I thought it was allowed from what I was told, but looking it up it requires a firearms business license.

Can it launch a 40mm... "potato"?

My money's on "poorly"

My guess, and confirmed by another comment, is that the ai only flags posts for review. Then the moderators have to manually check the post.

Honestly, it's not a terrible use of AI in my opinion. Considering posts practically never change, they really only have to scan each post once. The mod can either flag it as safe or remove it. They are probably just running image and text pattern recognition on previously banned posts to flag newly submitted posts.

it would probably continue with knives or homemade bombs or something instead, at least for a while.

which would be an improvement. knives cause less damage and bombs require knowledge to gather materials and build which 1) increases the barrier to entry and 2) gives authorities time to detect the activity and prevent the act.

deleted

counting by household is blatantly spinning the data to ignore households with more than one gun. why should we do that? even just households with two guns are not crazy outliers and vastly change the comparison.

also the US cannot require gun registration so we really have no idea how many guns are actually out there. only about 1 million guns are registered. 400 million seems to be the low estimate but could even be over 500 million. on the other hand the vast majority of finland’s firearms are registered.

also what kind of guns are we talking about? iirc Finns get a standard issue rifle for military service. Handguns are more often used in crime (and probably suicide).

It's made from PVC, so whatever a 2" potato would be. 52mm?

Because the argument is that guns cause violent crime (specifically mass shootings) and the example of Finland shows that not to be the case. Then if guns don’t cause violent crime what is it?

The most likely explanation to me is that there is a confounder: an unknown which causes both the acquisition of (one or more) guns and the commission of crimes. A hidden criminality element which Finland seems to lack.

The alternative explanation is that the U.S. is a broken society (in one or more ways) and that this leads people to feel the desire to lash out in extremely violent ways. The availability of guns in the US offers them an easy option for inflicting mass casualties but the recent example of Michigan shows that even without a gun there is still the opportunity for mayhem.

I don't need the scrutiny on me

Officer, this guy right here. Lol

As long as the potato isn't made of metal and uses gunpowder to propel it, sure.

image recognition AI is notoriously bad at context, so it'll probably flag half the nerf blasters as "potential weapons" and require human review anyway lol

No, I actually meant a potato.

The first half of your comment I agree with completely.

And even the second half I think is basically accurate, but it may also miss the point.

but even if you magically disappeared every gun in the country, the problems that mess people up so bad they get violent would remain.

So yeah, I think people would still get violent, for sure. The question is, how many people can they hurt when that happens? I mean, I recognize the impossibility of this, but if you could magically disappear every gun in the country, we would pretty quickly see a very different society begin to emerge. For starters, there would be much less murder across the board, less gang violence, less domestic violence, fewer murders by cops, no school shooting, probably even fewer suicides. It wouldn't fix everything, but it would definitely have a huge impact.

But there would be additional effects too... The relationship between cops and the general public would begin to change drastically. There would be much less anger toward the police and the police would have fewer reasons to fear the public. The current cop policy of shoot first if you feel threatened is both completely unacceptable and simultaneously totally rational (if they assume anyone could have a gun). But without guns in people's hands, (including the cops') we'd have a completely different dynamic in so many otherwise dangerous situations.

All that said, you're right that economic inequity will always lead to social interest and violence. So like I said, this wouldn't solve everything. But on the other hand, getting rid of guns entirely wouldn't be a bad way to go, it would certainly heal more than it would hurt.

Now compare the gun violence rate of both of those countries with the gun violence rate of somewhere that bans guns.

Maybe we'll see that Finland has a route to further reduce their gun violence.

Having looked into it a bit, I was essentially right. England mostly bans gun ownership, their gun violence rate is half that of Finland's. In Japan, they have even tighter controls on firearms, the gun violence rate there is 30 times lower than Finland's.

Removing guns from the situation absolutely seems makes a huge measurable difference. If you believe math.

Finally someone using new tech tools in a sensible and useful way .