Gun "Debate"...More Like Adult Shouting Contest

There are a handful of issues in the United States that have dilapidated into petty skirmishes akin to children bickering on the school yard. The gun debate follows this line of thought. Rarely have I witnessed such asinine perspectives. Both sides have flooded the nation with their propaganda, and neither seem willing to find common ground. This theme, unfortunately, is all to common throughout today's polarized society.

First and foremost, my biggest issue with this topic is the preconceived notion that you are either completely for or against guns. Follow the media and the politicians to see the absolutism in full effect. If you bring up gun control, then you are automatically anti-Second Amendment. If you like guns, then you are some nut who's a danger to society. No one thinks grey. It's all black and white. You cannot create an honest and open debate if you automatically assume what your opponents are thinking. 

Won't someone think of the children.

Fueling this trend is the propaganda. Gun control advocates never hesitate to throw victims of violence to the forefront of their message. President Obama surrounded himself with those effected by the Sandy Hook shooting while pushing for new legislation. Michael Bloomberg, and the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, do the same ad after ad. Rarely do these statements dig deep into the issue. It is an attempt to blind the viewer with emotion. This emotional trap, however, is the only thing that truly annoys me from the pro gun control side.

Leading the opposition is the ever powerful NRA. This organization is loaded with cash, caters to a small percentage of the populace, and flexes their political muscle frequently. They are not shy about their position, and openly threaten politicians who disagree. They even have a rating system to indicate which leaders are fighting their battles that directly determines how much money the NRA contributes to future campaigns. Often spokesmen for the organization mock those who oppose their policies because they have the power to put pro gun advocates into government. The NRA's influence and power gives it the ability to push arguments that would sink faster then an anvil in an academic debate.


Pro gun groups love to blame everything but the weapon for national atrocities. Videogames, Hollywood, mental health, and more are the culprits. I'm not denying that some of these contribute to violence in our society. Mental health in particular seems to be a huge issue as many of the recent mass shootings indicate. Unfortunately, the vast availability of firearms enable these ill individuals, if they so desire, to easily cause greater damage. This topic highlights the problems with our current mental health system in addition to the dangers of having millions of guns across the country.

The other culprits seem at best indirectly involved with gun violence. Yes movies and videogames glorify guns, are incredibly violent, and can influence your behavior to a degree. Yet the studies in favor of the NRA's thesis have been widely debunked. Currently there's no direct link between these medians and gun violence.

The advocates in favor of firearms call foul on these critiques  They claim ideas counter to their own are funded by the giant coffers of the entertainment industry, and can't be trusted. There are two wealthy sides fighting to cover their own assets. Who are you going to believe? The Hollywood millionaires, or the NRA? Both sides glorifies the use of guns. Only one side produces the actual product, and protects ownership.

Wayne LaPierre

Another talking point for the NRA is arming more people. After Sandy Hook their CEO, Wayne LaPierre, suggested arming teachers. His classic line of late is, "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun. Is a good guy with a gun." Let's roll with this idea. 

Who exactly is this good guy? A cop? Teacher? Perhaps an armed civilian? Which would you prefer in a public shootout? Currently most people don't have to go through the proper training necessary to use a gun in a crisis. This has the potential to be extremely dangerous. Friendly fire is no joke. Just ask a veteran. 

To prevent a populace of untrained armed civilians perhaps we should take a page from Israel. Make everyone serve in the National Guard for two years. This will provide the needed training, and having people serve in the military rings truer to the full text of the Second Amendment. 

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.

When the next mad men goes on a shooting spree we can respond with a nation of soldiers. We could even give everyone a gun when they leave the military. Thus ensuring the safety of our armed nation. 

Obviously not everyone is going to want to sign up for mandatory service in the National Guard. This is only a suggestion to ensure gun owners are able to act accordingly during a crisis. I'm positive that other solutions exist. Just as I'm positive untrained gun owners can be just as dangerous as the criminals they are trying to stop.

Probably the most asinine argument put worth by firearm advocates is the need to resist a tyrannical government. When I first heard this I thought it was a bad joke. Next you'll be hearing justification for gun ownership because of the pending zombie apocalypse. The United States spends more money on the military then the next twelve nations combined. Shotguns and hunting rifles won't do jack shit against fighter jets, helicopters, and tanks. Look at the incident in Waco, Texas if you want a semi-recent example of how futile it would be to fight the US armed forces.


In closing I will bring up one last topic of interest--Australia. In 1996 the government passed the National Agreement on Firearms. Many of the rules can be found in America with a few exceptions. Self-defense, for example, is not an acceptable reason for issuing a license to buy a gun. Also the types of guns you can own are very strict, and the government issued a buy back program for banned weapons. The results of this legislation is as controversial as any topic related to gun violence, but one statistic stands out to me. Australia has had zero mass shootings since the law has gone into effect. 

Can we eliminate all gun violence in America? No. Can we stop mass shootings? According to

Australia the answer is yes. This is a complicated issue that has no silver bullet solution. The problem is we won't reach a solution at all if we don't try anything, and are generally unwilling to work together on this topic. 

The examples above are just a taste of the whole argument. There's a lot more to this then what's been written in one blog post. I didn't go into detail about any of the recent legislation put forth to reduce the legal size of clips, increase background checks, and ban assault weapons. I'm not entirely sure more legislation is needed on gun control, and would rather focus on enforcing and/or reanalyzing the current laws. Also, I didn't provide a comprehensive pro/con list. I only mentioned topics I found interesting or asinine.

The Sixteen Percent

Registered voters in the city of Los Angeles comes to 1.8 million. Voter turnout for the most recent March 5th, 2013, election was 16%. That's 288,000 people that have made major decisions that effect your future.* Even if the numbers are off by a few thousand, or even hundreds of thousands, I can confidently proclaim my utter disappointment with non-voting Angelenos.

This election will directly effect my neighbors lives. Top positions were up for grabs in this city ranging from mayor and city council candidates to the board of education. If you have a child in a public school. If you drive on a street with pot holes. If you live in a city where you question development projects and the allocation of money. If you complain about your home town in anyway, and didn't vote, then please take a look in the mirror before you start bitching to the rest of us.

How difficult is voting? Mail in ballots ensures even the laziest of voters can do their civic duty. Polling places are abundant, and open for thirteen hours on election day. News can be obtained from a variety of sources. Voting guides are sent to all who are registered. That's not even taking into account the barrage of advertisement accomplished by the candidates.

Los Angeles mayor candidates: Only two remain. 

Local politics have a greater impact on your day-to-day lives then anyone in Washington. Fire. Police. Medical emergency response. Water and power. Construction. Education.** These are civic services we all see or use frequently. Why wouldn't you want a say in how they operate, and vote for the local leaders of these organizations?

Personally I think it's pretty pathetic given how important this city is to the nation and the world at large. Perhaps we're too cool for school. Too hip for politics. Or maybe we just don't give a fuck. Either way this city has numerous problems, and the leaders of tomorrow have been dictated by 16% of the voting populace. Democracy for the few at the expense of the many.***




*Throughout this post the use of "you," "your,", and "we," refer to registered voters in the city of Los Angeles.

**From NPR: "The results are worse for the two educational races -- LAUSD and L.A. Community College District -- the turnout there hovered in the 6 to 7 percent range."

***Almost feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy for the conspiracy minded individual. 

Really Rad Robots

Robots are a key component to modern life. Drones, and other unmanned vehicles, are used in military operations to help ensure friendly causalities remain low. Factories of all shapes and sizes rely on a cornucopia of automated machines to handle tasks previously done by humans. Entertainers for decades have used fully mechanical creations in a variety of medians. The relationship between robots and humans will continue to develop in new and exciting ways. Two of the more promising advances involve health care and emergency response.

The Atlantic (March 2013), featured an article "The Robot Will See You Now" by Jonathan Cohn. In it he highlights some of the technology awaiting us in the doctor's office of tomorrow. My favorite quote provides a distinct analogy any nerd can understand. "Think Dr. McCoy using his tricorder to diagnose a phaser injury on Star Trek, not the droid fitting Luke Skywalker with a robotic hand in Star Wars."

In place of a tricorder imagine Watson. No. Not the sidekick of some British detective. The IBM super computer that decimated the best Jeopardy minds our kind could muster. Instead of taking all of Trebek's money, Watson will be helping medical professionals diagnose patients.

Now some of my readers may be thinking that Watson is not a robot. To a certain extent this is correct. Watson does not have physical capabilities like a human. Yet the ability to learn from past experiences makes this machine exceptional. The tech behind Watson will also be invaluable for future robotic breakthroughs. What good is hardware without the software to run it?

Watson can process up to sixty million pages of text per second. Medical literature produces up to thirty-thousand articles a month. Adding to the complexity is the source material. Doctors across the globe, and throughout history share their knowledge through their own unique business practices. The information is diverse and vast. Cohn writes, "In medicine, it consists of physician notes dictated into medical records, long-winded sentences published in academic journals, and raw numbers stored online by public-health departments."

It doesn't take a genius to realize the impossibility of any medical professional assimilating all the data in his or her profession. With Watson they can utilize its processing power to quickly analyze relevant information, and hopefully boost the accuracy of the diagnosis. Remember that Watson learns from past mistakes, which means it's just a matter of time and practice before improvements take hold.* Tools like this can also help doctors think outside their field of expertise, and avoid professional tunnel vision.

Watson is not the only medical tech being explored around the world. The demand for doctors far out weighs the supply, and robots may be the answer. Obviously certain tasks will always need the human touch, but ask yourself something. If you needed immediate medical care, and the only option was a medical robot, then would you really turn down the help.

"In Brazil and India, machines are already starting to do primary care, because there's no labor to do it," says Robert Kocher, an internist, a veteran of McKinsey consulting, and a former adviser to the Obama administration. 

Again this isn't a Star Wars scenario with a fully automated labor force at your local hospital. Humans will have their place in medical practice, but you may see more technicians on future check ups. Especially in parts of the world where doctors are few and far between.

The other exciting development in robotics focuses on emergency response. Popular Science (February 2013) has an article titled, "How to Build a Hero," that highlights some of the more recent robotic advancements.

In every major disaster first responders face dangerous scenarios to save the lives of others. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is working to change the playing field. In October of last year the Robotics Challenge began offering a two-million dollar prize for the team that prevails in two competitions. The first is in December of this year, and the second is in 2014.

One group comprises of Virginia Tech's Robotics and Mechanics Laboratory, the University of Pennsylvania,  and two commercial robotics firms. Prototype after prototype will hopefully lead to the development of what will be called THOR, or Tactical Hazardous Operations Robot. (This field sure loves their acronyms.) Simultaneously the group is working on SAFFiR--Shipboard Autonomous Fire Fighting Robot--for the Office of Naval Research.

The two projects over lap significantly. The researched used for THOR can, and will be, applied to SAFFiR. Both require robots that can navigate in poor visibility, on unstable ground, and neutralize hazards like fire or radiation leaks. The old proverb, however, rings true. You have to learn to crawl before you can run. The teams primary concern at the moment is mastering mobility, and improving overall speed. This is easier said then done.

The human body stills kicks the lug nuts off any robot today. Nicolaus Radford, deputy project manager for NASA's Robonaut project, explains.

Replicating our own triumphant, two-legged, two-armed physiology with steel and lithium-ion batteries is difficult to do. Humans are fifteen times more energy-efficient at walking than the best humanoid robots, and human fat stores energy at thirty times the density of batteries. 

The quote says it all. Robots consume more energy in addition to being slower and less stable. So don't freak out robot apocalypse aficionados. We are a long ways off from Terminators, or the anthropomorphic robots seen in I-Robot.

Radford's point is also a driving force behind non-humanoid robotic designs. One of the more famous example is Boston Dynamics' BigDog system (see video). There is also NASA's Robosimian that utilizes four general purpose limbs. Brett Kennedy of NASA argues, "...robots don't have to be restrained by our evolution." Having the machine perform properly under dangerous conditions is the priority. Can something akin to a spider bot navigate a power plant better then a humanoid? We shall see as the DARPA Robotic competition unfolds.

Developments in robotics will continue to revolutionize our modern society. More lives will be saved during natural disasters. Robots can literally go where no one has gone before. More patients will get treatment, and medical professionals will have tools utilizing some of the most advance artificial intelligence to date. Watson, THOR, SAFFiR, and BigDog are just the next step in this greater journey that started decades ago, and I'm thrilled that their are groups of passionate intelligent people pushing all of us along.


Sources: Popular Science, February 2013 & The Atlantic, March 2013






*Watson, however awesome, cannot satisfy the demands of global health care alone. It needs help. One of the major support tech groups are smart phones. This seems like a no brainer. More and more people are walking around with powerful cell phones that can be used to track a variety of medical data. Similar to a credit card reader, attachments can be used to measure blood pressure, insulin levels, and maybe even STDs. (Although having to urinate near my touch screen seems unpleasant at best.) Instead  receiving vague answers from patients like--"I feel OK, I guess."--professionals can review hard data. Amazing.