zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. untog+(OP)[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:46:24
Well, I think this is an example of technology not being able to solve everything.

Computers are logical and deal in absolutes. People are the exact opposite. Gun control is an emotional, sometimes irrational issue, and the solutions (I suspect) lie in societal changes. Gun control doesn't need advanced technology, as far as I can see. But I'd be interested to know what ideas people have.

replies(2): >>maqr+f3 >>dbaupp+n9
2. maqr+f3[view] [source] 2012-12-14 19:12:23
>>untog+(OP)
Pretty soon, anyone who wants a gun will be able to 3d-print one. I think "gun control" will soon become "technology control", which is going to be tricky because this community appears to be largely anti-gun and pro-tech.
replies(1): >>gnu8+l4
◧◩
3. gnu8+l4[view] [source] [discussion] 2012-12-14 19:22:33
>>maqr+f3
Most members of this community see the absurdity of making a certain string of bits illegal, whether its the private key to decrypt blu-ray discs or describes the shape of a firearm. What's odd is that they don't see the parallel absurdity of outlawing a piece of metal carved into the shape of a firearm. Perhaps they will now that its possible to produce the object from the bits.
replies(1): >>dbaupp+Ka
4. dbaupp+n9[view] [source] 2012-12-14 20:12:55
>>untog+(OP)
> Computers are logical and deal in absolutes

A classic anti-technology strawman. It is like saying "Computers only use numbers, you can't do graphics or text with them".

At the very lowest level computers are entirely logical, but you can program one to deal with uncertainties and probabilities.

In fact that argument isn't quite relevant, unless you are arguing against the computers making the policy decisions, which I think was never under consideration.

Computers/technology can certainly be a strong tool to assist gun control.

One idea completely off the top of my head would be to data-mine as much info as possible about past shooting/shooters and then use this to help guide granting (or not) of gun licenses. With Bayesian this-and-that, the computer could give a number "estimated 0.000001% chance of serial killing" and refer the application to the appropriate person (e.g. a detailed analysis for people "at risk" (large probability), or a quicker check for "safer" people).

◧◩◪
5. dbaupp+Ka[view] [source] [discussion] 2012-12-14 20:28:23
>>gnu8+l4
What's odd is that they don't see the parallel absurdity of outlawing a piece of metal carved into the shape of a firearm

What parallel absurdity?

A number's meaning is entirely arbitrary and dependent on the context: a bit-string that is a pattern for a firearm in program A might be a perfectly valid music file in program B.

Firearm is a piece of metal that had to be precision shaped to throw small pellets of metal at very high speeds.

(I'll agree that 3D printing muddies the waters though.)

[go to top]