Mass Shootings

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Mass Shootings

Post by PsYcHo »

This may come off as satirical, but it's an actual question.

Both major political sides in America have vastly differing "solutions" to the school/mass shooting issues, but I don't think either of them will realistically solve the problem. Perhaps eventually, but I was thinking a more immediate solution.

We have technology that can detect gunfire. We have cameras in almost every single public venue. We have lots and lots and lots of bullets. We have extremely intelligent engineers.

What if we were to develop "smart" cameras, equipped with the capability to respond to, and actively fire (either lethal or non-lethal incapacitating rounds) the moment a firearm is used in a "protected" building?

I think arming teachers is a bad idea, and banning guns could work in theory, but it would take many years, and people would likely come up with new methods to kill. (Which we could adapt the software to identify in my scenario)

Is my camera idea crazy, or does it seem like a possible solution that both sides could agree on, and may actually save some lives?
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
knot
Master in Training
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:34 pm

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by knot »

I'd imagine it's not possible at the moment. Image recognition using neural networks is a relatively new technology, and the AI is likely to categorize some percentage of images wrongly and end up shooting innocent people. Either that or it will be trained to be so cautious that it won't detect a real shooter. If the problem is actually solvable, it would likely take top engineers and programmers in this field years to solve it adequately, and at that point you have to ask yourself if those resources couldn't have been spent better

#buzzkill
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by brimstoneSalad »

I differ from knot, I don't think it would be very difficult because of the high temperatures of gunfire.
PsYcHo wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:35 pm What if we were to develop "smart" cameras, equipped with the capability to respond to, and actively fire (either lethal or non-lethal incapacitating rounds) the moment a firearm is used in a "protected" building?
The problem in one word: hacking. :?

You'd do better just to build in doors that shut and isolate the gunman but let other students out. Harder to hack to attack the student body (annoy yes, harm no), and you're unlikely to have a coordinated attack of gunman + hacking.

Mounted sentry cameras would also be very expensive where automatic doors could be off the shelf.

A limited ban on guns is the only proven method to avoid gun violence in schools, but technology like that could help.
It wouldn't take long for the low hanging guns on the street to be bought up by criminal gangs (who have far larger financial resources than school children). The issue is mainly taking away the cheap legal option for them to purchase guns, and moving them out of the financial reach of most would-be shooters.
You can get a gun anywhere, but you can't always afford one anywhere.
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by esquizofrenico »

The problem with any technology destined to prevent extremely rare phenomenon is that success rates are going to play against you. Even if you manage a software that only commits a 0.01% of false positives (normal people identified as killers), this means that the program is going to kill many more innocent people than actual school gunners. It's the old: I give positive in this test for this rare disease, that means I have it; when in fact is that most probably you are a false positive.

There is also the problem that you could design methods to trick the algorithm into not recognising you, just as some people are designing clothes that break face recognition algorithms.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:50 am The problem in one word: hacking. :?
Simple solution, have all the "tranq cameras" (I'm leaning towards non-lethal incapacitating) on a local network monitored by the school resource officer. Even if they were to be hacked, it's non-lethal. Worst case scenario, someone gets an unexpected nap.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by PsYcHo »

esquizofrenico wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:08 amEven if you manage a software that only commits a 0.01% of false positives (normal people identified as killers), this means that the program is going to kill many more innocent people than actual school gunners.
Thanks to the responses I've gotten so far, I think the best possible solution is a non-lethal tranquilizer dart solution. Maybe even one that has an immediate antidote, in case (worst case scenario) someone hacks it and shoots some kindergartner a few times.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PsYcHo wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:09 pm Simple solution, have all the "tranq cameras" (I'm leaning towards non-lethal incapacitating) on a local network monitored by the school resource officer. Even if they were to be hacked, it's non-lethal. Worst case scenario, someone gets an unexpected nap.
Unexpected naps they never wake up from... Movie tranquilizers don't map to reality: anything that can reliably put somebody out has a very narrow effective dosage range followed by lethal risk. This is why there's an entire profession of anesthesiologists who carefully administer medication and monitor vitals.

Think how easy drug overdoses are when somebody assumes something has been cut more than it has.

The tranq camera would have to very accurately estimate weight of the target and fill up a tranquilizer just right. Also, there's no way to reliably administer it anywhere but muscle or fat, which can take minutes to take effect (so, not even necessarily capable of stopping the shooting; remember Harambe? They used guns because nothing else has the immediate stopping power), and even then it could hit a nerve and cause permanent nerve damage.

Hacked, it could easily max fill a tranq for a heavy adult target and then hit a child, killing him or her. Or shoot somewhere more likely to be lethal like the neck, or blinding like the eye.
PsYcHo wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:12 pmThanks to the responses I've gotten so far, I think the best possible solution is a non-lethal tranquilizer dart solution. Maybe even one that has an immediate antidote, in case (worst case scenario) someone hacks it and shoots some kindergartner a few times.
A few times? :shock:
It would only take once to kill a small child with the wrong dose. If you're got more rounds, it would be trivial to kill anybody.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon with any reasonable stopping power, only less-lethal ones, and used in excess any of them could kill (even water jets). The only really viable option with the least risk would be physical barriers, because you can employ non-software failsafes (like elevator doors), and lock a shooter in a particular part of the school to minimize damage.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:45 pm
Unexpected naps they never wake up from... Movie tranquilizers don't map to reality: anything that can reliably put somebody out has a very narrow effective dosage range followed by lethal risk. This is why there's an entire profession of anesthesiologists who carefully administer medication and monitor vitals.
Valid point, but you have to weigh the risks vs the potential benefits. Additionally, the mechanics of the "TranqCam (tm)" would not be designed by me, but by much more intelligent persons. (I don't want a Wile E. Coyote Acme brand product)

We have cars that can brake automatically to stop a collision; We can't make a camera that responds to active gunfire with a "less than lethal" projectile? Take the number of people killed in public buildings/venues by mass shooters, calculate the margin of error for a tranquilizer dart being lethal (factored with the fact that an innocent would only be darted due to mechanical/software error) and make an informed decision on which benefits the tenets of reduction of harm.

I'm just spitballing ideas here because both sides in America have millions of people who think their preferred political party's idea is the best, and they are both stupid ideas that won't realistically stop the problem. Give all the teachers guns :shock: / ask/make everyone give up their guns. :shock:

I'm looking for a practical solution. Sure it has some kinks that need to be worked out, but my "crazy" idea has more potential (IMO) than giving a bunch of elementary school teachers Glocks loaded with hollow points, or making yet another law hoping that the sick criminals willing to kill children will obey them. This time.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PsYcHo wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:12 am We have cars that can brake automatically to stop a collision; We can't make a camera that responds to active gunfire with a "less than lethal" projectile?
Correct, one of these is much simpler than the other.

It's not less than lethal, it's just less lethal, as in it's still lethal, but less frequently so.
Human physiology means there really aren't any options available to incapacitate somebody without risk of death or serious injury.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:12 amTake the number of people killed in public buildings/venues by mass shooters, calculate the margin of error for a tranquilizer dart being lethal (factored with the fact that an innocent would only be darted due to mechanical/software error) and make an informed decision on which benefits the tenets of reduction of harm.
It's not just mechanical/software error, though, it's also risk of hacking. Schools aren't mission impossible movies.
If you're putting the computers in a vault and having round the clock guards and technicians, that becomes even more implausible than the millions it would cost to install sentry gun cameras everywhere anyway.

I don't think it would be affordable, schools are already stretched.
Networked auto locking doors would be about the most exotic solution that could be affordable.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:12 amI'm just spitballing ideas here because both sides in America have millions of people who think their preferred political party's idea is the best, and they are both stupid ideas that won't realistically stop the problem. Give all the teachers guns :shock: / ask/make everyone give up their guns. :shock:
Nobody has to give up their guns, just stop selling them to anybody who tries to buy one and the price of guns will increase enough to be outside of the financial means of most of these shooters. The more difficult you make it, the more likely they'll do something else which hurts/kills fewer people (or just themselves), or grow out of it.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Mass Shootings

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:34 am
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:12 am We have cars that can brake automatically to stop a collision; We can't make a camera that responds to active gunfire with a "less than lethal" projectile?
Correct, one of these is much simpler than the other.

It's not less than lethal, it's just less lethal, as in it's still lethal, but less frequently so.
Human physiology means there really aren't any options available to incapacitate somebody without risk of death or serious injury.
You're focusing on the potential for one of "my" Tranq-cams to malfunction and hit an innocent person.

If I had someone extremely intelligent design it, couldn't you entertain the possibility that it may be preferable to the other two options being presented? Glocks for Kindergartner teachers! / Make an inanimate object illegal! ,(like heroin; it's illegal, therefore no one who wants heroin can acquire it!)

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:34 am
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:12 amTake the number of people killed in public buildings/venues by mass shooters, calculate the margin of error for a tranquilizer dart being lethal (factored with the fact that an innocent would only be darted due to mechanical/software error) and make an informed decision on which benefits the tenets of reduction of harm.
It's not just mechanical/software error, though, it's also risk of hacking. Schools aren't mission impossible movies.
If you're putting the computers in a vault and having round the clock guards and technicians, that becomes even more implausible than the millions it would cost to install sentry gun cameras everywhere anyway.
Of course this isn't a Mission Impossible movie. My suggestion is meant to be simplified; I made no mention of vaults or around the clock guards. Although, a single person monitoring the "TranqCams" would be much more affordable than say,... providing a bunch of elementary school teachers with automatic pistols that have a 17 round capacity, or.. telling everyone in a country that has literally more guns than people that they should all turn in their guns...And our massive government totally promises not to take advantage of a disarmed public. You know, like we promised the Native Americans who were here first..... but history never repeats itself so it'll totally be all cool this time...

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:34 am Nobody has to give up their guns, just stop selling them to anybody who tries to buy one and the price of guns will increase enough to be outside of the financial means of most of these shooters. The more difficult you make it, the more likely they'll do something else which hurts/kills fewer people (or just themselves), or grow out of it.
...I'm hesitant to post this, but to make a counterpoint,....

Propane tank(s), magnesium, little to no technical knowledge/ large trucks/ .... I'm going to stop here because I don't want to end up on a watch list.

There are always going to be people who feel marginalized/or are in fact marginalized, who will want to hurt others because of...reasons.

I'm not the smartest individual, but if I were so inclined, I'm pretty sure I could cause severe casualties without guns. Instead of blaming the weapon of choice, lets try to find a solution to neutralize those who intend to cause harm.

...this is an area where a morally inclined PsYcHo could come in handy.. :twisted:
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
Post Reply