UCSD Lecturer Releases Geotagging Application For "Dangerous Guns and Owners"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UCSD Lecturer Releases Geotagging Application For "Dangerous Guns and Owners"

Posted by timothy on Tuesday July 9, 2013 @01:25AM from the guns-are-meant-to-be-dangerous dept.

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."

109 of 976 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Nimey · 2013-07-09 01:27 · Score: 5, Funny

This article will have mature and reasonable discussion, let me tell you.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
1. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Penguinisto · 2013-07-09 01:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
2. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by fche · 2013-07-09 02:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "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.
3. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by youngatheart · 2013-07-09 02:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by drakaan · 2013-07-09 02:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ...That means you get accidental deaths. And that also means that when we fail at the people end of things the damage is that much more catastrophic.
  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
5. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by jellomizer · 2013-07-09 02:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Stuarticus · 2013-07-09 02:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Excessive attempts to excercise self-defense can easily escalate. 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?
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
7. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by fche · 2013-07-09 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "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.
8. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Cenan · 2013-07-09 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  Right, I'm sure one of the considerations of the deranged minds who take a gun to school is "uh, could I possibly be shot back at?". What you're saying sounds like a thinly veiled NRA talk point, like the idiotic meme that "a hero with a gun could have avoided [whatever]".
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
9. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by interval1066 · 2013-07-09 02:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your opinion implies a laudible goal; the removal of guns from society. But there is a glaring error in the arguments that you and your crowd continually ignore that I would like you to address. Guns are here, that particular geinie is out of the box. You want everyone to nod in agreement that corking a tidal wave is a good idea. Just as communism attempts to remove an aspect of human nature from the equation of economics (if everyone has what they need to live a comfortable life the profit motive should be moot), your suggesting that if no one has guns, then violence will be a thing of the past. Or are you limiting your argument to gun violence? If so that suggests other types of violence are OK to you.
  People often crave power over others to induce them to do something that would be beneficial to the one seeking power. Some one's always going to decide that a gun will be nessessary, and they will obtain one. And they will. I don't see simply villifying gun ownership keeping the status quo.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
10. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by sycodon · 2013-07-09 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by nschubach · 2013-07-09 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I grew up with real guns and I was even told not to point toy guns at people. "What if a piece of plastic flies out of that and hits your eye?" was the common go to phrase. We now have nerf guns at work and I get anxious when someone points one of those at me fearing plastic shrapnel.
  It's not that I'm afraid of guns now (I own several) but it is an example of a kid growing up with guns all around and being properly educated/aware of the dangers. I think those that have no awareness are the ones that cause real danger.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
12. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, because killing someone for punching you is likely to be disproportionate response, and would not be covered under most self-defense laws. Minutes of research would tell you this, and there is no reason to bring guns into this hypothetical.
13. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by sycodon · 2013-07-09 02:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  umm..nope. None of that is self defence.
  It's two assholes behaving like assholes.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
14. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Internal+Modem · 2013-07-09 02:55 · Score: 2
  
  I've read about several murders at them. "In the ongoing gun control debate, the same argument often comes up: nobody gets shot at the gun range. Here are five incidents of deaths, both accidental and intentional, at gun ranges across the U.S."
15. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by fche · 2013-07-09 02:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "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?
16. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Aranykai · 2013-07-09 03:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
17. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Muad'Dave · 2013-07-09 03:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Then there are objects built for the purpose to kill, and nothing else.
  Don't pontificate from a position of ignorance - you clearly have no experience with firearms and their myriad of uses. I have fired well over 20,000 rounds through various firearms, and NOT ONCE has a single person been injured, much less been killed, from it.
  I did have a mighty enjoyable time poking holes in defenseless paper, however.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
18. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by JesseMcDonald · 2013-07-09 03:07 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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?
  If you're escalating the situation then you're not practicing self-defense. That said, there is a difference between "he hit me so I shot him" and "he was about to kill or irreparably injure me so I shot him". The situation may be exactly the same, but the former reasoning is escalation, whereas the latter is (preemptive) defense.
  To counter an imminent threat of irreversible harm, preemptive defense may be both necessary and justified. However, that path carries significant risks should others happen to disagree with your threat assessment.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
19. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Muad'Dave · 2013-07-09 03:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
20. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by sycodon · 2013-07-09 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you remove guns, then you would have a sword problem.
  If you remove sword, then you'd have spear problem.
  If you remove spears, then you'd have a rock problem.
  Get rid of rocks and it would simply be the biggest guy wins.
  The "gun problem" is merely another face of a violence problem.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
21. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Lord+Kano · 2013-07-09 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  There are shooting incidents at inner city schools but not mass shootings.
  A gang has a problem with a member of a rival gang or two drug dealers have a problem and someone gets shot. There aren't mass shootings because inner city schools are built with security in mind and often have an armed police presence.
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
22. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-07-09 03:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  But if you carry one in a holster, you can literally pull out the gun and kill someone in seconds.
  And yet, as the number of Concealed Carry license holders increased in recent decades, the murder rate has declined.
  Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but it's hard to see how "higher carry rates" + "lower murder rates" matches up with what I quoted above....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
23. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by godefroi · 2013-07-09 03:21 · Score: 2
  
  I enjoy target shooting. Is that a legitimate purpose? If not, should we ban snowboards, since they have no legitimate purpose, and injure people all the time?
  
  --
  Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
24. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-07-09 03:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
25. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by jedidiah · 2013-07-09 03:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Most people who get shot in America are ultimately the victim of the illegal drug trade which is fueled by primarily economic factors.
  If you are some white,clueless,middle-class spooner, then you have about as much chance of being shot as some Eurotrash.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
26. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by chihowa · 2013-07-09 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  I'm pretty sure that they'd advocate for the removal of knifes also ...and everything else including pointy sticks.
  The position that they're operating from is that nobody has the right to defend themselves from an assailant. You can call on the state to come and defend you and if they don't make it there in time, well... so be it. They'd see your needless death as a tragic loss, no doubt, but it would be a much better outcome than the transfer of power from the state (where all power belongs and is parceled out from) to the individual. It's a pretty typical authoritarian viewpoint.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
27. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Jiro · 2013-07-09 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  In places where it's difficult to get a permit to carry, you may be legally forced to leave the gun at home, in which case there's also a greater chance of being burgled when you're not home.
  In some places it can also expose you to stigma. Imagine not getting a job (and not being told why) because you're on one of these lists.
28. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Erbo · 2013-07-09 03:40 · Score: 2
  You know, Col. Jeff Cooper's basic four rules of firearm safety aren't that complicated:
  
  All guns are always loaded. Period.
  Never point the muzzle at anything you're not willing to destroy.
  Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are lined up on the target.
  Be sure of your target, and what's behind it.
  I know people with ten-year-old kids that have mastered those rules. They just need to be taught. Ideally, they should be taught in schools, but good luck getting that past the hoplophobes and gun-grabbers...
  --
  Be who you are...and be it in style!
29. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by femtobyte · 2013-07-09 03:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But a sword problem is less deadly than a gun problem, and a rock problem is less deadly than a sword problem. Yes, a dedicated psycho murderator can kill people with rocks. But, guns make it so much easier --- even a toddler can accidentally blow their (or a family member's) head off. Guns escalate violence, so, e.g., a drunken brawl that would result in a black eye or two turns into a multiple homocide when guns are available. While addressing the underlying violence problem itself is fundamental, fixing the gun problem at least significantly ameliorates the symptoms of the underlying disease.
30. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2013-07-09 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "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.
31. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Rhacman · 2013-07-09 03:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Perhaps, but what about the slightly less hypothetical "he realized I was carrying a gun and reached for it but I grabbed it first and shot him"? I suppose we'll be finding out shortly.
  
  --
  Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
32. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
33. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by g0bshiTe · 2013-07-09 04:10 · Score: 2
  
  Still two assholes behaving like assholes, where's your point?
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
34. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by crakbone · 2013-07-09 04:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  People are no the only reason to have weapons. The majority of reasons of my having to pull my gun from its holster are because of animals. I know most people here are living in cities but some people live in rural areas. With bears, wolves, mountain cats, and coyotes. One rabid animal is really all that is necessary to ruin your day or week. HOWEVER - When a persons actions show an immediate threat to me, my wife, our sons and daughters I decided when the action is grounds for the death penalty. I do not make a choice to be a victim. I do not request people to invade my house, I do not request people to randomly attempt to stab or shoot me. I do not request to be mugged or murdered at random. When a person judges my life or my loved ones to be less than their immediate need for monetary gain I deem them no longer fit to live in my immediate local. You however may have a different opinion. You may feel it is perfectly adequate to wait 45 mins to 2 hours for a police response to a call about a person that feels your life is nothing compared to the new flat panel you have in your cabin. Or you may feel it is perfectly fine to wait for police to arrive as a mad man stabs every person that leaves a super market. Or that it is fine to allow a person to tie you to a chair and rape your family in front of you, after all you don't feel you have the right to make him stop.
35. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by gfxguy · 2013-07-09 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  They'd see your needless death as a tragic loss...
  ... and blame society for failing the perpetrator.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
36. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by DexterIsADog · 2013-07-09 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Mod parent as flamebait, or maybe troll. Here's the truth; http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
  For those who won't bother to click, it's Firearms: 67.8%, Blunt Objects: 3.9%. As Snopes says, even if *every* blunt object homicide it by baseball bat, the parent's assertion is not just wrong, it's overwhelmingly wrong.
37. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by fche · 2013-07-09 05:34 · Score: 3
  
  "Stats show clearly .... 99.99% of the time"
  This is absurd enough not even to merit a [citation needed].
38. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 05:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Stats show clearly that armed self defence is worse than just running for it. Not manly or macho, but if you want to live then run.
  
  it's funny how stats can clearly show anything when you don't present any evidence or quote any source.
  rates of injury by victim's method of protection
39. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by meta-monkey · 2013-07-09 06:18 · Score: 2
  
  Most people who get shot in America are ultimately the victim of the illegal drug trade which is fueled by primarily economic factors.
  If you are some white,clueless,middle-class spooner, then you have about as much chance of being shot as some Eurotrash.
  Exactly. And that also gives the white, clueless middle-class a reason to be fearful and distrustful of the lower classes, and the lower classes reason to be contemptuous of the middle class. Whatever keeps them from joining up against the upper class, which is actually responsible for said laws and economic factors.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
40. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by G00F · 2013-07-09 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe you have a chance to man handle a 6'2" 250lb man who's spent 5 of the last 10 years in jail working out, but my wife will use a gun to keep her and kids safe.
  You say that there are situations where other self defense should be used rather than a gun, implying that some other thing can stop them, and that you would get other chances. If your or ones you care about are under serious physical threat, then you do what you have to. The best way is to avoid situations like the yelling matches (please see "More Guns, Less Crime" for data on people who CCW are involved with less crime). But when they don't give you a choice, I hope you got a good plan B on your hip.
  My wife vs the above man has a better chance when they are both armed, than both not. (50% both armed Guns are the great equalizer. Oh and my wife is a better shot than I am.
  I care not about the attacker when it comes to keeping my wife and kids safe. Male/female, 16 or 46, the outcome of the attacker is forfeit. Only after I insure safety of mine, will I consider the safety of the bad guy.
  The right to bear arms is the right to carry. Now please stop turning us into victims.
  
  --
  The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
41. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Cenan · 2013-07-10 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Ok, I have to call FUD on that.
  The choice of venue is closely related to the motivation of the perp (well, d'uh right?), but that does not imply a causative link between choice of venue and whether or not the venue has stricter than normal gun control. In fact, if that was the case you would expect to see a lot more mass shootings in Europe than in the States, simply based on the much stricter weapon control policies in the former.
  On the topic of motivation, just for you to have some actual research to look into, and to support my claim in the previous reply. The “Pseudocommando” Mass Murderer - from the abstract (emphasis mine):
  
  The pseudocommando is a type of mass murderer who kills in public during the daytime, plans his offense well in advance, and comes prepared with a powerful arsenal of weapons. He has no escape planned and expects to be killed during the incident. Research suggests that the pseudocommando is driven by strong feelings of anger and resentment, flowing from beliefs about being persecuted or grossly mistreated. He views himself as carrying out a highly personal agenda of payback.
  That is not to say that all mass shootings are motivated by forms of mental illness, far from it actually, but it does suggest that toting guns around won't actually solve any problems. The debate needs to separate belief from facts, because both sides are doing themselves and society a disservice by finding facts to support a given predetermined conclusion and rather than actually solving the problem.
  Completely off topic note: why does the wiki entry for iPhone 5 show up fifth in Google's results, when the search term was "mass shootings ratio outside us". That both confuses and enlightens me greatly.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
42. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Cenan · 2013-07-10 18:35 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry about the abstract only link, I got them mixed up.
  I'm not disputing the fact that someone with a gun can aim and kill someone else with a gun, but whether or not it makes a difference to A) the mass murderer, B) the people already killed. You're very focused on statistics, and response times, but the topic of the discussion (at least the part I replied to) was whether the threat of death would be a show stopper for a mass murderer. The "research" you linked to shows clearly that that is not the case, I then went ahead and produced a link to a paper that describes the motivations of a subset of those killers, also very clearly stating that the threat of death is not a deterrent. So I guess in a sense we're on the same page on that one.
  Furthermore, I would like to point out that research performed by law enforcement is no less biased than research performed by actual researchers. Remember, in the States, the decision makers of law enforcement are elected officials, and have a vested interest in making reality fit with their agenda, or at least fit enough that another term can be secured.
  You seem to be under the impression that mass murderers in general are some kind of magic being that cannot be understood, and the only solution to the problem they pose is to arm a significant portion of the population, in order to kill the murderers once their spree begins, or shortly thereafter. You're also under the assumption that mass murderers choose their venue based on the availability of guns there, which is clearly not the case. Also, I would like to strongly object to your premise, that killing a would-be mass murderer before they hit the magic threshold of 4 people dead, is any kind of a solution. Again, statistics don't mean shit to the 3 other people who are already dead.
  I can understand the line of thought though, because to solve a problem it is generally viewed as bad if the status quo cannot be maintained, in this case the right to own a gun, and the added license to carry it concealed. So of course in the minds of gun owners it becomes a problem of trying to maintain that right and avoid being killed by someone else with a gun. The obvious (and false) conclusion is then to arm enough people so that the chance that you are shot before the killer is, is minimized. As I pointed out previously, that does not solve the problem, and to reiterate what the problem is: you have a society that produces mass murderers at a ratio far exceeding what is to be expected if you ignore gun control policy (it is expected if you don't ignore it, but that is a conclusion that is too hard to swallow, and tons of papers on the subject have been produced to try and discredit that, or FUD it up enough to make the point blurry).
  As I said earlier in a reply, bending statistics does not bend reality, only our perception of it. And that is the danger of it, especially in this case.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
43. Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war by Cenan · 2013-07-11 22:25 · Score: 2
  
  As I replied to another poster in a sub-thread to this one, I'm not arguing that a person with a gun can aim that gun and kill another person who also has gun, but that the solution proposed always has at least one death (the shooter's first victim, or in extreme cases the shooter himself).
  I'm also challenging the belief that the threat of death is a deterrent to would be mass murderers, it seems that whenever someone produces a link in this thread, it supports my assertion that this is not the case. That is my main point, more guns will not deter these incidents, and no amount of slicing the data is going to obfuscate the fact that a solution involving any amount of guns > 0 will result in death. This should be seen in contrast to a solution that involves no guns (for anyone), and actively trying to understand why these things happen (a preventative measure) instead of trying to fix the problem after it gets out of hand.
  I realise that my solution cannot maintain the status quo of gun policy in the states, and I would like to point out that the second amendment does not necessarily have to be divine truth, some of those words were written in a much different time, and one could argue, place. A lot of posters here are up in arms about what they feel is a direct attack at their constitutional rights, and that is fine really, but we're taking the 200 year old words of a bunch of nobles over the welfare of society today - and I feel like I'm the only one who sees that as tantamount to fanatic religious belief.
  Your own link seems to contradict what you're saying, although it's not directly on point (the incident was not avoided with guns, it was cut short). 2 students were shot and killed, 7 injured, before the shooter was held up at gun point. The fact that it happened, yet again proves my assertion, that even with an armed guard at the front door, this would have happened - the killer would just have to plan ahead (which they commonly do) to take him out first. Concealed firearms scattered around the premises will not deter it, it might cut the killing spree short, but it is still solving the problem after the fact.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
All guns are dangerous... by Smivs · 2013-07-09 01:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

aren't they?

--
Smivs on the intertubes!
1. Re:All guns are dangerous... by jittles · 2013-07-09 01:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:All guns are dangerous... by RaceProUK · 2013-07-09 01:42 · Score: 2
  
  I found one that isn't :)
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
3. Re:All guns are dangerous... by Archangel+Michael · 2013-07-09 01:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Only when democrats use them*
  1. Ft Hood~~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim
  2. Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
  3. Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff ~ Registered Democrat
  4. Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign;
  Occupy Wall Street participant; & progressive liberal.
  5. Connecticut School Shooter- ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
4. Re:All guns are dangerous... by Archangel+Michael · 2013-07-09 01:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Posted as a joke. Don't get your panties in a wad.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
5. Re:All guns are dangerous... by gstoddart · 2013-07-09 01:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  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.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
6. Re:All guns are dangerous... by RoccamOccam · 2013-07-09 01:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Perhaps you are being sarcastic, but (from Wikipedia, highlights mine):
  
  Records show that Loughner was registered as an Independent and voted in 2006 and 2008, but not in 2010.[39][40] A YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10" was linked to Loughner. (There have been numerous copies of 'impostor accounts' such as 'JaredLoughner' and 'Classitup1O'.)[41][42]
  Loughner's high school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."[17] But a former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007 as "left wing, quite liberal,"[43] "radical."[44]
7. Re:All guns are dangerous... by digitalaudiorock · 2013-07-09 02:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  Exactly...and who's deciding who these "suspected" unsafe gun owners are? Sounds like nothing better than a malicious rumor mill app to me. Let's just start something similar for everyone we think is a closet alcoholic or the like...I mean FFS...
  
  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.
  Exactly!...instead we have people with a clear anti-gun agenda taking a total vigilante approach to this...oh the irony.
8. Re:All guns are dangerous... by sl4shd0rk · 2013-07-09 02:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes, Guns are just as dangerous as matches, driving a car, running with scissors and swimming in a public pool.
  All of these things kill people. In fact, (PDF link) fire, drowning and car accidents kill more people per year than anything else. Actually, that's not true. Matches, Cars and Swimming pools kill nobody if they are left just sitting there. It takes human interaction to actually make these objects dangerous.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
9. Re:All guns are dangerous... by Runaway1956 · 2013-07-09 02:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
10. Re:All guns are dangerous... by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-09 02:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No.
  Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine a gun sitting on the floor in the middle of a room. Now, try to think of all the ways that gun could cause harm to someone, without their direct intervention (i.e., picking the gun up and pulling the trigger).
  Let me know if you come up with anything better than, "someone might trip over it."
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
11. Re:All guns are dangerous... by ArhcAngel · 2013-07-09 02:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  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.
  Gun laws don't prevent gun violence as criminals are already breaking the law. However if one of the victims had been allowed to carry his weapon legally there might have been far fewer casualties.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
12. Re:All guns are dangerous... by jittles · 2013-07-09 02:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  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.
13. Re:All guns are dangerous... by jittles · 2013-07-09 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  And yet the "you can just call the police" argument somehow becomes unacceptable when used to justify banning firearms outright.
  Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you). If someone is shooting at you, neither the app nor the police are going to do you any good. You'll either have fled or been hurt long before either do you any good. And lets not forget that the police have no legal obligation to protect you or your property. The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners. I do not agree with that. I do not believe that I have any right to harass gun owners, gays, straights, or even politicians. And If anyone deserves to be harassed, its a politician.
14. Re:All guns are dangerous... by Black+Parrot · 2013-07-09 03:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You left out some rather important information in the article:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Expressed_views
  Anti-government, with a particular irrational dislike of Giffords (but also GWB), 9/11 troofer, paranoid about New World Order.
  But perhaps most importantly:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Behavior_change
  Became unhinged, with suspected roles of drugs and/or schizophrenia.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
15. Re:All guns are dangerous... by PortHaven · 2013-07-09 03:47 · Score: 2
  
  And you probably totally can't afford one. At least most average joes cannot. As the going rate on a transferable (pre-1986 built) fully automatic rifle is about $10K-$20K (& up)
  http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx
16. Re:All guns are dangerous... by NeutronCowboy · 2013-07-09 03:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And yet, it is sitting at +5 Insightful. I don't know if that means that some people are playing a meta-joke game or if Republicans really do find lies insightful if they match their agenda, so I'll leave that decision to you.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
17. Re:All guns are dangerous... by jittles · 2013-07-09 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you).
  A bullet doesn't care if it was discharged intentionally or accidentally. If a firearm is being handled in an unsafe manner, someone can be maimed or killed.
  And note that open carrying is perfectly legal in many states, so calling the police wouldn't accomplish anything there regardless.
  Ok lets start here. First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner. Secondly. A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances (when lawful for self-defense, at a properly zoned and designated firing range, etc). If it is in a case, a safe, a holster, or anything like that, the firing mechanism should be covered. So if someone is following the law (and therefore, in the eyes of their jurisdiction, a safe gun owner), then there is no need to worry about a discharge of any kind. Now if the gun owner tries to defend himself with that weapon, then you may have a problem. But if they are being unsafe, then they are more than likely violating the law and the police are the correct entities to handle the situation.
  
  The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners.
  So empowering people to avoid showing up on this list isn't a "meaningful purpose?"
  The app does not empower anyone to avoid violence of any kind. Life is dangerous. The streets are dangerous. A few months ago there was a group of teenage boys in my city (about 5) that were going around beating random strangers with pipes. They didn't even rob the strangers. Just left them bleeding and unconscious in the street. No app can protect you from something like that, can it? So how can it protect you from an accidental discharge of a firearm by some jackass just passing through your neighborhood? Or some piece of crap teenager who decides you would be fun to beat with a pipe? It's just a silly premise to suggest that this app can do anything to provide any sort of meaningful safety to anyone.
18. Re:All guns are dangerous... by ArhcAngel · 2013-07-09 04:27 · Score: 2
  
  However if one of the victims had been allowed to carry his weapon legally there might have been far fewer casualties.
  Yawn ... so you say.
  Actually I postulated and backed my postulation up with actual evidence to support it.
  
  Most governments don't want their citizens walking around armed.
  FTFY
  It's much harder to control your citizens if they can fight back.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
19. Re:All guns are dangerous... by ArhcAngel · 2013-07-09 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  Britain has more violent crime per capita than the US despite enacting a no gun policy in 1997.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
20. Re:All guns are dangerous... by X0563511 · 2013-07-09 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  <joke> Well, they might see it and suffer a panic attack! </joke>
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Geotag those military bases! by magic+maverick+ · 2013-07-09 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

The most dangerous people in society with guns are the police and the military. The police kill far more civilians with guns than any other single group, other than the military.
So, geotag the bases and locations of known members of the biggest gangs around! The occupation is rough, let's make it rougher for them.

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
1. Re:Geotag those military bases! by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-09 01:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2013
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
2. Re:Geotag those military bases! by magic+maverick+ · 2013-07-09 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  And yet they still manage to shoot and kill civilians! Oh wait, those are "potential terrorists" and "collateral damage" (yeah, some guys were firing some weapons in the air, so we blew the shoot out of them, what do you mean that's how they celebrate weddings? what sort of fucked up culture celebrates weddings by having the shit blown out of them?).
  
  --
  HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
3. Re:Geotag those military bases! by interkin3tic · 2013-07-09 02:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well, the number of gun homicides in Chicago ARE going down. And the murder rate in Chicago per capita is below that of Memphis and many other cities which seem to have less restrictive gun control.
  
  I'm not suggesting gun control is the cause of that, just pointing out that it's a purely manufactured crisis. Chicago isn't among the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world. New Orleans has four times the murders Chicago does. San Pedro Sula has TEN times as many murders. Chicago isn't as safe as, say, rural Japan, but it's not "dangerous" compared to most other places in the US. More people die of texting while driving than die by guns in Chicago.
  
  Simple things like increasing or decreasing the number of guns isn't going to really affect crime rates unless you go to extremes. Successfully eliminate the vast majority of guns or arm everyone and then you'll see changes in crime, either for the better or worse I don't claim to know. Debating concealed carry laws or waiting periods is a waste of time. As you said, criminals don't follow laws. And both sides of gang wars are armed, yet it's not proving a deterrence to violence. Suggesting that more guns = lower crime assumes that criminals will act rationally. Kids in gangs certainly don't act rationally.
4. Re:Geotag those military bases! by X0563511 · 2013-07-09 04:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Clicking a few at random, they all seem relatively justified.
  Suspect refuses to drop knife. Suspect gets up and approaches officers - suspect gets shot.
  Suspect hiding in a drainage pipe. Suspect is belligerent, and aims gun at officers - suspect gets shot.
  Suspect escapes from handcuffs and aims gun at officers - suspect gets shot.
  Suspect drives car aggressively towards officers - suspect gets shot.
  Notice a theme, here? Most of these involve the suspect threatening imminent harm or death to the officers, so they respond with force.
  This proves nothing beyond the fact that the USA is a large and diverse country.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
your nearest gun is here by jamesh · 2013-07-09 01:30 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
It differs because a list of people belonging to a religion or political party doesn't help you if you need to find a gun in a hurry.
1. Re:your nearest gun is here by gandhi_2 · 2013-07-09 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  A nutjob with a knife in a Japanese school, it turns out, is hard to stop.
  Especially in a gun-free society.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
2. Re:your nearest gun is here by poity · 2013-07-09 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We end up with old dudes in suburbs getting tagged because somebody saw an antique rifle hanging on the wall during a dinner party and luckily could still start the app on their iPhone with their trembling hands, while gang-affiliated teens in urban neighborhoods go untagged because nobody cares about 5000+ black/latino teenagers getting shot every year, it's the 20+ white babies every year that we need to save.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
3. Re:your nearest gun is here by poity · 2013-07-09 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  oops, hope I don't get nitpicked for saying iPhone for an Android app
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
4. Re:your nearest gun is here by drainbramage · 2013-07-09 03:07 · Score: 2
  
  People with a lot of pressure cookers "has the means to kill a lot of people"
  People with a car bomb "has the means to kill a lot of people"
  People that strap bombs to little children "has the means to kill a lot of people"
  People that hijack planes "has the means to kill a lot of people"
  People that make (insert favorite gas or poison) has the means to kill a lot of people"
  --
  When your 'nutjob with a knife' is slicing your daughter up, I trust you would not resort to a horrible gun to stop him and you would of course stop any armed police from interfering.
  --
  By the way, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people then 99.99 per cent of the guns in America.
  And his punishment was re-election to the senate.
  
  --
  No brain, no pain.
Lets go after law abiding citizens by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

But make sure not to do this for criminals, right?
Who chooses the "dangerous" sites??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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??
1. Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites??? by camperdave · 2013-07-09 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "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??
  In other words, this will last until the first politician gets tagged.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
2. Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites??? by Kjella · 2013-07-09 02:04 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, smells like a harassment/slander lawsuit in the making.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Wrong strawman by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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."
Should be comparing the geopositioning of dangerous guns and owners to sex offenders.
1. Re:Wrong strawman by lxs · 2013-07-09 01:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Wrong strawman by TheCarp · 2013-07-09 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > At least the latter were proven to be sex offenders in court
  How is this insightful in a country where 90% of convicts never even get a trial? Most people are not proven anything in court, most people are threatened with so many charges and years in jail that they will plead guilty whether they are actually or not rather than take a chance of ending up behind bars for a significant portion of their life.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:32 · Score: 2, Informative

This has litigation written all over it, lible, invasion of privacy, etc. He won't begin to be able to afford the swarm of lawsuits if people start actually using the app.
1. Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love by NicBenjamin · 2013-07-09 01:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Uhh...
  You do realize that in the US "Invasion of Privacy" is perfectly legal as long as the invaders aren't the government? The first amendment says that if I find something out about you legally you have no right to stop me from telling everyone else about it.
  Libel could conceivably be an issue, but a) the safe harbor provision should protect him, and b) if the person saying it believes it to be true it's not libel. Since many, many Americans define unsafe gun ownership to mean any gun ownership it's gonna be mighty tricky to prove that they should have known that keeping the damn things unloaded in a gun safe is safe.
  That last bit is also why the list won't be terribly useful. If people start using it it will basically be a map of suspected gun-owners, because most people who post to something like that don't know/care whether you've got the damn things locked up in a case or not.
Fear Mongering by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

How about police stations? Will they be tagged?
I've seen this before. by Sponge+Bath · 2013-07-09 01:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Good intensions, bad idea. by Deemus · 2013-07-09 01:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Hypocrisy by Muad'Dave · 2013-07-09 01:39 · Score: 4, Funny

And I suppose this UCSD Lecturer would also support an app "to allow people to 'Geolocate Dangerous Liberal Socialists'" that threaten the Constitution?
I didn't think so.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Geotagging non-gun owners by BenJeremy · 2013-07-09 01:39 · Score: 2, Informative

OK, Slashdotters, who wants to help me make a geotagging app that crowdsources locations of people and businesses who are NOT gun owners so that legitimate users can use this as positive reinforcement of the anti-gun ideal?
It will allow users to personally thank those non-gun owners (and businesses) for their thoughtfulness toward others and their pacifist approach toward dealing with an increasingly dangerous and violent world.
I think Brett Stallbaum should be the first address in the database.
1. Re:Geotagging non-gun owners by Jaysyn · 2013-07-09 01:46 · Score: 2
  
  It will allow users to personally thank those non-gun owners (and businesses) for their thoughtfulness toward others and their pacifist approach toward dealing with an increasingly dangerous and violent world.
  I understand your sentiment, but it's really a much less dangerous & violent world than compared to even 10 years ago.
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:The Last Lonely Man ? by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-07-09 01:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Might want to read the constitution again. Your understanding of the second amendment is lacking...
It's ok. by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-07-09 01:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:It's ok. by ducomputergeek · 2013-07-09 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  And why can't snowmen be both/and instead of either/or? I know dualistic is lens most of the West uses, thanks Descartes, but this is a both/and. Snowden can very much be the hero for letting the public know about the various domestic and likely unconstitutional spy programs and a traitor for revealing certain details of foreign intelligence operations and at the same time.
  Although at this point I'm pretty sure most people already knew or at least suspected that the government were doing such surveillance, we just didn't know the name of the program.
  Furthermore I've yet to see anything really that damning that snowden released. We ease drop on the eu. File that udder shit they already knew. You really don't think the French try and acquire info on what kinds of deals Boeing is trying to make and give that info to Airbus?
  It's amazing to watch just how quickly the story shifted from being the spy program to Snowden. It's been two weeks. Most people now are wondering, "oh yeah, what was that hubbaloo about spying or IRS targeting political group..."
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Re:The Last Lonely Man ? by Culture20 · 2013-07-09 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

First Amendment > Second Amendment.
Constitutional amendments are not arranged in a hierarchy.
Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment by SirGarlon · 2013-07-09 02:07 · Score: 2

On the one hand, I think gun owners would be justified in fearing real-world repercussions from being listed in this database. (Some might see it as a benefit, deterring burglary etc.) In fact, it's not only gun owners who ought to worry, since as others have pointed out, the data in the app can be based on imagination or lies.
On the other hand, it's hard to see how anyone could *stop* people writing apps like this and uploading data to them.
This is a great example of why I think privacy is a right. Maybe that was the whole point.
In case it's not obvious from the tone and content of my post, I Am Not a Lawyer.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:The Last Lonely Man ? by Penguinisto · 2013-07-09 02:07 · Score: 2

First Amendment > Second Amendment.
Not to troll of anything, but since when was there an established priority in amendments? Perhaps I'm asking out of ignorance, but I always figured all amendments to have equal priority and enforcement, except where they collide (...which leaves the courts to sort out depending on circumstance, motive, etc.)

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Move to Europe. by tmosley · 2013-07-09 02:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

If you have a central bank, you don't have democracy. You have elected officials who govern the small folk, and a cabal of central bankers who make the real decisions.

Yes, that goes for America as well.
Re:Good intentions, poor implementation by Trailer+Trash · 2013-07-09 02:12 · Score: 2

There are no good intentions associated with this idea.

--
Do you have ESP?
more insidious than that by luis_a_espinal · 2013-07-09 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

aren't they?
You beat me to it. I guess people are smart enough to write ZOMG think of the children apps but aren't smart enough to remove redundant adjectives.
On another note, something more insidious from either this app or this article's title is the following: Dangerous Guns and Owners. What is "dangerous" being applied to here? Is just describing guns as dangerous (which is idiotically redundant) or does it stand for "dangerous guns and dangerous owners"?
More importantly, what about this:

These locations are typically the homes or businesses of suspected unsafe gun owners,
How do you determine if a home or business contains an unsafe gun (or unsafe gun owner, whatever the fuck that means)? How do they become suspect? What warrants people to be tracked over a mere suspicion? Funny how the right to privacy is shunned equally by the left and the right (and every punk in between) wherever it turns to be ideologically convenient.
I for one don't care if someone were to track me and label me unsafe.
Bolt action rifle with good enough caliber to take anything in the North American continent? Check, locked and with the bolt disassembled.
Revolver? Check, with a trigger combination lock.
Ammo? Check, plenty of it, locked and secured.
But hey, don't let that stop you (the generic you) from suspecting me of being dangerous or unsafe or whatever adjective that makes you feel safe and progressive and in charge of doing something positive for society or some shit like that. Once I add a 12ga scatter gun and a 1911 to my collection, that Android app is going to go beep-pause-beep-pause-beep-beep-beep-beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep like Ripley's tracking device back on LV-426.
Re:Move to Europe. by Runaway1956 · 2013-07-09 02:23 · Score: 5, Informative

So - you DO have school shootings. All the propaganda that tells us that Europe is gun-free and safe is bullshit at the end of the day then. Rationalize it how you will, spin like crazy, you do hae school shootings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe
I will note that the death tolls are lower than the US - is that due to ineptitude on the part of the shooters, or better police response, or some other element at play?
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903
Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?
Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.
You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.
Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?
If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.
Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?
I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.
People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a single bad thing that occurred, not one.
We changed the law, and we started having these public-school shootings. So I don’t think they got the intended result that they were hoping for with that type of ban. Right now, [some jurisdictions] allow you to carry concealed-permit guns in the schools. There are not a lot of them. But there are no problems that have occurred with any of those states, either.

--
"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
Obvious, no? by J'raxis · 2013-07-09 02:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
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
Re:Move to Europe. by TheCarp · 2013-07-09 02:58 · Score: 2

Funny thing is.... your gun death rates just are not that impressive compared to ours though. Oh yes, what is it 1/2 or 1/3rd? Somewhere around there? 2 in 100 000 to like 6 in 100 000? You do realize that .000002 vs .000006....doesn't seem so big anymore.
Gun violence here, and especially school shootings, is way overblown and sensationalized. Realize that we have 100,000 schools, and that children in school are, by my own back of the envelope calculation from the numbers I looked up, much safer in school in terms of gun deaths than the entire rest of the population.
But hey.... lets compare those directly and individually to smaller countries with working social welfare that don't have a massive gang problem caused by the combination of black markets, poverty, and selective enforcement that has decimated many lower income neighborhoods....total apples to apples.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Move to Europe. by jedidiah · 2013-07-09 03:23 · Score: 2

This has nothing to do with recent history. Peasants have had no rights pretty much forever in Europe. That is why people have fled to the other side of the pond. They wanted to get away from being owned by a King or a local robber baron.
Being systematically disarmed is just part of that.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Move to Europe. by Curunir_wolf · 2013-07-09 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:The Last Lonely Man ? by Deadstick · 2013-07-09 03:33 · Score: 2

OK, so we uphold both the 18th and the 21st, right?
Re:Libel by jcrb · 2013-07-09 04:30 · Score: 2

What world do you live in? Police don't just raid a house because of some tag on Google Earth. What nonsense. You think we have a fleet of detectives monitoring Facebook in case someone posts "committin' a crime right naw!" And we announce ourselves so the homeowner would have no doubt it's the police and not some "intruder breaking down their door at 3am."!
What world do you live in sir? Clearly not the same one the rest of us do.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/cops-kill-dog-handcuff-kids-in-wrong-house-raid/
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55875924-78/lake-salt-landvatter-police.html.csp
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complaints-rise-as-city-draws-on-drug-tips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.wave3.com/story/1495631/false-tip-leads-police-to-raid-house-of-sleeping-family?clienttype=printable
and just because you are wearing a badge and say you are the police doesn't mean that you are
http://www.khou.com/news/local/HPD-Police-impersonators-using-fake-raids-to-rob-illegal-game-rooms-135144963.html
And your suggestion that the police do not read online sources or respond to tips that might come from them is also quite absurd
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/25/the-saga-of-travis-corcoran

--
-jon
Re:The Last Lonely Man ? by martas · 2013-07-09 04:33 · Score: 2

+1 most inane comment of the day

--
weinersmith
Re:Move to Europe. by meta-monkey · 2013-07-09 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Excellent idea - anonymous slagging... by cdl · 2013-07-09 09:11 · Score: 2

Let's see - collect un-curated, anonymous accusations that someone is a "danger to society" and stick that on a map (of their house, for example). That could NEVER go wrong. It worked very well for decades - I believe the Stasi accepted anonymous tips about people presenting a "societal risk" in the GDR. It made that society SOO much safer. Even better, instead of informing the local constabulary who may be unfortunately constrained in their actions (pesky constitutional protections and all that), we're going to publicize it to the general public who happen to be the neighbors, friends, associates, and COMPLETE strangers. Much better for corrective action to be taken. I'm sure NO ONE with radical ideas would be incited to act based on these unsubstantiated, unverified labels. No one would tell their child to not sell cookies to the man down the street because someone randomly clicked a button on the phone, NO ONE would break into a house to acquire "unsafely stored" weapons (that may not even exist) because someone thought that a person with a ducks unlimited bumper sticker must harbor unsafe guns... Na, that could never happen. Guns-done, what's next, "Strange" parties, suspected "deviant" sexual practices, I know - suspected witches - excellent, we haven't burned, hung and drowned anonymously accused individuals in this country for centuries, oh wait, we have, lynch mobs. Many states have laws regarding how weapons should be stored, including this crackpot's state (California). If you have a REAL, substantiated concern, go to your local police, or, shudder the thought, the individual you are concerned about. However, you may actually have to make a case for your complaint and justify your statement. If that's too high a bar for you to bother with to enhance your "safety", then either you really aren't that concerned, or you don't really value your safety. If you feel strongly about something, stand up and take ownership, don't go off an anonymously start a whispering campaign. What's the REAL purpose of this app? It looks, to me like a public shaming, a public shaming for something that is unproven, and possibly/probably completely unjustified.