Ask Slashdot: Can Technology Prevent Shootings? 1144
An anonymous reader wonders if there's a technological response to mass shootings like this Sunday's attack in Orlando, Florida:
We're in for a sadly obvious debate now with all of the usual scapegoats, but instead of focusing on who's to blame, it'd be better to identify some specific actions that could actually generate real increases in public safety going forward...
If we're looking for radical changes in the way we live, does technology have a role? Is the answer smart gun technology? Mandatory metal detectors at night clubs? Better data analysis algorithms for the federal government? Bulletproof fabrics?
Share your best ideas in the comments. Could there be a technological solution to the problem of mass shootings?
If we're looking for radical changes in the way we live, does technology have a role? Is the answer smart gun technology? Mandatory metal detectors at night clubs? Better data analysis algorithms for the federal government? Bulletproof fabrics?
Share your best ideas in the comments. Could there be a technological solution to the problem of mass shootings?
An easier sollution (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you try education and common sense?
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you try education and common sense?
Too simplistic. Besides the progressives would rather bury their head up their ass and pretend nothing is wrong. Remember when all those progressives and the media said that after Dylann Roof murdered 9 people there needed to be a national dialog on the confederate flag? A guy just killed 50 people was a muslim, I'm sure they're going to be lining up to suggest a national dialog on Islam.
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
he seemed more homophobic than radicalised
Most people who think homosexuality is something horrible think so because Abrahamic religions in general and Islam in particular have been saying that for 2000 years. But it might have been more "the enemy (IS) of my enemy (gays) is my friend" than any deep religious commitment. Doesn't matter, I doubt all the people who fought for the Nazis were die-hard ideologists either.
Islam is unique (Re:An easier sollution) (Score:5, Interesting)
Judaism is a lot older than that, actually, while Islam is a lot younger.
More importantly, Islam — uniquely among Abrahamic religions — compels the followers to do something about it. A Christian can be a "good Christian" if he merely prays for the sinners' salvation. A Muslim must act — and homosexuality is the greatest sin [islamqa.info].
And then there is the inconvenient truth about Islam-prescribed world-order. Whereas (the original) Christianity left sæcular affairs to the contemporary government whoever they are — "Cæsar's to Cæsar" — Islam explains exactly how the government should be structured: a Theocracy with a Caliph at the top. This alone makes Islam incompatible with America's Constitution — but the same Constitution bans us from collectively acknowledging the problem.
Re:Islam is unique (Re:An easier sollution) (Score:4)
Wrong. I'm comparing modern interpretation of Judaism and Christianity — you got that part right — with the modern interpretation of Islam. From Pakistan [gaytimes.co.uk] to Qatar [qatarliving.com] to Gaza [bbc.co.uk] (however much the latter need the support of "progressives"), homosexuality is illegal and being gay is deadly.
Only if the government is based on Judaism. But Jews remain Jews living under other governments — unlike Islam, neither Judaism nor Christianity make government structure part of the scripture.
A Jew wishing to live under Jewish law can move to Israel — his religion does not compel him to bring that law to the government of his residence. Same is true about Christians. As I said, Islam is unique.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's avoid the confusing generalities and pronouns.
I'm comparing the interpretation of Judaism and Christianity in the US to the interpretation of Islam in the US. How is that?
The shooter was an American citizen...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:An easier sollution (Score:4, Interesting)
Why don't you try education and common sense?
The federal government has been waging war on education and common sense since the fifties. They are horribly inconvenient in a populace you would like to control.
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
How naive. Shots would be heard and the first "good guys" would draw their guns. The second good guys would think the first good guys were the original shooters and would therefore shoot *them*. Death by friendly fire is what would occur -- a lot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you point to a single incident where that has happened?
Are you serious? The term "friendly fire" wasn't invented in this thread today, so let's not be ignorant that it could exist on or off a battlefield. Just because civilians are not exposed to warfare on the same level as a soldier doesn't mean it couldn't happen, as we have literally dozens of unfortunate events in our history that prove that it HAS happened during conflicts.
I have considerably more experience with firearms than the average civilian, and it has crossed my mind several times as to how a situation might play out that would involve multiple people shooting, and how I would or could defend myself and others during a situation where it might be VERY hard to tell the difference between a bad guy and an undercover police officer.
With the laws today, it's bad enough for a civilian legally defending a lethal action of self defense, even when the threat and target is crystal clear. Our legal system does not always see eye to eye with Common F. Sense as. You should know this by now.
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:An easier sollution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:An easier sollution (Score:4, Interesting)
more than one good guy will pull out a gun, they won't all be accurate, and the bad guy being killed would not guarantee the shooting stops, because -- and here's the crucial bit -- the good guys won't be wearing special good guy uniforms. So each good guy could make an unintended error and shoot another good guy, because there's no easy way to tell good from bad.
I really am quite sick of this strawman. Look, I own firearms, but I am not a member of the black helicopter crowd. I have a concealed carry license but I rarely (count on one hand, 2016 year to date) use it, because I do not feel the need to be armed everywhere I go. I do not own what is commonly but inaccurately referred to as an assault rifle. I do not feel that "MORE GUNS EVERYWHERE" is the best solution to the problem of mentally deranged spree killers. Even if you increased the number of individuals who regularly carry by a factor of ten they're still going to be squarely in the minority. In short, the "good guys" will not and can not be everywhere.
All that said, your argument is stupid. It's the stuff of people who do not like firearms and grasp to any argument -- no matter how tenuous -- that can be made to discredit their use. You want to know how you tell the good guys from the bad in the midst of such chaos? The good guys are not fucking walking around shooting masses of unarmed people who are begging for their lives!!!!
I also find the "do nothing, wait for the professionals" argument offensive. If someone is walking around killing innocent people you do whatever you fucking can to stop him. You do not cower and beg for your life; you fight back with any and all means at your disposal. This is the same "you've already lost" victim mentality that advises women to tell a would-be rapist she's menstruating. Fight or flight is an instinct that's billions of years old; it needs to be embraced, not discouraged. The most important part of self-defense isn't your weaponry, or your training, it's your mindset.
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
If it happens to trained police officers, do you really believe it doesn't happen with ordinary gun "enthusiasts" who are trying to be heroes?
http://www.policemag.com/list/... [policemag.com]
Re: An easier sollution (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it matter? It is all just theory-crafting anyway.
Not at all. There are hard statistics available on the crime trends since we've gone from a nation with zero concealed carry states to now 50 concealed carry states. What you "theorize" didn't happen. On the contrary, crime (including violent and gun crime) has continued to decrease and there are virtually no cases of crimes being committed by permitted concealed carry holders. There are however, myriad documented cases of crimes being interrupted and prevented by armed noble citizens. Too many to count! Bu
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Informative)
the downward trend in crime is very long-term and consistent and shows zero correlation to the increase in CCW permits.
what we have instead in this country, on both state-by-state basis, as well as a metro-area basis, is very clear correlations between gun prevalence and gun deaths. and it's summed up thus: more guns = more deaths.
this trend also is clearly shown at the national levels as well, as of all western nations the US has by far the most gun deaths of any nation not currently engaged in an active conflict.
as for permit carriers actually stopping crimes, for every gun used in self defense, 34 people die.
and yes, the FBI and CDC has statistics.
In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.
Or, look at it this way. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that in 2012 there were 20,666 suicides by gun. That works out to one self-defense killing for every 78 gun suicides. CDC data show that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings.
There are, of course, plenty of solid arguments for robust 2nd Amendment protections. Millions of people use guns for sport and recreation every day. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens, not criminals.
But, though some people certainly use guns for self-defense, the data suggest that overall, guns are used far more often for killing than self-defense. As a result, it may be worth thinking twice about arguments for more guns in schools, churches and other public places.
Don't like those statistics?
Then lobby Congress to remove the ban on funding for actual dedicated research of gun violence.
After all, what have you got to lose?
If you're right and the current statistics are completely wrong, then actual dedicated statistics research and collection should prove that.
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
as for permit carriers actually stopping crimes, for every gun used in self defense, 34 people die.
and yes, the FBI and CDC has statistics.
Just to be clear, your statistics don't justify your previous claim. (And I say this as someone who is in favor of greater gun regulation. I just don't think it's a good idea to use misleading statistics to support an argument.)
That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths. [snip] That works out to one self-defense killing for every 78 gun suicides. CDC data show that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings.
What you've shown is the ratio of justifiable killings to (unjustified) murders... or suicides or whatever.
That has little basis for a comparison of "every gun used in self-defense," which is where you started your argument. One would hope (and there are definitely statistics showing) that the vast majority of guns used in self-defense did NOT result in death -- either because simply brandishing the weapon deterred the assailant, or because the victim simply wounded the assailant.
And, in fact, if you want to find statistics supporting the "other side," you can easily do so. There are well-known FBI statistics out there from various reports suggesting that there are millions of uses of guns in self-defense every year, though the vast majority of them never result in a shot fired.
I don't buy those statistics, either -- and there are various ways that critics have picked them apart. On the basis of "studies" and "data," we can only definitively say that the number of "defensive gun uses" in the U.S. per year is somewhere between 50,000 and 5,000,000. That's a big range. (But, I'd note that even the lowest estimate from a reputable study is well over 100 times what your argument implies.)
Basically, when it comes to gun politics in the U.S., I've come to believe that anyone who is a strong advocate on either side will cherry-pick statistics that really don't answer the questions we need to consider. Your post is no exception.
And while I agree with you that better studies and funding for them is a good idea, I also recognize that the vast majority of gun studies out there seem to be run with a strong agenda in mind for one side or the other. Thus, you'll still just end up with a battle of conflicting statistics, even with more data.
The only way to really resolve such an argument is to have a strong education in statistics, an understanding of how they can be manipulated, and the kinds of flaws inherent in various population studies. Most people arguing for one side or the other in this debate aren't interested in such nuance. But when you look at it that way, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle: guns ARE used a lot in self defense (a lot more than your statistics suggest), but they also are responsible for a lot of possibly preventable deaths (particularly suicides and accidental shootings).
Re: (Score:3)
"what we have instead in this country, on both state-by-state basis, as well as a metro-area basis, is very clear correlations between gun prevalence and gun deaths. and it's summed up thus: more guns = more deaths."
So when did Chicago suddenly start allowing its people to have guns?
Re: (Score:3)
what we have instead in this country, on both state-by-state basis, as well as a metro-area basis, is very clear correlations between gun prevalence and gun deaths. and it's summed up thus: more guns = more deaths.
The facts show otherwise [aei.org].
Re: (Score:3)
There were Armed Guards at the door of the nightclub...
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
And it took the cops three hours to storm the building while people were dying inside because they thought there was a bomb and hostages, the former due to some bad camera angles. So...for better technology in this incident, I'd go with automatic emergency lighting and web- or phone-quality cameras that could be accessed from outside the building.
>> "Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer said that officers initially mistakenly thought the gunman had strapped explosives to some of his victims after a bomb robot sent back images of a battery part next to a body. That held paramedics up from entering the club until it was determined the part had fallen out of an exit sign or smoke detector, the mayor said." https://www.yahoo.com/news/another-night-drinking-dancing-until-shots-began-011941419.html
Re: (Score:3)
And you have to ask how he got into the nightclub with all that weaponry
The first people he shot were the guards...
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An easier sollution (Score:5, Interesting)
In the context of "nightclubs", not so much. There's good reason most states ban carrying where alcohol is served, and all if you're drinking. The recent shooting was yet another in a gun-free zone.
Technological fix? No. Smart guns? It's the terrorist's gun. Metal detectors? Terrorist. Outlaw guns? Terrorist (much like shootings in nightclubs in other countries).
Outlawing religion seems a better bet, except historically religion has thrived on that.
No easy answers to evil men.
Re: An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's woefully ignorant to blame all religion for a few nutjobs and murderous assholes."
Just as valid: It's woefully ignorant to blame all gun-owners for a few nutjobs and murderous assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
Banning religion isn't the answer. We need to be intelligent enough to distinguish between good religion and bad religion.
And which ones are good? Most of them seem to claim that homosexuality is "evil", so which ones wouldn't support what this guy did? At least Christianity generally (these days) advocates working politically against homosexuality rather than going on a murder spree, unlike Islam. But it wasn't always that way: centuries ago, Christianity advocated burning people at the stake for things
Re: (Score:3)
Oh please.
As an American, I have lots of complaints about Christians, but to equate the two religions is pure lunacy. Christians haven't committed largescale acts of religious violence for a very long time. The Crusades were a millenia ago. People haven't been burned at the stake by Christians for centuries. The Salem Witch trials were in the late 1600s. By contrast, Islamic nations are horribly violent places right now. If you don't believe me, take a plane to Turkey, cross over into Syria, and go sp
NOPE. Next question (Score:3)
Can Technology Prevent Shootings?
No.
Actually, maybe it could if it led to the extinction of humans. Then there would be no more mass shootings.
Re: (Score:3)
There has got to be a way to prevent shooting like this. I can think of a couple of ways. How about filling the nightclub with a breathable smoke so no one can see and than giving the police infrared glasses? How about filling it up with intense white light so nobody can see and giving the police infrared glasses? How about heat lamps that could fool the shooters infrared glasses but give out a signal that only the police infrared glasses could detect? There are ways to defeat the shooter but they woul
Re: (Score:3)
Over 300 people in a small or confined area. Whether the shooter can see or not, randomly pointing towards the sound (people fleeing) and shooting will have a large success rate.
But I'm not sure it matters. If you could not get a gun, you would build a bomb. A claymore mine or two would have deviated this place too.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that rather the problem? People distinguishing between religious beliefs, and then becoming violent over it?
Problem is, today it seems to be overwhelmingly a singular religion that lashes out with extreme violence over such comparisons. Perhaps the problem isn't religion on a whole, but just the one that demands everybody convert or be considered fair game for murder.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: An easier sollution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is
freedom of speech - no exceptions - that also means don't go out of your way to shout down your political oponents,
freedom of thought (otherwise known as a religion)
one can disagree with others but one cannot use violence.
And yes that means that once in a while a crazy person will do some crazy sh!t.
Re: An easier sollution (Score:5, Informative)
That is woefully ignorant thing to say.
Ignorance is what is toxic.
Liberals and progressives don't believe in the power of the state.
The power of the state can originate in many places.
In western liberal political theory that place is the people, ie, the consent of the governed.
That is then represented though democracy, either direct or representative.
the power of the state can also originate in a belief in divine right of a special family. we call those monarchies.
some places believe in the power of god (or other religion) empowers some religious leader. those are theocracies.
or in the power of the military. we call those military dictatorships.
Liberals and progressives believe that all political power and authority, ie "the state", originates in the people, the governed, not the state itself, nor do we worship it.
Question is: where do you believe it originates?
Since you seem to have a problem with a basic tenet of western liberalism.
Are you one of those conservatives who is tired of the military being limited by civilian oversight?
Maybe a military junta is more to your liking then.
Or perhaps you think the people have limited religion too much, and a theocracy would be more to your liking?
Or there's always merry old England, if a King/Queen is more your thing.
Re: (Score:3)
one can disagree with others but one cannot use violence.
That's the rule. Not everyone follows the rule.
Humans get passionate about their beliefs. They raise their voices. Some of them get carried away. It hardly even matters what they get passionate about - football or faith: both result dead people.
The best you can do is try to arrange so that when people let their passions carry them away, the scale of violence is limited. This is why football riots usually injure rather than kill. Don't take your gun to the bar, don't take it to the KKK rally, don't take i
Re: (Score:3)
Far more than 10 in 1,000,000 progressives are dangerous for the exact same reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
When a significant number of those deaths starts happening due to mental issues... sure.
Until then just suspend and take away driving permissions of people for willfully lowering their own driving abilities through drug use.
Repeated and willful offenders should be jailed. [findlaw.com]
Hey! Whaddayakno! That's exactly what's being done! And deaths have been going down since the 1940s! [wikipedia.org]
From ~25 per 100k in 1940 - to ~10.25 per 100k in 2014.
But boy did those numbers start falling down as seat belt legislation started coming [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice attempt to get out of cherry picking by putting up a strawman defense.
Guess what? You just affirmed that your cherry picked argument is full of shit - WHILE piling more fallacies on your own doorstep.
You should really stop digging once you hit the septic tank, you know?
But while you're wallowing in your own shit there... back to your non-argument about "terrists" and illegal guns.
Which could be disregarded simply on account of logic - cause you are pulling an onus probandi disguised as an argument.
I.e. Claiming something would happen, without any proof for it (even with immense proof against it) and shifting the burden of evidence on the other side, demanding that I prove your wild hypothetical guess you pulled out of your ass - to be factually wrong.
And that's not an argument. That is, again, a fallacy.
But why even bother with hypotheticals when there is DATA proving you wrong RIGHT NOW.
In 75% of cases of mass shootings, between 1982 and 2012, gunmen used legally purchased guns. [motherjones.com]
Even this last case was committed with perfectly legally purchased guns.
Guns don't kill people. Legally purchased automatic weapons with high capacity magazines kill people.
The fact is, that though the terrists are carefully concealing their identities, secret plans, hiding their true intentions from the public and the police - they are showing no attempt to try to conceal their gun purchases.
Omar Mateen RENTED A VAN despite owning a car - but had no need to conceal his gun purchase.
Why should he?
Buying an automatic gun which can't be used for hunting and will kill your neighbors across the street if you use it for home defense, yet you still want one of those things designed solely for mass murder of people - that is not at all suspicious.
On top of that, had mass shooters been buying illegal guns, even a tragedy such as Orlando would have had a positive side - there would be a clue towards breaking up an illegal, terrist supplying, gun selling chain.
But since all these guns were legal - they are not only cheaper, there is also nothing to investigate.
In fact, those guns being legal and thus cheap and available to any loon - is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZING of spree killings.
It's like the US government is paying people money to gun down its citizens.
Or at least lowering the entry fee.
Nearly everywhere else they would be FORCED to pay more.
And to jump through some very hard loops. Like, you know... meeting people who break laws for living... in secluded places... where they have guns and you have money...
All while leaving a bigger footprint for the police.
Except in the land of the flee. Home of the scared.
Re: An easier sollution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I'd put an end to the War on Drugs, which is just as violent and destabilizing as alcohol prohibition was. Between that, and working to end the cycle of poverty and poor education, the murder rates in the US would easily drop to European levels. Basically, we can start chasing the real causes instead of getting caught on this subject (guns) every single time.
If that's all too hard or something, we could just do nothing at all. The violent crime rates for most Americans (not involved in gangs or
Re: An easier sollution (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost never happens.
40,000 Americans are killed or wounded by gun violence each year.
On average, approximately zero are saved by good guys who aren't cops.
The good guy vigilante is a myth, even in states with open carry or liberal concealed carry .
The level of training required to effectively deal with an active shooter with a compact long gun is far too high for most civilians to devote the time to, so they end up being ineffective or escalate the situation.
If Chis Kyle can get whacked by a nutjob, Joe Av
Re: An easier sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
On average, approximately zero are saved by good guys who aren't cops.
Well, yeah, that's because of a number of factors:
1. Most gun deaths involve people who know each other, with drug and domestic violence being the top two.
2. The most visible case where a CCW would be handy is a spree killing, yet spree killings are actually really rare. Seriously, you're more likely to be punched or kicked to death than killed in a spree killing.
3. Something around 80-90% of spree killings(depending on your definition) happen in 'gun free' zones where you can't legally CCW anyways.
So, get rid of or at least seriously reform the war on drugs and get rid of gun free zones and you might see shooters stopping more spree killings. That being said, spree killings stopped by a civilian or police shooter early don't make the news anywhere near as hard.
You hear about the Uber driver who went on a spree killing rampage. You don't hear about the one who stopped one(and ended up fired).
Re: (Score:3)
most (2/3) gun deaths are suicides.
most sprees aren't in fact in gun free zones.
nor are gun free zones chosen for that reason; targets are nearly always chosen because of a specific target or connection at that location. place of employment, significant other, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
The Kel Tec will jam at least once per clip.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the commander can issue guns and ammo in case of an att
Re: (Score:3)
Fully 1/3 are suicides (Score:3)
It seems that what we really need is a bunch of new laws that will make it very very very illegal to commit suicide. With double penalties for committing suicide with a gun.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
No
Re: (Score:2)
Because there's always a work around.
Apples and pears (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I think a lot of these social problems come from people with hate and without hope.
When do for example nazis get more power ? When there is more uncertainty. Where do people recruit terrorists, etc. ? Districts where people feel disassociated from the rest of society. These areas still exist today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It's been more than 10 years now, things have hardly improved.
So part of the reason is a money problem.
I'm for something like UBI or at least really good social securit
How would metal detectors help here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Metal detectors might keep people from bringing in a concealed weapon, saving the occasional life when a fight escalates. They would do nothing in a situation like Pulse, as the shooter wouldn't try to pass through undetected. He'd just storm the place, shooting the guards at the entrance if need be.
Re: (Score:3)
Metal detectors might keep people from bringing in a concealed weapon, saving the occasional life when a fight escalates. They would do nothing in a situation like Pulse, as the shooter wouldn't try to pass through undetected. He'd just storm the place, shooting the guards at the entrance if need be.
Quoted for truth...
My local school has tried to reassure parents by pointing to the double locked doors, the front desk staff, the required sign-ins, etc...
I pointed out to the Principle one day that the two main front doors are made of full size sheet glass... the locks are for appearance, a gunman could simply shoot the glass.
She looked at me with a blank expression like that thought had never occurred to her.
---
Side note, at the front desk, the two ladies who sit there and sign people in, they have a bu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My local school has tried to reassure parents by pointing to the double locked doors, the front desk staff, the required sign-ins, etc...
That "school" sounds more like a prison to me.
It's really sad to see that things have come this far.
But maybe we're on to something here . . . maybe we can consolidate schools and prisons . . . ?
Re:How would metal detectors help here? (Score:4, Insightful)
A school isn't a prison, All of my kids schools have access control on all the doors. To enter the building during the day, you have to be buzzed in. It's about knowing who is entering the building, controlling the flow of people.
If a shooter is going to storm the building, there is little that could be done economically for any building and still have it resemble a school.
It's not about preventing a shooter from gaining access
When there is a will then there is a way. (Score:2)
Gun control (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it cannot (Score:4, Interesting)
What would help us a less violent surrounding, i.e. less guns. In case of Orlando , the guy was mentally I'll and violent. He should have been in treatment, but in the US you do not send the mentally ill to proper institutions (at least not right away). The thing that would help is a social security system and protection of the poor. You may supplement it by gun laws which forbid selling guns to people who are violent and crazy. In short Bernie could but it looks like you get Trump a fascitoid angry white guy who does not care about the poor or Clinton a Wall Street representative. At lest she will not scrap medicare.
Re: (Score:3)
What would help us a less violent surrounding, i.e. less guns. In case of Orlando , the guy was mentally I'll and violent. He should have been in treatment, but in the US you do not send the mentally ill to proper institutions (at least not right away).
(1) The guy travelled to Orlando to perform the shooting
(2) The guy's family had left him because he was a wife beater, prone to violence
(3) He then got a job that required him to be armed (security guard), and gave him lots of time to brood
(4) The guy was questioned about other terrorist incidents by the FBI; so there was already a connection there
(5) The guy called in a 911 call dedicating himself to an ISIS leader after it was too late to stop the shooting happening
(6) We have several supreme court decis
Re: (Score:3)
Although I agree that being religious is similar to being mentally ill, this person was brainwashed by a US Imam, whether or not he had mental problems is besides the point. There are many religions that do the same thing, even Christian ones, it only takes one to trigger an event like this. As the governor of Texas has indicated, Christians by and large agree with this shooting.
Sure... (Score:2)
go back to muzzle-loading muskets.
Virginia Tech (Score:2, Insightful)
You all remember the Virginia Tech where one of teachers was an Israeli who had a specific training and could kill the criminal but had no gun.
But I heard that is Virginia there was a mass shooting some years before. But it was NOT the arms free zone. So the students went to the parking, took their gins from their cars and shot the criminal. It's a hint.
The only method that could save you Americans from mass shooting is the perspective for the shooter to be immediately shot. So your Second Amendment is prec
Re:Virginia Tech (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that this sort of automatic/semi-automatic weapons are LEGAL.
I suspect you don't actually know what those two terms mean, what type of weapon was used, or what difference it would have made had there been limits on the type of weapon.
But that's ok, lots of people who know nothing about guns just sure love to talk about them.
The gun deaths per capita in countries (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c... [fbi.gov]
In 2013, there were 5723 murders recorded in the FBI stats.
https://www.nationalgangcenter... [nationalgangcenter.gov]
In 2012, there were 2,363 gang-related homicides (2103 data not provided yet it seems), but it seems fair that around 2,000 gang-related homicides occur every year. In other words, about 40% of all murders in the US are gang-related homicides. With an estimated 770,000 gang members accounting for 40% (about 2300) of all murders, the rest of the population (314.8M) produced about 3360 murders, or about 1.06 murders per 100,000 non-gang people. This is clearly on par with other countries who do not have similar gang problems.
From the FBI numbers above, it also seems that black-on-black murders are quite disproportionately represented. At about 17% of the population, black-on-black murders were also about 40% of the total (2245). White-on-white murders were somewhat higher as an absolute number (2,509) but there are 195.6M whites compared to 53.6M blacks.
The numbers say that blacks murder blacks at 4.1 per 100,000; whites murder whites at about 0.77 per 100,000. Blacks also murdered 409 whites; whites murdered 189 blacks.
If we focused on eliminating the actual criminal gang element, we'd have European-level murder rates.
There's this wonderful technology (Score:3)
There's this wonderful technology, it's called concealed firearms. I don't propose that drunk patrons be allowed to bring them in (although that'd be better than the status quo), but it's really a shame that no one in the staff (save for one guy at the entrance) had a concealed firearm on them. This could be over in minutes with fairly minimal casualties. In fact, had he known he would see resistance there, he would likely have gone elsewhere. Instead the police waited for 3.5 hours (!) before storming the club. That's what they usually do, since they have no legal obligation whatsoever to protect anyone or put themselves in danger (Google "no duty to protect" if you don't believe me).
Not possible (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason some people revert to terrorism-type attacks is that it is basically impossible to prevent them. Not even full-blown fascism can prevent terrorism. Of course, the surveillance-fanatics and the police does not want anybody to realize that, as such attacks are the things that allow them to push for even less freedom, even more surveillance and and even worse police-state.
Terrorism is something society has to live with, as trying to prevent it (for example in the utterly moronic form of a "war on terror") is futile and makes the problem worse.
answer to what? (Score:4)
We have had a massive decline in gun violence, both in the US and abroad, and nobody really knows what the cause of the decline is. It isn't gun control or getting tough on criminals.
Furthermore, in the US, probably the single factor that sticks out most with respect to gun violence is "race": after all, despite the US's higher murder rate overall, as a "white" American, you are no more likely to get murdered than the people of Iceland, France, Denmark, New Zealand, the UK, Norway, Canada, Belgium, Israel, and Finland. But "race" (in the weird US sense) obviously doesn't cause violence per se; it must be a marker that correlates with something else.
So, given that we don't really understand what causes gun violence, and that it has been massively decreasing for poorly understood reasons, it's hard to come up with a technological solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes... guns and armor (Score:4, Insightful)
if you want a technological solution... one accessible right now is guns and body armor. What technology do the police or military use to deal with guns? Words? Education? Do they offer the crazed gunman money?
Guns to kill or threaten the shooter... armor and tactics to avoid being injured while the deed is done.
Here someone will say "but I want the world to be full of rainbows and unicorns"... Childish.
Consider the numbers. The vast majority of the population is peaceful, law abiding, and has a strong interest in law and order. What is more... anyone will act in what they see as their self interest to defend themselves.
Consider that the error is that we haven't gone 180 degrees and encouraged MORE guns.
Vulnerability or perceived vulnerability invites attack. This is a well established and accepted strategic and tactical concept in war.
Look weak and you'll get hit. Look strong and you'll be avoided. If you WANT to be attacked in war, the best thing to do is to LOOK weak by hiding your strength. That is the nature of a trap in war. You trick the enemy into a miscalculation and destroy them. The point being... again... weakness invites attack.
If you wish to NOT be attacked... do not allow the enemy to think you are weak... either by not appearing weak or by actually being able to respond forcefully.
I'm sure I'm going to get statements like "typical american" or something equally infantile.
We'll see if any one has a substantive response to my point. I expect nothing but cowardly downvotes and idiotic insults from ACs without a hint of an argument.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You could remove all guns and mass killings will still occur.
Mix some bleach and ammonia and throw it around. Put together an explosive. Drive a car over the sidewalk. Poison the water supply. Release weaponized viral agents into a high population area.
The problem here isn't firearms, or cars, or machetes. The problem is an ideology that encourages and glorifies murder of people who don't agree with you.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
stop promoting guns and invisible friends (Score:3)
Bit of an innovative idea, but maybe lets try making it a little harder to get guns and stop promoting the idea that it is OK for an adult to have an invisible friend that talks to them and tells them who to hate. The current approach to the invisible friend problem seems to be to say "oh, I have the same invisible friend and they are totally nice" or "This bad person seems to have the wrong invisible friend, mine is totally nice". These are both unacceptable and fucking stupid responses to religious violence. It is not OK for an adult to abdicate their responsibility for their own ethical position to a supernatural entity and a book of hate. It is not OK to normalise those who do.
It is not OK to hate LGBT people. It is not OK to say "hate the sin and love the sinner" that isn't anywhere near good enough. It is not OK to send "thoughts and prayers" because in doing that you are promoting and normalising the position of having an invisible friend that hates people.
Yes, it should also be less trivial to obtain battlefield weapons, and we should stop normalising the ownership of guns, but we should do that in addition to challenging the ridiculous medieval beliefs that are distancing people from reality, gun control won't implement hate control but we should do it anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Technology can't stop these (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Technology can't stop these (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe never allowed citizens to own guns the way the US does.
This is untrue. Restrictions have been gradually increased during the 20th Century, and have not been in place forever.
Re:Technology can't stop these (Score:5, Insightful)
The caveat here, is that the European countries with the lowest crime rates have the highest rates of gun ownership, as well.
Re:Technology can't stop these (Score:4, Insightful)
Such bullshit argument.
Gun control is enforced everywhere in Europe, and we have a rate of mass shooting which is 10% of what you have guys.
You don't have significant ethnic enclaves (well, until recently) that are large enough they can be insular from other ethnicities, without an international border being there.
You also don't have historically based ethnic and racial economic disparity, many times enforced by economic and racial self segregation.
That was a recent piece in the New York Times Magazine, about racial segregation of schools by regions within Brooklyn, which is largely self-imposed ("we want to live in NYC for no good reason") and economically imposed ("but we can only afford to live in this economically depressed area").
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06... [nytimes.com]
Europe is just starting to have large scale emergent problems of the type that the U.S. has had for about 150 year (or 240 years, if you count Native Americans, or over 4 centuries, if you count the pre-constitutional United States as "the U.S.").
Welcome to our world. Strap yourselves in, Europe: it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Re:Technology can't stop these (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe had "significant ethnic enclaves" when Americans were still hunting buffalo and building burial mounds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep letting them in and you'll see that change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Impossible to prove?
Not really.
statistics bear it out.
Number of mass shootings in France last year: 1
Number of mass shooting in the US in just the past 6 months: 136
Gun control may not prevent 100% of shootings, indeed few things are 100% effective.
But >99% is still pretty damn good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a brit and I'm aware of two terrorist knife attacks on UK soil. There are more than in the US and there may be more that I couldn't recall and/or find on Google but I'd characterise the number of terrorist knife attacks as "some" rather than "quite a few". Casualties in the murder of Lee Rigby: one. Casualties in the Leytonstone Tube stabbing: one. These are serious but casualties aren't on the scale of 7/7 or Mumbai.
Look at who kills who, and where. (Score:3)
Indeed!
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c... [fbi.gov]
In 2013, there were 5723 murders recorded in the FBI stats.
https://www.nationalgangcenter... [nationalgangcenter.gov]
In 2012, there were 2,363 gang-related homicides (2103 data not provided yet it seems), but it seems fair that around 2,000 gang-related homicides occur every year. In other words, about 40% of all murders in the US are gang-related homicides. With an estimated 770,000 gang members accounting for 40% (about 2300) of all murders, the rest of the population (314.8M) produced abou
Re: (Score:3)
ah so even you realize that Chicago barely eve makes the list.
and also for clearly showing that the cities at the top of the list are primarily located in red states/cities, and have less gun control and more guns.
in particular, note the lack of cities with strict gun control.
Technology and guns (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the worst mass killing in a nightclub simply used gasoline [wikipedia.org] to kill 87.
I'd argue that there's a fair number of cases where the usage of firearms probably saved lives - because when terrorists go for arson or explosives they frequently kill more people.
Worst school attack, fatality wise? Explosives
Worst night club attack? Arson
etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey dumbass, guess what? The NRA has for years and years tried to get mandatory prison sentencing for any crime committed with a firearm. It's you and your ilk who has opposed this.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the how.
It's easy to scream "ban the something" and enact laws etc.. but actually getting it banned? Now that's an different story entirely.
I bet that if you know how, you can buy cocaine in less than a hour in your own city, and all a "weapon ban" would do is just give the same guys one more thing to sell.
Re:Here is a very simple suggestion... (Score:4, Interesting)
All sounds nice in paper, but yet, you still can buy cocaine easily, and the laws on it are pretty much just as rough as the ones you just proposed.
Obviously there would a good benefit on performing a good background check and actually training the person how to safely handle the gun instead of just "LETS GIVE WEAPONS TO EVERYONE LOL", but banning guns won't solve the issue of people that want to commit crimes having access to weapons.
The best approach is giving people less reasons to want to commit crimes in first place.
Re: (Score:3)
All sounds nice in paper, but yet, you still can buy cocaine easily, and the laws on it are pretty much just as rough as the ones you just proposed.
Obviously there would a good benefit on performing a good background check and actually training the person how to safely handle the gun instead of just "LETS GIVE WEAPONS TO EVERYONE LOL", but banning guns won't solve the issue of people that want to commit crimes having access to weapons.
The best approach is giving people less reasons to want to commit crimes in first place.
You are trying to avoid the crucial issue here. The problem is not whether we can go to zero crime, because... Newsflash! There is crime, even in countries where there are very strict gun laws.
Here is an example: Japan. Lowest gun crime rate in the world. Ultra-strict laws regarding gun ownership. And Japan is also a country where organized crime, the Yakuzas, is practically out in the open.
The goal of banning guns is to ban guns, and reduce gun-related violence and homicide. Banning guns will reduce violen
Re: (Score:3)
As a Canadian gun owner, I'll just point out that our laws are laxer than some American states.
To own most rifles or shotguns, you get your PAL, or Posession and Acquisition License. You take and pass a one day course, you send in your application, which includes things like contact info for two years worth of 'conjugal partners' and references.
For handguns or 'scary' rifles (literally; an AR-15 in .223 is 'restricted.' You can get other semi-auto rifles in .223 which are considered 'non-restricted.' But
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you talking about? All of these mass murders in the last 6 months have been by Islamists and half of them were outside of the US. France has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. People were mowed down with AK-47s anyway. Belgium they got the same effect with bombs.
You people talking as if this is a U.S. problem with guns are going to cost more people's lives.
Everyone needs to wake up. People are dying left and right. It isn't going to stop until someone confronts and does something about Islamic Terrorism.
Re:Guns, freedom and all the rest (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we all know, if we are perfectly honest with ourselves, that when the amount of high-powered firearms that are freely available is higher, then the number of people killed in shootings will be higher as well.
Studies agree with you. However, studies do no agree with your implied conclusion: firearm availability causes higher homicide rates.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/... [factcheck.org]
The end of the article summarizes it nicely:
In comparing the United States to industrialized democracies, the Academies says data show the U.S. has the highest rate of homicide and firearm-related homicide. But this also raises a chicken-and-egg question. "A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around."
Does the higher availability of guns in the U.S. cause the higher homicide rate, or does the higher homicide rate lead to the higher availability of guns in the U.S.? There is no causal relationship between the two; there is merely a statistical association.
In particular, pay attention to the non-firearm homicide rate in the U.S., which is also higher than in any other industrialized country. This strongly implies that firearms are a red-herring. The U.S. has deep societal problems that are unrelated to the availability of guns, and that do not fit into clean, easy pigeon holes. Gun death is merely a rough measure of those deeper problems, which will not be solved even if guns are eradicated from the country. The means of homicide will change, but not the underlying cause.