Careby
Member
Originally posted by Model520Fan:
Careby,
Theoretically, an unauthorized person might have ammo, but not a common key, particularly if you don't want to carry your speedloaders and six loose cartridges in your pants pocket when you hang up your coat.
Frankly, I consider the IL a very weak solution to a slightly unusual problem, but I don't think that it is completely wasted, or at least wouldn't be wasted if they could make a reliable one.
520
I get that but theoretically it would be easier for an "unauthorized person" to carry one S&W key than to carry ammo for every different caliber S&W revolver they might find. I don't mean it to be a frivolous argument, it's just that IF you decide it's desirable to compromise readiness and (potentially) reliability to gain safety and security, then your solution should actually provide that safety and security, and not just the illusion of it. I am dealing with a similar issue right now with computer passwords at an institution with which I am affiliated. For security it was decided to require complex passwords that expire every three months. This resulted in people often forgetting (or writing on a post-it note) their passwords. This required implementing a way to allow users to reset forgotten passwords. The personal information required for a user to reset their password (a) never changes, and (b) is composed entirely of simple letters and numbers. My argument is that while users now have the inconvenience that goes with complex passwords, they did not get the security - only the illusion thereof.
I agree the IL is weak. Whether or not it is so weak as to not be worth its added cost and risk is a matter of opinion. In reality it was probably never a matter of safety or security, just politics.