Shooting in Philadelphia, being live streamed, by the shooter.

Dee

This is the price American’s pay for allowing citizens carry guns and yet most refuse to see any problems at all and bullishly state it’s their right to carry a gun and that’s it. I live in a society that’s ranked in the top most peaceful countries in the world even our regular police force do not carry guns , knives are also banned.

What do you think would happen in my country if guns were permitted and knives allowed more or less deaths or accidents? 
Doesn’t take a genius to work it out does it?  

TKDB

@Dee

I agree with you.

But what I'm noticing is, that the pro gun supporters are being quiet.

I went to the March For Our Lives Rally in DC, back in 2018, the supporters there who weren't pro gun oriented, were pleasantly loud, but it's going to take more than that crowd of supporters to make a nationwide difference.

It takes a nationwide difference, to make a difference. 

CYDdharta

Dee said:

This is the price American’s pay for allowing citizens carry guns and yet most refuse to see any problems at all and bullishly state it’s their right to carry a gun and that’s it. I live in a society that’s ranked in the top most peaceful countries in the world even our regular police force do not carry guns , knives are also banned.

What do you think would happen in my country if guns were permitted and knives allowed more or less deaths or accidents? 
Doesn’t take a genius to work it out does it?  

What did happen in your country when guns were permitted?  It isn't as if you saw a huge drop in crime when they were outlawed.

Dee

@CYDdharta

You ask ......What did happen in your country when guns were permitted?  

My reply ......Guns were never permitted, do you think death rates would go up or down if introduced? 

TKDB

@CYDdharta

If Dees country, were to copy the United States Second Amendment language, as it's currently written, I don't doubt that her country would likely face, similar gun violence crime issues.

But here in the United States, there is a nationwide accountability issue with the, 400 million legal and illegal guns that have inundated the country, and the criminals, offenders, and first time offenders, are shooting police officers, and the public in general, and that public abuse needs to end.

Reiterating my original point of view:

I think that a Nationwide conversation, needs to be had, with the Governor's of all the state's, along with the President, being PRESENT, and front and center, at this nationwide conversation, in regards to the outdated Second Amendment, and the modern day shooter gun violence, that is interrupting, the Rights of the citizens of the United States, by violating the peace in this country, with how many more gun violence crimes, being committed by the first time offenders, and the criminals, and offenders, with their illegally purchased guns? 

MayCaesar

In the US, statistically you are about 10 times as likely to drown in your own bathtub, as you are to become a victim of a mass shooting. You also are more likely to die in a car crash, than to any firearm shot.

These are non-existing problems, and if the media did not blow every story out of proportion, nobody would care about these things.

Aside from that, no positive correlation has ever been demonstrated between strong gun regulations and number of gun deaths. In the US, in fact, the anti-correlation is observed, as states with harsher gun laws generally have higher gun death rates - with the worst abusers being large cities full of draconian laws, such as NYC or Chicago.

But this has never been about truth, has it? It has always been about hurt feelings.

CYDdharta

Dee said:

@CYDdharta

You ask ......What did happen in your country when guns were permitted?  

My reply ......Guns were never permitted, do you think death rates would go up or down if introduced? 

What country were guns never permitted?

The murder rates might go down a bit.  The quality of life would drop considerably, as many more people, lacking the means to defend themselves, would be victimized by criminals.

Dee

You say .....What country were guns never permitted?

My reply .........For citizens to carry? The list is huge 

You say ....The murder rates might go down a bit. 

My reply .....Right , so introduction of guns into a society is beneficial 

You say ......The quality of life would drop considerably, as many more people, lacking the means to defend themselves, would be victimized by criminals.

My reply ....

So the quality of life would improve....wow! 

..The quality of life in my country is excellent, but you claim I lack something by not owning a gun that’s bizarre  , even cops here don’t carry guns 

I’ve never been victimized by armed thugs maybe because I live in a fairly peaceful society , it’s so sad you need to carry a gun just to get from a to b on a daily basis and do not even feel safe in your own home 

So in the U S the average citizen would run the risk of being held up if the criminal presumed he wasn’t carrying ?? Really?..........

Dee

@TKDB

Well said , at least you honestly acknowledge there’s huge problems regards guns and sensibly care enough to want to do something about it because you actually care about real lives ,  the bury your head in the sand attitude by others is appalling 

Dee

@TKDB

To your credit that you take to the streets to voice your concern people like you are what’s needed to make real change 

TKDB

@MayCaesar

"In the US, statistically you are about 10 times as likely to drown in your own bathtub. As you are to become a victim of a mass shooting. You also are more likely to die in a car crash, than to any firearm shot."

"These are non-existing problems, and if the media did not blow every story out of proportion, nobody would care about these things."

@MayCaesar

Let me show you what, "out of proportion," looks like? 

Cops being killed, and wounded, and citizens, being killed and wounded, because of them, being victimized by a criminals, or the offenders gun violence crimes are disproportionate to the public, and to the media.

They are disproportionate to the families of those thousands of victims killed by the gun violence crimes each year, without fail. 


@MayCaesar

"But this has never been about truth, has it? It has always been about hurt feelings."

When a criminal or an offender has killed someone with a gun, could it be that maybe, that criminal or offender was displaying an example of hurt feelings? 


"Aside from that, no positive correlation has ever been demonstrated between strong gun regulations and number of gun deaths. In the US, in fact, the anti-correlation is observed, as states with harsher gun laws generally have higher gun death rates - with the worst abusers being large cities full of draconian laws, such as NYC or Chicago.

But this has never been about truth, has it? It has always been about hurt feelings."



@MayCaesar


"Cities full of draconian laws, such as NYC or Chicago."

I'm sorry, whats draconian laws are you maybe referring to? 

The current gun laws?

Or the criminals or offenders, who have killed or hurt police officers and citizens with unlawful gun fire, by abusing the "Second Amendment" as its currently written? 

And by abusing the "Civil Rights" of all of those citizens who have been hurt or killed by the criminal, or offenders unlawful gun fire? 



@MayCaesar

Here's some truth for you: 

Shooting in Philadelphia, being live streamed, by the shooter.

The news reports, are fluid.

Apparently hundreds of shots have been heard, between the shooter, from their residence.

A narcotics warrant, was being issued to the residence.

And 6 Police Officers have been injured.


A shooter, live streaming their gun violence crimes, I believe that this type of a shooters gun violence, being live streamed, is now the second or third time that a shooter, live streaming their gun violence has occurred?

To get, or gain attention for themselves, because they shot innocent people, including the Police?

It's bad enough, that the Second Amendment, is being abused, by these types of shooters?

By these shooters continuing to Violate the Bill of Rights, of their victims, of all cultures, including Police Officers?

Those kinds, of Rights violations, are unequal, and unfair, and it tears at the heart of the word, "Equality."


The gun violence crime math, does not justify, the Second Amendment, and it's 18th Century language, being able to remain, as it's currently written.

I think that a Nationwide conversation, needs to be had, with the Governor's of all the state's, along with the President, being PRESENT, and front and center, at this nationwide conversation, in regards to the outdated Second Amendment, and the modern day shooter gun violence, that is interrupting, the Rights of the citizens of the United States, by violating the peace in this country, with how many more gun violence crimes, being committed by the first time offenders, and the criminals, and offenders, with their illegally purchased guns?

400 million guns, outnumbering the very citizens of the United States, 329 million of us, of which 900,000 of those citizens, are Law Enforcement?

The math, doesn't justify itself, at all.

Some changes need to be made, outside, of just more background checks, or getting rid of "assault weapons."

How about the accountability for those same 400 million guns?

With, and without serial numbers?

How about that approach, along with this, adding the "Death Penalty," to the Second Amendment, for those shootings, that aren't justifiable, as "Self Defense" situations?

This way, the millions of lawful gun owners, will still be able to maintain your guns, because you didn't commit any unlawful gun violence crime with your gun, or guns? 

So the Second Amendment, still protects your right to bear arms, while it disciplines, the "unlawful gun violence criminal, or offender, or first time offender?"

Sounds fair, and equal, doesn't it? 

Look at that Equality. 

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"The murder rates might go down a bit.  The quality of life would drop considerably, as many more people, lacking the means to defend themselves, would be victimized by criminals."

An answer to your point of view:

I think that a Nationwide conversation, needs to be had, with the Governor's of all the state's, along with the President, being PRESENT, and front and center, at this nationwide conversation, in regards to the outdated Second Amendment, and the modern day shooter gun violence, that is interrupting, the Rights of the citizens of the United States, by violating the peace in this country, with how many more gun violence crimes, being committed by the first time offenders, and the criminals, and offenders, with their illegally purchased guns?

400 million guns, outnumbering the very citizens of the United States, 329 million of us, of which 900,000 of those citizens, are Law Enforcement?

The math, doesn't justify itself, at all.

Some changes need to be made, outside, of just more background checks, or getting rid of "assualt weapons."

How about the accountability for those same 400 million guns?

With, and without serial numbers?

How about that approach, along with this, adding the "Death Penalty," to the Second Amendment, for those shootings, that aren't justifiable, as "Self Defense" situations?

This way, the millions of lawful gun owners, will still be able to maintain your guns, because you didn't commit any unlawful gun violence crime with your gun, or guns? 

So the Second Amendment, still protects your right to bear arms, while it disciplines, the "unlawful gun violence criminal, or offender, or first time offender?"

Sounds fair, and equal, doesn't it? 

CYDdharta

Dee said:

You say .....What country were guns never permitted?

My reply .........For citizens to carry? The list is huge 

Never said anything about "for citizens to carry".  It's very disingenuous of you to try to change the terms of the argument.  Once again, what country were guns never permitted?

You say ....The murder rates might go down a bit. 

My reply .....Right , so introduction of guns into a society is beneficial 

You say ......The quality of life would drop considerably, as many more people, lacking the means to defend themselves, would be victimized by criminals.

My reply ....

So the quality of life would improve....wow! 

..The quality of life in my country is excellent, but you claim I lack something by not owning a gun that’s bizarre  , even cops here don’t carry guns 

I’ve never been victimized by armed thugs maybe because I live in a fairly peaceful society , it’s so sad you need to carry a gun just to get from a to b on a daily basis and do not even feel safe in your own home 

So in the U S the average citizen would run the risk of being held up if the criminal presumed he wasn’t carrying ?? Really?..........

The quality of life going down to you mean the quality of life would improve?!?  I have to question your grasp of the English language.  I feel quite safe, knowing I possess the means to defend myself should such a situation arise.  I also own a fire extinguisher that I've never needed to use.  I suppose you consider that irrational as well.

TKDB

@Dee

I agree, it is appalling.

400 million guns in the US, in comparison to the 329 million citizens?

The accountability of all of those legal and illegal guns, I'm hoping could be a big step, in righting things for those thousands of lost lives, due to unlawful gunfire. 

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"The murder rates might go down a bit.  The quality of life would drop considerably, as many more people, lacking the means to defend themselves, would be victimized by criminals."

An answer to your point of view:

I think that a Nationwide conversation, needs to be had, with the Governor's of all the state's, along with the President, being PRESENT, and front and center, at this nationwide conversation, in regards to the outdated Second Amendment, and the modern day shooter gun violence, that is interrupting, the Rights of the citizens of the United States, by violating the peace in this country, with how many more gun violence crimes, being committed by the first time offenders, and the criminals, and offenders, with their illegally purchased guns?

400 million guns, outnumbering the very citizens of the United States, 329 million of us, of which 900,000 of those citizens, are Law Enforcement?

The math, doesn't justify itself, at all.

Some changes need to be made, outside, of just more background checks, or getting rid of "assualt weapons."

How about the accountability for those same 400 million guns?

With, and without serial numbers?

How about that approach, along with this, adding the "Death Penalty," to the Second Amendment, for those shootings, that aren't justifiable, as "Self Defense" situations?

This way, the millions of lawful gun owners, will still be able to maintain your guns, because you didn't commit any unlawful gun violence crime with your gun, or guns? 

So the Second Amendment, still protects your right to bear arms, while it disciplines, the "unlawful gun violence criminal, or offender, or first time offender?"

Sounds fair, and equal, doesn't it?

First, the 2nd Amendment is not outdated.

Second, first time offenders are uncommon.  The recidivism rate within 9 years is 83%.

Third, the death penalty is already available for those shootings that aren't justifiable, it's called a murder conviction.  If you're complaining that it isn't used enough, you won't get an argument from me.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

The quality of life would drop considerably, as many more people, lacking the means to defend themselves, would be victimized by criminals.

Unsurprisingly, an unfounded assertion... A quick look around the world will demonstrates this is patently false...
Quality of life is higher than the US in many countries with much stricter gun regulations: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Australia, Netherlands, New-Zealand, Norway, Sweden, etc... 

On the safety index, the US is 58th... It's more dangerous to live in the US than in Pakistan (53rd)... Isn't it telling? 

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"First, the 2nd Amendment is not outdated.

Second, first time offenders are uncommon.  The recidivism rate within 9 years is 83%.

Third, the death penalty is already available for those shootings that aren't justifiable, it's called a murder conviction.  If you're complaining that it isn't used enough, you won't get an argument from me."

@CYDdharta

My position is that the Second Amendment is currently written with 18th century language.

Thus its very outdated.

Secondly, if the millions of illegal gun owners, who bought their guns from whoever, because their criminal, or offender selves, couldn't buy them legally to begin with, that's where the "Accountability," should equally, and fairly start.

The Second Amendment, as its currently written, is, in a sense, a huge loophole, when it comes to this country's gun problems.

Let me re explain this to you, CYDdharta

How about that approach, along with this, adding the "Death Penalty," to the Second Amendment, for those shootings, that aren't justifiable, as "Self Defense" situations?

(This portion was thought up, with the lawful gun owners in mind.)

This way, the millions of lawful gun owners, will still be able to maintain your guns, because you didn't commit any unlawful gun violence crime with your gun, or guns? 

Doesn't the above look equal, and fair for the entire country? 

Because any citizen, shouldn't have to arm themselves with a gun, just so, they can avoid, being victimized, by a criminal, or an offender, with an illegal gun?

What kind of thinking is that?

From my experience, that kind of logic, is pro gun extremists logic.

Amend the Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, and maybe then, it will be fair, and equal to the rest of the public, who aren't carrying a gun. 

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

Unsurprisingly, an unfounded assertion... A quick look around the world will demonstrates this is patently false...

Quality of life is higher than the US in many countries with much stricter gun regulations: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Australia, Netherlands, New-Zealand, Norway, Sweden, etc... 

On the safety index, the US is 58th... It's more dangerous to live in the US than in Pakistan (53rd)... Isn't it telling? 

If you combine the economies of all of those countries, you'll still only have a fraction of the US economy.  Money attracts crime, which explains why every one of the 10 most dangerous gangs are either US based or have large operations in the US.  If New Zealand or Denmark had the US's economy, they'd also have the US's crime problems and their quality of life would tank.  You haven't shown that strict gun regulation have anything to do with the quality of life in those countries.

What are you talking about?  The US is 49th, Pakistan is 143rd.

https://safearound.com/danger-rankings/

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

My position is that the Second Amendment is currently written with 18th century language.

Thus its very outdated.

So what?  The entire US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written with 18th century language.  Why is it that you believe only the 2nd Amendment is outdated?

Secondly, if the millions of illegal gun owners, who bought their guns from whoever, because their criminal, or offender selves, couldn't buy them legally to begin with, that's where the "Accountability," should equally, and fairly start.

The Second Amendment, as its currently written, is, in a sense, a huge loophole, when it comes to this country's gun problems.

Let me re explain this to you, CYDdharta

How about that approach, along with this, adding the "Death Penalty," to the Second Amendment, for those shootings, that aren't justifiable, as "Self Defense" situations?

(This portion was thought up, with the lawful gun owners in mind.)

This way, the millions of lawful gun owners, will still be able to maintain your guns, because you didn't commit any unlawful gun violence crime with your gun, or guns? 

Doesn't the above look equal, and fair for the entire country? 

Because any citizen, shouldn't have to arm themselves with a gun, just so, they can avoid, being victimized, by a criminal, or an offender, with an illegal gun?

What kind of thinking is that?

From my experience, that kind of logic, is pro gun extremists logic.

Amend the Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, and maybe then, it will be fair, and equal to the rest of the public, who aren't carrying a gun.

Once again; if a shooting wasn't justifiable as self defense, it can be prosecuted as a murder, in which case the death penalty my be applicable.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

You haven't shown that strict gun regulation have anything to do with the quality of life in those countries.

Of course I haven't shown that, because they're unrelated... Just like more permissive gun regulations has nothing to do with quality of life in the US (or any other country) as you wrongly asserted. 

As for your ranking, my guess is that it's an older and outdated index... Check here you can see many years back and true enough, in 2016 Pakistan was behind the US, in 2013 it was a lot worst too but as of today, Pakistan appears to be safer... 

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

Of course I haven't shown that, because they're unrelated... Just like more permissive gun regulations has nothing to do with quality of life in the US (or any other country) as you wrongly asserted. 

As for your ranking, my guess is that it's an older and outdated index... Check here you can see many years back and true enough, in 2016 Pakistan was behind the US, in 2013 it was a lot worst too but as of today, Pakistan appears to be safer... 

No, your source just uses more easily manipulated data.

About Crime Indices At This Website

This section is based on surveys from visitors of this website. Questions for these surveys are similar to many similar scientific and government surveys.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Only you, and some, of the other pro gun extremists, could come up with a sad argument like this:

"So what?  The entire US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written with 18th century language.  Why is it that you believe only the 2nd Amendment is outdated?"

Has any, of the rest of the US Constitution, been affecting, the rest of the country, like the Second Amendment, solely has, or does? 

No, the rest of the Constitution, does not.


Let me explain something:
The Death Penalty, by itself, isn't good enough, when it apparently, gets mentality wise, spat on by the criminals, or offenders, because every year Police Officers, and citizens alike get killed by a criminals, or an offenders, gun violence crimes, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year.

So your below argument, is sad. 

"Once again; if a shooting wasn't justifiable as self defense, it can be prosecuted as a murder, in which case the death penalty my be applicable."

Amend the Second Amendment, with the "Death Penalty," language, and let's see, as a Public, how much the Death Penalty, gets spat on then? 


Because again, any citizen, shouldn't have to arm themselves with a gun, just so, they can avoid, being victimized, by a criminal, or an offender, with an illegal gun?

What kind of thinking is that?

From my experience, that kind of logic, is pro gun extremists logic.

Amend the Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, and maybe then, it will be fair, and equal to the rest of the public, who aren't carrying a gun. 

Maybe, some of the pro gun extremists, are trying to have their way, with an individual section, of the US Constitution, while the rest of the Constitution suffers, because of how the Second Amendment, as it's currently written, is interfering, with the rest of the Constitution? 

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Only you, and some, of the other pro gun extremists, could come up with a sad argument like this:

"So what?  The entire US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written with 18th century language.  Why is it that you believe only the 2nd Amendment is outdated?"

Has any, of the rest of the US Constitution, been affecting, the rest of the country, like the Second Amendment, solely has, or does? 

No, the rest of the Constitution, does not.

Of course Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights affect American citizens every bit as much as the 2nd Amendment.

Let me explain something:
The Death Penalty, by itself, isn't good enough, when it apparently, gets mentality wise, spat on by the criminals, or offenders, because every year Police Officers, and citizens alike get killed by a criminals, or an offenders, gun violence crimes, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year.

So your below argument, is sad. 

"Once again; if a shooting wasn't justifiable as self defense, it can be prosecuted as a murder, in which case the death penalty my be applicable."

Amend the Second Amendment, with the "Death Penalty," language, and let's see, as a Public, how much the Death Penalty, gets spat on then? 


Because again, any citizen, shouldn't have to arm themselves with a gun, just so, they can avoid, being victimized, by a criminal, or an offender, with an illegal gun?

What kind of thinking is that?

From my experience, that kind of logic, is pro gun extremists logic.

Amend the Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, and maybe then, it will be fair, and equal to the rest of the public, who aren't carrying a gun. 

Maybe, some of the pro gun extremists, are trying to have their way, with an individual section, of the US Constitution, while the rest of the Constitution suffers, because of how the Second Amendment, as it's currently written, is interfering, with the rest of the Constitution?

What you're describing is a lack of enforcement. Changing the Constitution would do nothing.  States that refuse to enforce the death penalty before your change would still refuse to enforce it afterwards.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Your arguments basically come down to appeal to emotion. I am talking about facts, hard, irrefutable statistics, rather than these fluffy lines.

If you want to throw away all logic and just say what feels good, then why talk about gun deaths at all? Why not talk about butterflies instead?

I have never understood people who choose to talk on very gruesome topics, yet are afraid to face harsh truths. Seems counter-productive to me.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

And you're playing word games, to give self defense, to your pro gun extremists position:

"Of course Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights affect American citizens every bit as much as the 2nd Amendment."

Let me tell you something:

What, I'm describing is Nationwide accountability for the 400 guns, that are legal, and illegal.

Your "enforcement" makes about as much sense, as any criminal, or offender, who is currently armed, with an illegal gun, CYDdharta.

"What you're describing is a lack of enforcement. Changing the Constitution would do nothing.  States that refuse to enforce the death penalty before your change would still refuse to enforce it afterwards."

What are you afraid of?

The Second Amendment being amended with the Death Penalty language, thus making the Second Amendment, fair, and equal for every citizen, lawfully armed, or not armed?

Or the Second Amendment, being left alone, so that it suits, you, and your pro gun extremists brethren?

Whats more fair to the Public, as a whole?

The current version of the Second Amendment, as it's written?

Or the Second Amendment, being amended, so that it is fair, and equal to all of the Public, and not just you, and your pro gun extremists brethren? 

TKDB

@MayCaesar

"These fluffy lines."

You take your argument, and tell all of the families, of the fallen Police Officers, and citizens, who have been killed by a criminal, or an offenders, gun violence crimes?

I'm talking about life, and death, and those individuals killed by unlawful gunfire.

So you go ahead, and try to sell your below rhetoric to them? 

"Your arguments basically come down to appeal to emotion. I am talking about facts, hard, irrefutable statistics, rather than these fluffy lines.

If you want to throw away all logic and just say what feels good, then why talk about gun deaths at all? Why not talk about butterflies instead?

I have never understood people who choose to talk on very gruesome topics, yet are afraid to face harsh truths. Seems counter-productive to me."

Go ahead, and vocalize your pro gun, rhetoric to them?

YouTube is awaiting you. 

TKDB

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Again_MSD

"Never Again MSD

Never Again MSD is an American student-led political action committee for gun control that advocates for tighter regulations to prevent gun violence.[1] The organization, also known by the Twitter hashtags #NeverAgain, and #EnoughIsEnough, was formed by a group of twenty students attending the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSD) in the aftermath of the shootingin 2018, in which seventeen students and staff members were killed by a 19-year-old former student, who was armed with an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle. The organization started on social media as a movement "for survivors of the Stoneman Douglas Shooting, by survivors of the Stoneman Douglas Shooting" using the hashtag #NeverAgain.[2] A main goal of the group was to influence the 2018 US elections,[3] and they embarked on a multi-city bus tour in June 2018 to encourage young people to register to vote.[4] "

"Misinformation and attacks

Attempts to discredit the Never Again MSD movement in the media have taken the form of verbal attacks and misinformation by right-wing Republican leaders. Former Republican senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum attacked the Parkland activists verbally during an interview with CNN, suggesting that students should take classes in CPRrather than marching in Washington.[65] The Washington Post quoted several doctors ridiculing Santorum for suggesting CPR, which is useless for trauma and blood loss.[66] Leslie Gibson, a Republican candidate for the Maine House of Representatives, disparaged Emma González and David Hogg, but later apologized for his comments and withdrew his candidacy.[67] Iowa Republican Representative Steve King's campaign criticized Emma González for displaying her Cuban heritage.[68][69]

NRA board member rock musician Ted Nugentdescribed the Parkland activists as "mushy brained and soulless liars,".[70] Alex Jones, a right-wing conspiracy theorist and host of InfoWars, led a campaign to discredit Emma González, David Hogg, and other March for Our Lives protesters by comparing them to Nazis.[71][72]

Fake pictures and GIFs of Emma González tearing up a copy of the U.S. Constitution circulated on social media in March 2018. The images were doctored from originals of González tearing up a shooting target sign. Actor and conservative commentator Adam Baldwin defended circulating the doctored images as "political satire".[73][74] ,

"New laws

In March 2018, the Florida Legislature passed a bill titled the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. It raised the minimum age for buying firearms to 21, established waiting periods and background checks, provided a program for the arming of some teachers and the hiring of school police, banned bump stocks, and barred potentially violent or mentally unhealthy people arrested under certain laws from possessing guns. In all, it allocated around $400 million.[75] The governor signed the bill into law on March 9. He commented, "To the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, you made your voices heard. You didn't let up and you fought until there was change."[10] John Cassidy stated in The New Yorker, "This was the first time in thirty years that Florida had passed any gun restrictions, and it was a direct response to the Never Again movement, which was founded by students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School."[76] A report in Salon magazine suggested that Republican lawmakers have generally remained silent about gun control measures; many depend on support from the NRA as well as support from pro-gun voters.[77] Since February 2018, 67 new pieces of gun violence prevention legislation have been passed in 26 states across the country. [78]  "

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

And you're playing word games, to give self defense, to your pro gun extremists position:

"Of course Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights affect American citizens every bit as much as the 2nd Amendment."

Let me tell you something:

What, I'm describing is Nationwide accountability for the 400 guns, that are legal, and illegal.

Your "enforcement" makes about as much sense, as any criminal, or offender, who is currently armed, with an illegal gun, CYDdharta.

"What you're describing is a lack of enforcement. Changing the Constitution would do nothing.  States that refuse to enforce the death penalty before your change would still refuse to enforce it afterwards."

What are you afraid of?

The Second Amendment being amended with the Death Penalty language, thus making the Second Amendment, fair, and equal for every citizen, lawfully armed, or not armed?

Or the Second Amendment, being left alone, so that it suits, you, and your pro gun extremists brethren?

Whats more fair to the Public, as a whole?

The current version of the Second Amendment, as it's written?

Or the Second Amendment, being amended, so that it is fair, and equal to all of the Public, and not just you, and your pro gun extremists brethren? 

Hey, don't whine to me, I'm just pointing out reality.  If the government is unwilling to impose the death penalty, than making anything else a death penalty case is a moot point.

Vaulk

@TKDB ;

So George Washington was the original Pro-Gun extremist then?

Dee

@CYDdharta

You say ......

Never said anything about "for citizens to carry".  It's very disingenuous of you to try to change the terms of the argument.  Once again, what country were guns never permitted?

My reply ....you said .......It's very disingenuous of you to try to change the terms of the argument.

Wow! Yet that’s exactly what you’re dishonestly doing when you know full well we are talking about citizens rights to carry guns and you attempt to weasel out by using a ridiculous counter.

You said without guns ........The quality of life would drop considerably, as many more people, lacking the means to defend themselves, would be victimized by criminals.

My reply .......So the quality of life would improve....wow! 

Because one can suddenly defend themselves against non existent threats where I live .....Or did you really mean the quality of life drops in a society with guns ......you need to work on that “logic” 

You say ......  I feel quite safe, knowing I possess the means to defend myself should such a situation arise.  

My reply .....I know you feel the need to carry because you live in a very violent country and rated 121st least peaceful in the world , I know you need a gun in the home because armed criminals in the U S target householders to get their I phones and loose change .........When are house Alarms being introduced in the U S anytime soon?

You say .......I also own a fire extinguisher that I've never needed to use.  

My reply .......Do you carry one on the street as well in case of random fires?

Do you have an underground bunker in case of nuclear attack also?

You say .......I suppose you consider that irrational as well.

My reply .....I don’t no , but I do consider your thinking is totally irrational unless of course you do concede you live in a very violent society and a gun is a necessity?

Americans jail more people than anywhere else in the world and have more guns than people and this in your esteemed opinion is necessary for a peaceful society 

Dee

@CYDdharta

The U S is perceived internationally as a very dangerous country for a traveler,  at least you admit this by admitting the need to carry a gun for safety in the U S Amnesty issued warnings as do most countries worldwide on precautions one must take in the U S it’s so bad South American countries also issue warnings .......But hey they’re all making it up aren’t they?

Amnesty International issued a global warning to those traveling to the United States after violence left 31 people dead in two mass shootings last weekend.

The travel advisory, issued Wednesday afternoon, calls for visitors to "exercise caution and have an emergency contingency plan when traveling throughout the USA."

It warns travelers to remain vigilant at all times and to avoid places where large groups congregate, including places of worship, schools or nightclubs, all locations that have been targeted recently. 

"Depending on the traveler's gender identity, race, country of origin, ethnic background, or sexual orientation, they may be at higher risk of being targeted with gun violence, and should plan accordingly," the advisory adds.

The human rights groups issued the travel warning in midst of "high levels of gun violence," which Amnesty International referred to as a human rights crisis.

Foreign countries have taken similar actions to protect their citizens by issuing warnings to travelers who have plans or are currently visiting America. 

The Venezuelan government issued a statement urging its citizens to postpone trips to the U.S. after the “recent acts of violence.”

The news release advises that Venezuelans stay away from cities that have the most violence, citing a 2019 Forbes article that lists the most dangerous cities in the U.S. Those cities were Cleveland; Detroit; Baltimore; St. Louis; Oakland, California; Memphis, Tennessee; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta; Stockton, California; and Buffalo, New York.

Also in Latin America, the Uruguayan government issued a similar release that urges its citizens to take precautions when visiting the U.S. because of its “increasing indiscriminate violence” and hate crimes fueled by “racism and discrimination that cost the lives of more than 250 people in the first seven months of this year.”

Vaulk

Dee said:

@CYDdharta

Also in Latin America, the Uruguayan government issued a similar release that urges its citizens to take precautions when visiting the U.S. because of its “increasing indiscriminate violence” and hate crimes fueled by “racism and discrimination that cost the lives of more than 250 people in the first seven months of this year.”

I honestly don't understand the language that article is written in, but did you maybe incorrectly translate it or did the article actually say that precautions are needed because if increasing "indiscriminate violence" and then go onto to cite hate crimes fueled by racism and "Discrimination"?  

I don't speak any other language than English so I couldn't say for certain how that happened but I CAN say with certainty that any article that, in the same sentence, claims that America is dangerous because of indiscriminate violence and then cites hate crimes fueled by discrimination as the cause of that violence is either propaganda or was written by someone without the proper understanding of the difference between "Indiscriminate" and "Discrimination".  In either case the article is unreliable.

Would you trust an article that said U.S. officials are elected without bias by people who are also racist.  Makes zero sense right?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Who's whining? 

And the reality is that 6 Police Officers got shot in Philadelphia by a guy with a lengthy wrap sheet.

The reality is his wrap sheet.

And another reality is how you defend an antiquated Second Amendment, with your pro gun extremist argument.

And every day in the United States, criminals, and offenders, are killing citizens with illegal guns.

So your pro gun extremist position, can't downplay that reality, can it? 

"Hey, don't whine to me, I'm just pointing out reality.  If the government is unwilling to impose the death penalty, than making anything else a death penalty case is a moot point."

TKDB

@Vaulk

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined"

Those criminals, and offenders, who right now, have illegal firearms, aren't disciplined, are they?

And they ought not be armed, should they, being that criminals, and offenders, aren't allowed to be armed, are they?

"; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

Your shared quotation, fails itself, because of the reality of the Second Amendment, as it's currently written. 

Dee

@MayCaesar

You say .....In the US, statistically you are about 10 times as likely to drown in your own bathtub, as you are to become a victim of a mass shooting. 

My reply ....But you’re deliberately leaving out other gun deaths to avoid the simple fact that the U S in 2017 had 40,000 gun deaths and 65,000 accidents involving guns 

Also baths are not designed to kill guns are 

Six countries in the world are responsible for more than half of all 250,000 gun deaths a year around the globe. The US is among those six, together with Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Guatemala.

That America is sapped by a continuing epidemic of gun deaths is hardly news. But the new CDC data raises concern that even within that relentlessly consistent story of bloodletting, the carnage continues to worsen.

You say ......You also are more likely to die in a car crash, than to any firearm shot.

My reply .....Cars are made to transport people from place to place , guns are made to kill people do you see the difference?

You say ......These are non-existing problems, and if the media did not blow every story out of proportion, nobody would care about these things.

My reply .......Sure it’s the media’s fault you live in one of the least peaceful countries in the world and nothing to do with guns ......

Two years ago a pair of New York Times analysts graphed the outlying statusof the United States, showing how no other nation comes close to America’s frequency of mass shootings. We have less than 4 percent of the world’s population but we account for a third of mass shooters worldwide. We’re not exactly crazier than others. Every country has its mental health problems, and anyway enough studies show that mental health is not nearly as mucha contributor in shootings as we’d like to think. Every country has its racial problems, its issues with violence, its issues with poverty. We’re not that special. But we are special in one, undeniable regard. We have 300 million guns. “The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns,” the analysts concluded. The only other country that comes close to our rate of mass shootings is Yemen, a country at war, and it has the second-highest rate of gun ownership in the world, after the United States.

You say ......Aside from that, no positive correlation has ever been demonstrated between strong gun regulations and number of gun deaths. In the US, in fact, the anti-correlation is observed, as states with harsher gun laws generally have higher gun death rates - with the worst abusers being large cities full of draconian laws, such as NYC or Chicago.

My reply ......Maybe get more guns into operation as the amount of guns has nothing to do with the amount of deaths apparently 

You say.......But this has never been about truth, has it? It has always been about hurt feelings.

My reply ......The truth is obvious to those of us who do not need to carry a gun to feel safe in our societies, the hurt feelings seem to be Americans who talk about the necessity of owning a gun for safety then continuously stating  there’s actually no problem at all .....so why carry a gun if that’s the case?

The cognitive dissonance is something else 

GeoLibCogScientist

I must disagree with everyone here trying to downplay the severity of these situations by bringing up things people are more likely to be killed by. This is really nothing more than a red herring. The fact of the matter is, the death rate(per capita) has been rising in the past decade. Trying to downplay a serious problem by bringing up other serious problems is completely irrelevant. Why does it make it okay that the death rate by gun per capita has been on the rise, as the CDC reports here if you sort the death rate per capita from most to least, all of the top ones are within the past decade.  The top 19 worst years for gun homicide rate were exactly the past 19 years. Does this not strike you people above as a concern that the worst 19 gun death rates in the entire history of the US were the 19 previous years? 

GeoLibCogScientist

For anyone who wonders why I mark their post as a fallacy, see above. You likely did this red herring tactic.

GeoLibCogScientist

At any rate, I think we really need to develop smart gun technology, and perhaps as an incentive to gun owners to get one, perhaps the state could offer to install that technology on your existing guns for free or replace them.

If we had guns which were capable of recognizing when someone is not a threat, and have it not fire at anyone it determines isn't a threat, this could easily help solve the issue.

I see absolutely no reason why any gun rights advocate should oppose this. If you really only want a gun for self-defense and hunting, why would you oppose the state making it that guns can literally only be used in those ways through putting artificial neural networks into the gun so that you can not use it to kill innocents? You may have a right to bear arms, but you don't have a right to use it any way you want. Not even the second amendment says the arms need to be permitted to be used on innocent people. So long as you're able to use them against threats and hunting, what exactly is the issue here, guys?

Before anyone points out that such a gun could have flaws in trying to detect who is a threat: don't say this out of ignorance. Go do some research into how advanced we are in artificial intelligence before making an unsubstantiated claim like that. And no, my claim is not unsubstantiated either since I'm not suggesting we do this right away, but that we develop it and try it out and see if it for sure can  work that way. No reasonable person ought to object to the idea of getting rid of all other gun regulations(so anyone will be allowed to obtain one) and replacing all the currently owned guns with such a smart gun on the condition  that we test it out and iron out any of the issues you're probably going to bring up after I suggested a smart gun. 

TKDB

https://www-nationalreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/second-amendment-needs-update-clarify-individual-right/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/second-amendment-needs-update-clarify-individual-right/

POLITICS & POLICY

"We Need to Update the Second Amendment"

"The ‘militia’ clause confuses modern Americans. Let’s clarify it to secure the individual right to keep and bear arms."

"In reaction to shootings by an emotionally disturbed young man at a Florida high school and the subsequent paroxysm of gun-control protest, retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, writing in the New York Times, proposed that the Second Amendment be repealed. Stevens is hardly the first to make such a proposal — the Times’ Bret Stephens and the Brooking Institution’s Benjamin Wittes, among others, have as well. But Justice Stevens’s prominence and the response to his position have brought national attention to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights."

"Many modern Americans find the language of the Second Amendment confusing. Justice Stevens’s proposal gives us occasion to focus on the text of this clause, which, as a constitutional provision, should override any other legal action on the subject of firearms in the United States. This examination shows us why the Second Amendment is so misunderstood, and that it needs to be updated."

"The Second Amendment consists of two phrases. It begins with a prefatory clause: “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Then comes the main clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The confusion is mostly about the meaning and effect of the prefatory clause. Is the reference to the militia simply an interesting preamble, as some gun-rights advocates argue, or does it limit and define the rest of the provision, as Justice Stevens and other gun-control proponents maintain?"

MayCaesar

@Dee

It does not matter what is designed for what; you can turn any tool into a weapon. Vehicles are designed to transport people, yet it did not prevent the terrorist in Nice from using a truck to kill and injure a few hundred people. Bathtubs are designed for bathing, yet criminals have drowned people in bathtubs on numerous occasions. Kitchen knives are designed for cooking, yet are also used as the most common makeshift weapon in the world.

I cited statistics. You just appealed to emotion once more. You are not interested in solving any problems, or even in understanding how the world works.
It is indeed derivative from the facts that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with the gun violence in the US. Just like it is derivative from the facts that the Earth is not flat, even though if you look in any direction, it does appear flat to your eye. The world does not work as simply as you would think by just looking around, and if you only think one move ahead in chess, then you are not playing chess - you are just moving pieces around.

It is a statistical fact that restricting gun laws will not reduce gun violence in the US. It is a statistical fact that reducing the number of guns will not reduce gun violence in the US. It is a statistical fact that changing the Second Amendment will not reduce gun violence in the US.
It is also a statistical fact that doing any of these three will provide a brief relief for their advocates, yet will not increase their happiness.

If you really want to solve the problem of gun violence in the US, or even to just understand it, then you have to dig deeper than "Oh, they have lots of guns and gun violence? Everything is clear." But if you just want to make yourself feel better for a few seconds by scraping the surface a bit and believing that you have proven something, then go ahead. There is a reason only a small minority of people become researchers, after all.

MayCaesar

@GeoLibCogScientist

I do not think people realise just how dangerous games with AI are. Neural networks fundamentally work on correlation, not causation. There is no way for any neural network to work in a precise manner, and there will always be misfires. 

In order to avoid this problem, you have to go deeper; a simple neural network will not cut it. You have to implement a full-scale self-aware AI, that works on the causation principle and that genuinely tries to understand the world as a whole around it, before making a decision. And plugging such an AI into a gun is a recipe for disaster.

Automation has its role, and it is one of the primary drivers of the increase in our quality of life - but it is important not to apply it where it does not belong. All guns being smart, let alone regulated by the government, is a good starting point for writing an anti-utopia sci-fi novel.

GeoLibCogScientist

@MayCaesar

Would you be able to substantiate those claims? You claim :

There is no way for any neural network to work in a precise manner, and there will always be misfires.

Why?

And:

All guns being smart, let alone regulated by the government, is a good starting point for writing an anti-utopia sci-fi novel.

Why?

MayCaesar

@GeoLibCogScientist

A neural network is just an equation with a lot of variables, and in the training process it tries to adjust coefficients by the variables in a way to minimise the general mismatch between the calculated value, and the actual, "natural" value. With a more or less large database, this means that the best set of coefficients will result in the calculated value always diverging from the real value, and there will be necessary severe outliers for which this divergence is great.
The result of it is likely misfires in a minority of cases, and unlikely (but possible) misfires in all other cases.

A neural network can work nearly flawlessly in an inherently digital environment, such as the game of chess, that has a limited number of possibilities. It is always going to regularly misfire in the real world conditions, where we deal with digitised analog data. 

As for the second point, the government having control over how the smart technology can be used can only result in one outcome: increase of its control over the society through intimidation. It is not something out of the fiction books; if you understand how the neural network-based smart technology works and how it can be incorporated in a cloud network with other neural networks, then you can see dissent will naturally be suppressed just from the way it all functions. 
This is something the Chinese government is actively investing in, for obvious reasons. And even the most benevolent government on Earth will not be able to prevent a "runaway" of such technology.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

You have excuses.

Meanwhile, this is the theme of the forum:

Shooting in Philadelphia, being live streamed, by the shooter.

GeoLibCogScientist

@MayCaesar

But are you aware of how far we've advanced in neural networks? And why do you think we simply can't advance further to make it a more viable option? GANs are already quite remarkable, we're only going to progress further from them.

As for the second point, the government having control over how the smart technology can be used can only result in one outcome: increase of its control over the society through intimidation. It is not something out of the fiction books; if you understand how the neural network-based smart technology works and how it can be incorporated in a cloud network with other neural networks, then you can see dissent will naturally be suppressed just from the way it all functions.

I'm not sure that's going to be totally true. While it certainly can happen with how our current government is set up, I can think of a number of ways to further put checks on the government. Such as limiting politicians' income to be no greater than the 50th percentile of income earners for the part of the country they represent(if it's a president, then it's the whole country, senators: their state, and representatives: their district), as well as instituting right of recall, banning gerrymandering, making it illegal for politicians to own stocks, be on boards of directors, of any business while in office, etc. The thing here, is you're making this assumption due to probably how our current governments are. They are very hugely flawed, and those suggestions I made among many others can likely prevent such a government from going too far. 

GeoLibCogScientist

@MayCaesar

Over all, my whole message here is:
If you actually do care about these deaths from guns that occur, you wouldn't be dismissing it due to these reasons. You can still, of course, come up with the reasons to view it as flawed, but those flaws in what I'm proposing should not be a deterrent from supporting the general idea. Instead, these flaws should encourage you to find a way to make this idea work. Why are you not trying to do that, and instead deciding to dismiss the idea? Does the idea not have merit, assuming we can get it to work perfectly well? If you agree on that much, then you should be trying to find a way to address your concerns rather than using your concerns as a way to dismiss the idea.

Dee

@MayCaesar

You say .......It does not matter what is designed for what; you can turn any tool into a weapon. 

My reply ........Of course it matters , a tool is not designed to kill or maim a gun is deliberately made to kill 

Guns kill people.

That is precisely the reason the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” was specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Citizens had guns so that “A well regulated Militia” would be able to effectively kill those who threaten “the security of a free State”. You must acknowledge that for better or worse, guns allow people to commit acts of violence more effectively than other methods. You cannot argue that guns are just like everything else AND that they are special at the same time.

And they aren’t like cars, knives, or hammers.

You say ......Vehicles are designed to transport people, 

My reply .....Correct and the majority use them for that , guns are designed to kill and maim and the majority of people use them for that 

You say .......Bathtubs are designed for bathing, yet criminals have drowned people in bathtubs on numerous occasions. Kitchen knives are designed for cooking, yet are also used as the most common makeshift weapon in the world.

My reply .....What a throughly ridiculous argument people use baths to bathe in , kitchen knives for use in the kitchen tell me using your logic do you normally drown people in baths or bathe in one?

Do you ever use a gun to chop vegetables with as it “does not matter what it was designed for “ right?

You say .....I cited statistics. 

My reply .....You cited no statistics to me yet I did to you with links which you conveniently ignored 

You say ......You just appealed to emotion once more. 

My reply .....I did not , I stated facts I know you do not think school shootings etc , etc are worth getting emotional about but there you go 

You say ......You are not interested in solving any problems, or even in understanding how the world works.

My reply ......Your sweeping generalizations are typical and backed with nothing . My understanding of the world does not rely on denying facts as in 40,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun accidents a year are not actually happening because that’s not how my version of the world works 

You say ......It is indeed derivative from the facts that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with the gun violence in the US. 

My reply .....What you really mean is your “alternative facts “

You say .....Just like it is derivative from the facts that the Earth is not flat, even though if you look in any direction, it does appear flat to your eye. 

My reply ......Nice attempt at a side step but ineffective 

You say ......The world does not work as simply as you would think by just looking around, 

My reply ......I never said it did and I never said I think this way by “just looking around” , tell you what get the stats off Pew research and tell them they are looking at the world to simply 

You say ......and if you only think one move ahead in chess, then you are not playing chess - you are just moving pieces around.

My reply .....You ridiculously keep telling how you think I think  , just to avoid any sort of defence 

You say .....It is a statistical fact that restricting gun laws will not reduce gun violence in the US. 

My reply .....It’s not , it’s utter nonsense ......

For a study published in March in the medical journal BMJ, researchers assigned each of the 50 US states an aggregate "firearm laws score", ranging from zero (completely restrictive) to 100 (completely permissive). The scores accounted for 13 factors, including gun-permit requirements, whether and where guns can legally be carried and kept, and whether state laws ensure a right to self-defence.

The results suggested that a 10-unit increase in the permissiveness of state gun laws – according to the scoring system – was associated with an 11.5 percent higher rate of mass shootings.

What's more, every state's score shifted toward greater permissiveness from 1998 to 2014.

By contrast, Switzerland, which has high gun ownership but hasn't seen a mass shooting in 18 years, has strict gun policiesincluding rigorous licensing procedures (including training) and restrictions on who can buy guns.

You say .....It is a statistical fact that reducing the number of guns will not reduce gun violence in the US. 

My reply .....More nonsense , 

Studies have also found a link between more gun purchases and higher rates of accidental gun deaths.

In December 2012, a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The tragedy gave rise to calls for gun-control regulation, which led to a now predictable phenomenon: People bought more guns.

With a sales spike of 3 million more guns in the months after the Sandy Hook shooting, the rate of accidental deaths related to firearms rose, especially among children, according to a study published in the journal Science. The researchers calculated that 40 adults and 20 children died as a result of those additional gun purchases.

You say ......It is a statistical fact that changing the Second Amendment will not reduce gun violence in the US.

My reply .....You do like your alternative facts don’t you , how do you know a change wouldn’t reduce gun violence are you psychic?

You say .....It is also a statistical fact that doing any of these three will provide a brief relief for their advocates, yet will not increase their happiness.

My reply ......More unsubstantiated nonsense 

You say .......If you really want to solve the problem of gun violence in the US, or even to just understand it, then you have to dig deeper than "Oh, they have lots of guns and gun violence? Everything is clear." 

My reply .....I never made such statements yet you keep telling me what you think I said 

You say ......But if you just want to make yourself feel better for a few seconds by scraping the surface a bit and believing that you have proven something, then go ahead. 

My reply .....Again another petty , childish and personal attack claiming what you think I’m saying and feeling 

You say .......There is a reason only a small minority of people become researchers, after all.

My reply .....You forgot one thing there’s a reason a tiny minority of people become good researchers , there is indeed and it’s a career  path you would be advised not to follow unless of course you wish to continue a glittering career in the world of Alternative Facts 

MayCaesar

@GeoLibCogScientist:

No matter how far we advance in neural networks, they will remain what they are: correlation-based tools. There is a natural limit to their effectiveness and stability. They can make decisions based on a limited data, but they cannot "understand" why they make them, and while we humans can sometimes say that our decision is wrong based on common sense, a network lacks that capability.

There is only one way to address this issue: allow the network to collect its own data and learn from it, modify its own code and even the very principle it is based on. That requires a self-aware AI. But with this comes a cost: the evolution of this AI cannot be contained to the user preferences. It is going to surpass its intended purpose, and lead to a runaway technology - which is far more dangerous than a weapon with a flawed FOF system.

Not to mention that such AIs are likely decades away.

Contrary to the popular opinion, a neural network is not analogous to human brain. Rather, it is analogous to human instincts. We can touch a heated stove and get burned, and that will create the instinct that tells us not to do this again - but it is only as useful as it is because this is followed by our analysis of the situation: we understand why we were burned. But if we were run purely on instincts, we would not be able to do so. We would not have the concept of a "stove", of "heat" and so on. How would we be able to figure out what to touch and what not? We would be able to do this to a limited extent based on similarity in our sensory input to that experience, but there would be a lot of misfires.

For the neural network to learn to accurately separate a friend from an enemy, it has to be integrated into a larger, cognitive system. We do not have the computational power to do so as of now, and even if we did, the sheer complexity of such a system is beyond us.

Neural networks such as ones used in Tesla cars work as well as they do because of how uniform the road system is. Because the roads everywhere are built based on the same design, the system can learn to make nearly impeccable decisions by collecting data - and even so, there are errors every now and then. But recognising the relationship between the weapon wielder and the potential target - it is a very different thing.

---

Regarding the second point, I am not saying that the government will deliberately use the system to control people - although it is strongly incentivised to do so, there are mechanisms allowing us to limit the effects of that. However, the more complicated a "general intelligence" cloud system becomes, the more its decisions start diverging from the intended purposes behind the system. It is possible to show mathematically that such a system eventually converges to becoming a force in itself, and it will "learn" to produce output that manipulates its owners into reducing the variety in the input it receives, which means limiting people's freedoms in this particular case.

It is not a very trivial effect, and it is not necessarily going to be the case with the modern technology - but it is something we should not play with without understanding the consequences.

---

I am not dismissing the idea. I am simply a proponent of the notion that coercion of other humans requires a lot of justification behind it, and should not be done at a whim. If someone wants to act in a very straightforward manner in their personal life, then it is their business - but when we are talking about things that restrict other people's freedoms, nothing should be done unless it is absolutely necessary and in accordance with the real data.

Making all guns smart is choice that would have a very profound impact on the world. It is not something to be taken lightly. Automation which we cannot control is a dangerous thing indeed. And as much as I am a futurist looking forward to the day when our world is nothing like it is nowadays, I prefer not to destroy our world with reckless decisions, when there is still so much more here to do.

TKDB

https://newrepublic.com/article/154488/john-paul-stevens-obituary-dc-heller-dissent-antonin-scalia

"When John Paul Stevens Eviscerated Antonin Scalia

The late justice dismantled originalism in his dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark gun-rights case."

"John Paul Stevens, who died on Tuesday, served on the Supreme Court for 35 years. His tenure, the second-longest in the court’s history, placed him in the middle of the great legal controversies of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries: on abortion and gay rights, Bush v. Gore and campaign finance, federalism and the death penalty. To Stevens, however, one of the court’s rulings stood out beyond all others."

“District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench,” he wrote in The Atlantic in May. In 2008, Stevens wrote the principal dissentin the 5–4 decision, strongly arguing that the Second Amendment only protected a collective right to bear arms as part of militia service. The majority, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded otherwise."

"Heller was a watershed moment for originalism, a school of legal interpretation that generally argues that the Constitution’s provisions should be interpreted according to their original public meaning. Scalia, one of the early originalist apostles, wielded an array of historical and legal sources to find an individual right to bear arms in the amendment for the first time. With five originalist-minded jurists now sitting on the high court, Stevens’s rebuttal is more salient than ever."

"Before Heller, the Supreme Court had never considered whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms. Then again, it had only heard a handful of Second Amendment cases in its two-century history, and its decisions were hardly exemplary. The court’s 1876 ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank, where it held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, hamstrung federal efforts to protect black freedpeople in the South from white supremacist terrorism. In 1939, the justices issued a perfunctory ruling in U.S. v. Miller that the amendment did not protect sawed-off shotguns because they were not “ordinary military equipment.”

"Federal courts interpreted those cases, especially Miller, to uphold state and federal laws restricting gun ownership. Conservative legal activists began to challenge that stance in the 1990s and 2000s, arguing instead that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms. In 2008, they supported D.C. resident Heller’s appeal to the Supreme Court. Heller, a local special police officer, asked the justices to overturn the district’s decision to deny him a license to keep a handgun in his home for personal defense."

"The text of the Second Amendment itself is relatively brief: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To Stevens, the first part unambiguously defined it as a collective right, not an individual one. “It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee ‘to keep and bear arms’ was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias,” he wrote in his Hellerdissent."

"To support his point, Stevens also looked to debates during the ratification of the amendment, where discussions of the militia focused on military service instead of individual ownership. “The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus describes an overriding concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the means by which to guard against that danger,” he wrote. “But state militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal standing army so long as Congress retained the power to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament was needed.” 

My takeaway from the above article, in regards to the Second Amendment, an individual has the right to have a firearm.

But no where, does the Second Amendment. state that any criminal, or an offender, has, a right to have a firearm, and I believe, that the Second Amendment, should be amended to reflect that.

And as a extra deterrent, amending the Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, to get the nationwide point, across, to the millions of criminals, or offenders, that going out of their, seeking to obtain a gun illegally, isn't a fair, or equal action, or choice to make, when they then, go about using their illegally owned guns, to kill or hurt Police Officers, or the citizens, themselves, who aren't gun owners.

Being that the Death Penalty by itself, is failing to make a mindful difference, to those criminals, or offenders, who seek a gun, and then use their guns, to commit their crimes with?

It's time to create a platform via an amended Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, to help those criminals, or offenders, become mindfully accountable for their own actions.

Because right now, they refuse to take any, responsibility for their own accountable actions.

The nationwide, and daily occurring, gun violence crimes, are a self created testament by those criminals, and offenders, for how they view, the public as a whole, when they use their guns, to hurt, or kill citizens. 

This way, the amended Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, is equal, and fair, to the entire Public, IE, the lawful gun owners, and to the rest of the Public, who doesn't own a gun.

GeoLibCogScientist

@MayCaesar

I am not dismissing the idea. I am simply a proponent of the notion that coercion of other humans requires a lot of justification behind it, and should not be done at a whim.

I certainly agree with that. And coercion can be justified here as it would be saving lives. I consider people's right to life and to continue living without impediment brought upon their ability to live by other people, the most important right. It is more important than a right to property like to own a specific gun.

Now, I'm not comparing these two things on much of a level at all. Rather, I'm going to point to a situation where you'd probably think someone shouldn't be allowed to buy a weapon. Say, a nuclear warhead. Do you think someone should just be able to buy that? I would presume even most libertarians wouldn't want that to occur.  So you probably draw the line on what kinds of weapons a person can own at some point, right? Well, I draw the line at weapons capable of killing any innocent person. Weapons to hunt or kill in self-defense is fine, and you should never be debarred from that.

Of course, my line of thinking here would be different if I lived in the founders' time. I would absolutely support someone's right to bare any kind of arms back then, but that's because we were nowhere near smart technology.

At any rate, you mention the need for knowing the cause of things. Why do you put AI at a higher standard than humans? I mean, most people can't accurately decide what is a cause of something else except literally those who do actual causal scientific experiments. But, certainly, in everyday life of everyone else, no one can think properly in terms of cause and effect(it's just not possible given no one can just decide something caused something else without actual experimentation). I'm not sure why you find it important for AI to be cause-based.

If you, personally, think you can understand why you make the decisions you do, I would certainly love to hear your theory on that. Humans certainly have feelings which indicate they know why they did something. But I can tell you, for me personally, I often don't know why I do things. I can guess based on clues, but this is also only correlational. I may say "I ate this thing because I was hungry", but that can't be concluded to be a cause until an experiment is done. What drives people to do things? This is a philosophical question that even the self can't answer why the self does things, in my opinion.

What is the purpose of human life? What is the purpose of anything?

This whole point you're arguing is something that can further be argued, and I'm not convinced even I know the cause of why I do what I do, so I'm not sure why you hold AI to a higher standard.