Today's mass shooting in the US

Also, there is no way automatic weapons should be on sale to the public, it is just madness. These weapons should be heavily restricted because they are military-grade.
 
radderfire said:
Also, there is no way automatic weapons should be on sale to the public, it is just madness. These weapons should be heavily restricted because they are military-grade.
Click to expand...
Fully automatic weapons aren't available for sale as new guns, only Semi-Auto ones but given they can still pump out dozens of rounds and some can even be converted to fully automatic it's neither here nor there. You can buy an older weapon, made before 1986 which is still fully automatic. Given things like the M-16 and AK-47 were made before that you could still get one with enough cash and the right contacts.
 
radderfire said:
I wonder if AI image recognition systems could be of use for detecting people with guns approaching a school and setting off alarms. It seems like an easy thing for the image recognition to do.

It is a very sad problem and in my view US gun laws need to be tightened considerably. There is no way the public should be able to get such powerful weapons.
Click to expand...
In some states they would likely be going off multiple times a day, and it does nothing for states like texas where they changed the law so anyone can now buy a hand gun and conceal carry it without any checks or training. Given the number of people that can't safely operate hand tools that is only going to go well.

It's also likely to trigger for things like people carrying pipes, brooms, etc if the angle is wrong, whilst ignoring actual guns because it can't see enough of them.
 
Werewolf said:
In some states they would likely be going off multiple times a day, and it does nothing for states like texas where they changed the law so anyone can now buy a hand gun and conceal carry it without any checks or training. Given the number of people that can't safely operate hand tools that is only going to go well.

It's also likely to trigger for things like people carrying pipes, brooms, etc if the angle is wrong, whilst ignoring actual guns because it can't see enough of them.
Click to expand...

The system would problem also require a person to review footage when initially flagged. Modern image recognition is now suprisingly capable. The entrances to the school would also have to be designed to give the image recognition maximum chance. I have not followed these cases closely, but it seems they normally make it into the building and I'm wondering if earlier detection could be possible.
 
radderfire said:
The system would problem also require a person to review footage when initially flagged. Modern image recognition is now suprisingly capable. The entrances to the school would also have to be designed to give the image recognition maximum chance. I have not followed these cases closely, but it seems they normally make it into the building and I'm wondering if earlier detection could be possible.
Click to expand...
How much earlier?

In this case the police were aware of him several minutes before he reached the school, and the school started locking down about a minute before he arrived (they received the call, hit the alarm button on an app that sounded the sirens and sent messages to all staff etc) but there is no way to lock down a school or any building that isn't specifically designed for it that fast (you'd need every door to be automatically force closed and locked remotely - which has it's own issues especially at say the point where classes are moving around).
If someone arrived in a vehicle or with a large bag (of the sort contractors carry, and pretty much every kid tends to use for sports/music etc) then the first notice you've got of the gun is when they either get out of the car, or pull the gun from the bag.

For a lot of larger schools, let alone universities you'd need to basically create a walled off village to do it unless for example you placed a ban on anyone other than law enforcement carrying weapons within several miles.

It's basically back to another version of turn every school into a fortified camp, one that's closer in design and construction to a maximum security prison than what should be a welcoming place of learning.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
There's no way you should be commenting on gun control if you think they aren't
Click to expand...

Well I don't keep up with it because it's not a nice cheery subject. However, I believe the weapon used recently was a Daniel Defence semi-auto, so it's still a highly lethal weapon. My point is it's not just pistols with small magazines.

I would also say that the lack of gun control is another failure of the democratic system in the US. The fact that some people, even if it was a majority, want to own high-powered weapons, doesn't make it right for the significant minority that don't think this should be allowed. Humans have a right to existence. The right to bear arms should really be a right to defend yourself. There are lots of ways to defend yourself without having to resort to a semi-automatic weapon. The right to bear arms has been warped by the gun lobby into a right to own high-powered weapons when this was never the intention, and it's a threat to civil society. The answer will always be less guns not more. It is blatantly obvious that the gun lobby has zero answers to how to stop these random killings continuing, and it is appalling how they think the answer is more "defenders" with guns, they are delusional. The only way this problem gets solved is by preventing access to weapons.
 
Werewolf said:
It's basically back to another version of turn every school into a fortified camp, one that's closer in design and construction to a maximum security prison than what should be a welcoming place of learning.
Click to expand...

I take your points, I was just wondering whether image recognition could play a part. I guess I was saying an earlier detection if possible.

However, my own solution to the problem would be much heavier gun control.
 
radderfire said:
Well I don't keep up with it because it's not a nice cheery subject. However, I believe the weapon used recently was a Daniel Defence semi-auto, so it's still a highly lethal weapon. My point is it's not just pistols with small magazines.

I would also say that the lack of gun control is another failure of the democratic system in the US. The fact that some people, even if it was a majority, want to own high-powered weapons, doesn't make it right for the significant minority that don't think this should be allowed. Humans have a right to existence. The right to bear arms should really be a right to defend yourself. There are lots of ways to defend yourself without having to resort to a semi-automatic weapon. The right to bear arms has been warped by the gun lobby into a right to own high-powered weapons when this was never the intention, and it's a threat to civil society. The answer will always be less guns not more. It is blatantly obvious that the gun lobby has zero answers to how to stop these random killings continuing, and it is appalling how they think the answer is more "defenders" with guns, they are delusional. The only way this problem gets solved is by preventing access to weapons.
Click to expand...

I mean again the 2nd amendment is about the civilian population being allowed weapons not for self defence but to over throw a tyrannical government, it's considered a right afforded to Americans as citizens, so you may as well be trying to remove their free speech laws as fair as they're concerned. They will defend it in the same way.
 
Roar87 said:
I mean again the 2nd amendment is about the civilian population being allowed weapons not for self defence but to over throw a tyrannical government, it's considered a right afforded to Americans as citizens, so you may as well be trying to remove their free speech laws as fair as they're concerned. They will defend it in the same way.
Click to expand...

The thing is, small arms would not be able to defend against a tyrannical government anyway. There is a delusion of a threat of tyranny used to promote guns, as usual it's about the profit, and there are many deluded people that buy into it, this does not make it acceptable. Guns should be strictly controlled and you will see crime levels and murders and shootings drop, it's just common sense. The less guns, the better society functions. If there ever was some sort of tyrannical takeover then emergency measures could be taken, but America is too big a country for such a thing to happen.

Something needs to change in the psyche of the gun-loving American male to realise that they aren't under threat of tyranny, and the answer is less weaponry not more. It is the extremist mentality that is causing this problem. The more people you give lethal killing machines to, the more killings there are. This also goes for worldwide too. The gun is an enemy of civil society. It is an accelerator of human misery and disfunction.
 
radderfire said:
Well I don't keep up with it because it's not a nice cheery subject.
Click to expand...

If you're so unfamiliar with the subject that your knowledge is at least 36 years out of date then you're not in a good position to be making rulings on it.

radderfire said:
However, I believe the weapon used recently was a Daniel Defence semi-auto, so it's still a highly lethal weapon. My point is it's not just pistols with small magazines.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. And you're arguing against a point nobody has made.

radderfire said:
I would also say that the lack of gun control is another failure of the democratic system in the US. The fact that some people, even if it was a majority, want to own high-powered weapons, doesn't make it right for the significant minority that don't think this should be allowed. Humans have a right to existence.
Click to expand...

Do you also believe that murder is legal in the USA? If not, why are you claiming that people in the USA don't have the right to existence?

radderfire said:
The right to bear arms should really be a right to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Which is most effectively done by being armed, obviously. Also, the right to bear arms and the right to defend yourself are different things. You want to abolish the right to bear arms and allow people the right to defend themselves but only if they can do so unarmed.

radderfire said:
There are lots of ways to defend yourself without having to resort to a semi-automatic weapon. The right to bear arms has been warped by the gun lobby into a right to own high-powered weapons when this was never the intention, and it's a threat to civil society.
Click to expand...

You don't know what the intention was. You're saying the intention was what you want it to be. So you want to warp it in your own way.

radderfire said:
The answer will always be less guns not more. It is blatantly obvious that the gun lobby has zero answers to how to stop these random killings continuing, and it is appalling how they think the answer is more "defenders" with guns, they are delusional. The only way this problem gets solved is by preventing access to weapons.
Click to expand...

Which is impossible. It's also undemocratic. Very few people in the USA want an outright ban on all weapons. Presumably with you deciding what's a weapon because that's arbitrary. Very many things can be used as weapons. Most famously, keyboards.

What is it you actually want? A ban on guns you decide are "military grade"? A ban on guns larger than a pistol? A ban on guns that don't require manual reloading between each shot? A ban on all guns? A ban on all weapons? You've given all of those things as what you want but they're very different things.

radderfire said:
The thing is, small arms would not be able to defend against a tyrannical government anyway.
Click to expand...

They could if enough people had them. In the USA, enough people have them. The same is true for forming a resistance to an occupying invasion force. But the right to bear arms in the USA doesn't rely on either of those scenarios because it's the right to bear arms.

radderfire said:
The more people you give lethal killing machines to, the more killings there are. This also goes for worldwide too.
Click to expand...

Except that it doesn't. The USA is a unique case in this respect - a wealthy country with a high gun homicide rate.

Even so, guns don't make the top 10 causes of death in the USA, not even when you include people shot dead in defence. I couldn't even find where they place in the causes of death list in the few minutes I spent looking. If the goal is to save lives there are much more effective ways to do so.
 
Angilion said:
If you're so unfamiliar with the subject that your knowledge is at least 36 years out of date then you're not in a good position to be making rulings on it.



That's not what you said. And you're arguing against a point nobody has made.



Do you also believe that murder is legal in the USA? If not, why are you claiming that people in the USA don't have the right to existence?



Which is most effectively done by being armed, obviously. Also, the right to bear arms and the right to defend yourself are different things. You want to abolish the right to bear arms and allow people the right to defend themselves but only if they can do so unarmed.



You don't know what the intention was. You're saying the intention was what you want it to be. So you want to warp it in your own way.



Which is impossible. It's also undemocratic. Very few people in the USA want an outright ban on all weapons. Presumably with you deciding what's a weapon because that's arbitrary. Very many things can be used as weapons. Most famously, keyboards.

What is it you actually want? A ban on guns you decide are "military grade"? A ban on guns larger than a pistol? A ban on guns that don't require manual reloading between each shot? A ban on all guns? A ban on all weapons? You've given all of those things as what you want but they're very different things.



They could if enough people had them. In the USA, enough people have them. The same is true for forming a resistance to an occupying invasion force. But the right to bear arms in the USA doesn't rely on either of those scenarios because it's the right to bear arms.



Except that it doesn't. The USA is a unique case in this respect - a wealthy country with a high gun homicide rate.

Even so, guns don't make the top 10 causes of death in the USA, not even when you include people shot dead in defence. I couldn't even find where they place in the causes of death list in the few minutes I spent looking. If the goal is to save lives there are much more effective ways to do so.
Click to expand...

You didn't look very hard! Guns are responsible for about 45000 deaths in the US each year. The 10th most common cause of death, kidney disease is responsible for about 50000. So guns seem to sit just outside the top 10.
Now what's not clear is out of the top 10 causes of death, how many are classed as 'preventable'. Every single one of those gin deaths is so they could quite easily climb in to the top 10.
 
radderfire said:
The fact that some people, even if it was a majority, want to own high-powered weapons, doesn't make it right for the significant minority that don't think this should be allowed.
Click to expand...
It's only a minority of people in the US who own a firearm, about 30% and even a minority of households that own one, at 41%.

Then out of that gun ownership, it's only about 3% that own the vast majority of them.

The majority of the public do want stricter gun control, currently running at about 60%, but that doesn't stop the ignorant still spouting "nO oNe WaNtS aNy GuN cOnTrOl cUz muH rIgHtS"
 
radderfire said:
The thing is, small arms would not be able to defend against a tyrannical government anyway.
Click to expand...

It isn't that simple - the bigger stumbling blocks are unrelated to firearms anyhow and factors such as fitness, experience and even just getting organised.

In terms of hardware mismatch people intentionally or unknowingly ignore factors like that the government/military don't exist in isolation.
 
radderfire said:
The thing is, small arms would not be able to defend against a tyrannical government anyway. There is a delusion of a threat of tyranny used to promote guns, as usual it's about the profit, and there are many deluded people that buy into it, this does not make it acceptable. Guns should be strictly controlled and you will see crime levels and murders and shootings drop, it's just common sense. The less guns, the better society functions. If there ever was some sort of tyrannical takeover then emergency measures could be taken, but America is too big a country for such a thing to happen.

Something needs to change in the psyche of the gun-loving American male to realise that they aren't under threat of tyranny, and the answer is less weaponry not more. It is the extremist mentality that is causing this problem. The more people you give lethal killing machines to, the more killings there are. This also goes for worldwide too. The gun is an enemy of civil society. It is an accelerator of human misery and disfunction.
Click to expand...

How do you know what the political climate is going to be in 5 years, or 10 years, to tell anyone they aren't under threat? Especially considering the last 3 or 4 years
 
The ones with most of the guns are the ones that want extremism and fascism. They’re not going to overthrow the people they voted for.

As is typical in America it’s always about the money. Republicans and the NRA scream that democrats will come after your guns, will take them away from you or introduce such strict regulations you’ll never be able to buy any ever again. Gun loving nut jobs lap this up, rush out and buy more guns, gun makers and NRA profit. Democrats come into power, DON‘T introduce legislation, or if they do it’s powers are limited, everyone has panic bought for no reason, gun makers profit massively.
 
deuse said:
That CBS report about a lady rescuing her children is false.

She did go in to the school made sure 1 of the children was safe and left them in the classroom with the teach.
The lady and CBS has been caught out.
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom