
Ask HN: How can we use technology to prevent domestic mass murder? - notoriginal
Instead of the oft-discussed political and sociological solutions, how can we as engineers use technology to minimize the damage of mass murders or prevent their occurrence, in a way that respects individual freedoms?<p>Edit: Remember that guns aren&#x27;t the only medium through which these acts are carried out.
======
duncan_bayne
"Instead of the oft-discussed political and sociological solutions, how can we
as engineers use technology to minimize the damage of mass murders or prevent
their occurrence, in a way that respects individual freedoms?"

Well, there are several problems with handguns that lead to people being
reluctant to carry them:

\- weight

\- size

\- expense

\- safety (esp. accidental discharges, collateral damage, over-penetration)

\- lethality (as separate from stopping power; imagine the ideal as a
fictional gun that always stops an attacker but almost never kills him or her,
like a Star Trek phaser set to stun)

I'm not sure how many of those are amenable to fixing. But if you could come
up with something akin to a phaser, at a good price, that could be safely
carried by a large subset of the population I think you'd be on to a winner.

"What does your startup do?"

"We're the Tesla of handguns"

:)

~~~
saluki
This would be a great option, non-lethal stopping force, that is small, less
expensive, safer to carry, repeat shots, integrated so 911 is alerted so
police can come to the area right away to sort things out provide assistance.

teslaguns.com/phaser

~~~
duncan_bayne
Re. 'non-lethal', though, bear in mind there's no such guarantee. I think
'less-lethal' is the term of art.

E.g. assuming the thing is somewhat like a Taser, good luck if you shoot
someone with a weak heart, or a pacemaker. Or maybe your target falls badly
and dies from a head injury. Or falls off something. Etc. etc. etc.

This is why self-defense is a moral imperative. There is no way to employ
force against someone without risking his or her death.

------
insoluble
If technology were employed (carefully) to enact more thorough and appropriate
justice for all citizens, there may be less of the type of anger that leads to
violent crimes and other social problems. The current justice system focuses
too heavily on after-the-fact heavy-hitting crimes -- where an individual is
harmed a great deal in a short period of time. But what about all the micro-
crimes that many people commit over and over, hundreds or more times over the
years? The justice system is, for the most part, completely oblivious in this
respect. After all, how can you try a person for micro-crimes?

If instead, there were some God-like technology that watched for micro-crimes
and compensated the victims in micro-payments (or something to that effect),
it could really help to make reality more fair and just. Naturally the micro-
payments would be funded by the perpetrators.

On another note, many mass murders are committed by people who have been
essentially outcast from society in one way or another. If these people had
someone to talk to about their problems or perceived social issues (real or
otherwise), it could probably do some real good. An intelligent AI could serve
this role. In fact, good AI friends might be sufficient alone to prevent many
such murders.

Now, this is not to say that such a technology is anywhere near possible at
this point in time. Nevertheless, I feel it is callous and completely
inappropriate to look at things like mass murder without considering the
sociological circumstances that lead to such events. The same type of thinking
that makes people disregard murderers as non-humans is exactly the type of
thinking that can lead someone to murder. There is a fine line to hypocrisy
here.

------
matt_s
How about RFID chips (or something like that) in all firearms? And long range
scanners that can detect said RFID-like chips. Make it embedded in a crucial
part of the firing system (firing pin or something) so that if that part is
removed then the gun becomes a doorstop. As you can tell, I don't know if this
is technically feasible but hey its an idea.

Have long range scanners put into public areas susceptible to these types of
attacks - schools, malls, movie theaters, etc.

Automatic notification to police when a scanner picks it up - noting the
distance from the scan location, make/model of weapon and direction weapon is
travelling in. Maybe scale the notifications - dispatch only for 1 weapon, if
2 or more are detected in same vicinity then direct notification to all patrol
and to dispatch?

For example if it is a college campus, it could detect the firearm(s) a few
minutes before a malicious minded person gets to where they are going to start
something. If that few minutes allows responders to get there in time, then it
could be prevented.

------
LarryMade2
Probably some method to help the people before they get to the point of doing
violence. Many of which are experiencing some sort of distress that has not
been addressed.

------
gmuslera
You are asking for precrime. Is ripe for abuse, and will be badly abused. Less
technology (as in "weapons", the availability of lethal ones and the culture
about having/using them) is more probable that have an impact.

~~~
notoriginal
I am not necessarily asking for thoughtcrime, if that's what you mean.
Technology is ripe for benefits and abuse. It's all about the manner in which
it is used. For example, can we use sensors and networking on mobile devices
to create a distributed system to reliably detect traces of bomb chemicals in
the air?

~~~
gmuslera
Pre-crime, like in Minority Report, predicting somewhat that someone "will"
commit a crime and jail him before it does. Even if he wasn't going to do it,
or was just incriminated.

Regarding bomb chemicals or helper devices, most mass killing were using guns
that god forbids if you complain about someone having the right to have them.
And you can make bombs with common household items (i.e. cleaning products)
and use i.e. pressure cookers as devices. The possibility of false possitives,
or even discretionary false possitives is too big.

And still will remain the problem that you are giving even more power to the
ones that do that control. No one watches the watchers.

------
tmaly
changes to HIPPA laws in the US would go a long way towards making data
available to predict potential issues. In many states, purchase of a weapon
requires that you state you are not clinically depressed. Due to HIPPA laws,
there is no way to verify this. Also, there was a story on HN recently about
the results of studies on certain psych meds that were hidden by the companies
producing the medicines. If a medicine causes a violent reaction, it would
make sense to know if someone on the medicine is trying to purchase a weapon.
Again the HIPPA laws in the US prevent this.

~~~
DanBC
Most perpetrators of mass shootings (more than 4 people shot) do not have a
diagnosable mental illness. Certainly most of them are not taking psychiatric
meds.

Have you looked at each perpetrator of the nearly 300 mass shootings in the US
this year?

~~~
tmaly
kid from Newtown was on meds

~~~
DanBC
That's one person. How about the other 293 (real number, not an exageration)
mass shootings this year?

~~~
matt_s
I think that is the point tmaly was making, there isn't a data source anyone
can use to actually verify or assess the 293 because of HIPAA laws.

------
codeonfire
People should carry weapons with them. Engineers can make smaller, lighter,
safer, and less lethal weapons. It has to have the stopping power of a gun,
capacity to be useful in a long firefight, and it needs to be readily
accessible. The problem is not much is going to match a gun. Schools could
install gun detectors or have armed guards, but they will cheap out and not do
anything. People need to learn to defend themselves. In most mass shootings,
anti-gun people want to blame availability of guns. But what about the ability
to walk into a school with six guns unchallenged?

~~~
stephenr
In all mass shootings pro-gun people blindly ignore that first world countries
with gun control are proof that it's a sound approach.

~~~
miguelrochefort
The vast majority of mass shootings take place in places where guns are not
allowed. This seems to indicate that guns are actually good at preventing mass
shootings.

Finland and Norway have restrictive gun control, yet they're responsible for
far more mass shooting fatalities per capita than the USA. How do you explain
that?

~~~
stephenr
[citation needed]

