Face Recognition Is Now Being Used In Schools (theintercept.com)

Presto Vivace shares a report from The Intercept: Officials at the Lockport, New York, school district have purchased face recognition technology as part of a purported effort to prevent school shootings. Starting in September, all 10 of Lockport District's school buildings, just north of Buffalo, will be outfitted with a surveillance system that can identify faces and objects. The software, known as Aegis, was developed by SN Technologies Corp., a Canadian biometrics firm that specifically advertises to schools. It can be used to alert officials to whenever sex offenders, suspended students, fired employees, suspected gang members, or anyone else placed on a school's "blacklist" enters the premises. Aegis also sends alerts any time one of the "top 10" most popular guns used in school shootings appears in view of a camera. The district is spending most of its recent $4 million state "Smart School" grant on these and other enhancements to its security systems, including bullet-proof greeter windows and a mass notification system, according to the Niagra Gazette. Slashdot reader Presto Vivace adds: "This is why municipal elections are so important. Just because this stuff is on the market, does not mean your local school system has to buy it."

The report notes that "all the major school shootings in the last five years in the U.S. have been carried out by current students or alumnae of the school in question." These students wouldn't have their face entered into the face recognition system's blacklist. Furthermore, "Most shooters don't brandish their guns before opening fire; and by the time they do, an object-detection algorithm that could specify the exact type of weapon they're firing would not be of much use," reports The Intercept. "... the technology would give a school, at best, only a few extra seconds in response time to a shooting."

Comments

Race to the bottom

[Tablizer]

So we have to compete with China in creepiness?

Re:Race to the bottom

[b0s0z0ku]

I'd rather accept some safety risks than have kids learn that total surveillance is acceptable.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

maximum dead children

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Insuring? Sure. This won't do that though.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Actually, I do RTFA]

There are known costs of acclimating children to surveillance, and there is the very real possibility that the data will be used against them in the future vs a very small chance that a shooter will ever be in their school.

Re:Race to the bottom

[b0s0z0ku]

... or we could just make guns harder to buy. And stop encouraging copycats by not making mass shooters and their deeds part of the 24 hour news cycle. Also offer psych treatment for free and have employment policies that don't destroy families.

You know, the way most civilised countries handle it. But, nooooo, we need our guns and our crappy private insurance system... because freedom.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Presto Vivace]

What they are proposing won't prevent rage shootings. We have massive pervasive surveillance in our country, it does not protect us from violence.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather not live in 1984 thanks.

They will do anything to protect their precious guns, which are clearly more important than their children.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Zero__Kelvin]

Oh, oh! I know the answer to this one! Because you are a phenomenally ignorant moron incapable of asking questions founded in intelligent and rational thought!

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

You need the freedom to repress!

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be easier to just reclassify children as a nuisance animal with provisions for legitimate destruction.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Iamthecheese]

My fondest hope for my beloved children is not that they grow up safe, but that they grow up free.

Re:Race to the bottom

[pete6677]

Gun control laws don't hurt either. Venezuela and Nicaragua both passed blanket gun bans, and their violence levels are a fraction (as in 1/1000) of what they were before the bans. NYC has a blanket gun ban, and is the safest place in the US, even in rural areas.

Bullshit

Re: Race to the bottom

[oneunixguy]

Gun control has worked so well in Chicago. We need to emulate so that the only folks with guns are criminals.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Brett Buck]

More than that, the bastard at Parkland had raised *every possible red flag* and had been reported to the responsible authorities multiple times by multimple people - and they still did nothing. Now, you see an alumnus on a camera, and you are going to rush in with the SWAT team in a few tens of seconds? When you have no idea why he is there or what he plans?

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicago has no more actual gun control enforcement than anywhere else in America - and far less than just about anywhere in the civilized world, you Fox News ass drip.

Re:Race to the bottom

[fafalone]

Well if you don't like it, amend or abolish the 2nd Amendment. Seriously, that's a good idea, do it.

But in the mean time, people need to stop pretending that ignoring and gutting the intent of it doesn't lay the groundwork for even more gutting and ignoring of the other, more popular rights.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Happens when you don't make it nationwide like in Australia.

Also, for school shootings it isn't so much that it is possible to acquire guns legally or illegally that is the problem.
Neither gun stores nor criminals are likely to sell guns to school children. (Yep, even your gang members have morals, they just differs from what the law says.)
The issue is a gun culture that makes it acceptable to store guns in a way that every curious child knows how to get hold of dads guns.

Where I live any gun owner would never leave a gun unattended.
If you are cleaning it and have to leave the room you take the bolt with you to make sure the gun isn't usable if stolen.
Same thing if you are transporting it somewhere and can't keep it in a locked container.
We also don't have school shootings. I don't think any kid at my school even had the faintest clue in how to get a hold of a gun.

You can't expect children to be responsible with guns if the adults aren't responsible with guns.

Another thing is that guns favors the aggressor. Any solution that relies on shooting the shooter means that you tolerate one or several innocents shot before the aggressor is dealt with.
Violence as a deterrent doesn't work that well if the aggressor doesn't expect to get out of it alive to begin with.

Re:Race to the bottom

[blahplusplus]

So we have to compete with China in creepiness?

Of course since the average american and person in capitalist society is unaware how extreme wealth inequality is. So all the rulers are at full blown war against their publics. That's why the spying is there, to make sure you have the "correct" free market, corporation worshipping thoughts and not notice the end of the rule of law, endless copyright laws which equals total domination of government by the rich.

See it in this speach by former national security adivisor of the United states:

Elites fear political awakening of the globe

The Citibank memo

Citigroup memo

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

These links will take a while to digest, but if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you owe it to yourself to become informed about the true state of the world. Realize that business and the wealthy is hostile to your interests.

Testing theories of representative government

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Aka the rich (big business) vs the rest of mankind.

The grand chessboard

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

Grand chessboard user review

Stratfor and social media like reddit to monitor / influence and control public opinion.

Reddit and intelligence agencies

  Wikileaks -- Reddit and intelligence agencies

"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."

Crisis of democracy

Crisis of democracy - PDF

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-D... ">Crisis of democracy - BOOK

Education as ignorance

Education as ignorance

  Overthrowing other peoples governments

Overthrowing other peoples governments, the master list

Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

Re: Race to the bottom

[BlueStrat]

Happens when you don't make it nationwide like in Australia.

Australia is totally surrounded by oceans making smuggling something like firearms evtremely difficult. The US has land borders that people, including smugglers, regularly simply walk or drive across. The existing drug and human smuggling cartels would simply add another item to the menu: firearms. Actual military-grade, select-fire/full-automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, and more. If people in the US are unable to obtain a legal firearm that complies with laws and regulations they'll buy from the black market that has no restrictions at all.

There is also the problem of the hundreds of millions of guns...many never registered...that are already in civilian hands. It would be impossible to confiscate enough to make it unlikely a criminal could not obtain one.

Another thing is that guns favors the aggressor.

Guns are an equalizer. They allow a 120 pound (~55 kg) woman a chance to defend herself against a much larger and stronger (usually male) assailant and do it at a distance out of the assailant's reach. Same for older people. Guns save lives as well as take them. It happens almost daily in the US.

The US has had widespread civilian gun ownership since it's founding. The recent violence is a societal problem, not a "tool" problem. Simply look at the UK. Now they're talking about knife bans and one judge in the UK even suggesting people deliberately dull their kitchen knives(!). That's stupid in the extreme.

Of course, enacting bans makes politicos appear to the low-info types to be doing something without having to address the societal problems at the root of the violence that is largely due to their own government policies and laws to begin with.

Any solution that relies on shooting the shooter means that you tolerate one or several innocents shot before the aggressor is dealt with.

The frequency of that having occurred in the many thousands of times criminals have been shot in self defense by civilians in the US is statistically zero, where the number of lives saved is far above statistically zero.

But, let's not allow facts to get in the way of agendas.

Strat

Re:Race to the bottom

[dwillden]

Yes as recent videos of government troops walking down the streets shooting people (including the person with the camera) have shown.

Venezuela is a cess-pitt, anyone with the means to has fled the county. People are starving.

Anyone citing Venezuela as an example of anything but a prime example of the failure of communism is an idiot.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Googling 'democide' - there is a reason the PUBLIC need to be armed.
We could also get rid of mass shootings (which account for a tiny fraction of the total number of shootings in the USA) by allowing freedom of NON-association - the freedom to simply GET AWAY from people you don't want to live around - i.e. criminals.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Firearms kept and borne by the civilian populace as individuals exist for five very important reasons...

1) Defense of life, liberty, and property against foreign invaders.
2) Hunting for food.
3) The shooting sports.
4) Defense of life and property against local agressors.
5) OVERTHROW OF YOUR SO CALLED "GOVERNMENT".

These were put in place because those fatcat Brits tried to play you.

Now you're being played by your very own fatcat "government" and corporations that you dumbasses put in place instead of choosing the better systems below. So now you're up against number five again since the history of the world proves this will always become true in time...

GOVERN - to RULE OVER, to TAX, to CONTROL, to ENSLAVE, to FORCE, to MURDER.
MENT - to BRAINWASH your MIND into believeing that you need to be GOVERNED.

That's false belief.
So threaten and use number 5 as needed to fuck all that and fix it for good...

Read up on voluntaryism, libertarianism, anarchism...
Peace, love, progress, freedom from war, and force, and government.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

You stupid fucks already put your elected critters in charge of your entire life, ever since you let them foist their so called "Constitution" back on you from where the idea came from... England and it's great Pacifier and Subjugator of Peoples... the Magna Carta.

DO NOT search Larken Rose on youtube,
you will learn something, and that's bad for you.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could actually do something when these people are identified beforehand. The Florida shooter from a few weeks ago was known to make comments about killing other students and their parents and was reported to the police and/or FBI over 20 times before it actually happened, and yet he still had easy access to a gun. If we actually enforced the laws we currently have then maybe it wouldn't have happened.

Side note: curiously, the student spokesperson of the latest anti-gun movement, Hogg, is the son of a former FBI agent and a CNN reporter, which makes me suspicious as to why he was chosen given that the FBI failed to prevent the perpetrator from shooting up the school, and CNN has a strong anti-gun agenda.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Arzaboa]

Happens when you don't make it nationwide like in Australia.

Australia is totally surrounded by oceans making smuggling something like firearms evtremely difficult. The US has land borders that people, including smugglers, regularly simply walk or drive across. The existing drug and human smuggling cartels would simply add another item to the menu: firearms. Actual military-grade, select-fire/full-automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, and more. If people in the US are unable to obtain a legal firearm that complies with laws and regulations they'll buy from the black market that has no restrictions at all.

There is also the problem of the hundreds of millions of guns...many never registered...that are already in civilian hands. It would be impossible to confiscate enough to make it unlikely a criminal could not obtain one.

Because guns exist, its not possible to reduce the numbers en masse over the years if it was tried? Many would argue that as guns got scarce and the price soared, the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to buy them or find them?

Another thing is that guns favors the aggressor.

Guns are an equalizer. They allow a 120 pound (~55 kg) woman a chance to defend herself against a much larger and stronger (usually male) assailant and do it at a distance out of the assailant's reach. Same for older people. Guns save lives as well as take them. It happens almost daily in the US.

The US has had widespread civilian gun ownership since it's founding. The recent violence is a societal problem, not a "tool" problem. Simply look at the UK. Now they're talking about knife bans and one judge in the UK even suggesting people deliberately dull their kitchen knives(!). That's stupid in the extreme.

Of course, enacting bans makes politicos appear to the low-info types to be doing something without having to address the societal problems at the root of the violence that is largely due to their own government policies and laws to begin with.

Are you suggesting education for the people? Forced psyche exams at the DMV? Having the politicians change the laws?

Any solution that relies on shooting the shooter means that you tolerate one or several innocents shot before the aggressor is dealt with.

The frequency of that having occurred in the many thousands of times criminals have been shot in self defense by civilians in the US is statistically zero, where the number of lives saved is far above statistically zero.

But, let's not allow facts to get in the way of agendas.

Strat

Because of guns, more people are alive?

--
"Shoot the barrel boy!" - H. Simpson

Re: Race to the bottom

[serviscope_minor]

Simply look at the UK. Now they're talking about knife bans and one judge in the UK even suggesting people deliberately dull their kitchen knives(!). That's stupid in the extreme.

and who is "they"? A retired judge and an activist organisation. Yeah the UK is totally going to hell in a handbasket because out of the 60 million inhabitants you managed to find a few who publicly said something stupid. Good job no one ever says anything stupid in your country.

You're an ex-pat, right?

Re:Race to the bottom

[mjwx]

... or we could just make guns harder to buy. And stop encouraging copycats by not making mass shooters and their deeds part of the 24 hour news cycle. Also offer psych treatment for free and have employment policies that don't destroy families.

You know, the way most civilised countries handle it. But, nooooo, we need our guns and our crappy private insurance system... because freedom.

Sadly, making guns harder to buy wont help. That's treating the symptom, not the cause.

What needs to happen is for guns and violence to stop being glorified in American culture. This means admitting the NRA is wrong and the 2nd Amendment does not mean "lasseiz-fair guns for all". It means people changing their attitudes and treating guns as dangerous objects that must be handled with care and precision instead of toys and problem solvers. Gun control will come as a consequence of this change, not a cause of it.

The reason gun control works in Australia and the UK (sorry gun nuts, it does work) is because the Australian and British people saw it was the right thing to do after incidents like Port Arthur (AUS) and Dunblane (UK). We can still own guns here for recreational purposes, but few, if any own them for defensive purposes as they're just not needed in our society. France and Canada have a lot of guns in private hands, but few mass shootings because the French and Canadian attitudes are one of safety and responsibility.

Until the US changes its attitudes on guns and starts laying the blame at the feet of organisations like the NRA instead of deifying them, dead kids are the price you're going to have to pay.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Total surveillance is a 1984 police state. Nobody wants to feel like a caged animal, it drives people mentally crazy and those are the kinds of people that have been doing the school shootings.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Most gun laws are already illegal, but with some careful thought I did come up with one that would be 100% Constitutional and would be supported by 99% of the liberal left as well as the conservative right. It goes like this...

- - - - - - -
It's illegal for any student in K-12 to buy or receive or be in control of any firearm at any time unless at a designated shooting range under direct supervision of their legal guardian.

All weapons in a household of a K-12 student must be kept securely out of the hands of the K-12 student, or on the person of a non K-12 student.

Failure to maintain security of the weapon is a felony of the 1st degree against the weapon owner.
- - - - - - -
In other words, Keep all guns in a gun safe. make darn sure the kids have no access to it, and you will be held accountable if you fail.

No paperwork
No registration
No permit
No database
No violation of 2nd Amendment rights.

This should prevent most of the school shootings, at least the ones done by students. It would have prevented many of the recent ones.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRA is not responsible for school shootings, the shooter is. Place the blame where it belongs. Do you hold AAA responsible for drunk drivers?

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL They have extreme violence by the cartels in Nicaragua and the people are starving under a dictator in Venezuela. You picked two bad examples.

Re:Race to the bottom

[AlwinBarni]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Does "a well regulated militia" mean every drunk, having mental or anger issues person? Maybe it would be good to actually follow the intentions not literally take a word, the intention is liberty and self governance.

How face recognition AI following (first) kids at schools then every person everywhere, in the name of safety, because we need every crazy have a gun but still we need some decent safety - how is it liberty?

Re: Race to the bottom

[fafalone]

Neither gun stores nor criminals are likely to sell guns to school children. (Yep, even your gang members have morals, they just differs from what the law says.)

Most of the school shooters are at least mid to late teens; sure they won't sell to little kids (usually) but older teens have no trouble on the black market when they look like they could easily be 18.

The issue is a gun culture that makes it acceptable to store guns in a way that every curious child knows how to get hold of dads guns.

There's no scenario under which that's preventable for kids old enough to go shoot up their school short of off-site storage, though better storage would help with accidental deaths for little kids.

Violence as a deterrent doesn't work that well if the aggressor doesn't expect to get out of it alive to begin with.

And that's part of why more gun control won't be effective against school shooters. They're so determined they're planning on giving their life for it, but not so determined they couldn't track down a black market gun? The more legal sales are restricted, the larger the black market will grow. One thing other countries with bans didn't have was hundreds of millions in circulation already; and there's just no way a confiscation program would happen here, not in the lifetime of anyone alive today. We need to focus on our mental health problem, and find a better, more accurate way to identify and help kids going down that road long before they decide to kill.

Re:Race to the bottom

[AlwinBarni]

... or we could just make guns harder to buy. And stop encouraging copycats by not making mass shooters and their deeds part of the 24 hour news cycle. Also offer psych treatment for free and have employment policies that don't destroy families.

You know, the way most civilised countries handle it. But, nooooo, we need our guns and our crappy private insurance system... because freedom.

Sadly, making guns harder to buy wont help. That's treating the symptom, not the cause.

How do you know that? It seems to work in other countries.
I will answer, you do not know, because it is forbidden by law for any government organization to do any research in that matter.

However I see your point, that there is a mentally broken person behind every mass shooting, but still ... with a gun.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRA is not responsible for school shootings, the shooter is. Place the blame where it belongs. Do you hold AAA responsible for drunk drivers?

Does AAA advocate for every driver to be drinking while driving?

Re:Race to the bottom

[Uberbah]

Sadly, making guns harder to buy wont help. That's treating the symptom, not the cause.

....

The reason gun control works in Australia and the UK (sorry gun nuts, it does work) is because the Australian and British people saw it was the right thing to do after incidents like Port Arthur (AUS) and Dunblane (UK).

Eh? Statements seem to be a wee bit contradictory.

Re:Race to the bottom

[torkus]

I'd rather they spent $4m on teacher salaries, improved equipment for the students, and school supplies...or things like bullying and assault and quality food for the children to eat.

But nah...one politician is in bed with another and their buddy sells these systems so free government money 'for schools' is just lining their pockets as usual.

Re:Race to the bottom

[torkus]

The NRA has a firm stance on not restricting gun ownership because of the endless game that politicians play making things "better" which always goes much too far.

With that said, the NRA certainly supports responsible gun ownership. Before all this hysteria many high schools had rifle clubs which, of course, taught gun safety. By restricting guns, they've equally restricted access to education about this.

Re:Race to the bottom

[torkus]

There are plenty examples of it NOT working. The countries often referenced as 'examples' also have majorly difference social structures, government, and so on while plenty of countries that prohibit guns entirely still have either gun or other weapon-based crime...and lots of it.

Hell, the UK is currently trying to convince people that knives are too dangerous and to turn them in because there's too much knife crime. Examples like that are why the NRA is so uncompromising in their stance. Unlike many others, they actually see what will happen ... and how it's not actually effective.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

people need to stop pretending that ignoring and gutting the intent of it doesn't lay the groundwork for even more gutting and ignoring of the other, more popular rights.

Whoa. You found the elusive documents where the founding fathers laid out their unanimous support of the unambiguous intent behind the second amendment?! Why haven't you shared this with the world, you jerk?!

Or wait... Do you have a time machine and you asked them yourself?! Same conclusion - why haven't you shared this with the world, you jerk?!

Re:Race to the bottom

[torkus]

Sadly, making guns harder to buy wont help. That's treating the symptom, not the cause.

....

The reason gun control works in Australia and the UK (sorry gun nuts, it does work) is because the Australian and British people saw it was the right thing to do after incidents like Port Arthur (AUS) and Dunblane (UK).

Eh? Statements seem to be a wee bit contradictory.

Not only that, but it's false equivalence. It completely ignores all the cultural and historical differences between them and the US. It also ignores the politicians in the US always feeling the need to Do Something. Even after they've done something which worked just fine...and thus why no one trusts them.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Supreme court has ruled this applies to an individual if you don't like it remove it

Re:Race to the bottom

[torkus]

Gun control laws don't hurt either. Venezuela and Nicaragua both passed blanket gun bans, and their violence levels are a fraction (as in 1/1000) of what they were before the bans. NYC has a blanket gun ban, and is the safest place in the US, even in rural areas.

Bullshit

Maybe a bit oversimplified, but accurate. Venezuela is frequent riots, tons of violent crime, and banning guns did nothing to make it better. Many argue it made things worse. GP is just making up nonsense information.

NYC is not the safest place in the USA nor does it have rural areas (wtf, urban and rural are completely different). Yes, i found the google search that lists it as the safest big city and then goes on to not provide any information behind the decision. Besides that, what's making NYC safer is the 10's of thousands of cops and the M4 automatic rifles many of them carry around on a daily basis in heavily trafficked areas.

Go to times sq. Pick any spot you like to stand. Look around. From any vantage point i bet you can see at LEAST a half dozen cops in full tactical gear standing around.

Guns make people safer, not the opposite. Gun training makes guns safer to use and own. Mental health and general healthcare plus a society that gives a fuck about it's citizens makes people less likely to turn guns on their own.

Re: Race to the bottom

[torkus]

Because of guns, more people are alive?

Yes. Now if only people would expand their thinking outside of the previous 5 second news clip maybe they would understand that better.

Oh fine, here's an analogy ... erm meme, call it a meme since that's how people thing today: Nuclear weapons can kill millions. Enough countries have them that they point them at each other ... and then go work things out by other means. No one would every use one because they know they'd get one shot back at them...and the idiot who eventually does despite that is going to go splat and cease to exist.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Because guns exist, its not possible to reduce the numbers en masse over the years if it was tried?

Only if you're willing to kill tens or hundreds of millions of citizens because it would most definitely start a civil war. BTW a large percentage if not most US military members are pro-gun and would side against the government if the government tried it.

Kinda defeats the whole purpose of reducing violent deaths.

Re:Race to the bottom

[strikethree]

.. or we could just make guns harder to buy.

I can see why you would be under the impression that making guns harder to buy would prevent school shootings. The logic, in a perfect world, is obvious. The world is not perfect and it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that such restrictions would assist in this situation.

There is a reason that the Second Amendment exists. It would appear that you fully discount the reason that it exists. That is fine. Each person is allowed to have their opinion. Do you truly feel comfortable forcing your opinion on others who have different opinions? If so, you will have quite a few people who will strongly disagree with you. Are your arguments airtight enough to withstand altering the root document that created this country?

(CAPTCHA: expelled)

Re:Race to the bottom

[Archangel Michael]

So, your proposal is simply a gilded cage, and you're okay with it.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the 1st and 2nd amendments refer to the right of the People:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Archangel Michael]

The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" is such that the 2nd Amendment only ENSURES that right, not grant it. And since you asked, it is well established case law that "Well Regulated Militia" means every able bodied adult, capable of wielding a weapon, but isn't limited to those people.

And for the record, we allow stupid, drunk, angry persons to vote, and I actually count that as a greater threat than my guns, simply because they are capable of making repeated bad decisions, over and over again.

Re:Race to the bottom

[fafalone]

How many times do we have to go over this?

The "militia" in the time of the founders consisted of all able-bodied men. You were automatically in the militia. And expected to bring your own gun when the called up. Thus, the individual right was inherently a requirement for the formation of the militia. Also, if you read the history behind it, defense against tyranny was absolutely a consideration.
You're not going to achieve reform by lying about things.

Re:Race to the bottom

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not an individual right - otherwise it would have used the word Persons

So, which part of "the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" implies that it's not an individual Right?

Note, by the by, that the First Amendment doesn't use the word "Persons", either. In fact, taken literally, the First could be abrogated by Executive Order - the First specifically says that Congress can't mess with Free Speech, and sets no such limits on either the President or the Judiciary.

Likewise, the Fourth doesn't use the word "persons", so it shouldn't actually be taken to be an individual Right, right?

Re:Race to the bottom

[Archangel Michael]

Would you say that the First Amendment rights are limited to the Press? If not, why are you reading the 2nd in a restrictive way and not the first.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Both use the phrase "right of the people".

Either the rights belong to the people, of they don't.

Re:Race to the bottom

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

But this isn't about total surveillance, it's about monitoring a public institution. You don't think there are cameras with facial recognition software in use at other government buildings like courthouses, police stations, the DMV, etc? How about in the private workplace?

Schools and classrooms should have video surveillance. It protects people from false allegations and it provides proof that events did happen.

This sort of technology would be great for things like automatic roll calls, clocking workers in/out, loss prevention and front desk security. I'm not going to argue it's a good use of school resources, but it will definitely improve the ability to monitor a location. As for securing a school, locked doors and security staff would probably be more effective.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Dare nMc]

The NRA used to support responsible gun ownership, and I am sure occasionally it is still taught in some NRA settings, but it is far from a priority today.

They went to the Supreme court to stop a national law to prevent the mentally ill from being reported to a national registry to prevent them from buying guns.

They prevented laws that would stop bump stocks from being sold.

They spent 8 years convincing people that Obama wanted to take away guns and ammo, despite the only gun law changes proposed or passed by Obama were to allow carry in national parks and on Amtrak. This hurt gun owners, as people stocked up on ammo making it very difficult for sports shooters to purchase.

They primarily are now a political organization, they raise money for republicans, they promote only republicans to their members. They help set the republican agenda to align with the gun manufactures, in return for exclusively supporting republicans to their members. It doesn't matter that 90%+ of democratic lawmakers have the same goals for gun law changes as the majority of gun owners, safety related changes, and better background checks. The NRA doesn't care because they are a Republican organization.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Archangel Michael]

In other countries, you can be thrown in jail for saying stuff or even filming outside a courthouse. The reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the rights granted in the first.

We aren't other countries, we're the bastion of liberty for the rest of the world. And yes, that liberty is messy at times. It is better than a gilded cage of tyranny we rejected 250 years ago.

Re:Race to the bottom

[fafalone]

We already disqualify the mentally ill. And if you look at the intentions of the 2nd, objectively, the restrictions we already have in place are already in profound contradiction of it, mostly fully reasonably, but let's not kid ourselves here: The intent was that the militia, composed automatically of all able bodied men, of which personal gun ownership was a requirement, would engage in military combat, with all the weapons of war, against invaders or an out of control domestic tyranny. This is the whole point here, you're trying to revise history by claiming the right is what you want it to be rather than what it is, completely divorced from what it actually means. This is incredibly damaging to our other rights. The proper way to deal with the 2nd is amend or abolish, not try to re-write history and pretend it's essentially void.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Does "a well regulated militia" mean

Woah, Nellie!

The right of the People to keep and bear arms is a necessary requirement of the existence of a well regulated militia. Not the other way around. I can understand how you mistake the sentence to mean what you think it means; modern Americans don't speak English good aft her awl.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

If the intent were to make sure the populace remained armed well enough that they could overthrow a government that devolved into tyranny, that intent has already failed. The US could devolve (and some would say it already has) into an overt tyranny easily and with the arms they have now, the people could do nothing against a tyranny backed by a military with access to armored vehicles, planes, drones, and high tech weaponry the average citizen is already not allowed to own.

If the intent were to make sure every state has a military force not wholly dependent on the central government, we already have that and it no longer requires that every able-bodied man have a weapon.

Either way, how does guaranteeing that every able-bodied man be able to have a firearm support the amendment's intent in the modern age?

You're not going to achieve reform by lying about things.

You're not going to win arguments by ignoring reality either.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're trying to conflate UK knife crime with US gun deaths and applauding the NRAs stance?

For the record, 43 people have died of knife crimes in the UK this year, that's fewer than the number of US guns deaths in the last 96 hours.

Obviously the UK has a far smaller population, so if we scale up the UK figures, it works out roughly the the UK knife deaths per month would be about the same as the US gun deaths per week

So your gun problem is 4 times as big as our knife problem, but whilst our government and community leaders are doing everything in their power to lower knife crime, your politicians and NRA are doing nothing to lower gun crime, and are in fact fighting any attempts to install programs or laws that might lower those numbers.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

We can still own guns here for recreational purposes, but few, if any own them for defensive purposes as they're just not needed in our society.

UK News Sources say otherwise: http://freebeacon.com/issues/knife-control-debate-heats-uk-amid-london-murder-spike-2/

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC here with a correction: links in the quoted article go to UK sources, the article itself is not from the UK. Also, I'm not advocating "free guns for all" as a solution, just disputing the point that some kind of right to self defense is not needed in your society.

Re:Race to the bottom

[b0s0z0ku]

Except that we throw more people in jail than those supposedly tyrannous countries that you mention. The US: leading jailer in the civilized world.

Re:Race to the bottom

[b0s0z0ku]

Think of it from the workers' standpoint: total surveillance increases stress levels, since employers can use anything minor against them now. The only workers I might support this with are police, because they have the power to kill other people with basic impunity. Schools, nah.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly,. All this information gathering is never used to the benefit of anyone only to either make profits for a vast minority or used against individuals when the opportunity is right.,

Re:Race to the bottom

[Obfuscant]

The intent was that the militia, composed automatically of all able bodied men, of which personal gun ownership was a requirement,

No. The INTENT is stated in the sentence itself: "the right of the PEOPLE". It does not say "the right of anyone who might be in the militia". The clause talking about the militia is not a defining clause, it is descriptive. It gives ONE REASON why the right should not be infringed, and it still means that it is a right. I.e., it is not granted by the Constitution, it is affirmed, and thus "only applies to likely militia members" is absurd on its face.

The proper way to deal with the 2nd is amend or abolish,

You do realize that the concept behind the Bill of Rights is not that the government is granting that right, and can thus rescind it by simply amending or deleting it from the list, but that it is a basic inalienable right that exists and is listed to ensure that the government is restricted from infringing on it. The authors had just gone through a time under a government that enjoyed infringing on rights of the public and they wanted to make sure the government they were creating would not do so. Also, the Bill of Rights is not an afterthought.

It's a pretty sad day when people argue that items already in the Bill of Rights should be removed so that the government can more freely infringe on the rights of the people.

not try to re-write history and pretend it's essentially void.

That's what every person who points to the clause about "militia" is trying to do, you know.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Obfuscant]

The reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the rights granted in the first.

Neither the First nor Second Amendments grant rights. They exist to try to prevent the government from restricting the people in exercising the rights that already exist.

Both speak in terms of the government not restricting something and do not define that something as a right. For example: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is assumed; the active part of that sentence is that government shall not infringe upon that right. The First is written the same way. "Congress shall make no law" to limit a list of rights that are already assumed to belong to the people.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Archangel Michael]

You are correct. Thank you for clarifying. They don't "Grant" rights, they are protections to rights that pre-exist. I worded my response poorly.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Archangel Michael]

Yes, we also have a shit ton of laws out there that have no bearing on reality.

Keep in mind, I am a Libertarian and am for Liberty. There are a number of laws on the books that do not solve the problems they supposedly are on the books to do.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Kulahan]

It's a pretty sad day when people argue that items already in the Bill of Rights should be removed so that the government can more freely infringe on the rights of the people.

It's a pretty sad day when people put owning guns over the lives of human beings. Chill out, it's a fucking toy 80% of the time. A little regulation won't hurt anybody. Nobody cares about you enough to specifically come out to murder you, and if they're coming into your house, it's probably for your TV or jewelry. Give it up and let insurance buy you a new one. Holy shit.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anubis IV]

There's no need to gut, abolish, or eliminate it. This is a modern problem that only began a few decades ago. This problem exists because a group of people did exactly what you're saying we shouldn't do: they ignored the intent of the amendment.

Here's the most salient bit from the linked article (emphasis in the original):

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”

At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely. [...]

This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.

All of which is to say, it wasn't until 1960 that anyone in legal circles even suggested that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the rights of everyone to have guns, and even then, it was just a (clearly biased) law student floating the notion. It was only in the late 1970s that the idea gained traction as the NRA started to put their marketing might behind it.

So the big question then is, when did the school shooting epidemic start? Well, take a look at the list of school shootings in the US and decide for yourself. At a glance though, I'd say that there seems to be a marked jump in the number of shootings at pretty much the exact same time that the public was being fed this dangerous new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Correlation != causation, of course, but it's interesting nonetheless, and might be an encouragement to return to the original intent and interpretation of the amendment.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Kulahan]

total surveillance increases stress levels, since employers can use anything minor against them now.

Employers in at-will states can fire you for anything they want anyways, so long as it's not illegal (like race or religion).

Re:Race to the bottom

[Obfuscant]

They went to the Supreme court to stop a national law to prevent the mentally ill from being reported to a national registry to prevent them from buying guns.

You're ok with people being put on a federal government list that they cannot get off of, have little control over being put on, with criteria that are subjective and change on a regular, if not daily, basis? That would be a list that is open to the public (anyone selling a gun to anyone else needs access) and brands that person as sick. This is ok with you? It's not a violation of due process or the right to privacy? Remember, you don't have to actively seek to buy a gun to be on that list, or for someone to check the list for your name.

"No Fly List" ok, too? Sex offender list for people who urinate in public, that ok?

I'd say if you approve of such a list you are mentally ill and deserve to be on the list. We're keeping an eye on you, my friend. And you'll probably respond that if I don't support such a list I must be mentally ill, so now we're both on the list.

They prevented laws that would stop bump stocks from being sold.

Bump stocks are not the problem. Banning bump stocks wouldn't solve anything, it would only create another precedent of "let's try banning X and hope it works". Let's stop now and not keep expanding X until it really does damage.

They spent 8 years convincing people that Obama wanted to take away guns and ammo, despite the only gun law changes proposed or passed by Obama were to allow carry in national parks and on Amtrak.

You don't understand the difference between what a President wants to enact and what he's able to get enacted, I see. Another sign of mental illness. You're closer to being on the national nutcase list with every sentence you speak.

They primarily are now a political organization, they raise money for republicans, they promote only republicans to their members.

I can't think of one social organization that doesn't promote political candidates that are supportive of the group ideas against those who are not. NRA is not alone. If you want to find more egregious examples, look to the unions who use union dues to support political candidates who back the unions.

It doesn't matter that 90%+ of democratic lawmakers have the same goals for gun law changes as the majority of gun owners,

And whose statistics are those? That's rhetorical, I already know. They're made up to support stricter gun control, based on nebulous polls interpreted the way the gun control people want them to be. The question "do you support gun control" counts as support for the idea of MORE gun control, while the person who says "yes" means "I support what we already have." You can tell this because people who want to limit other people's freedom in this area never use the term "more" when they talk about "gun control", it's always "we need gun control" -- as if there were none now.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Obfuscant]

It's a pretty sad day when people put owning guns over the lives of human beings.

That's not what I've said in any way, shape, or form.

Chill out, it's a fucking toy 80% of the time.

If you can take that attitude about other people's rights, they can take that attitude with yours. Don't tell people to "chill out" when they are talking about rights, because they'll tell you the same thing when you complain about violations of yours.

A little regulation won't hurt anybody.

You are the textbook example of something I just referred to a minute or so ago in another post. WE ALREADY HAVE REGULATION. It is already illegal to kill someone else, in the context of school shootings. (Self defense is a different matter.) It is already a crime to steal a gun from someone else. It is, in most places, already a crime to carry a gun on a school campus. It is already a crime in most places to carry a concealed gun without a permit, and none of the school shooters has had one. There are already background checks.

We already have regulation. Putting this in terms of "a little regulation won't hurt anybody" is dishonest, but is the typical anti-gun talking point.

Re:Race to the bottom

[b0s0z0ku]

It's complicated, because schools are typically unionized. Short answer: no need to make it easier for them.

Re:Race to the bottom

[fafalone]

Which is why I suggested amending or abolishing it. That some (but not all) of its original purpose is impossible (self defense, and an armed populace resisting foreign invasion working with our military, and hunting, and sport shooting still are), that doesn't mean you get to declare the whole thing void by ignoring it or re-writing history such that its other purposes aren't protected still.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Please see the 21st amendment and re-evaluate your second paragraph.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Obfuscant]

No violation of 2nd Amendment rights.

So a person who is 14 years old has rights, unless he is a student in a K12 school. Interesting concept. Will that pass constitutional muster?

It would also prohibit a "K12 student" who finds a gun left unattended at home from doing anything to resolve that problem. He can't pick it up to put it in the gun safe where it should be, because that would be "in control of" something he legally cannot be. He's got to leave it alone, where maybe his 8 year old brother can find it and do something stupid with it.

This should prevent most of the school shootings, at least the ones done by students.

It is "yet another law" that a disgruntled K12 student looking to shoot up his classmates will ignore. He's breaking so many laws already that it is hard to imagine one more making any difference.

As for this being a law on the parents, well, kids are pretty smart. They can figure out how to steal guns from their parents, or from people who have no "K12 students" and thus aren't subject to your new law.

If nothing else, they can get their parents off the hook by simply claiming that they dropped out the day before the shooting, and thus are not a K12 student anymore. Well, he dropped out but hadn't notified the school office yet. He was going to get around to that but was distracted by all the gunfire.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the NRA advocate for every gun owner to go around shooting other people?

No? Then your comparison is dishonest.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't allow criminals to buy guns or allow drunks to drive. they just do it. No law can stop it.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Obfuscant]

Because guns exist, its not possible to reduce the numbers en masse over the years if it was tried?

You miss the point. You might be able to reduce the numbers of guns en-masse if you enacted a draconian, unconstitutional ban on guns in the US. Maybe.

What you would not significantly reduce is the number of guns used by criminals. You don't realize that the people who would turn in their gun when they are banned are the non-criminals. The people who aren't going to shoot up a school anyway. The ones who will CONTINUE to ignore the law are the ones who already ignore the law -- criminals.

You will create a situation directly analogous to Prohibition in the 20's. Alcohol was made illegal. Criminals became a source of illegal stuff. People died because of the crime that Prohibition created. Criminals profited because of the higher prices they could charge for illicit stuff.

There are already people who complain that the "Drug War" is causing the problem, not solving it. They point to the fact that a vacuum in supply will be met by illegal sources. Should we create a "Gun War" to go along with it?

Many would argue that as guns got scarce and the price soared, the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to buy them or find them?

The VAST majority of people are not involved in gun crime to start with. That is, until you make owning a gun a crime, at which point only criminals will own guns. Whether or not the vast majority of people would be able to afford one, the criminals will still have them and they're the ones you have to worry about.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing but crickets

Re:Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

All I know is that no matter what arguments are presented, since you DON'T want gun control so bad that merely talking about it gets your panties in wad, I will do everything I can to make sure it is enacted. You are that big of a piece of shit.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. Watch NRA TV sometime. Around every corner is a black guy or a mulsim just WAITING to murder you. You need to protect your family! (TM)

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets just cut to the chase and install telescreens everywhere, including in everybodys' homes. Don't like it? The Ministry of Love would like to have a word with you....

Re:Race to the bottom

[dcw3]

"It's a pretty sad day when people put owning guns over the lives of human beings" - I've owned guns for over 45 years, and they've never once been pointed at another human being. So, why am I under attack?

" A little regulation won't hurt anybody" - Do you have a clue how much regulation there is??? I'm all for a little regulation, but not a continued erosion that does nothing to actually solve the problem of keeping weapons out of the hands of those who are mentally ill.

"...it's probably for your TV or jewelry. Give it up ..." - Where exactly do you live? I'll be right there for the TV.

Re:Race to the bottom

[dcw3]

"The intent was ..."

Repeating lies doesn't make them true. Please stop.

Re:Race to the bottom

[The Black Oak]

If I see one of these machines it's going down, hopefully it's one of those things you can see lol - everything is so tiny these days...

Re:Race to the bottom

[Uberbah]

You first, clown shoes. The venn diagram of gun nuts and people who have actually read the 2nd Amendment is a couple of circles with a mile between them.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Uberbah]

You're the second person to quote the 1st Amendment without noting what it actually says - but it wouldn't be a gun debate without a false equivalency.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People refers to a gathering of persons, which is going to be people by definition - it's not the wording for the entire set of rights, the way it is for the 2nd. Also not present in the first amendment is the word "regulated".

Re:Race to the bottom

[Uberbah]

So, which part of "the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" implies that it's not an individual Right?

Obviously, the part where it doesn't use the word Persons, obviously. As opposed to, say, the 4th Amendment. You know, like I said the first time.

Note, by the by, that the First Amendment doesn't use the word "Persons", either. In fact, taken literally, the First could be abrogated by Executive Order - the First specifically says that Congress can't mess with Free Speech, and sets no such limits on either the President or the Judiciary.

You're literally the second person not to actually read the 1st Amendment when trying to make this false equivalency:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People refers to a gathering of persons, which is going to be people by definition - it's not the wording for the entire set of rights, the way it is for the 2nd. Also not present in the first amendment is the word "regulated".

Re:Race to the bottom

[Uberbah]

How many times do we have to go over this?

The layers of gun nut propaganda and selective reading are quite thick, so many, many times. Unfortunately.

The "militia" in the time of the founders consisted of all able-bodied men.

A well regulated militia. A collective group of people, not every Burt Gummer sitting at home polishing his dick extender.

Also, if you read the history behind it, defense against tyranny was absolutely a consideration.

Absolute delusion. Treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Suspension of habeas corpus:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Calling forth the militia:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Tell me again how the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to resist tyranny from the federal government, when exercising that so-called right will see the government legally, constitutionally call forth the militia to suppress your rebellion, throw you in prison without a warrant or a trial, and finally, with two witnesses, see you swinging from a tree for Treason.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Obfuscant]

All I know is that no matter what arguments are presented, since you DON'T want gun control

Another textbook example of the dishonesty of the anti-gun activists. You see, ny not wanting MORE gun control, or not wanting useless gun control, is painted as not wanting gun control at all.

I will do everything I can to make sure it is enacted. You are that big of a piece of shit.

So you will work to strip everyone of their freedoms because of spite. This is your idea why laws should be written, to spite those you don't agree with.

Re: Race to the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns have been subject to restrictions in every single Western democracy other than the US, and none of this has happened. Why would the US be different from, say, Britain or Australia?

Re:Race to the bottom

[dcw3]

Yes. Once again you've proven that you have nothing intelligent to say, so you have to make shit up to fit your agenda.

Re:Race to the bottom

[Uberbah]

Your continued projection in the face of facts is noted. Feel free to come back with a response, as opposed to gun nut butthurt, at any time.

Re:Race to the bottom

[DRJlaw]

Side note: curiously, the student spokesperson of the latest anti-gun movement, Hogg, is the son of a former FBI agent and a CNN reporter, which makes me suspicious as to why he was chosen given that the FBI failed to prevent the perpetrator from shooting up the school, and CNN has a strong anti-gun agenda.

ZOMG! FBI agents and CNN reporters never reproduce in nature, so it was obviously a plot hatched 18 or so years ago to [insert conspiracy theory here].

Suddenly now people like you are concerned about, what, nepotism? But it is fine to have Jared, Ivanka, and half of the Trump Familia slotted into quasi-governmental positions and running things.

The Parkland students are big boys and girls, so tell you what -- why don't you identify even one of them that has complained that Hogg was "chosen" by shadowy outside organizations while still supporting that group's message. I mean, if that's what's happening, it'll be an easy task, right?

Incredible Pranking Opportunity

[Bing Tsher E]

any time one of the "top 10" most popular guns

That is going to be a lot of fun for the kids. Better than eating tide pods. "Trigger the cams!"

The coolest kids will be the ones who figure out the most clever ways of triggering the system.

Re:Incredible Pranking Opportunity

[b0s0z0ku]

Yep, instead of a "kick me sign", people will get a silhouette of a g-n... Call it a SWAT me sign :( Never underestimate the stupidity of HS kids.

Re:Incredible Pranking Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

I tripped the alarm with my pet turtle yesterday. Top that, Jeremy
https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Re:Incredible Pranking Opportunity

[fafalone]

Since a school suspended a 2nd grader just for chewing his poptart into the shape of a gun, an absurd decision upheld in court, I can't imagine anything that would confuse the recognition would end up well for the student. It's the world of Zero Tolerance [for common sense].

Band-Aid solution...

[b0s0z0ku]

If someone is inside the school with a gun, it's too damn late. Want to fix school shootings? Put a waiting period on all gun purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off." Stop publicizing the names and activities of school shooters. Publicity encourages copycats -- this is a well-known phenomenon with suicides as well. And God forbid people have access to free mental health care, and we enact policies like limits on working hours and vacation time that actually keep family support networks together vs driving them apart. But nooooo ... we have our FREEDOM in America.

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[I75BJC]

The mentally ill are already forbidden to purchase guns -- It's The Law! The problem stated in the summary is the fact that none of the recent shooters would be on the "Troubled/Unwanted Individuals" list. Why? Because the school administration did not follow their own rules (and, in come cases, the laws) on reporting students as troubled or problem students. The Government School Administrators screwed up royally. Only if the Administrators do their jobs properly would the face recognition system work. This is a knee-jerk reaction to cover up poor school Administrators,

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

... purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off."

Most mentally-ill don't buy guns specifically for their shooting spree. In addition, most steal additional guns for their mass-murder plans.

The mentally-ill, by definition aren't going to help the community, so laws need to allow the restriction and removal of guns on/from those people. IIRC, the NRA has argued that mentally-ill people still have rights to firearms, which is propaganda that very few voters would agree with; alas, voters can't bribe politicians.

Want to fix school shootings?

You mentioned 3 improvements: mental health, restricting access to guns and improving community/family cohesion. There is also making the police responsible for armed criminals; not the home-owner or teacher.

As much as Americans hide behind legal gun-owners, shooting sprees following shopping trends (ie. 'assault' rifles), firearm deaths (including police deaths) follows ownership density. These factors need to change despite its effect on legal owners.

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put a waiting period on all gun purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off."

There IS a waiting period on guns, and we already have a system where mental health officials can put someones name on the list of people who can't buy guns. Yet the shooting still keep happening.

  Stop publicizing the names and activities of school shooters.

Fat chance of that happening. The media is a business, and big stories like this attract eyeballs. This is an easy story to publish that requires little research. The media will stop publishing these stories when you pry the money from their cold, dead hands.

we enact policies like limits on working hours and vacation time that actually keep family support networks together vs driving them apart.

I think that's a great idea, but it's not going to stop school shootings, or shootings in general. The honest answer is we don't really know what causes these things, and we don't know how to stop them. The right wing has this fantasy of continues protection infra-structure like arming teachers, or magical technology like this. The left wing has this fantasy that banning the AR-15, or other cosmetic bans on guns is going to do something, or suddenly using the no-fly list to ban people buying guns who be practical (not designed for this), effective, or even constitutional. If I had to take a guess, I'd say it has something to do with a gun obsessed country. If that's a big part of it, good luck changing that. Changing culture is massive, monumental, and mostly fruitless task.

We should probably do some sensible things that might limit some deaths. Like limiting the amount of ammo that can be in a magazine, and ban those stupid bump stocks and similar devices that are a loophole around the automatic weapon ban. While we're at it, let the cops take away someones gun who's been determined to be a potential threat to others, pending a hearing.

Anything else is likely to be window dressing.

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[phantomfive]

Want to fix school shootings? Put a waiting period on all gun purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off."

How many school shootings would that have stopped? Not many, especially since many states already have waiting periods.

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[Calydor]

While I agree with the idea of some kind of regulation of gun ownership (I'm European, after all) I don't think a waiting period will stop school shootings. How many school shootings happened in which the shooter bought the gun on his way to school?

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[drinkypoo]

Put a waiting period on all gun purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off."

We have that in California, and we still have shootings. They just happen later. We're going to have to care for people's needs if we want to stop them. (Or we can try to ban guns, create a bunch of other problems, and turn the shootings into arson.)

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[Scroatzilla]

I keep seeing this term "free ____," as though it is real. There is no such thing as "free" as in "cost." Addressing the issue of cost, in fact, is probably the most important part of any argument like, "____ should be available for free." Part of the cost argument has to address the issue of incentive for people to become professionals in a given field, such as mental health professionals (i.e., if mental healthcare is "free," that means "a cost to the taxpayers," which really means "at the whim of the government," which means "getting paid the minimum amount possible").
This is the Achilles heal of public education. Teachers under that system will never be paid enough. Professors under that system would never be paid enough. Being subject to the whim of government is the opposite of freedom, and has many bad downstream effects. So, your call for mental healthcare makes sense, but you've got a bit more explaining to do regarding the cost.

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[strikethree]

Want to fix school shootings? Put a waiting period on all gun purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off."

What makes you think a waiting period would have stopped ANY of the school shootings? Are you under the impression that these kids are going out to buy guns just before they start shooting? Do kids even get a background check when acquiring guns?

Look, I can respect that you want to do something to stop school shootings. Knee-jerk, emotional reactions feel good, but will those reactions solve the problem or do they just make you feel better?

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[b0s0z0ku]

Taxes. Plenty of money that can be cut from:
(1) the military
(2) state law enforcement budgets if states enact rational drug and mental health policies

Re:Band-Aid solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to fix school shootings? Put a waiting period on all gun purchases...

What a maroon.

I know, why don't we just put up Hello Kitty themed "this is a gun free zone" signs all around the school? All those "drug free zone" signs worked. Right?

I guess there's a reason why every time I see your account name I think "bozo the clown"...

alert for "top 10" most popular guns???

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you send an alert for ANY firearm instead??

Shootings "carried out by current students or alumnae"?

Alumnae is a group of female graduates. I'm not aware of any school shootings carried out by a group of female graduates, but admittedly I don't keep track of all of them. On the other hand, alumni is the plural noun for a group of male graduates or male and female graduates.

And as the summary points out, what do you do when the system detects a school shooting?

It's often said that the only was to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

And it was shown in the Parkland shooting that the police weren't those good guys with guns.

Re:alert for "top 10" most popular guns???

[I75BJC]

Recently an armed school LEO stopped a killer as the rampage began. The officer was commended for saving lives for quick and accurate action. IIRC, this was at a Texas school. Check it out. It didn't make the headlines, obviously.

Re: alert for "top 10" most popular guns???

[Zero__Kelvin]

I'm afraid what is obvious is that you are an ignorant douche.

*facepalms*

[DivineKnight]

Why must we relish every bad idea that comes along? Why?

Re:*facepalms*

[ColdWetDog]

So we can ketchup with our worst fears.

Re:*facepalms*

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Why must we relish every bad idea that comes along? Why?

What are you talking about? Now excuse me while I make my career driving for an app so I can get bitcoin sent to my phone, which is tracking my location and sending that data to FB so I can get ads based on my psychometric profiles based on my fun quiz I just took!.

Re:*facepalms*

[6Yankee]

We could do something about school shootings, or we could sell guns AND surveillance systems AND clear backpacks.

We could do something about obesity, or we could sell Twinkies AND mobility scooters AND healthcare.

For every problem, a profit. Solving the problems means removing the profit, and that's Communist. You're not a Communist, are you, son?

Re:*facepalms*

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe you mustard up the courage to make such a bad pun.

Public schools blowing more tax money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Privatize schools now.

Gee, wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with all these school shootings? No privacy, no free-time, no right to free association, no chance to talk freely... sounds like the perfect environment for teenagers! Emotion-monitoring cameras should make it even nicer!

Re:Gee, wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad kids get to pick on others with zero repercussions, and hey, they even get a platform for it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHge-tgZClM

this is another example of why we don't have

[Presto Vivace]

gun control in the United States. School shooters are a profit center. Instead of spending money on teaches and classroom supplies we are spending money on security theater. If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[b0s0z0ku]

that, and NRA lobbyists, and single issue voters who think that the 2nd Amendment is the extent of the Constitution and all other freedoms are optional.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[markdavis]

>"If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us."

You are 100% wrong. The last school murdering, in Texas was done with a revolver, a shotgun, and [not deployed] bombs.

1) Was it an "assault revolver"? No. Revolvers typically hold ONLY 6 rounds and have been around for hundreds of years. They have ZERO magazines.

2) Was it an "assault shotgun"? No. Again, been around forever, typically hold only 2 to 5 rounds, and have ZERO magazines.

3) Bombs are not guns. By the way, "assault cars" and vans are not guns. Knives are not guns. Gasoline, axes, bowes, pressure cookers, etc are all not guns.

The problem is not simple. It isn't guns in the hands of good people, which is often the only thing that keeps things in check AND it is the only real thing that additional gun control affects the most. The problems are:

1) Untreated mental health problems

2) Way too much media coverage and sensationalism that causes copy-cating.

3) Unarmed trained guards and unarmed trained staff that can't do anything about murder sprees until it is too late. There is often to the point of almost always zero armed resistance. And there is zero deterrence, due to the same reason.

4) Insecure facilities with too many uncontrolled entrances and lack of defenses.

5) Underenforced EXISTING laws. It is already illegal to sell guns of any type or capacity to the mentally ill or felons. It is already illegal to buy or possess guns of any type or capacity by the mentally ill or felons.

6) This one is controversial and not proven yet, but possibly putting way too many children/teens on psychotropic drugs and without enough careful monitoring of their use.

7) Lack of child supervision, teaching morality (in whatever form that takes), involvement in their lives, and true caring by their parent(s). Lack of holding children responsible for what they do (with real consequences) and preparing them to be adults.

There are probably some others, but I think those are the main factors. Despite the sensationalism, school murders are still very, very rare when you look at all the data. Kids are far, far, far more likely to die of dozens of other things than a "mass shooting". And there is no way to have a free society without some amount of risk.

Re: this is another example of why we don't have

[bestweasel]

You forgot
8) A society awash with guns and too many people who value them above others' lives.

Funny how it's only the US which specializes in gun massacres. Must be more of that American exceptionalism.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[Required Snark]

So you listed everything but the guns. That's so logical! But your list is clearly not long enough, because the world is full of things that could be the real cause.

Come on, be a bit more creative. So far we've heard it blamed on too many doors, Ritalin, and pornography. What about sugar and/or sugar substitutes. Soft drinks. Oooh, I know: THE INTERNET! Maybe it's Hi-Def TV. Or standardized testing. Go old school and blame fluoridation of water. Something in the packaging of cheap Chinese imports. No (Christian) prayers in schools, although you did imply that. Evil spirits, heavy metal devil worship, comic books/movies. (Very old school, check out Dr. Wertham.) Space aliens or Spanish speaking aliens, same thing really. The hole in the ozone layer. Cell phone radiation. LED lighting. Gluten. Smog. Rap music. Dogs with hypnotic powers. Con trails. The Deep State. The Illuminati. George Soros. Nazi ghosts. Sauron. Lex Luthor. Your dead grandmother, or maybe your not-dead grandmother. Loki. Progressive taxation. Vampires. Shrimp. The new moon or the dark side of the moon.

There are so many possibilities, STEP UP YOUR GAME. Honestly, it's your job to find excuses, and I'm tired thinking of things. Do your own dirty work.

Re: this is another example of why we don't have

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because over 300MILLION guns in the US caused this.

Seriously. If all of the gun owners in the US were as you claim, there wouldn't be anyone left alive in this country.
Try to stop being a reactionary idiot.

And, in case you missed it, the US doesn't specialize in gun massacres. Other countries have them.
Other countries who have banned guns also have another problem...rampant violent crime. When the people can't defend themselves, the predators come out of the woodwork to victimize them.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[CrimsonAvenger]

Revolvers typically hold ONLY 6 rounds and have been around for hundreds of years.

Only about 180 years, actually. Though your point stands - it's not like they're a new technology. Note that I own two Civil War era revolvers (okay, so I was a reenactor once upon a time - get over it). One of which, admittedly needs some work (which I'll get around to someday - it's on the list), but between them, that's enough shots for your classic school shooting. With the added advantage of black powder smoke to screw up the video surveillance....

Note that the basic technology of the "assault weapon" is rather more than a century old as well. Again, we're not talking about mysterious and complex and NEW (though the teeny little bullets fired by "assault weapons" is only 50 years old or so - back a century ago when self-loading weapons first appeared, the bullets would have gone through the target and gotten the guy behind him as well)....

Re: this is another example of why we don't have

[mjwx]

You forgot
8) A society awash with guns and too many people who value them above others' lives.

Funny how it's only the US which specializes in gun massacres. Must be more of that American exceptionalism.

This. The problem is the love affair and lack of responsibility with the gun. Someone doesn't even need to buy or own their own gun to go on a rampage, they could just borrow someones, even without their permission as a lot of gun owners leave them loaded and lying around in the open (or at best, in an unlocked drawer). Until that attitude changes, dead kids are inevitable.

Canada and France have many more guns than the UK. France has 31 (per 100 people), Canada has 30 and the UK has 7, however Canada and France do not have significantly more mass shootings than the UK.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[misexistentialist]

You think Micheal Bloomberg, who is behind all of the "grassroots" gun control organizations, wants you to have any freedoms? Press any gun control advocate and they want all rights repealed. Any "rights" they value like abortion are really more about the right of the government to tax and eliminate opposition

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[mjwx]

Note that the basic technology of the "assault weapon" is rather more than a century old as well.

Well, not quite. The modern assault weapon really started with the M1 Garand in the late 30's but it wasn't until the Soviet SVT38 rifle which combined a gas operated self loading system with a detachable magazine, even though they were introduced in 1938, they were complex so few were available in 1941 when the Nazi's invaded. These are classified (by Brits at least) as "Self Loading Rifles" as they use rifle calibre rounds and were semi-automatic. The first true assault rifle as we know it was the StG 44 introduced by the Germans in 1943, in fact that's where we get the name "assault rifle", its Sturmgewehr translated. The StG 44 was the first rifle to use a smaller rifle round with selectable, fully automatic fire and a large detachable magazine whilst being man portable and having controllable recoil (we had things like the Bren gun and BAR before, but these were too heavy to be issued to every soldier). So the Assault rifle is only about 70 years old, SLR's a bit younger, but still not quite 100.

Revolvers and volley guns have been around since the late 1600's, but the revolver as we know it was invented by Samuel Colt in the 1830's. Prior to then they were too unreliable, complex and expensive.

The problem with the US isn't the availability of guns, its the attitude towards guns. The idea that guns are not dangerous, that guns don't kill and guns don't need to be secured and handled properly that is the problem and guns numbers and violence will not decrease until the US admits this attitude is wrong.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Micheal Bloomberg, who is behind all of the "grassroots" gun control organizations, wants you to have any freedoms? Press any gun control advocate and they want all rights repealed. Any "rights" they value like abortion are really more about the right of the government to tax and eliminate opposition

Do you think the NRA, that is run by the gun manufacturers, wants any law that prevents more guns being sold? The NRA used to be about gun safety and responsibility. Now it is about fear and buying more guns.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[Anonymous Coward]

If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us.

that, and NRA lobbyists, and single issue voters who think that the 2nd Amendment is the extent of the Constitution and all other freedoms are optional.

I think that you and the GP are missing several points:

1) The 2nd Amendment is to prevent government tyranny, because history has shown that all governments become tyrannical and need a "reset" from time to time. This is indicative that the people should be able to arm themselves with military-grade weapons should they so desire it.

2) All other freedoms are, at least in the long run, protected by the 1st and 2nd amendments. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all disarmed their peoples, as did Venezuela.

3) The most common "assault rifle" (which has no legal definition by the way), the AR-15, is garbage compared to military-grade weapons.

4) A huge chunk of gun-related deaths are suicides, and out of the homicides, somewhere between 70 and 95% of them are done with guns obtained illegally. The large margin of error is due to unsolved gang violence (neither side of a gang war goes to the police). In reality, people that obtain guns through legal means don't tend to become homicidal maniacs and generally just want them for self defense and/or hunting.

5) In the case of the Broward County shooting, people had reported the shooter to the police on almost 30 occasions (as he kept publicly saying he was going to shoot up the school, among other threats), so if the authorities would have done their job and followed up on it, it probably would have been prevented.

6) Most (if not all) school shooters were on antidepressants. As it's illegal to own a weapon if you're mentally ill, how about we apply the laws we have first instead of creating new ones? Or at least make parents with kids on antidepressants keep their guns under lock and key.

7) The UK is now talking about banning "pointy knives" due to all the stabbings in London. Like a gun, a knife is a tool that has legitimate uses. Sweden, after all the people being run down in terrorist attacks in recent years, is discussing a ban on driving in general (apart from cab drivers and truckers, or maybe they're waiting for self-driving cars to take over). Treating the symptoms is not the same as treating the disease.

Re: this is another example of why we don't have

[cascadingstylesheet]

Funny how it's only the US which specializes in gun massacres. Must be more of that American exceptionalism.

Don't despair; Rwanda still leads in machete massacres, and Russian and China in gulags.

Oh, and the UK in officially ignored child abuse networks.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[cascadingstylesheet]

4) Insecure facilities with too many uncontrolled entrances and lack of defenses.

That one's big ... and the schools are also just too damn LARGE.

In addition to the target rich environment and fish in a barrel architecture that tends to lead to, there's the fact that most teens are "troubled" to some degree or other ... it's a stressful time of life ... maybe forcing thousands of them together each day in one place in a Lord of the Flies environment is a bit of a mistake.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[strikethree]

gun control in the United States. School shooters are a profit center. Instead of spending money on teaches and classroom supplies we are spending money on security theater.

The quote looks absurd because someone thought it would be a good idea to start the discussion in the Subject line instead of using the Subject line in its intended use: To give a subject. Regardless, you are out of touch with reality if you truly believe the lack of gun control is to support spending money on Security Theater. Check yourself before you wreck yourself bro.

If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us.

How many school shootings involved an "assault weapon" and/or "high capacity" magazines? Forget about school shootings, how many crimes are committed with assault weapons and/or high capacity magazines?

While your proposals sound good on paper, what actual effect would they have on crime? Be prepared to demonstrate the efficacy of your proposal. I submit that it is better to do absolutely nothing than to infringe on liberty without sound arguments and coherent, demonstrable desired effects.

Re: this is another example of why we don't have

[strikethree]

With comments like these, it is not possible to have a rational discussion. Thank you for your contribution to solving this issue.

Re: this is another example of why we don't have

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I have to chime in here. The reason this is happening in our schools is not because there are too many guns in America, it's because over 90% of the schools where these shootings occur are in gun free zones. In other words, the shooters go to schools where they know that nobody will not shoot back. On top of that, none of the shooters were not stopped by existing or even gun laws the Dems keep screaming at us to pass.

People are starting to wake up to this fact, and there have been recent occurrences of shooters being stopped by law abiding, concealed carry holders.

If you want to stop school shootings get rid of the gun free zones, arm teachers, or at least guards in the school, and make sure everybody knows (including potential shooters) that the good guys will indeed shoot back, and I bet it all but disappears.

BTW, school shootings aren't getting more rampant. On the contrary, school shootings have gone down since the 90s...the media just hypes it more, making it appear more when in reality it's actually less.

Re:this is another example of why we don't have

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:
8) Gun owners who fail to keep their weapons securely locked away, allowing their mentally unstable teenagers to play with them unsupervised whenever they feel like it.

There should definitely be a law about that. Keeping a loose gun, and worse, live ammo in your home is reckless endangerment at best.

draconian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there no respect for anyone privacy any more?

I'm sure it's just somebody's brother in law's

[rsilvergun]

company getting a fat contract. That's what all these solutions to school shootings that aren't gun control and expanded healthcare are. It's worse than doing nothing. At least nothing is free.

Re:I'm sure it's just somebody's brother in law's

[Required Snark]

So how much does the useless automated solution cost?

We need to define a new unit of uselessness. It can't be a ratio, because 0/X is zero, and X/0 is undefined. And it has to include dollars (or whatever currency unit is appropriate for localization).

Got any ideas, Slashdot Pundits?

Re:I'm sure it's just somebody's brother in law's

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to take guns, by proxy just a fast track way to fascism, be prepared to watch someone pour boiling oil over your loved ones.
Do you want to hear your children scream as their flesh melts off?

Oh, you're carrying a Type 56 Assault Rifle

[Anonymous Coward]

That's perfectly fine. Have a nice day!

Re:Oh, you're carrying a Type 56 Assault Rifle

[Presto Vivace]

I literally did laugh out loud when I read this.

just as you say

[Presto Vivace]

the Onion said it all https://www.theonion.com/it-s-...

only the "top ten" guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

what the fuck? ok. next psycho is gonna take the 11th most popular and you'll get a big fat law suit for that little limitation.

lemme guess, a school can 'upgrade' via DLC to the "top 25" for an extra $50k, and "top 100" for $100k or all for a cool $500k.

Obvious solution is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

shoot anyone that comes to school
bound to get the bad girls before they strike

kidunot: incest was the secret word

GET RID OF THE GUNS

[Anonymous Coward]

derp.

Or are Americans willing to admit that they as a people are less than the descendants of criminal scum that is Australia? Australia dealt with this issue. Americans, what's your excuse today??

Just admit you're worst than Aussies.. LOL!

Invent a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Invent a religion where privacy is at the core of the belief system. Get millions of people to sign up. Demand that your religious views are respected, with actual laws to back you up.

Re:Invent a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Government doesn't respect or comply with the laws on the books or our Constitution now. Why would they ever comply with religion? It didn't work for the Mormons.

Little Brother excerpt

[imperious_rex]

An excerpt from Cory Doctorow's Little Brother story:

I moved down the corridor lightly and sprightly, keeping my gait even and measured for the gait recognition cameras. These had been installed only a year before, and I loved them for their sheer idiocy. Beforehand, we'd had face recognition cameras covering nearly every public space in school, but a court ruled that was unconstitutional. So Benson and a lot of other paranoid school administrators had spent our textbook dollars on these idiot cameras that were supposed to be able to tell one person's walk from another. Yeah, right.

I hope somebody challenges the legality of facial recognition (and gait recognition too if it comes to that). As for making a school more secure against an active shooter, it's as useless as security cams and other security theater efforts. The only thing these things are good for are catching vandals, enforcing attendance, and wasting taxpayer money.

Re:Little Brother excerpt

[MerlinTheWizard]

Cameras are of little use if the shooter hides their face. It's not like it's hard to do. And if obvious means of hiding one's face are themselves detected (which I'm not sure how security systems should handle, should we arrest people walking around with band-aids hiding part of their face?), when there are cameras everywhere, they will be walking around with masks. There are very good silicone-based masks nowadays that even an human can get fooled by at a distance - so an automated recognition device has no chance whatsoever at the moment. And I'm sure you'll be able to buy a custom-made, very realistic mask in a matter of a few years or months. It's becoming a big thing in Japan. So yes, automated surveillance is just wasted money, and has been proven to be pointless on a regular basis.

As for focusing on this gun thing, I think it's kind of a false question. Mass murderers don't need any frigging gun to kill people. There are myriads of other means that are readily available, some even very cheap. Just look at what's been happening in Europe for a few years now. Even a kitchen knife can make a lot of damage.

Re:Little Brother excerpt

[imperious_rex]

*Exactly* And a mask is only useful for getting in, but once somebody is inside (mask or no mask), facial recognition and security cameras become as much a deterrent as "Gun Free Zone" signs posted around the school. Completely and utterly useless. Once the shooting starts, so what if the facial recognition system identifies Davy Dumbass as the shooter and he's using a Mossberg shotgun and 9 mm Glock? He's just going to keep on shooting and taking lives until he's either dead or arrested.

As for guns, you're absolutely right. Swords, machetes, and kitchen knives more than enough to kill and injure people, especially if somebody really knows how to use a blade. No, it's a societal problem that's at play here. I don't think anybody has any answer to it and can really do anything except make feeble efforts at changing school security practices.

Re:Little Brother excerpt

[jordanjay29]

Yeah, I'm curious about this technology in regards to suspended students. How do you deal with legal issues of consent for the image of a minor? Especially in regards to a third party potentially handling these images for processing. I can't imagine they can do all the storage and processing at a local server on site at the school, most facial recognition requires a networked system (i.e. the cloud), and so this basically means the school is passing on images of their students to a third party. This isn't like taking a picture of a child in a public park, public schools are not "public" buildings in the traditional sense, these are specific, identifiable pictures of students being given to a third party for a commercial purpose.

Re:TOPKEK Edukatshun for PROFIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the way Republican Jesus intended, right?

Fuck a duck you're a retarded babby.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

We are trying reduce the difference between prisons and schools to smooth out the bumps in the "school to prison pipeline".

Erm

[ChoGGi]

It can be used to alert officials to whenever sex offenders, suspended students, fired employees, suspected gang members, or anyone else placed on a school's "blacklist" enters the premises.

Shouldn't they also be using this to give an alert for people they haven't identified? Make a field day at the start of each year, and get pictures of all the guardians or some such.

Re:Erm

[Required Snark]

What about permanent remote shock collars. What could possibly go wrong.

Cory Doctorow predicted this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gait recognition will be next, prepare to see kids limping with gravel in their shoes and wearing funny led glasses to defeat these fascist school regimes! And then see the kids get the shit beaten out of them by the school homeland security guards!

I feel sorry for kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing up in a hostile environment full of the fruits of paranoid grownups who should know better.

Can't imagine what it would be like to go through one of these someone's got a gun and their coming for you hide/"shelter in place" drills. Police everywhere, cameras watching your every move. Peeping toms in your computers. Grownups should think of the children for a change and get a grip on reality.

The media makes money by keeping people perpetually afraid and outraged without regard for the negative consequences of their context free coverage. The insane coverage of school shootings have undoubtedly cost lives.

Ha! Suspended Students

[DatbeDank]

I don't think you'll have any problem with suspended students trying to sneak back into school.

"But please Principal! I really want to go to class!

Out of school suspension for a teenage misfit is equivalent to forced paid leave for a professional. Might as well call it vacation.

Re:Ha! Suspended Students

[jordanjay29]

Depends. If they want to cause trouble, being suspended would give them freedom of movement inside the school for the most part. Most teachers would not be expecting to see them in class, and would not be on alert for a missing student that way. Depending on how well patrolled the hallways are, a student on suspension could get access to areas they would normally not be able to during the day due to class schedules, or confront students/teachers that they may not normally see at a time of their choosing.

And Hi School is worthless

[wolfheart111]

nothing worth going there for. Not with Cell phones and all...

Today's Slashdot Quiz

[bestweasel]

To which country does this statement refer:

any time one of the "top 10" most popular guns used in school shootings appears in view

Is it
A) Brazil
B) Estonia
C) Kenya
D) The USA

Sex Offenders!

[Beechmere2000]

Sex Offender recognition? Great idea - lets install these in our Catholic Schools and see which teachers decide to call in sick.

racism

[shaksys]

Glass over the counter in a deli is racist in some counties. But this is going to be OK

You should allow kinder surprise in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

You should allow kinder surprise in USA. None of the country with kinder surprise have got this problem. Guns are not the issue, the kinder surprise ban is the root cause. No children ever shoot an other with a kinder surprise.

right thing to do

[sad_]

obviously all these advanced technologies are the right thing to do, and they will be very effective.
this couldn't be solved any other way, like adjusting current laws/rights etc

School Shootings

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to prevent school shootings, then you must first recognize that most of them happen in schools by males who are students. Stop treating males like they are defective females. Let boys be boys. If you try to control their natural nature, they will become socially inept and unable to function in society.

Ask any of those that performed a school shooting and they will and HAVE told us this very thing.

What the hell happened ...

[CaptainDork]

... to "America First?"

A paradox is that ...

[CaptainDork]

... schools pay shit wages to teachers and big bucks to foreigners for something that is not likely to happen and not likely to work when it does.

Gen X Comes In With Exactly The Wrong Idea, Again

[ComputerGeek01]

How much would it cost to issue each child a Chromebook and have them telecommute from home? All of your flashy shiny technology looks good on paper and I'm sure it makes you feel like a kid with a brand new toy. But the best way to prevent a MASS shooting, is to remove the mass. And if things really aren't so bad that you would consider this as an option, then I guess they really aren't all that bad.

Re:No your handcock is bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is you ASSUME the gun is the cause and therefor the reason the children are dead, but it's not.

Over 3 MILLION people per year are saved by guns. Don't you care about their lives? What about the millions more that would be killed if a Pol-pot or Hitler came to power? How many drone strikes or death squads do you think one of them would do?

If CNN put as much energy reporting to how many people got killed in car wrecks, or skateboards, or bicycles, or falling down steps or drown in swimming pools, you would be screaming all of them get banned. The only reason CNN or NPR or the rest the MSM report on gun deaths is because it brainwashes people like you into demanding gun bans (all of which are illegal).

Sigh.

[CohibaVancouver]

When I hear these stories out of the USA about how to prevent school shootings I don't know whether to laugh or cry. But I think it's mostly cry.

I live in Canada.

When my kids go to school they don't go through metal detectors or deal with facial recognition. Their backpacks aren't transparent and the only 'drills' they do are for earthquake and fire. There are no bullet-proof shelters in their classroom, no armed guards at the school and no debate about arming teachers.

Why? Because Canada HAS GUN CONTROL.

Get your act together, America. Protect your kids.

...and spare me the "Canada is different" argument. Culturally, Canada and the USA are very, very similar.

Total waste of funding

[atrex]

Meanwhile, all that funding that should have gone to improve actual educational resources for the students is instead wasted on a "defense system" that probably won't defend against anything.

Don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

But facial recognition has been proven to fail at an alarming rate so why us this broken system?

Proper spending

[SisterFister]

What a great way to spend $4 million dollars. Its not like we've had anyone in the public school system striking over wages or anything like that.

Re:Gen X Comes In With Exactly The Wrong Idea, Aga

[Anonymous Coward]

VR classrooms will probably be a thing soon enough.

Re:Gen X Comes In With Exactly The Wrong Idea, Aga

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Your proposal is a complete case of the cure being worse than the disease, because a complete lack of human interaction for all of a country's children might reduce the the severity of school shootings, but shootings in general will go up if our kids never learn to empathize with each other.

Re:Gen X Comes In With Exactly The Wrong Idea, Aga

[jordanjay29]

Yeah, I think a lot of people forget that learning in schools is not strictly academic. There's emotional, social and physical learning as well. The ability to empathize with another, to follow directions, to cooperate and collaborate, to manage social structures and people more or less well liked than you, etc.

Re:Gen X Comes In With Exactly The Wrong Idea, Aga

[imperious_rex]

Gen X isn't perfect, but no generation has a monopoly on coming up with bad ideas (although Millennials and Gen Y seem to making a good effort). As for your idea of taking the 'mass' out of mass shooting, you have a very good point. Kids can largely be educated online for subjects such as math, science, reading/writing, history, social studies, etc. The only subjects that require a physical class are science lab, PE, and some of the arts (theater, music).

Blacklist challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is a public school, then who is on the blacklist should be publicly available.
I wonder how they determine who is a gang member & where they get that picture from? I don't think the Police should be providing that to non-police agencies.
I wonder how one can challenge being on the list? For example an employee who resigned rather than fired?
And isn't gathering together pictures and categorizing/labeling them on MINORS a bit dangerous?
If a person is removed from convicted sex-offender list, how is each instance of school database going to remove that individual?
I bet the list of blacklisted people will be maintained by the company SN Technologies Corp. and be a paid service to the schools, so then the database will be moving across school district boundaries, state boundaries, and probably even country boundaries.

Here's how you prevent many school shootings:

[Rick Schumann]

Stop publicizing school shootings!

You don't agree with me? Here's my reasoning: First take a look at this article and see what the shooter had to say in his videos before the shooting took place. He's clearly looking forward to the attention and notoriety he's going to get from it. This is the way the minds of these sick fucks work: they think they've been wronged, they think the world owes them, they think that they're going to be 'heroes' when they commit their act of mass murder, and even though they're likely going to either be shot to death by police or die in prison, they're basking in the attention and the idea that they'll be the stars of the press for weeks and months. Each school shooter that is publicized is enabling the next shooter, and so on, and so on, as they all want their shot at fame and glory; WE NEED TO DENY THEM THAT.

There needs to be a gag order in place on these. The press needs to be denied access to information. The arrests, the trials, they all need to be closed-door with gag orders in place so the proceedings are entirely secret. When they put them in prison, it needs to be done silently, they need to be put in solitary permanently, not allowed to talk to ANYONE so there's no leaks. If there is no payoff to the shooters then my theory is most of the shootings won't happen because there won't be any reward for doing it.

Re:Here's how you prevent many school shootings:

[sysrammer]

You are on top of a pyramid, surrounded by slippery slopes.

First, yes, I too would like to "Stop publicizing school shootings!". It would be nice to have some kind of deal where this type of news is buried page 10 with just a statement of basic facts. It used to be that govt would work with the big news producers to suppress information, a state of affairs from WWII. Now, "everybody" is a news producer, and "everyone" is an editorialist. Lack of information will not suppress them--they will make up their own.

"...gag orders in place so the proceedings are entirely secret. When they put them in prison, it needs to be done silently, they need to be put in solitary permanently...".

The US has spent many years criticizing countries that do this type of thing (despite dabbling in it ourselves). I guess we could send them to our very own penal colony Guatanamo Archipelago.

Re:Here's how you prevent many school shootings:

[Rick Schumann]

Listen, I don't claim to have the whole solution, but it's clear to me that the subsequent shooters are being emboldened by the previous ones, and are also seeking validation/fame. They AT LEAST need to not sensationalize these news stories, better yet not report on them AT ALL. The fewer sick minds there are that think they too can be famous, the better; can we at least agree on that? I honestly believe there is an element of narcissism to this.

Re:Here's how you prevent many school shootings:

[Anonymous Coward]

That should certainly cut down on the number of reported school shootings.

Would it cut down on the actual number of such shootings? Meh, who cares - as long as we don't have to hear about them, amirite?

Re:Here's how you prevent many school shootings:

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit being a faggot.

Re:Here's how you prevent many school shootings:

[sysrammer]

Absolutely. I agree. I (nor our populace) have come up with a good solution in keeping with our free speech values. Obviously, other govt types such as dictatorships can get away with it more easily.

I remember similar arguments during one of the serial killer periods in the past. And after, oh, f'rinstance, the OK City bombing. The logistics of suppressing the press (and public) feeding frenzy didn't work much then. Now, with all the tinfoils on the iNet, it's even worse. Main outlets won't report it? "Well, come to my website! I have all the news fit for my imagination to print!".

The populace *will* support this kind of thing during war, not to mention that serial murderers can't compete with professionals.

Re:Here's how you prevent many school shootings:

[Rick Schumann]

Well it's 'six of one half dozen of the other' as the old saying goes then, because if we can't take away the potential for media fame to sick minded potential school shooters because it infringes on the 1st Amendment, then some other Constitutional freedoms get curtailed trying to protect schools from these jackasses: school hallways with armed guards, metal detectors and bag searches, and kids not being able to make an innocent joke remark without getting suspended or expelled from the school. Which is better, really? Or should I say, which is less bad? The only even remotely positive thing here is that the potential sick-o's who can be triggered to commit violent acts are being brought out of the woods and can be dealt with, but chances are that if not triggered they'd go through their lives never committing a violent act of any kind. So I guess there really is no good solution?

Re:Gen X Comes In With Exactly The Wrong Idea, Aga

[b0s0z0ku]

Online education lacks the ability to raise a hand and ask a question. Yeah, you can ask later, but I for one am sufficiently ADHD and disorganized that I probably would have forgotten my questions.

Alumnae???

[lingu1st]

Alumnae, feminine plural, nominative. All the shooters who were graduates were female?

They word you are looking for is "Alumni".

Latin, motherfuckers. Do you speak it?

Wow, just wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw it, i'll just take my chances with an old "Huked on Fonix" set and lack of diploma, or just get my GED at a community college. If I went to a school like this, I won't even have to worry about living long enough to be a buger flipper for life.

Are you fucking kidding me bro?

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw it, i'll just take my chances with an old "Huked on Fonix" set and lack of diploma, or just get my GED at a community college. If I went to a school like this, I won't even have to worry about living long enough to be a burger flipper for life.