Could an Ethically-Correct AI Shut Down Gun Violence? (thenextweb.com) 513
The Next Web writes:
A trio of computer scientists from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York recently published research detailing a potential AI intervention for murder: an ethical lockout. The big idea here is to stop mass shootings and other ethically incorrect uses for firearms through the development of an AI that can recognize intent, judge whether it's ethical use, and ultimately render a firearm inert if a user tries to ready it for improper fire...
Clearly the contribution here isn't the development of a smart gun, but the creation of an ethically correct AI. If criminals won't put the AI on their guns, or they continue to use dumb weapons, the AI can still be effective when installed in other sensors. It could, hypothetically, be used to perform any number of functions once it determines violent human intent. It could lock doors, stop elevators, alert authorities, change traffic light patterns, text location-based alerts, and any number of other reactionary measures including unlocking law enforcement and security personnel's weapons for defense...
Realistically, it takes a leap of faith to assume an ethical AI can be made to understand the difference between situations such as, for example, home invasion and domestic violence, but the groundwork is already there. If you look at driverless cars, we know people have already died because they relied on an AI to protect them. But we also know that the potential to save tens of thousands of lives is too great to ignore in the face of a, so far, relatively small number of accidental fatalities...
Clearly the contribution here isn't the development of a smart gun, but the creation of an ethically correct AI. If criminals won't put the AI on their guns, or they continue to use dumb weapons, the AI can still be effective when installed in other sensors. It could, hypothetically, be used to perform any number of functions once it determines violent human intent. It could lock doors, stop elevators, alert authorities, change traffic light patterns, text location-based alerts, and any number of other reactionary measures including unlocking law enforcement and security personnel's weapons for defense...
Realistically, it takes a leap of faith to assume an ethical AI can be made to understand the difference between situations such as, for example, home invasion and domestic violence, but the groundwork is already there. If you look at driverless cars, we know people have already died because they relied on an AI to protect them. But we also know that the potential to save tens of thousands of lives is too great to ignore in the face of a, so far, relatively small number of accidental fatalities...
Fail (Score:2)
Failure to consider failure modes and effects is, well, a failure. It's bad engineering.
Scifi story about this (Score:3)
Scifi writers already told us [gutenberg.org] why this is a bad idea.
What does that mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean even if that would somehow be possible, why would anybody in the gun community buy such a gun? Besides what does "Ethically-Correct" even mean? For example would it prevent people from hunting animals?
The realistic scenario is that you get some system that starts enacting rules given to it by some large corporation. The best case scenario is "The Forbin Project".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What does that mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
And obviously military and police will not be required to be crippled by any such interlocks. See also California's "Safe Gun Roster", which, guess what, cops are exempt from. MorkAndMindy: why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
The summary more or less suggests that the proper response to your objection is to assemble an automated surveillance state that quite literally restricts your freedom of movement, enables others to harm you, and encourages them to do so by broadcasting what may very well be false claims about the activities you’re engaging in, should it deem you to be engaging in “unethical” behavior.
A smart gun that locks out its own user is the least objectionable thing in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and since "Ethics" are not a constant and objective thing, that surveillance state will be under the control of some large organizations that dictate the "Ethics" behind the machine.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean even if that would somehow be possible, why would anybody in the gun community buy such a gun? Besides what does "Ethically-Correct" even mean? For example would it prevent people from hunting animals? The realistic scenario is that you get some system that starts enacting rules given to it by some large corporation. The best case scenario is "The Forbin Project". https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Guns are simple technology, they want to try to make them more complicated. Do you know what the simplest repeating firearm to make is? An open-bolt submachinegun. Everything needed can be bought at any decent hardware store. The Uzi and Sten were both designed to be manufactured in small shops using common tools and materials. There are even videos on how to make your own rifling benches using common materials. There are active underground craft gunsmiths in the Philippines and Pakistan, making firear
Re:What does that mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
AI is the new magic. If you can't solve a problem, AI will solve it.
Step 1: There is a problem.
Step 2: AI will solve it!
Step 3: Profit.
Re:What does that mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
> AI is the new magic
And, further, in this case an omniscient God.
The author is writing childlike fantasy scripts.
YouTube AI is a great example (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These "smart gun" idiots are always shockingly short sighted.
Wonâ(TM)t work (Score:2)
I tend to resell technical books on amazon. Last week, Amazonâ(TM)s AI decided that a book about water pollution was really a pesticide, and deleted it from the sales listings until I provided an EPA registration number. With tech like this, good luck trying to divine peoples intent! Most gun deaths are suicides. After that, most are gang on gang. A very tiny sliver is mass shootings by comparison. You donâ(TM)t need fancy sensors and buggy AI tools to address those issues.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Political fodder; flip it! (Score:2)
Could an "ethically correct" (who writes this crap?) AI in an abortion machine shut down unnecessary abortions?
I'm going to take an opposing tack here (Score:2)
My first thought on this was to think back to things like facial recognition, cheating detection, etc...
To be blunt, the first thing the AI is likely to do is be racist against black people. Seriously, it's all over.
Facial recognition of criminals? It's over 5X as likely to say any given black man is a felon.
Detecting cheating? Recent articles about home testing using artificial proctoring was like an OOM higher to kill the test of black people.
Etc...
The dang thing will probably simply treat all black pe
Insane (Score:4)
Lunatics looking at dystopian science fiction on the order of Psycho Pass and saying; "Boy, that's the future I want!"
Almost no one is killed for fun (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think most common reason for individual to kill another is:
- By accident (hey look at this unloaded gun I found)
- Because they were scared (there is someone in my hard with an envelope, dressed as a postman, must be dangerous)
- Revenge ( eye for an eye)
But I don't have any statistics to prove this.
Re: (Score:2)
- duels (defending someone's honor)
- securing democracy
Re: (Score:2)
Well over half of gun deaths in America are suicide. Accidents are not very high on the list of gun deaths. Most of the time when someone dies after being shot, the shot was intentional. The FBI attempts to track all this and publishes statistics every year.
No (Score:2)
Smart guns just aren't a feasible invention. When a gun needs to go bang it needs to work RIGHT NOW. There's no room for error, and that's why simplicity and low parts count are often seen is virtues in gun design (and why a lot of guns developed during war-time like during WW2 basically look like cobbled together garage projects - because simplicity works).
Think about how often you put your thumb on your phone to unlock it and the sensor doesn't read quite right. At least 1/3 of the time I have to retry
Inherently unethical (Score:3)
It is inherently unethical to cripple defensive tools by burdening them with a failure-prone system which can disable the device when it's needed most - especially when it's trivial to build guns without this technology, thus ensuring that people who are unconcerned with regulatory compliance will always have access to guns they can freely use against the people with AI-equipped "ethically restricted" pistols.
Ethically "Correct" (Score:2)
If there is one thing I've learned with the tiny amount of reading I've done on ethics in philosophy, its the fact that nearly every ethical framework is ripe with flaws. So figuring out what the "correct" ethical framework to use -- if you could theoretically do this -- will be super difficult.
Honestly, the ideas put forth for applying this hypothetical AI, is trash. An AI like this would be better suited as an advisor system for the public to use to understand the ramifications of a policy plan that the g
Why does anyone need guns? (Score:3)
Factory farming not ethical? Then go into that same grocery store and revel in all the cruelty-free alternatives you have.
If you live an aboriginal existence, or in the northern reaches of Alaska, etc., then I don't see any ethical problem with hunting (and eating meat). But it's hard for me to wrap my head around why an urban/suburbanite in a first-world country needs to consume meat, when there are so many other choices available to you?
But!! -- The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting! It's about self-defense -- I'm willing to concede that. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're probably *not* living an existence where you're hunting for sustenance -- certainly *NONE* of the US mass-shooters were. They had guns because they were fearful of other people with guns, and that's the crux of the whole situation. Other nations that have clamped down on firearms have seen a dramatic reduction in mass-shootings and gun crime. This is something so obvious it shouldn't even need an explanation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stubborn and independent minded people often want to have guns because they feel that they are more likely to continue to exercise their independent minded nature if they are armed. People who are absolutely sure that they are right about everything seem to sometimes come to the conclusion that nobody needs guns and that society would be better off if we "cracked down" on guns. The more people talk about cracking down the more the stubborn people exchange knowing glances and stock up on rifles and ammunitio
Re: (Score:2)
Death by gunfire is a symptom, not a cause.
Re: (Score:3)
But crime rates have remained the same or gotten worse. There is no correlation between violent crime rates and legal firearm ownership. If there was, the US would have 100x the crime rates, and the cities with the strongest gun control would have the least amount of of crime. It is almost as the root cause of violent crime is socio economic. Shocking.
"Gun crime" is like saying "accidents involving blue cars".
Re: (Score:2)
For the record I don't Have a gun. I have never handle a gun. I don't expect to ever handle a gun.
You know what else people don't need? They don't need computers. Peopled got along pretty well without them. Then the first 30 years about 99.9% of the population did not have access to computers and got along fine. Does that mean that we should selll computers that are in someone hindered?
HaHaHa HaHa (Score:2)
Government first (Score:2)
This will never fly. But suppose it did, how about all government "users" implement it and destroy all their "dumb" guns. Then, the populations of the world would be "safe", right? Then we can melt all of our guns in our new Nirvana, right?
Except, you can't trust the government(s), which is why in the US we have the 2A in the first place.
That, and it's not terribly hard to manufacture firearms, so the criminals and bad governments will always have a way to make more "dumb" guns that don't care about "eth
Is the title in the form of a question? (Score:2)
If the title is on the form of a question then the answer is most certainly no.
This isn't necessarily about "smart guns" as they point out other possible actions.
It could lock doors, stop elevators, alert authorities, change traffic light patterns, text location-based alerts, and any number of other reactionary measures including unlocking law enforcement and security personnelâ(TM)s weapons for defense.
Lock doors? That will low people down for certain but an armed person can shoot through glass doors common to businesses. A common door on a modern home can be defeated with by a healthy adult male with a few good kicks or throwing their body into the door.
Stop elevators? Stairs are a thing and required by fire code.
Change light patterns? Peopl
Calm down people! (Score:2)
This is just a hypothetical computer-science/philosophy thought experiment.
Nobody can or will actually build it. What is it with Americans and guns, that they get so emotional?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2... [thepolemicist.net]
Same as politicians (Score:2)
Gun violence is a culture. While an abundance of firearms is a major enabler, it is not the problem so more gun 'control' will have the same effect it already has: zero. This is the same as politicians pretending 'it's the law' means nothing bad will happen. Here, it's do-gooders pretending to control usage and consequence.
Reminds me of Horrible Bosses, 2011, where the NavGuide/OnStar operator immobilises the car, allowing a homocidal maniac to catch the car theives. No-one died since it's not that sort
Technology can solve everything! (Score:2)
Sources? (Score:2)
That link doesn't quote sources for it's information, just makes statements.
No (reputable) source = No reputable information.
Re: (Score:2)
It's total trash. Just look at the first response. This notion attracts complete and total idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Mwahaha! (Score:2)
It's not that the idea doesn't have some merit, but this kind of decision making is so far outside of our current capabilities I wonder if I'll ever see it become possible.
Yeah like that an idea ... (Score:2)
Science Fiction (Score:2)
Who codes AIs these days? (Score:2)
Profoundly unethical companies.
um, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's ethics? (Score:3)
Yesterday I got into an argument when discussing a carjacker getting shot in the head by the victim. The other person insisted that using lethal force was not justified. There are people who say lethal force is NEVER justified. So a woman is going to have to accept she's going to be raped because some mental midget asshole thinks it's wrong for her to shoot scum.
Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
And then you end up with a country that not only will jail you for mean tweets, but practicaly has a ban on butter knifves.
But godfobid we put any money on mental heath and gun saftey, that's CRAZY TALK!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no automatic progression from banning guns to banning butter knives. Practically all countries ban guns, very few ban butter knives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no automatic progression from banning guns to banning butter knives. Practically all countries ban guns, very few ban butter knives.
You are kidding right?
Lets see, grandfather walked 5 miles to elementary school, uphill in the snow both ways. The boys would put their rifles in the back of the classroom, and hunt small game on the way home in rural kansas.
I had no problem carrying a lock blade to school, as long as it folded and was under 4 inches...
Under zero tolerance policies - If I were to pack a butter knife accidently in my daughters lunchbox - it was an automatic expulsion under a zero tolerance policy. Unfortunately - it was ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the right of self-defense to be acknowledged, then the state has to allow that the individual has ownership of their own life and the fruits of their labor. Thus individuals can use whatever force is needed in order to protect their lives, and the fruits of their labor.
When the state does not allow self-defense, then it is obvious that its subjects do not own their own lives or the fruits of their own labor.
Most people do not unders
We tried that already. Violent crime up 400% (Score:3, Informative)
Nearly 15% of crimes in the US involve the use of a white car. We should ban white cars in order to reduce white-car crime.
That reasoning is of course ridiculous. It's also precisely the same reasoning used by anti-Constitution people when they talk about "gun crime". Not because the people are stupid; the arguments they hear and believe seem to make sense until you think things through. Enough so that multiple countries and multiple states have tried gun bans.
That's good news in that we no longer have an
Re:We tried that already. Violent crime up 400% (Score:4, Informative)
Here are URLs for all of the data:
PoliceOne. 2013. Gun policy & law enforcement: Survey results.
Retrieved from http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfron... [cloudfront.net]
Accessible from http://www.policeone.com/news/... [policeone.com]
UK Home Office. A summary of recorded crime data from 1898 to 2001/02.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
UK Home Office. Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 â" 2013/13.
Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
Violence Policy Center. 2013. Assault Weapons and Accessories in America
Retrieved from http://www.vpc.org/studies/awa... [vpc.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you point a gun at all people in all directions ?
Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Support your argument with facts, not hyperbole.
How many women prevent rape by shooting an assailant? How many women were raped at gunpoint?
What is number of rapes per 100k in the US, compared to other developed countries?
735k people were raped in the US in 2018 0.27% (via google)
40k died due to gun violence in 2017 from 325 million 1.2% (pew research)
In Australia 0.136% people were raped in 2018-2019
In 2019 Australia had 229 gun deaths from a population of 25 million
Yep, your rationale totally stands up to logic and reasoning. Go back to believing the election was stolen.
You are less likely to be raped in Australia, which has strict gun laws and also less likely (by several orders of magnitude) to die from gun violence.
Guns don't help. In any way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay. Guns stop way more [fee.org] crimes than they're used in. And your use of the term "gun violence" is mistaken at best, since suicides, guns used in self defense, and guns used by police are rolled into that. Furthermore counting gun deaths is pointless: it's injury and death by ALL CAUSES we want to reduce. You would need to prove that reducing gun violence also reduces total violence. The fact is if you don't count illegal use of guns by inner city thugs you'
Re: (Score:3)
I read your link. It cites a report which does not support the claims it makes. The report says that while injury rates are slightly lowered in cases where the victim used a gun, other risks associated with gun ownership (accidents, successful suicide, murder etc.) may completely offset those gains.
And that's all it says, it doesn't support this claim that guns prevent crime, it doesn't say anything about that at all. The page you linked to just speculates about this, using an anecdote where a guy got shot
Re: (Score:2)
From the gov. figures
https://www.abs.gov.au/statist... [abs.gov.au]
In 2019 there were 26,892 victims of sexual assault in Australia, an increase of 2% from the previous year. This was the eighth consecutive annual increase and the highest number for this offence recorded in a single year. After accounting for population growth, the victimisation rate has also increased annually over this eight-year period fr
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that. It's almost as if legal gun ownership rates doesn't correlate with crime rate.
It's almost as if the root cause of violent crime is socioeconomic in nature instead.
MorkAndMindy is a total tool.
Re: (Score:3)
40,000 / 325,000,000 = 0.012%. Not 1.2%. You are off by a factor of 100. I don't think this alters your main point (which I disagree with) but it is a bit sloppy.
Just to be clear, do you believe that the main difference between Australia and the US insofar as violent crime goes, is that the US has way more guns per capita? And do you also believe that if the US enforced major gun restrictions similar to Australia that the US rape and homicide rates would fall to similar levels as Australia?
Or are you just t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pepper spray is complete and total theater.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/... [thetrace.org]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2... [thepolemicist.net]
Re: (Score:2)
So, just to be clear, you are asking for a list of big news stories about massacres that didn't happen?
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you explain the fact there are basically no massacres in Australia ?
Can you read, i clearly asked for examples of american heroes using their guns once the shooting started.
So where are they when the shooting starts ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So how do you explain the fact there are basically no massacres in Australia ?
Even pre-firearm laws there was relatively few incidents of that nature in Australia
There is no conclusive evidence of the restrictive laws having any positive effect. Firearms related violence was already on a downward trend, and the line/curve did not change after the new laws were put into effect.
It certainly didn't increase firearm related crime, but it didn't reduce it either.
All it did was slowly erode the good firearms safety knowledge that the public used to have.
Australia never had the problems the
Re: (Score:3)
To summarise...
"Australia didn't have the violent mindset, so is not a good example. America HAS a violent inclination, so reducing the easiest way to hurt someone, would have no effect"
Why am I talking about a wookie?
Re: (Score:3)
And the U.K. now has a "knife violence" problem because it is the "easiest way to hurt someone".
Are you sure you are addressing the actual root cause of violence?
You know, because knives are hard to use against unarmed people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The violent crime rate is 100x higher in America? And in the cities with extremely strict gun control and nearly 0% legal firearm ownership?
Is there anything you are actually right about?
Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem in the US is that the underlying problems can't be fixed. Poverty, poor education and healthcare (especially mental healthcare), poor access to birth control and family planning etc.
If gun/2A enthusiasts really wanted to stop the calls for more gun control they would work to address those problems, which coincidentally are often the same problems that make them want to own a gun in the first place.
Unfortunately doing anything about those problems is seen as socialism and somehow un-American, where as arming yourself is the most patriotic thing you can do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This just in: the way to prevent gun violence against citizens is to make sure said citizens are never born in the first place. Then they can't get shot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Australia is an ISLAND.
And in case you didn't notice, Aussies are currently being heavily oppressed by their own government at the moment.
And they don't get the option to argue or say no.
The fact is, there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of defensive gun uses every year. Even if it's just flashing the gun.
There's over 360 MILLION firearms in this country in the hand of law abiding owners.
If those guns were REALLY a problem, you'd KNOW IT.
The gun control argument is "Someone was raped, so we're cutt
Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Heavily oppressed ?
So why do you need a gun ?
Freedom is not needing a gun. I dont need to worry about anyone in any street in any part of Australia, pointing a gun at me or any other weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom is not needing a gun. I dont need to worry about anyone in any street in any part of Australia, pointing a gun at me or any other weapon.
I've never worried about this in the US either. I've had guns pointed at me in a few countries, but not the US. Mainly Cyprus, Germany and the UK.
Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Australia is an ISLAND.
If this was the 17th century you might have a point. But this is 2021. Being an 'island' doesn't make you isolated or have significant impact on import/export.
Even amidst the pandemic over 80,000 tons of freight went in to Australia each month. And that's just the registered freight. (src: https://www.bitre.gov.au/stati... [bitre.gov.au])
The coastline of Australia is in excess of 25,000km. Ships come and go through registered ports and unregistered travel every day. (src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org])
This is th
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They ran him down with a car, I can't see a gun being of much use and I'd rather London not be full of guns. So what exactly should I be telling Lee Rigby's family? Do you know if they support gun use? Most UK citizens (79%) want stricter gun laws even though they are already very strict.
If Guns were prevalent in London then what do you think the 2 killers of Lee Rigby would have done?
Stabbing is a frequent occurrence in Greater London with 8M+ people, if guns were widely available then many more people wou
Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score:4, Informative)
There was a couple of shootings in Texas churches a couple of years ago.
In one case, nobody in the congregation was armed, and the killer murdered several people. Turned out that he SHOULD have been barred from purchasing his gun, except the Air Farce didn't file the paperwork for his OTH discharge.
In the other, a firearms instructor took out the shooter from dozens of feet away. Nobody else was injured.
The second case didn't count as a "mass shooting", because fewer than 4 people died. But if the armed CIVILIAN hadn't been there, and been armed, lots more people WOULD have died.
In Las Vegas, the gunman was 17 stories above the parking lot, firing through a broken window. And curiously, the FBI has NO IDEA of why he did it! Or more likely, can't admit it because the shooter was an FBI "source".
Re: (Score:3)
Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach 4.7 million per year. Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[2][3][4]
Estimates of DGU from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) are consistently lower than those from other studies. A 2000 study suggested that this may be because the NCVS measures different activities than the other surveys d
Re: (Score:3)
> Not needing one is better. But that is a different topic than having one. Our gun violence problem in the US is not due to civilian access to firearms. Of copurse its due to gun, its pretty hard to get shot if there are no guns. What a stupid thing to say.
Until one considers that violence can occur with a different instrument. That suicide can occur with a different instrument. That gangs that are capable of illegally importing tons of drugs can easily import firearms for their turf wars as well.
Now go back to the stats you are denying, defensive use, you will find that many incidents where the assailant, or would be assailant, was using something other than a gun.
> Various social and political failures are the cause. However addressing the cause rather than the symptom would require politician to admit mistakes, an ignorant population embracing placebos seems better a better option to many of our leaders. So WHy cant you just admit america has a gun problem because its full of areshole americans with guns and nobody trusts the others.
Because the real problem is with our political class, not ordinary citizens. However the pla
Re: (Score:3)
> Now go back to the stats you are denying, defensive use, you will find that many incidents where the assailant, or would be assailant, was using something other than a gun. Im not denying anything, im focusing on the violence the guns enable. You are the one denying that the problem exists because guns in the crazy numbers exist.
Not at all. You are operating under the fallacy that eliminating guns will eliminate violence. It will not. It would just change the instrument of violence, the instrument of suicide. It will not disarm the gangs involved in the drug trade, the primary source of gun violence, they can import guns as they can import drugs.
And yes you are in denial because you refuse to consider the other side of the equation where a gun is used in self defense (which does not mean it was fired) against an attacker who had
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So many heroes in america and yet where are these heroes when theres gun violence ?
They were disarmed by their own government. Places like Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws and therefore the fewest armed "heroes" to deter crime.
how come its always swat and police and never an american hero ?
I'd say it's because you are not paying attention. Also, because major news outlets lean politically left which leads them to not take interest in a "hero" story. Also, a shooting that was stopped by a local "hero" is not national news. Some local thug shot to death in the act of a rape attempt is not national news. In large metros where tens of peop
Re: (Score:3)
Given police are almost never exactly at the crime, and far more americans are, where are the heroes during the violence ?
They are not there because they were disarmed by their government. There are few laws that protect firearm ownership, and protect carrying them in public, that are in effect nationally. The one's that are in effect rely on the states to enforce them, and this is not consistent. There are a number of laws that carry heavy penalties on carrying a firearm in public. These laws are also not consistently enforced. This means that people that want to avoid being put in prison for 3 years will not carry a fir
Re: (Score:2)
They don't get reported because nobody dies but the criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
So many heroes in america and yet where are these heroes when theres gun violence ?
Did you hear about the mass shooting in Portland OR in 2012?
No?
That might be because it wasn't a classic "mass shooting", which is generally 3 or more victims, that the news outlets love for front pages and lead stories. In the Clackamas Town Center [wikipedia.org] only two bystanders and the gunman died. The gunman committed suicide after being confronted by a bystander with a concealed.carry permit pointing a Glock 17 at him. The Hero had a bead on the shooter but didn't fire because there were people behind* the shoo
Re: (Score:3)
So many heroes in america and yet where are these heroes when theres gun violence ?
Take Las Vegas shooting, 100s if not more people and where were all the heroes ? Replace Las Vegas with all the other massacres, how come its always swat and police and never an american hero ?
You are either not a US citizen, or you've been completely isolated in an anti gun monoculture. Regardless, it's good to see you getting out and engaging, keep it up!
Here's a nice Latin quote for you: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [wikipedia.org]. That's why it is essential that the population have access to the same weapons as the Praetorian Guard/Police. It would be really nice if we treated mental health with the same voracity and dedication that we treat a broken bone, or Covid. Eventually, we will.
It is not alwa
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why some people think smart guns that can be locked down might be an answer, but there will still be dumb guns that anyone can shoot at anyone. Unless it was possible to make them all smart, it's not going to work, and it won't stop people from using home-made zip guns, or even crossbows.
Re: (Score:3)
The AI monitored guns should be issued to the police and military first.
If the government is happy with them, and they reliably make police and military shootings more ethical, we can consider distributing them to the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee you the "researchers" would be more than happy to give cops and military exemptions from laws requiring their use.
They're con artists. Slashdot's editors are credulous fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Or make the smart ones smart enough (and accurate enough) to shoot the dumb ones out of peoples' hands.
Re: (Score:2)
God created man, Sam Colt made them equal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It "basically" works? That seems to leave a lot of room for failure.
In the USA there's few national laws on gun control. Most of such laws are codified and enforced on the state level. Even then most federal laws are enforced on the state level by state, county, and city law enforcement. This has resulted in a wide variety of gun control laws, enforcement of those laws, and levels of crime in these jurisdictions.
The jurisdictions inside the USA with the strictest gun control also tend to be the most vio
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence to support this blatantly inaccurate assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be obvious almost to the point of tautology that if you actually succeed in restricting guns almost to the point of banning them, then you will not have much gun violence. Or to say it another way, if you destroyed every single gun in the world, there would not be much gun violence.
But ultimately that is not what I am interested in. What I want to know is, if the US employs strict and severe gun control, will that make the country safer and less violent? I don't think it will. I think the goal, he
Re: (Score:3)
Idiots like the OP will always want to ban the "most dangerous weapon that is legal at the moment" because it will "eradicate" the "most" common kind of crime. They're that fucking delusional.
It would be nice to ignore fools like them but unfortunately they always find other ignorant mouthbreathers to agree with them.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a lie. Many Latin American countries have severe gun restrictions, yet they have a lot of gun violence.
Then there are countries such as the Czech Republic with very permissive gun laws and almost no gun violence.
Gun is just a tool. The real problem are the people willing to inflict harm.
Re: (Score:3)
The solution to gun violence, is to restrict guns. I know that is blasphemy in the US but basically works everywhere else..
But sure, I for one welcome our new robot overlords..
Sadly, the majority of firearm deaths in America, is due to suicide. The actual blasphemy in America, is admitting Mental Health and overmedication is the problem, not guns.
Targeting the and restricting guns to cure that problem, is like targeting and restricting extra large cups and high-capacity ladles, to cure obesity. Stupid, pointless, and downright dangerous for the millions of responsible firearm owners who want nothing more than to protect and defend their loved ones from the perpetual evil in the
Re: (Score:2)
They're lying scum. Scam artists.