4 ms·

The only way to deal with any form of mass shooting is to have systems in public places that can automatically detect and disable the shooter within millisecond

The only way to deal with any form of mass shooting is to have systems in public places that can automatically detect and disable the shooter within milliseconds of their first shot. Anything else - encryption backdoors, etc. - is absolutely pointless and will at best prevent only a small percentage of incidents. If you want to deal with the problem, do it directly. We all know that while terrorism gives these initiatives fuel, they ultimately have little to do with terrorism and much more to do with governments wanting as much surveillance and control over their populations as possible. The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are approximately 1 in 20 million; for comparison, you are 25X more likely to die by drowning in a bathtub and 1,000X more likely to die in a car crash [1]. If terrorists are 1/25th as effective at killing people as bathtubs, how many of our civil liberties should we be willing to give up to stop them? There are currently at least 3,278 prisoners in the US serving life without parole for non-violent offenses [2]. Perhaps we should stop terrorizing our own citizens before we worry about foreign terrorists that can't even keep up with bathtubs. [1] https://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should https://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrori... [2] https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-repor...

jacquesm 11y ago
Better not go blowing up paper bags then. False positives would be a bit messy and would likely kill more people than any terrorists ever would. It would have to automatically and reliably detect and disable the shooter, and they'd still be able to fire that first shot. It also does not protect against bombs.
- downandout 11y ago
  Paper bags don't emit projectiles traveling at 1,700 mph. Bullets fired from a gun have a very specific profile including speed, size, and shape that are shared by literally nothing else. There are multiple ways to track the speed, size, and shape of objects traveling within any public space. With this kind of detection, even attackers using silenced weapons could be targeted and neutralized within milliseconds of their very first shot.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I don't see this scheme working. It would require a whole bunch of sensors and a chunk of local computing power to make a 'kill' decision (or at least, an attempt to immobilize) on an individual in a crowded space based on the reliable detection of bullets fired from a gun. The kill device could be disabled prior to discharging a fire-arm, it could trigger falsely, it could be made to trigger falsely on purpose and it could malfunction. I'm sure that if you pitch this idea to the right party they'll shower you with money, nothing like more security theater and false feelings of safety to get big $.
    - downandout 11y ago
      It wouldn't require "a bunch of sensors". Anyway, generally you're referring to technical challenges, all of which could be readily solved.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        How would you detect a moving bullet unambiguously?
        derf_ 11y ago
        This is basically a solved problem for supersonic ammunition (not fired from a silenced weapon): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_%28countermeasure%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_%28countermeasure%29 (not to suggest in any way that the proposal is practical on a wide scale).
      - mryan 11y ago
        > The only way to deal with any form of mass shooting is to have systems in public places that can automatically detect and disable the shooter within milliseconds of their first shot. You are proposing that public spaces be fitted with some kind of system that can reliably detect bullets based on their "speed, size, and shape" profile. How do you propose to do this without using a bunch of sensors? > and much more to do with governments wanting as much surveillance and control over their populations as possible Outfitting all public spaces with sound and vision recording/analysis devices seems like the very definition of mass surveillance and control. > Anyway, generally you're referring to technical challenges, all of which could be readily solved. Of course, we should not get bogged down in the technical implementation detail, but you can't just brush away these - very valid - technical criticisms of your idea.

jacquesm 11y ago

Better not go blowing up paper bags then. False positives would be a bit messy and would likely kill more people than any terrorists ever would. It would have to automatically and reliably detect and disable the shooter, and they'd still be able to fire that first shot. It also does not protect against bombs.

downandout 11y ago
Paper bags don't emit projectiles traveling at 1,700 mph. Bullets fired from a gun have a very specific profile including speed, size, and shape that are shared by literally nothing else. There are multiple ways to track the speed, size, and shape of objects traveling within any public space. With this kind of detection, even attackers using silenced weapons could be targeted and neutralized within milliseconds of their very first shot.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I don't see this scheme working. It would require a whole bunch of sensors and a chunk of local computing power to make a 'kill' decision (or at least, an attempt to immobilize) on an individual in a crowded space based on the reliable detection of bullets fired from a gun. The kill device could be disabled prior to discharging a fire-arm, it could trigger falsely, it could be made to trigger falsely on purpose and it could malfunction. I'm sure that if you pitch this idea to the right party they'll shower you with money, nothing like more security theater and false feelings of safety to get big $.
  - downandout 11y ago
    It wouldn't require "a bunch of sensors". Anyway, generally you're referring to technical challenges, all of which could be readily solved.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      How would you detect a moving bullet unambiguously?
      - derf_ 11y ago
        This is basically a solved problem for supersonic ammunition (not fired from a silenced weapon): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_%28countermeasure%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_%28countermeasure%29 (not to suggest in any way that the proposal is practical on a wide scale).
    - mryan 11y ago
      > The only way to deal with any form of mass shooting is to have systems in public places that can automatically detect and disable the shooter within milliseconds of their first shot. You are proposing that public spaces be fitted with some kind of system that can reliably detect bullets based on their "speed, size, and shape" profile. How do you propose to do this without using a bunch of sensors? > and much more to do with governments wanting as much surveillance and control over their populations as possible Outfitting all public spaces with sound and vision recording/analysis devices seems like the very definition of mass surveillance and control. > Anyway, generally you're referring to technical challenges, all of which could be readily solved. Of course, we should not get bogged down in the technical implementation detail, but you can't just brush away these - very valid - technical criticisms of your idea.