It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The truth is we need Gun Control and Predictive Policing

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: neoholographic


1. We need more Gun Control. I'm a Conservative Independent and when people act like any gun control measures will be taking away their rights, it's just nonsense. We can make harder for those with mental illness to get a gun. We can have tougher background checks and add extra layers in order to buy a gun. We did the right thing in banning bum stocks


I lean left on pretty much everything, and I agree with you on this. Making it harder for crazy people to get weapons shouldn't be viewed as infringing on the 2nd amendment. In this day and age something like that is needed. Whether people want to admit it or not.


We need to have smart guns and smart gun technology that can be added to existing weapons. These guns can have sensors that detect when you're entering a shopping center and disable the gun. You can make it mandatory that all guns are equipped with smart gun technology.


Good idea. But in practice, I think it would just shift the shootings to places without the sensors. They'll just be waiting in the parking lot now.



2. We need Predictive Policing but the ACLU and Liberals in Congress will scream about privacy. What people don't understand is, there's no way that any human being can look at all of the data needed for an intelligent algorithm to make correlations in the data.


I don't think more surveillance is the answer to anything. These ai algorithms you are taking about are probably already up and running, just classified.

I don't really have any solutions. We as a society would have to address a whole host of issues to even begin to have an effect on the mental health aspect. And taking weapons from law abiding people isn't the answer either.

But something has to be done.


Except the current agenda has nothing to do with getting guns away from crazy people. Have any of their efforts worked so far? No? Who has it worked against? The law abiding ones that's who. Grow a thought and see the lie. truth is a dangerous commodity when everything is based on a lie to defraud and deceive.

Stop being deceived.




posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neoholographic

2. People are innocent until proven guilty. Bill of Rights.



I cited the Supreme Court decisions saying exactly that to a judge just 2 months ago and guess what he did? He flipped out and punished me for it.

On the bright side at least he let me read my motion out loud and only interrupted me twice.

This guy is a sitting judge and showed on multiple occasions he had no clue what the US Constitution said or even his state's Constitution.

So in reality people are guilty until they pay enough money to purchase their civil rights and then they are only partially innocent because nowadays the accusation alone is a mark of guilt.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Who exactly is pushing this agenda you are talking about? The only President to publicly wonder out loud why they can't just take people's guns is sitting in the White House right now.

I don't think I've ever heard any Democrat say out loud they want to ban guns in America. Just put restrictions on the purchase of them for certain people.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

There are many problems with predictive policing, including breaching First Amendment rights, false positives, and finding people guilty before they even commit a crime.

Algorithms working without human oversight don't solve the problem - algorithms can still be biased. In addition, less human oversight means more false positives - people getting in trouble for utilizing free speech who haven't committed any crimes, might not ever, and could end up being labelled as terrorists, thus losing their right to due process.

The intelligence community has been accurately reporting the rise in danger of right-wing extremist terrorists. They have accurately cited reports of conspiracy theories motivating shooters and other violent actors on multiple occasions.

It is likely that conspiracy theorists could be targeted by predictive policing, especially conservative ones. Conservatives would probably respond (without evidence) that it is really the liberals who should be policed. In reality, everyone would be policed, but conservatives would be hit harder because the data shows they are the most likely to become terrorists.

If the reader of this post can handle that kind of hit to the conservative online media presence, I congratulate them, but I'm not a conservative and I find this idea troubling. There might be a rare case that I would back this kind of policy if it were implemented right.

However, look at other policies like this. American citizens of color are being illegally detained under suspicion of being illegal immigrants - their right to due process is thrown out, and they are locked up in inhumane conditions, even though it is later proven that they (guess what) really are citizens. All of them that I know of have insisted that they were citizens upon being detained, and some have even shown documentation, but they were cited for the additional crime of lying to the officers and the superiors lied about the situations to Congress. After being released, none have been compensated by the government.

I imagine similar situations would happen if people were called "terrorists" based on predictive policing.

I do like your thoughts on gun control. There are definitely room for some policies that would not impede Second Amendment rights that much! If I were in charge, I would work with conservatives to hear their ideas.
edit on 03pmSat, 03 Aug 2019 22:22:40 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 03pmSat, 03 Aug 2019 22:23:55 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Just put restrictions on the purchase of them for certain people.


That isn't feasible though. It won't solve anything.

In the ghetto you can buy guns with the serials erased easily.
How would these laws do anything to stem the violence on the streets?



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Really the only solution is to just get bullet proof clothing and hope no one shoots at your family.
Good luck!



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Oppositeoftruth

I think it is a matter of statistics. The fact of the matter is that making it harder for mentally ill people to own guns will factually reduce the amount of mentally ill people that own guns and will certainly reduce the number of shootings done by them. It will not, however, eliminate them.

My neighbor is absolutely insane. She is mentally ill and not allowed to own a gun. She came to me a month ago, expecting me to buy a gun for her, but I refused. A week later, she came up to talk to me, saying she had a vision of me threatening to kill her in hell, and threatened to kill me. If she had been able to purchase a gun, she might have already shot me. Even when talking to her about purchasing a gun, she admitted that she was probably going to shoot someone with it. Yet the law in my state successfully prevented her from purchasing a gun and shooting me.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Just put restrictions on the purchase of them for certain people.


That isn't feasible though. It won't solve anything.

In the ghetto you can buy guns with the serials erased easily.
How would these laws do anything to stem the violence on the streets?


They wouldn't. Which is why it isn't a solution. I support the 2nd amendment and I really don't have an answer.

At least they're trying something. The Repubs are so afraid of pissing off their base their plan is to do nothing.

Which isn't feasible either.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

How would these laws do anything to stem the violence on the streets?


Gun laws work with statistics. They would factually reduce the violence on the streets due to the fact that some people would find barriers to owning a gun. The laws would not eliminate the violence on the streets, however, they would most certainly reduce it, there is no way around the statistics of the matter.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: neoholographic

~sigh~

We need to find out why everyone over 6 is being prescribed psychotropic drugs.

Dig into the one feature that is common with all these mass shooters...



America has had 200+ years of gun culture. Only in the 90's did we start seeing a major issue. I think you're right.



That combined with a glorifying of war , Americans are used as the globalists hammer, the need for soldiers outweighs the consequences or should I say fall out .


I think that has very little to do with it. I think its the drugs, and a lack of being able to cope and overcome even the smallest of adversities.




Sure that plays heavily into it, no doubt, however I still believe what I stated earlier is part of the problem.


The widespread use of psychotropic drugs today (Ritalin, etc.) has nothing to do with gun-related homicides. Here is an interesting graph that plots the rate of gun ownership in the US from 1950 to 2014 against the rate of firearm murders over the same period.

www.ammoland.com...

This data was assembled and presented by a second amendment advocate to show that there is essentially no correlation between the rate of gun ownership and gun related murders. The same data can be used to think about the relationship of psychotropic drugs and firearm murders.

The data show that in 1950, there was about 1 gun for every 3 people in the US. By 2014, there was a little more than 1 gun for every person. Of course, the majority of Americans don’t own any guns at all, which means that those of us who do, usually own more than one. (That’s certainly true in my case.) The rate of gun ownership increased pretty steadily from 1950 to 2014. Now look at the rate of firearm related murders for the same period. It’s pretty much a bell curve that starts out at around 4.5 per 100,000 citizens in 1950, peaks around 10 per 100,000 in 1980 and then goes back down to about 4.5 in 2014.

In my opinion, the easiest way to explain this bell curve is by the demographics of the baby boom. Crime statistics consistently show that the number of murderers using firearms peaks in the age group of 20 to 35. Given that the baby boom started in 1945 to 1950, boomers would have been in the 20 to 35 year old age group in the late 1970s to early 1980s.

Ritalin was first approved for sale in the US in 1955. Since that time its rate of usage has steadily gone up, just like gun ownership. Just like gun ownership, its rate of use is not correlated with gun murders.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Bs
How would have any law stopped the el paso shooter?



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

He may have purchased the guns he used from that Walmart



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Do something

Lol

No matter if it works
Do something

Wow
Genius

How bout outlawing killing people
That will stop it right?
Pass a law making mass murder illegal?

Right?



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

The Repubs are so afraid of pissing off their base their plan is to do nothing.



If politicians were smart enough, they would find a reasonable solution to gun control that didn't interfere with Second Amendment rights too much. It is a mistake to do nothing, as mass shootings are only increasing every year.

It is similar to Climate Change - if Republicans keep their head in the sand, they are going to have to deal with the fact that Climate Change is real eventually as it factually exists and is going to factually affect citizens of the United States in the future, without discriminating between conservatives or liberals.

Conservatives can either 1) Ignore the problems and hope they will go away (they won't) or 2) Propose some sort of conservative solution to solving these two issues. If conservatives plan on ignoring the issues, all that will happen is that liberals will be the only ones proposing solutions, and those solutions, being the only ones on the table to solve real problems, will have to be utilized. End of story.

Conservatives have another alternative - to produce some sort of media spin on things to blind their followers to the truth, but in the long run, that will only serve to make their party look like incompetent idiots, as no one will be able to form coherent arguments.
edit on 03pmSat, 03 Aug 2019 22:37:53 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

What new law would hsve stopped this?
I will wait....



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer

The data was assembled by a pro 2nd advocate, ok do you think its possible some figures were fudged ?



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No one knows enough details of the case to know how he got the gun. I don't know enough about either gun laws or the situation to answer accurately, but that doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. It could be possible that he could have been prevented from buying a gun if he were mentally ill. The shooter was 21, but there are a lot of shooters younger than 21 these days that could have been stopped had there been an age limit - 21 years - to buy certain weapons.

Last of all, the O.P. suggests predictive policing, I don't support it, but it could be possible to ban people from buying guns based on the content of their social media profiles and other online presences. You could even have trained professionals track troubled people down and interview them to ascertain risk factors.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
If politicians were smart enough, they would find a reasonable solution to gun control that didn't interfere with Second Amendment rights too much.


I see the concept of inalienable Rights confuses you. Any government "interference" against a Right is, by definition, an infringement on the Right.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

-admits he does not know enough about this incident or existing laws to opine about the efficacy of those existing laws.
-Calls for more laws.

Wow, that's what you consider a rational, responsible background for infringing on a Right? Hack act, anyone?



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Just put restrictions on the purchase of them for certain people.


That isn't feasible though. It won't solve anything.

In the ghetto you can buy guns with the serials erased easily.
How would these laws do anything to stem the violence on the streets?


They wouldn't. Which is why it isn't a solution. I support the 2nd amendment and I really don't have an answer.

At least they're trying something. The Repubs are so afraid of pissing off their base their plan is to do nothing.

Which isn't feasible either.



Doing nothing is absolutely feasible and requires zero effort.
It's the most feasible option we have.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join