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

Guns, freedom and all the rest

[jandersen]

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. Apparently it is something like 30,000 Americans that were shot dead last year, I heard on the radio this morning. I also have the impression that a significant majority of Americans actually want gun ownership to come under serious control, but nothing will happen - again - because of big money. It is a real shame that the American people doesn't have the courage to stand up against those shilling for the weapons manufacturers and their ever more shrill nonsense.

It is perfectly possible to live safe, happy and prosperous lives without having guns - people in Europe do this. And in Europe, just like in the States, it is perfcetly possible for criminals to lay their hands on guns, so in effect, "only the bad guys have guns", yet we still thrive, and we suffer far less gun violence. Europeans don't go around feeling afraid just because they don't carry instant death in their pockets. Americans don't need guns to be safe either; in fact, if you pull out a gun in whatever the situation, you instantly look like a legitimate target - how can that be safer?

You don't need to have access to loads of guns to be able to rise up and overturn a government by force either. Gandhi is just one example of a revolution brought about without resorting to violence; I'm sure people can think of other examples. No government can survive for long if the people are resolutely against it; if the economy and the instutions are falling apart because of constant protests, the government will have nothing to rule over.

The American constition doesn't say that there should be no control of who can have guns or that everybody should have the right to own high-powered, semi-automatic weaponry. And there is no real justification for not keeping tabs on who owns what or carrying out proper background checks even at gun-fairs. If you are a gun-enthusiast or a hunter, you wouldn't be affected - you will probably already have gone through all the background checks and hold a valid licence, and you would pass any further scrutiny without a problem.

And, forgive me for saying so, but any law, including the American constitution, that is open to such massive abuse as "the right to bear arms" is, is just plain wrong and should be changed. The constitution is not a God given truth, it is only a law; the only difference is that a constitution is kind of 'meta-law' - it states the principles on which all other laws should be built. That is why considerable care should be employed when deciding on what goes into it, and that is also why a universal right to be armed to the teeth should not be part of it: it is far too specific, and it was not thought through well enough. And now it is very difficult to get rid of. In short: it was a stupid thing to do.