Slashdot Mirror
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?
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?
No
load "linux",8,1
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.
It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
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.
Not at all what happens in states with right to carry. Gun violence is *down* from other states. But, spout some more prop.
In the context of "nightclubs", not so much. There's good reason most states ban carrying where alcohol is served, and all if you're drinking. The recent shooting was yet another in a gun-free zone.
Technological fix? No. Smart guns? It's the terrorist's gun. Metal detectors? Terrorist. Outlaw guns? Terrorist (much like shootings in nightclubs in other countries).
Outlawing religion seems a better bet, except historically religion has thrived on that.
No easy answers to evil men.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The big difference: Europe never allowed citizens to own guns the way the US does. Maintaining the gun control in Europe is much easier than introducing one in the US. In the US, it requires the taking back of a lot of guns, which is not likely to happen. Specially not the illegal ones.
It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
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.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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).
I don't read AC A human right
he seemed more homophobic than radicalised
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
That is woefully ignorant thing to say.
Ignorance is what is toxic.
Liberals and progressives don't believe in the power of the state.
The power of the state can originate in many places.
In western liberal political theory that place is the people, ie, the consent of the governed.
That is then represented though democracy, either direct or representative.
the power of the state can also originate in a belief in divine right of a special family. we call those monarchies.
some places believe in the power of god (or other religion) empowers some religious leader. those are theocracies.
or in the power of the military. we call those military dictatorships.
Liberals and progressives believe that all political power and authority, ie "the state", originates in the people, the governed, not the state itself, nor do we worship it.
Question is: where do you believe it originates?
Since you seem to have a problem with a basic tenet of western liberalism.
Are you one of those conservatives who is tired of the military being limited by civilian oversight?
Maybe a military junta is more to your liking then.
Or perhaps you think the people have limited religion too much, and a theocracy would be more to your liking?
Or there's always merry old England, if a King/Queen is more your thing.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
the downward trend in crime is very long-term and consistent and shows zero correlation to the increase in CCW permits.
what we have instead in this country, on both state-by-state basis, as well as a metro-area basis, is very clear correlations between gun prevalence and gun deaths. and it's summed up thus: more guns = more deaths.
this trend also is clearly shown at the national levels as well, as of all western nations the US has by far the most gun deaths of any nation not currently engaged in an active conflict.
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.
In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.
Or, look at it this way. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that in 2012 there were 20,666 suicides by gun. 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.
There are, of course, plenty of solid arguments for robust 2nd Amendment protections. Millions of people use guns for sport and recreation every day. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens, not criminals.
But, though some people certainly use guns for self-defense, the data suggest that overall, guns are used far more often for killing than self-defense. As a result, it may be worth thinking twice about arguments for more guns in schools, churches and other public places.
Don't like those statistics?
Then lobby Congress to remove the ban on funding for actual dedicated research of gun violence.
After all, what have you got to lose?
If you're right and the current statistics are completely wrong, then actual dedicated statistics research and collection should prove that.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Judaism is a lot older than that, actually, while Islam is a lot younger.
More importantly, Islam — uniquely among Abrahamic religions — compels the followers to do something about it. A Christian can be a "good Christian" if he merely prays for the sinners' salvation. A Muslim must act — and homosexuality is the greatest sin .
And then there is the inconvenient truth about Islam-prescribed world-order. Whereas (the original) Christianity left sæcular affairs to the contemporary government whoever they are — "Cæsar's to Cæsar" — Islam explains exactly how the government should be structured: a Theocracy with a Caliph at the top. This alone makes Islam incompatible with America's Constitution — but the same Constitution bans us from collectively acknowledging the problem.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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).