[ps101]

This problem is inherently American - it's not that other countries have access to some secret tech that's keeping them gun-violence-free. Saying "let's not make this political" about an entirely political issue is laughable. So is "let's fix gun violence with ML".

To actually answer the question with tech solutions:

- accurate fact-based media with no spin

- accessible education

- opportunities for people to be exposed to cultures, lifestyles and mentalities different from their own

Educated, informed and open-minded people are less likely to shoot up a school, or to buy into other people's "right" to do so.

[Cshelton]

Agreed. But we are where we are now and have to face reality. The reality is, the political situation with guns is, and has been, stuck between a rock and a hard place. I want to keep those political arguments out of this thread and focus on how tech can help.

I think politically, you can get every side to agree that if technology could alert authorities that somebody is holding a gun in hand and walking up to the entrance of a retail store, it would be an improvement and can potentially save lives.

but yes, I agree with each of your bullet points. All three of those will have benefits far beyond solving gun violence as well.

[adonnjohn]

While it remains between a rock amd a hard place, people will be killed. I know that you're trying to steer the conversation towards the forum's purpose, but I'm not sure technology has anything to do with it, anymore than technology can stop the globe from increasing in temperature in its current state.

One of the gunmen was stopped within 60 seconds. People still died. Unless the tech can precisely point out terrorists before they leave the house, it risks being just a bandage. Even if it did, what whitepaper could possibly give you the confidence that the system's tolerance is effectively adjusted? That's some iRobot level stuff, and that was... not without quirks.

It'd probably be easier to just change the dang government.

[AnimalMuppet]

There is a political component, but I would say that the real problem is social. American society is broken in some fundamental way. If I had to put a guess at a root cause, I would say that too many Americans do not see "the other" as human beings. (While the right may be more likely to resort to guns, "othering" also happens on the left.)

[tucaz]

Since I’m not a fan of people downvoting myself without an explanation here’s the explanation of why I did it.

You should avoid making statements such as “while the right maybe be more likely to resort to guns” without offering any sort of data to back that up.

Statements like this offer such information as a premise and lead the conversation towards the wrong direction because they have no base in reality.

[AnimalMuppet]

The statement was tangential, and matched (so far as I can tell) most peoples' perception. As such, I didn't feel the need to document it.

You seem to be saying that "the right may be more likely to resort to guns" has "no base in reality". That would surprise me, for two reasons. First, gun culture seems to be much more prevalent in parts of the country that lean right. Second, the topic was mass shootings, and there have been several prominent mass shootings lately that have been done at least in the name of the right, whereas the Dayton shooter is the only one that I know of that was claiming positions of the left.

Neither of those are hard data. On the other hand, you seem to be the one claiming that what "most people know" is wrong; do you have data?

[tucaz]

Most people perception really have no importance here or anywhere where science is used. That is a fallacy. If most people think that I’m blue it doesn’t make me blue.

Gun culture is more prevalent in the right. Yes. Now saying that right wing people are more likely to resort to guns is a different statement. Would you agree?

That’s the kind of nuance that makes that statement a perverse premise in my opinion.

No. I don’t have any data, but I’m not making any claims so the burden of proof is not on me :)

[ajurna]

You are making a claim. You are claiming that both sides a equally likely to resort to guns and as such the burden of proof on that claim lies with you.