Give up my guns?

[piezoe]

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/pol...links-between-mental-health-violent-behavior/

https://gizmodo.com/the-plan-to-use-fitbit-data-to-stop-mass-shootings-is-o-1837710691

Last week, the Washington Post reported that the White House had been briefed on a plan to create an agency called HARPA, a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA. Among other initiatives, this new agency would reportedly collect volunteer data from a suite of smart devices, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echos, and Google Homes in order to identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act.” The project would then use artificial intelligence to create a “sensor suite” to flag mental changes that make violence more likely.

According to the Post, the HARPA proposal was discussed with senior White House officials as early as June 2017, but has “gained momentum” after the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The latest version of the plan, reportedly submitted to the Trump administration this month, outlined the biometric project called “SAFE HOME,” an acronym for “Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes.” A source told the newspaper that every time HARPA has been discussed in the White House “even up to the presidential level, it’s been very well-received.”

A copy of the plan obtained by the Post characterizes HARPA as pursuing “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence” and claims that “a multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis.” That’s a lot of vague buzzwords, but the general idea is clear: collect a wealth of personal data in order to flag mental status changes in individuals and determine whether those changes can predict mass violence. It’s an approach that strikes George David Annas, deputy director of the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship Program at SUNY Upstate Medical University, as ridiculous.

“The proposed data collection goes beyond absurdity when they mention the desire to collect FitBit data,” Annas told Gizmodo. “I am unaware of any study linking walking too much and committing mass murder. As for the other technologies, what are these people expecting? ‘Alexa, tell me the best way to kill a lot of people really quickly’? Really?”

Thanks for posting this. It reveals the utter depravity of mental process in our White House. It defies logic to blame gun violence on mental illness when the incidence of mental illness is quite similar to ours throughout the other nations we regularly compare ourselves to. Yet these other nations experience only a tiny fraction of the gun violence that we do. And they are all nations where private citizens may own guns!

 

[Tsing Tao]

Actually i wasn't parroting a media surface, I was parroting an official definition in New Zealand. Your false logic has made me distrust you. The notion that a person has to understand much of anything about the workings of firearms to understand the statistics of gun violence, and the conclusions to be drawn from those statistics, is flawed.

I've distrusted your lines of BS since you started posting on this site.

My first firearm was a break-barrel White Powder Wonder shotgun. I used it to hunt ducks as a kid long before you were born. I subsequently owned a Remington model 33 and a Winchester hex barreled 22 long rifle with a walnut stock and beautiful peep sight. That was a gorgeous gun. I never owned a semiautomatic gun of any sort, nor do I have any interest in such. My interest in guns is strictly from a sportsman's viewpoint. I have zero interest in using them to kill people. My dad and uncles were all sportsmen and owned shotguns and rifles. They did not own semiautomatic weapons. My dad in fact finished first in many skeet shooting competitions. He did not own an AK-47. Would that disqualify him from knowing anything about gun violence or guns?

If you have a constructive comment re my post #795 above I would be delighted to read it.

So given your supposed vast knowledge of firearms, I would think it would be easy to clearly describe what is an "assault weapon" or "military style" firearm without relying on other ambiguous descriptions crafted in other political narratives and jurisdictions.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Unreal, they know not of what they speak but they just keep talking.

The term "assault weapon", at least to a veteran, implies a lightweight carbine rifle that fires a relatively small caliber with relatively large ammo capacity. Carbine means short. Yeah even an AK-47 round is regarded as a relatively small round at 7.62 x 39mm. These weapons generally have a high rate-of-fire.

Weapons falling into this category used to be employed by the military for close work, urban stuff etc but came to be more highly regarded for the light weight of the weapon and the light weight of the ammunition and so weapons like the M-16 came into much wider use.

And that is it.

That is the total actual definition of an assault weapon to anyone who knows. A folding stock does not make something an assault weapon. Mag capacity does not make something an assault weapon. A flash suppressor does not make something an assault weapon.

I don't like them and I've got an expert marksmanship decoration with the M-16. Got no use for them.

Instead I like what is called a Main Battle Weapon. You can buy the civilian variant of the M-14 (the Springfield M1A) which has never been called an assault weapon and has never been banned and just avoid the whole thing. It shoots through cinderblock and has incredible range. Its considered just a long rifle. Problem solved.

Excellent post. This is why, when asked to describe an assault weapon, the folks on the left will curl up and obfuscate any chance they get. But oh yeah, Piezoe is a supposed "libertarian". What a laugh riot.

 

[piezoe]

Excellent post. This is why, when asked to describe an assault weapon, the folks on the left will curl up and obfuscate any chance they get. But oh yeah, Piezoe is a supposed "libertarian". What a laugh riot.

Actually you are both barking up the wrong tree. As a practical matter you should want legislation to be constructed with a definition that is not so specific that it could easily be got round by clever individuals.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Actually you are both barking up the wrong tree. As a practical matter you should want legislation to be constructed with a definition that is not so specific that it could easily be got round by clever individuals.

Spoken like a true Liberal. No, I don't want legislation that is worded so people can get around it. I want legislation that solves problems.

And so should you.

 

[NeoTrader]

As a practical matter you should want legislation to be constructed with a definition that is not so specific that it could easily be got round by clever individuals.

Like the ones campaigning on confiscating people's firearms... That would indeed be dangerous, since they would use that loose definition to extend that to different types of guns, even the ones supposedly not included in the regulation.

 

[elderado]

 

[piezoe]

Like the ones campaigning on confiscating people's firearms... That would indeed be dangerous, since they would use that loose definition to extend that to different types of guns, even the ones supposedly not included in the regulation.

Confiscating? The only serious proposals I am aware of involve a buy back program and making sale of "assault weapons," what New Zealand and I call "military style," illegal. Do you have a link? I am most definitely oppose to confiscation! That would violate our U.S. constitution, I believe.

 

[NeoTrader]

Confiscating? The only serious proposals I am aware of involve a buy back program and making sale of "assault weapons," what New Zealand and I call "military style," illegal. Do you have a link? I am most definitely oppose to confiscation! That would violate our U.S. constitution, I believe.

Nice attempt at deflection... Caught red handed in your own bullshit argument about the "advantages of not so specific laws", which I showed could work both ways.
But I'm not going to get caught in your already known M.O. of talking in circles while(unsuccessfully) trying to sound smart.

You're a guy that self describes as "libertarian" and supports almost every left leaning policy there is and every kind of government intervention possible for fuck's sake... You're either a troll, or crazy or you have no idea what libertarian means... I can't know which one it is and I sincerely don't give a damn... All I wanted to do is expose how your stupid argument works both ways...

Now you can go on and continue writing tons of gibberish...

 

[Tsing Tao]

Democratic candidates asked to define an assault weapon: