Posted on 02/06/2013 7:58:52 PM PST by hasb3an
While Betanews isn't usually a place for political discourse, I'm going against the grain on this one. It's because I strongly believe the real answer to solving our serious gun crime problem in America rests in something most readers on this site tend to embrace: technology. More specifically, what we refer to as Big Data. I fully believe we have a data problem, not a gun problem. While the debate at large focuses on reaching the same end goal, the fingers point at the wrong solution.
(Excerpt) Read more at betanews.com ...
Good article. Too bad it was excerpted.
First, the author fails to take into account that the government that will be maintaining this database of people with mental problems will be the same government that gets to define what is a mental problem.
Second, the author enthusiastically points out that handguns are used in more mass shootings than are semi-auto rifles. He can rest assured that the anti-gunners will come for the handguns soon enough.
His confidence in the technology is greatly overrated. The problem will be twofold: (1) Even if the tech is applied without an agenda, the false positives will overwhelm the useful predictions; (2) If the government gets its hands on this, the power will be abused—the definition of crazy will end up including most conservatives and libertarians.
His confidence in the technology is greatly overrated. The problem will be twofold: (1) Even if the tech is applied without an agenda, the false positives will overwhelm the useful predictions; (2) If the government gets its hands on this, the power will be abused—the definition of crazy will end up including most conservatives and libertarians.
Garbage in, garbage out. I can’t even get Social Security to spell my mother’s maiden name right because somebody entered it wrong into the system. And we’re to trust their data?
I hate to be a killjoy, but......... the FBI defines a mass murder as an event in which four or more victims (excluding the murderer) die.
This means that in 2012, 6 or 7 people out of about 313 million became mass murderers.
I’m not optimistic we can pick who the next 6 or 7 will be.
The point of "gun control" is to punish us commoners who dare assert we have a right to defend our lives and property. It's that simple. Everything else is lies.
I agree with you.
And I think focusing on the who is the wrong focus as well. The correct focus should be on the where.
I you look at the where of the mass murders occur you can see the they are mostly is designated Gun Free Zones. The Mass Murderer when planning his act chooses a place where he assured of little or no resistance to his murder spree. It is a logical choice.
But in reality mass murders account for typically less than 100 of the nations 10,000 or more homicides committed each year with a firearm. Again looking at the where we can again locate the place where the bulk of these crimes occur. We find that these murders are typically concentrated in major urban centers like New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Washington D.C., Chicago, ect.
One thing these cities have in common is restrictive gun laws. Certainly these gun laws are ineffective as indicated by the numerous homicides committed with firearms.
Having decided where to look for the problem with individual firearm homicides we may decide to look at the who. When we look at the who in the case of the urban center homicides we by in large find a urban gang member involved drug related activities.
So if we wish to reduce gun related homicides perhaps we should focus on reducing the gang activities in our urban centers. As the author says in the article persons wishing to commit a murder will find a way to achieve that end.
And, unfortunately, is key to locating and picking off "dissidents" quickly.
You....and others here....are correct. The author is obviously enamored of/with high tech and sees “Big Data” as the answer.
Ask the author what “Big Data” really means. I’m ~30 years in the computer industry and currently work for a “household name” multinational company in the biz. My specialty is, and has been for over a decade, high performance computing (”HPC”, or supercomputing as it used to be called).
“Big Data” is a much over-hyped phrase these days. It simply refers to a well-known problem of “gee.....what do we do with all this data we’re producing/receiving??” Not earth shaking, and nothing magical about it.
Databases are only as valuable as their design; the ability to extract pertinent information that may be useful (think “data mining”). There CAN be very real value in such tools, but it’s more complicated than the author implies.
I can ensure, for example, that I get the answers I want. If I design a specific search pattern with a preconceived end result....guaranteed I can come up with that desired result (”lies, damned lies, statistics” isn’t an old saying for nothing).
If Uncle Sugar decided to implement some massive new database complete with their own analytics designed to identify specific gun threats.....think they’ll find them, given they have the ability to define what a threat is in advance?
Damned right they can....and absolutely would.
Systems today can be marvelous tools for modeling and analysis. These beasts are my bread and butter (literally) and I know their power well. I also know they’re only as good as their users and their software.
“If the government gets its hands on this, the power will be abusedthe definition of crazy will end up including most conservatives and libertarians.”
YES!!! SHOUT THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS!!!
Don’t you get it, people? (OK, most of us FReepers do)
“the government that will be maintaining this database of people with mental problems will be the same government that GETS TO DEFINE what is a mental problem.”
Emphasis added for emphasis, folks.
Kinda like the Golden Rule: “Them what has the gold makes the rules.”
gud points
The gun control issue is not about stopping so called mass murders. It is about disarming the general public.
There is only one way to stop mass shootings, with a gun in the hands of an intended victim.
An armed public is a safe public. A disarmed public is at risk of becoming the victim of a lawbreaker.
We do not need to protect ourselves from guns. We need to protect ourselves from criminals.
Those who oppose private gun ownership are the first to be disposed of when the state becomes totalitarian. They are the most dangerous voices and must be silenced. They are idealists, utopians, and true believers, not thinkers but activists. Stalin called them “useful idiots.”
Thanx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.