3 ms·
It wouldn't require "a bunch of sensors". Anyway, generally you're referring to technical challenges, all of which could be readily solved.
by 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 agoHow would you detect a moving bullet unambiguously?
- derf_ 11y agoThis 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.
- downandout 11y ago>you can't just brush away these - very valid - technical criticisms of your idea. You want to hash out the design of a complex idea in an HN comment thread?
- nitrogen 11y agoSure, why not? :-)