Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#51

Post by the_trapper »

onion2k wrote: post #43
otakucode wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary reason for a need for guns is to retain the ability for a violent uprising to overthrow an oppressive regime should one arise. One of the benefits of the American system is that it does not assume infinite beneficence and eternal benevolence on the part of the governing body. This is wise because we know history. It doesn't make sense to fear being shot simply because many people own guns. If it did, then…

Do those Americans who believe they need guns to form a militia genuinely think they could take on the US military in the need arose? In a battle between a thousand guys with AR-15s against a single M1 Abhrams tank my money would be on the tank.

Insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have held up pretty well against the US military over all. Pervasive gun ownership in these countries prior to our involvement is a major part of this equation. I think a militia uprising in the US would fare even better because a substantial number of the members of said militia would have been trained by that very military they are fighting. I also believe that a substantial number of the National Guard units would be loyal to their state instead of a tyrannical federal government.

Let's also not forget that our country got its start by a scrappy group of farmers and tradesmen armed only with muskets and flintlock pistols that defeated the greatest world power at the time.

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#52

Post by rayiner »

mcny wrote: post #47
rayiner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying it louder doesn’t make the point less ridiculous. Mass shooting deaths have never exceeded 80 per year. Nobody is panicked about West Nile fever anymore, but it still causes 100+ deaths per year. You’d think engineers would be resistant to such blatant emotional manipulation, but I guess not.

Neil Degrasse Tyson tried to use reason. You can't use reason when it comes to things like this. Sure, on a macro level guns kill fewer people than cars do but there are smart people working hard to try to prevent deaths by cars*. Sure, we could and should do better. For example, why doesn't any SUV come standard with built in car seats in the back for infants and children? I watched a ted talk from back in 2009 whic…

> Neil Degrasse Tyson tried to use reason. You can't use reason when it comes to things like this. Sure, on a macro level guns kill fewer people than cars do but there are smart people working hard to try to prevent deaths by cars*.

Not just cars. A result of the emotional manipulation surrounding mass shootings has resulted in attempts to ban semi-automatic rifles. But rifles are used in about the same number of homicides each year than there are deaths from people falling off ladders.

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#53

Post by MiroF »

king_magic wrote: post #48
MiroF wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Equating mass shootings to basically the “well, terrorism is so rare you’re more likely to get crushed by your TV” scare tactic argument isn’t really fair. I’m sorry, 283* mass shootings in one year in one country is absolutely insane. It’s not a scare tactic, this is quite literally a mass shooting crisis. Want to take a stab at how likely it is that you are in a school shooting, even if there were 280 shootings i…

So basically: because the chance is statistically fairly low, let’s abdicate our responsibility to reduce the already absolutely insane number of mass shootings we have in this country, a problem that absolutely no other country has? That may not be exactly what you’re saying, but that’s the conclusion people are drawing here. Real solid leadership. By that same logic, let’s go bust out the 737 MAX’s! Hey, they only…

Let me flip this on you: I care about people who are dying because they don't have healthcare, not your dumb political games on guns. Sure, you can spend a year agitating for laws that will ultimately save a few hundred of people throughout the country, meanwhile people routinely die because they aren't paid a living wage, can't afford basic medication to survive, and can't afford shelter.

If you're telling me I'm absurd to be focusing on that rather than a phenomenon that kills a few dozens of people, boy do I hope the people in charge aren't listening to you. I care about helping society, not posturing on an issue that is deemed "insane" or a "crisis."

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#54

Post by jfim »

rayiner wrote: post #39
king_magic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that no fly lists are a bit much, but I’m 100% in favor of red flag laws. RE: red flag laws, I don’t see them rising to the level of thought crime. For example, I do not think it is unreasonable to use a legal process involving a judge to take away guns (either temporarily or permanently) from unstable people who are making thinly veiled threats. Society should have that right, and I for one fully support it.…

Saying it louder doesn’t make the point less ridiculous. Mass shooting deaths have never exceeded 80 per year. Nobody is panicked about West Nile fever anymore, but it still causes 100+ deaths per year. You’d think engineers would be resistant to such blatant emotional manipulation, but I guess not.

> Mass shooting deaths have never exceeded 80 per year.

2017 had more than 80 deaths, with the Las Vegas (58 deaths) and Sutherland Springs (26 deaths) exceeding that total for those two events. These events are becoming more common and deadlier, as shown on this Axios chart [0].

You're right to point out that there are many causes of death that are more common, but rapidly increasing and unpredictable causes of death are typically covered more in the media, for better or for worse. It's why the 738 Max 8 was all over the news, even though car crashes are a more frequent cause of death.

[0] https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211ba...

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#55

Post by rayiner »

king_magic wrote: post #48
MiroF wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Equating mass shootings to basically the “well, terrorism is so rare you’re more likely to get crushed by your TV” scare tactic argument isn’t really fair. I’m sorry, 283* mass shootings in one year in one country is absolutely insane. It’s not a scare tactic, this is quite literally a mass shooting crisis. Want to take a stab at how likely it is that you are in a school shooting, even if there were 280 shootings i…

So basically: because the chance is statistically fairly low, let’s abdicate our responsibility to reduce the already absolutely insane number of mass shootings we have in this country, a problem that absolutely no other country has? That may not be exactly what you’re saying, but that’s the conclusion people are drawing here. Real solid leadership. By that same logic, let’s go bust out the 737 MAX’s! Hey, they only…

That’s a disingenuous argument. Nobody is objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings. They are objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings by curtailing constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners. Even leaving aside the constitutional issue, that’s why the cost benefit analysis is important. It’s justified to try and address a low-probability issue if the solution is commensurately cost free. Gun control is not a cost free solution. It’s an enormously costly one.

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#56

Post by rayiner »

jfim wrote: post #54
rayiner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying it louder doesn’t make the point less ridiculous. Mass shooting deaths have never exceeded 80 per year. Nobody is panicked about West Nile fever anymore, but it still causes 100+ deaths per year. You’d think engineers would be resistant to such blatant emotional manipulation, but I guess not.

> Mass shooting deaths have never exceeded 80 per year. 2017 had more than 80 deaths, with the Las Vegas (58 deaths) and Sutherland Springs (26 deaths) exceeding that total for those two events. These events are becoming more common and deadlier, as shown on this Axios chart [0]. You're right to point out that there are many causes of death that are more common, but rapidly increasing and unpredictable causes of deat…

You’re correct, I was looking at a chart that stopped at 2016. Nonetheless, the peak west Nile deaths were 280+, and the average is over 100, compared to under 100 for mass shooting deaths.

West Nile seems like a pretty unpredictable and scary cause of death. The media covers mass shootings more because reporters are overwhelmingly members of one party and gun control is a critical wedge issue in the culture war. West Nile isn’t.

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#57

Post by king_magic »

MiroF wrote: post #53
king_magic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically: because the chance is statistically fairly low, let’s abdicate our responsibility to reduce the already absolutely insane number of mass shootings we have in this country, a problem that absolutely no other country has? That may not be exactly what you’re saying, but that’s the conclusion people are drawing here. Real solid leadership. By that same logic, let’s go bust out the 737 MAX’s! Hey, they only…

Let me flip this on you: I care about people who are dying because they don't have healthcare, not your dumb political games on guns. Sure, you can spend a year agitating for laws that will ultimately save a few hundred of people throughout the country, meanwhile people routinely die because they aren't paid a living wage, can't afford basic medication to survive, and can't afford shelter. If you're telling me I'm ab…

It’s profoundly sad that preventing hundreds of people being shot to death per year in the US in mass shootings somehow doesn’t quality for “helping society”. To me, yes, that is absurd. This happens nowhere else. It is insane. It’s not posturing: this is batshit crazy.

And guess what, I’m also for expanded healthcare. I just don’t want that to have to include caring for even a fraction of the population having large chunks of their body blown apart.

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#58

Post by king_magic »

rayiner wrote: post #55
king_magic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically: because the chance is statistically fairly low, let’s abdicate our responsibility to reduce the already absolutely insane number of mass shootings we have in this country, a problem that absolutely no other country has? That may not be exactly what you’re saying, but that’s the conclusion people are drawing here. Real solid leadership. By that same logic, let’s go bust out the 737 MAX’s! Hey, they only…

That’s a disingenuous argument. Nobody is objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings. They are objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings by curtailing constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners. Even leaving aside the constitutional issue, that’s why the cost benefit analysis is important. It’s justified to try and address a low-probability issue if the solution is commensurately cost free. Gun…

So: “well, let’s just give up on preventing mass gun violence because it costs a money”?

No, mine is really not a disingenuous argument. It’s the same thing: you’re saying it costs money to prevent a small fraction of society being horrible maimed or killed with guns. Same for airplanes. Please explain why it it better for society to minimize low-probability deaths in plane crashes at extremely high cost, but not mass gun violence?

But back to the constitutional argument: no constitutionally recognized rights in the US are unlimited. In this case, yup, I’m completely in favor of curtailing gun rights in a limited fashion if it helps prevent this insanity. If that is a problem for you, go ahead and build a coalition to out-vote my broadly held position. You’re entitled to that.

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#59

Post by king_magic »

rayiner wrote: post #50
king_magic wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your numbers are simply not accurate. And equating this to mosquito-borne disease is not reasonable. Mosquitoes aren’t being radicalized by the far right, they aren’t living in an increasingly polarized society, and they certainly don’t blow orange size exit wounds in people. * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...

You’re right, I was looking at a chart through 2016. Looks like about 120 this year. Still, the average is under 80 over the same period over which west Nile killed 100 per year on average. And the peak this year is still below the 284 killed by west Nile in one year.

There were 15 West Nile deaths in the US in 2019. It’s not even close to the same thing.

https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/statsmaps/preliminarymapsdata20...

Re: AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings

#60

Post by rayiner »

king_magic wrote: post #58
rayiner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a disingenuous argument. Nobody is objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings. They are objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings by curtailing constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners. Even leaving aside the constitutional issue, that’s why the cost benefit analysis is important. It’s justified to try and address a low-probability issue if the solution is commensurately cost free. Gun…

So: “well, let’s just give up on preventing mass gun violence because it costs a money”? No, mine is really not a disingenuous argument. It’s the same thing: you’re saying it costs money to prevent a small fraction of society being horrible maimed or killed with guns. Same for airplanes. Please explain why it it better for society to minimize low-probability deaths in plane crashes at extremely high cost, but not mas…

Not cost as in money, cost as in depriving people of the freedom to own useful tools. Also, again, what’s with the appeal to emotion? “Sad?” Such words have no place in this debate. Cost-benefit analysis is how you should decide whether to spend other peoples’ money to do anything.

As to the constitutional point: the second amendment is not up for a vote. While gun rights aren’t “unlimited,” the second amendment must be interpreted consistent with the right of people to effectively resist government agents, and that means stuff like assault weapons bans are not constitutional. If you think those rights are misguided in the modern world, fine, gather up a coalition that can amend the constitution. You might find that difficult, because contrary to what you might think, belief in gun rights is the strongest it has been in half a century: https://images.app.goo.gl/9HJwcRLRrdxepDnUA. Even young adults are more pro-gun rights than the same cohort was when the first assault weapons ban was enacted in the 1990s: https://images.app.goo.gl/Vyc2UduAa9Mqehc68. In 1990, 2/3 of young adults said gun control was more important than gun rights, versus 1/3 saying gun rights were more important. Today, it is evenly split.

Post reply on HN