Slashdot Mirror
UCSD Lecturer Releases Geotagging Application For "Dangerous Guns and Owners"
NF6X writes "UCSD Lecturer Brett Stallbaum has released an Android app called Gun Geo Marker to allow people to 'Geolocate Dangerous Guns and Owners.' The app description states:
'The Gun Geo Marker operates very simply, letting parents and community members mark, or geolocate, sites associated with potentially unsafe guns and gun owners. These locations are typically the homes or businesses of suspected unsafe gun owners, but might also be public lands or other locations where guns are not handled safely, or situations where proper rights to own or use any particular type of firearm may not exist.' I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party."
"As a crowd sourced information tool, the information about dangerous gun sites comes from users." In other words, if I have a grudge against my neighbor, or just want to mess with somebody, can I just post that they are "dangerous" and their home/location appears in the app??
A long time ago, some people at UT Austin put signs in front of dorms listing "potential rapists" that had the names of all male residents. Indiscriminate and unsubstantiated accusations do not serve a useful purpose.
Criminals rejoice! No longer do you have to randomly break in to houses to see what there is to steal. There's now an app to tell you exactly which houses to rob.
aren't they?
Not as dangerous as lecturers at public universities. I think I will write an app that allows you to geotag your local professors, track their license plates, and give you hints and tips on how to heckle them and ruin their lives for doing things that you may or may not agree with.
Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.
This is worse. At least the latter were proven to be sex offenders in court (flawed as the process may be) according to the summary, no actual proof is needed to end up on the map.
Might want to read the constitution again. Your understanding of the second amendment is lacking...
Hadn't you heard? After a persistent astroturfing campaign, more Americans think Edward Snowden is a traitor than otherwise. They're obviously fine with a surveillance state, so this app is perfectly acceptable.
Right?
I'd like to see the results of a survey that correlates opinions of Snowden with opinions about this database. Wanna bet there's a substantial overlap of people who can simultaneously believe Snowden is a traitor while believing this database and app are wrong? While being blissfully unaware of the contradiction.
Such is the power of the modern propaganda machine.
Why isn't the argument basis for geotagging potentially violent people of any stripe, no matter what their weapon of choice? Ah, it's the ideology. Bound to stir up some flamage.
You know? Yesterday, there was a bit of a protest as the local longshoremen decided to clog up our building and get noisy for a bit (the business they were protesting occupies a floor in the building). After seeing one of the protesters walking in with a sign nailed to a baseball bat (and a rather agitated look on his face), not to mention the rather battle-ready attitude of most the strikers (and then seeing this article today)? I kind of wonder why everyone fixates on weapons, when the problem is people... I mean, if the argument was about dangerous weapons, then maybe someone ought to geotag all the farmers who live next to truck stops, since a mixture of diesel fuel and fertilizer is way the hell more dangerous than a gun could ever be.
Given all of that, the argument is, IMHO, nothing more than a way to agitate for an ideology centered around what the guy considers to be a scary weapon... and nothing more. It's a means to put a stigma on gun owners that someone, somewhere thinks to be 'dangerous' (whatever that may mean) - much like one would geotag sex offenders or other 'undesireables' (in that person's mind).
Well, fair enough I guess, if that's what floats his ideological boat. Then again, I hope he can afford the potential lawsuit that would come from someone being incorrectly 'tagged'...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
First Amendment > Second Amendment.
Constitutional amendments are not arranged in a hierarchy.
"it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose"
Causing death is not ipso facto bad, if the person on the receiving end was performing or threatening violent assault, and thus triggered lawful self-defense. Context matters.
Stigma? My first thought was "I better tag my house" because even though I don't actually have a gun, I would like any potential thieves to think I do. Plus, where I come from (yes, Texas) gun ownership is seen as a good thing. People use their concealed carry permits as their preferred bragging type of state issued ID around here.
And this is less true of an SUV than it is of a gun? I don't think your distinction between items you categorize as "causes death only" and ones you categorize as "not built primarily for killing" is the most important one here.
The person you replied to made a valid, logical point about the person operating the killing device being the deciding factor in whether it causes a death. That's just as true for a driver running over her estranged lover repeatedly or plowing through a crowd at a mall in her SUV as it is for a shooter trying to see how many first graders he can kill.
That doesn't mean it's *only* the people at fault, just that they are a bigger factor than their chosen implement of destruction. Claiming "false dichotomy" is convenient and could be viewed as correct for a certain interpretation of the statements you replied to, but misses the point.
To paraphrase a fictional character from a popular movie, "A *person* is reasonable. *People* are dumb, stupid, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.", the weapon used, whether purpose-built or not, is a distant second to the wielder, in terms of what constitutes a danger.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
I am not a Gun Owner, but if I were, I don't want to be on a public list to say I am one of "those people".
The biggest problem I see is a lack of Gun Education, and proper handling of a firearm. For the most part (Yes they are exceptions) the Kids who grew up with parents with a Gun and were taught how to use a gun, actually tend not to be involved in Gun crimes. Because things like "Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person", "Take the Ammo out when you're done", "Put the gun in a safe place when not in use". After training these things become such a habit, that the idea of using a gun for violence is unthinkable. But Kid often grow up in area and are not taught gun safety, and politics tell people these things are bad, and you are bad if you have on or your parents does. So once the Kid grows up a bit, he sees this gun as a source of power over other people, and not a tool that needs to be respected so he will be far more willing to point it at people and shoot people he is angry at, as he doesn't have the habit of gun safety.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In my area, we have waited for thirty minutes and more for emergency personnel to arrive where they are needed. I sat with three badly burned boys for half an hour, before a first responder arrived, followed soon after by a policeman.
Had someone not already called for police and ambulance services, I would have loaded those boys into my car, and driven to the hospital. Ignoring posted speed limit signs, I could have had those boys at the regional medical center in about 25 minutes, where they would have received trauma unit care immediately upon arrival.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"All self defence?"
Good luck with that in court. But your hypothetical in no way invalidates the thousands of genuine instances of self-defense, including armed ones.
And I'm sure the police and those laws were a great comfort to all of those victims of gun violence and rampage shootings, and 100% effectively prevented any deaths.
Oh I didn't realize this app was to help me avoid public shootings. Here I was thinking the point of this app was to demonize, harass, and annoy people who own guns. Right. Ok I will be sure to pull this app out next time I am worried about a school shooting.
I would prefer to put my children in a school where all parents educate their children on firearms and are active in firearm sports. That way, kids a less likely to go rooting through bedroom drawers.
Ignorance of danger doesn't make the danger go away.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There's one obvious difference: This kind of paranoia and bigotry is popular among left-leaning types, so it's all good.
Liberty in your lifetime
"Who the hell are you to decide when an action is grounds for the death penalty?"
Just to be crystal clear, are you saying that self-defense with a weapon is never appropriate? If so, you may wish to hold forth as to why the police should be armed, or exactly what posture someone being beaten to death should take to be most noble in your eyes. Is that the fetal position, or some sort of supplication toward the east?
Except pushing someone isn't self defense, its assault. The instant you lay a hand on them, you justify their violence. Thankfully, nearly all concealed weapon carriers know that distinction, so we don't have lawful gun owners go on illegal shooting sprees.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
If only I had mod points - you hit the nail on the head. Lack of firearm safety EDUCATION is the biggest cause of accidental firearm deaths. Most gun illiterate people don't know they're gun illiterate - they think they know all they need to from watching TV (where some of the most egregious firearm-handling mistakes are taught to our youth).
It's disgraceful that the general public is so eager to watch (and let their kids watch) gun violence on TV, but is so unwilling to actually teach gun safety to it's youth.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
The biggest problem I see is a lack of Gun Education, and proper handling of a firearm.
This a thousand times. I really wish more non firearm owners were like you who don't have the crazy fear or hatred of firearms. There does seem to be a lack of training and respect for firearms among the general population and thus firearms really are very dangerous when not handled properly because they don't have a clue what they are doing. I own firearms and keep them properly stored (large fireproof safe bolted to the concrete floor in my basement), always handle them correctly (follow all the rules from all of the various safety courses I have ever had), and show them proper respect (it isn't something to show how tough I am and isn't an extension of my cock). I also don't believe in accidental shooting as every one I have ever read about that is called accidental is really negligent or outright reckless. Now granted I could probably contrive a case that I would consider an accidental shooting but there is probably a better chance of getting struck by lightning.
Time to offend someone
Can the mods please bury this. It's full of unapproved opinion and inconvenient facts.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person"
Isn't that a bit like teaching someone they should never drive their car on or near a public road?
You've demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the millions of people who use firearms recreationally. For those, who are the overwhelming majority, basic gun safety principals dictate never pointing a firearm at a person.
One of the reasons gun control proponents have a hard time moving their agenda forward is because they're demonstrably uninformed.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
You were shouting in my face so I pushed you, you pushed me so I hit you, you hit me so I shot you. All self defence?
the problem is that this is normal behavior for anti-gun liberals, so they assume everyone acts like this. only irresponsible, immature man-children act like this.
i carry a gun every day.
i don't shout in people's faces.
if you were shouting in my face, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation.
if you pushed me, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation.
if you hit me, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation.
if you continued assaulting me to the point where i felt i was in danger of serious harm or death, yes, i'd shoot you.
and it'd be 100% self defense.
the vast majority of gun owners that make the decision to carry a firearm (legally) are responsible people and will take every possible measure to avoid escalating situations to violence because they know what it can lead to.
I did the same calculations after Sandy Hook, because I would see so many people screaming ridiculous things like "ban all guns!" or "arm school teachers!" And I looked up the stats from the department of education, and you're right, there are 100,000 schools. With an average of 180 days in a school year, and an average of two acts of gun violence at American K-12 schools per year since 2000, that basically means that 17,999,998 out of 18,000,000 school days each year, nothing bad happens.
Americans have a control fetish, where they think they can FIX AND CONTROL ALL PROBLEMS without incurring any other ill effects. If you "ban all guns," you will never find them all, and there will be law abiding citizens who would have used a weapon in self defense, who will instead be dead. So maybe you stopped a school shooting, but some shopkeeper died because he couldn't defend himself against a robber with a baseball bat. If you arm the teachers, fine, maybe those schoolmarms will instantly morph into SEAL Team 6 when some nut shows up at the school with a gun and take him out. But there will be another 1 in a million day when a teacher flies off the handle and shoots somebody, or fails to lock up the weapon safely and a kid gets a hold of it and kills himself or some kid on the playground.
The law of intended consequences always bites you in the ass. When the statistic is down to 2 in 18,000,000, you can't really do anything to fix those last two without causing something else awful to happen, instead. The answer isn't to turn schools into fortresses or to snatch every gun in America. The correct response to a school shooting is to weep, hugs your kids tighter, ask everyone to keep an eye out for friends or family who might be having mental problems and try to help them, mourn the dead, never forget them, and move on with life.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.