Ask Slashdot: Can Technology Prevent Shootings?

An anonymous reader wonders if there's a technological response to mass shootings like this Sunday's attack in Orlando, Florida: We're in for a sadly obvious debate now with all of the usual scapegoats, but instead of focusing on who's to blame, it'd be better to identify some specific actions that could actually generate real increases in public safety going forward...

If we're looking for radical changes in the way we live, does technology have a role? Is the answer smart gun technology? Mandatory metal detectors at night clubs? Better data analysis algorithms for the federal government? Bulletproof fabrics?
Share your best ideas in the comments. Could there be a technological solution to the problem of mass shootings?

Comments

An easier sollution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you try education and common sense?

Re:An easier sollution

[Anonymous Coward]

How naive. Shots would be heard and the first "good guys" would draw their guns. The second good guys would think the first good guys were the original shooters and would therefore shoot *them*. Death by friendly fire is what would occur -- a lot.

Re:An easier sollution

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> There were Armed Guards at the door of the nightclub.

And it took the cops three hours to storm the building while people were dying inside because they thought there was a bomb and hostages, the former due to some bad camera angles. So...for better technology in this incident, I'd go with automatic emergency lighting and web- or phone-quality cameras that could be accessed from outside the building.

>> "Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer said that officers initially mistakenly thought the gunman had strapped explosives to some of his victims after a bomb robot sent back images of a battery part next to a body. That held paramedics up from entering the club until it was determined the part had fallen out of an exit sign or smoke detector, the mayor said." https://www.yahoo.com/news/another-night-drinking-dancing-until-shots-began-011941419.html

Re: An easier sollution

[Firethorn]

On average, approximately zero are saved by good guys who aren't cops.

Well, yeah, that's because of a number of factors:
1. Most gun deaths involve people who know each other, with drug and domestic violence being the top two.
2. The most visible case where a CCW would be handy is a spree killing, yet spree killings are actually really rare. Seriously, you're more likely to be punched or kicked to death than killed in a spree killing.
3. Something around 80-90% of spree killings(depending on your definition) happen in 'gun free' zones where you can't legally CCW anyways.

So, get rid of or at least seriously reform the war on drugs and get rid of gun free zones and you might see shooters stopping more spree killings. That being said, spree killings stopped by a civilian or police shooter early don't make the news anywhere near as hard.

You hear about the Uber driver who went on a spree killing rampage. You don't hear about the one who stopped one(and ended up fired).

Re:An easier sollution

[Mashiki]

Why don't you try education and common sense?

Too simplistic. Besides the progressives would rather bury their head up their ass and pretend nothing is wrong. Remember when all those progressives and the media said that after Dylann Roof murdered 9 people there needed to be a national dialog on the confederate flag? A guy just killed 50 people was a muslim, I'm sure they're going to be lining up to suggest a national dialog on Islam.

Re:An easier sollution

[geekmux]

Can you point to a single incident where that has happened?

Are you serious? The term "friendly fire" wasn't invented in this thread today, so let's not be ignorant that it could exist on or off a battlefield. Just because civilians are not exposed to warfare on the same level as a soldier doesn't mean it couldn't happen, as we have literally dozens of unfortunate events in our history that prove that it HAS happened during conflicts.

I have considerably more experience with firearms than the average civilian, and it has crossed my mind several times as to how a situation might play out that would involve multiple people shooting, and how I would or could defend myself and others during a situation where it might be VERY hard to tell the difference between a bad guy and an undercover police officer.

With the laws today, it's bad enough for a civilian legally defending a lethal action of self defense, even when the threat and target is crystal clear. Our legal system does not always see eye to eye with Common F. Sense as. You should know this by now.

Re:An easier sollution

[Barsteward]

he seemed more homophobic than radicalised

Re: An easier sollution

[GLMDesigns]

Belief in the almighty power of the state is also a toxic meme. So how does one cure progressives? Or do you leave them to rot in their misery?



The solution is

freedom of speech - no exceptions - that also means don't go out of your way to shout down your political oponents,
freedom of thought (otherwise known as a religion)

one can disagree with others but one cannot use violence.

And yes that means that once in a while a crazy person will do some crazy sh!t.

Re: An easier sollution

[mpercy]

"It's woefully ignorant to blame all religion for a few nutjobs and murderous assholes."

Just as valid: It's woefully ignorant to blame all gun-owners for a few nutjobs and murderous assholes.

Re:An easier sollution

[PopeRatzo]

Can you point to a single incident where that has happened?

If it happens to trained police officers, do you really believe it doesn't happen with ordinary gun "enthusiasts" who are trying to be heroes?

http://www.policemag.com/list/...

Re:An easier sollution

[ScentCone]

Except ... when a good guy kills that bad guy who has just started shooting up a night club, the shooting stops. That's the whole point. Police don't appear magically, instantly out of thin air. If they could, they would have shot this guy while he stood casually reloading over and over again. If any one of the 300 people in that club had landed one good shot on that guy, it would have ended things. More people showing up on the scene wouldn't have confusion over who to shoot, because there wouldn't be any more shooting going on. You get that part, right?

Re:An easier sollution

[AthanasiusKircher]

as for permit carriers actually stopping crimes, for every gun used in self defense, 34 people die.
and yes, the FBI and CDC has statistics.

Just to be clear, your statistics don't justify your previous claim. (And I say this as someone who is in favor of greater gun regulation. I just don't think it's a good idea to use misleading statistics to support an argument.)

That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths. [snip] That works out to one self-defense killing for every 78 gun suicides. CDC data show that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings.

What you've shown is the ratio of justifiable killings to (unjustified) murders... or suicides or whatever.

That has little basis for a comparison of "every gun used in self-defense," which is where you started your argument. One would hope (and there are definitely statistics showing) that the vast majority of guns used in self-defense did NOT result in death -- either because simply brandishing the weapon deterred the assailant, or because the victim simply wounded the assailant.

And, in fact, if you want to find statistics supporting the "other side," you can easily do so. There are well-known FBI statistics out there from various reports suggesting that there are millions of uses of guns in self-defense every year, though the vast majority of them never result in a shot fired.

I don't buy those statistics, either -- and there are various ways that critics have picked them apart. On the basis of "studies" and "data," we can only definitively say that the number of "defensive gun uses" in the U.S. per year is somewhere between 50,000 and 5,000,000. That's a big range. (But, I'd note that even the lowest estimate from a reputable study is well over 100 times what your argument implies.)

Basically, when it comes to gun politics in the U.S., I've come to believe that anyone who is a strong advocate on either side will cherry-pick statistics that really don't answer the questions we need to consider. Your post is no exception.

And while I agree with you that better studies and funding for them is a good idea, I also recognize that the vast majority of gun studies out there seem to be run with a strong agenda in mind for one side or the other. Thus, you'll still just end up with a battle of conflicting statistics, even with more data.

The only way to really resolve such an argument is to have a strong education in statistics, an understanding of how they can be manipulated, and the kinds of flaws inherent in various population studies. Most people arguing for one side or the other in this debate aren't interested in such nuance. But when you look at it that way, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle: guns ARE used a lot in self defense (a lot more than your statistics suggest), but they also are responsible for a lot of possibly preventable deaths (particularly suicides and accidental shootings).

No

[spudnic]

No

Apples and pears

[Aethedor]

No, don't use technology to try to solve a problem that's not a techical one. This problem, the reason why some people start shootings, is a social one. Use social means to solve it.

Not possible

[gweihir]

The reason some people revert to terrorism-type attacks is that it is basically impossible to prevent them. Not even full-blown fascism can prevent terrorism. Of course, the surveillance-fanatics and the police does not want anybody to realize that, as such attacks are the things that allow them to push for even less freedom, even more surveillance and and even worse police-state.

Terrorism is something society has to live with, as trying to prevent it (for example in the utterly moronic form of a "war on terror") is futile and makes the problem worse.

Re:Technology can't stop these

[maroberts]

Europe never allowed citizens to own guns the way the US does.

This is untrue. Restrictions have been gradually increased during the 20th Century, and have not been in place forever.

Re:Technology can't stop these

[VanGarrett]

The caveat here, is that the European countries with the lowest crime rates have the highest rates of gun ownership, as well.

Re:Technology can't stop these

[PopeRatzo]

You don't have significant ethnic enclaves

Europe had "significant ethnic enclaves" when Americans were still hunting buffalo and building burial mounds.

Re:Guns, freedom and all the rest

[StormReaver]

I think we all know, if we are perfectly honest with ourselves, that when the amount of high-powered firearms that are freely available is higher, then the number of people killed in shootings will be higher as well.

Studies agree with you. However, studies do no agree with your implied conclusion: firearm availability causes higher homicide rates.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

The end of the article summarizes it nicely:

In comparing the United States to industrialized democracies, the Academies says data show the U.S. has the highest rate of homicide and firearm-related homicide. But this also raises a chicken-and-egg question. "A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around."

Does the higher availability of guns in the U.S. cause the higher homicide rate, or does the higher homicide rate lead to the higher availability of guns in the U.S.? There is no causal relationship between the two; there is merely a statistical association.

In particular, pay attention to the non-firearm homicide rate in the U.S., which is also higher than in any other industrialized country. This strongly implies that firearms are a red-herring. The U.S. has deep societal problems that are unrelated to the availability of guns, and that do not fit into clean, easy pigeon holes. Gun death is merely a rough measure of those deeper problems, which will not be solved even if guns are eradicated from the country. The means of homicide will change, but not the underlying cause.