'm not the only car.
Probability B: High. There's a LEO every mile stopping every car that is over the limit
Mitigation B: Don't go over the speed limit
Basic example, but the mitigation changes based on the LIKELIHOOD of the risk being realized. Just ask yourself, do you slow down when there's a cop on the side of highway? What's changed? Will a ticket cost more or add more points to your licence just because he's there? Nope. It's because the likelihood of being pulled over is greater.
2. The decision itself to mitigate IS BASED on the likelihood of the risk being realized. This goes back to the viability of the risk. A person/business/agency simply cannot be burdened with planning for all possible risks. I risk being hit by lightning every time I go outside. Do I mitigate this risk? Nope, because the likelihood is so negligible that any effort spent mitigating it is wasteful.
3. Not all decision factors being looked at are independent entities. It's a common mistake to dismiss/overlook the factors that went into the decision making process because they have become nearly second nature (subconscious). When choosing your carry weapon, was price a factor? Did you buy the very best possible gun available? I don't know anyone who has. IMO, my carry gun is very good. I shoot it well, it handles well, it's very reliable and well made. However, it's not the best gun I've ever fired. The reason I didn't get one of the other guns was because the prices were 2 to 3 times higher. Cost played a role in my carry choice (like I suspect with most people). And here's the crux of my argument. That line that was drawn of how much I was willing to pay was, in some part, based on the LIKELIHOOD I would need to use the gun. The higher the likelihood of needing it, the higher (even if only a small amount) that cost line would go up. Likelihood was a secondary factor in the cost analysis decision. There are many examples like this where risks/factors become 'second nature' and the assessment is rolled up into one big decision. Experienced risk managers will recognize this enabling them to make a better decision by analyzing each factor on its own and how they interact.
4. This happens all the time. It's the basis for actuary tables. Your insurance premiums (mitigation) are based on likelihood a person is going to have a need for that service. Smoke? You health insurance will be higher due to the higher likelihood you will need to use it. Got points on your licence? Your car insurance will go up due the statistical likelihood that a person with many moving violations will have a higher rate of accidents.