I just did a quick AI search with the following request.
“list mass shootings in the last 5 years and the cities and political affiliation of the city”
Quite amazing, though not really, the result of the report. Of the 20+ shown, only one was in a republican voting area. Everything else was democratic. Keep this in mind when talking to those anti-2A folks. They can put the inquiry into their own phone and see that we are correct that mass shootings typically happen in democratic areas of the cities. Forget the “state” level rhetoric that the anti-2A say about state level statistics.
It is a catch 22. They blame us for the guns the criminals have because we have guns. They can’t tell the difference between responsibly, armed Americans, and criminally armed Americans.
I agree Robert. Lately, the anti-2A folks claim that most mass shootings occur in Republican states. Though this may be true, it is still Democratic ran cities that have the shootings. That is the purpose of letting AI, what the left understands and believes, do the reporting for us.
The 5%, vs the 95%? At first glance, I suspect some underlying conclusions worth review, discussing, but also, questions. Good data can withstand scrutiny. Remember our research and statistics courses from school.
We each carry our own biases.
Not to disagree, but where are masses of people more often gathered? In highly populated cities? Are many or most populated cities mostly “blue” anyways? JIMO, might smaller towns have likelier chance of a citizen defender having a CCW (CCL permit)?
A mass shooter might not take upon their mission in a rural or small town. Sadly, they prey on the vulnerable, which is a large gathering.
I’m afraid to try to portray the shooters/assailants as coming from one affiliation, as that could cause an opposite argument as well; When there might not be any boundaries - whereby such crimes know no boundaries but crosses over.
I could be wrong, but from what I’ve read, most such shooters were so disturbed, that their affiliation was the least of their make up, or their affiliation was so confusing in of of itself.
So called gun free zones and very strict gun laws alone cannot stop “all” mass shootings or single shootings. My fear is anti 2A might generate the same AI and try to further restrict our rights, based on the findings.
But still, I think it’s n an interesting topic. Perhaps motivating us to dig deeper as well.
I don’t get into the technicalities of it too much. My focus is on being responsibly armed and saving innocent lives. The way to prevent mass shootings is to love your neighbor as yourself. The way to stop mass shootings is to be responsibly, armed, and keep your head about you.
Remember that AI, big tech and the liberal government are all in bed together. Yep, they may say what we want to hear on one side of the topic, but dig a little deeper and AI will almost always say or imply that guns, their “abundance” and ease of acquisition is the underlying problem.
The purpose of the search was to see the makeup of the city where the shooting took place, not of the individual shooter. Typically the democratic areas have the more stricter gun laws.
I agree, but if AI satisfies the research criteria, it cannot make up information that is not true. Hence, the search was to get a report on the subject line. AI did it well as it did include one republican city, which was not a huge metropolitan area as the other locations were.
I can say it did not pull up “all” of the shootings in the last 5 years, but the ones it did pull up were the bigger ones, and it truthfully reported that democratic cities were involved. Hence, most mass shootings take place in large democratic cities; just so happens that these are in republican states.
Well except for the guns people use for self defense and the defense of others they are the underlying problem/challenge. That is why I carry a gun. It’s when they say the responsibly armed are the problem we run into trouble. Just sayin!
I don’t think that’s an accurate statement. My understanding is that AI’s truths are those it has been programmed to learn by humans. I can think of its research on the history of wars as the result of a query for example. AI’s version of the events would reflect the biases of those who recorded the history, which is an objective truth, not an absolute truth.
Experiments conducted to study the varied recollections of witnesses after observing a single event prove this point.
AI canvasses the internet to find its answers. I agree that individual experiences are not all on the internet and biased statements abound. However, with this simple AI search, it is all fact that AI is just reporting mass shootings based on cities and the political affiliation of that city. This is the point of my posting. Have these anti-2A folks run this search and see how they respond when the answer is clearly not in line with their agenda.
4 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends!
2 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Final Exhortations
4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything,but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
I think there is some credibility when it is AI generated. At least one grad school I know uses AI such as when conducting literature reviews, such as when researching - they target a number of online search engines for professional journals.
Many of those articles are written by professionals with multiple degrees who write articles using AI/search engines of other articles as reference.
To help find efficacy and neutral data, as much as possible. Keeping the human bias to a minimum.
Yes, I agree indeed, I think search results from AI does contribute to good reviews and discussions.
To understand a point of view is to peer beyond the boundaries of our own experiences and beliefs, to catch a glimpse of the world as it appears through someone else’s eyes. This act, simple in concept but profound in execution, lies at the heart of empathy, open-mindedness, and effective communication. It is the bridge between difference and connection, and the foundation upon which society thrives in diversity.
Embracing different perspectives does not mean abandoning one’s own principles or tolerating harm. There are limits: not all views are equally valid, and some may be rooted in misinformation or prejudice. Critical thinking remains essential, as does the courage to stand up for what is right. The goal is understanding, not uncritical acceptances. Understanding a point of view is both an art and a discipline. It demands curiosity, humility, and a willingness to be changed by what we learn. In a world often divided by differences, this practice lights the way toward dialogue, cooperation, and peace. By seeing through another’s eyes, we not only broaden our horizons but enrich the tapestry of human experience itself.
WHO PROGRAMS THE A.I.? That should be the Question. THE SOURCES FOR A.I. are carefully chosen, then fed to the media, then regurgetated & sent over to us “peons”.
You do when you state the query. AI uses information out on the internet and reports what is found. The query I posed is impartial and thus the response is impartial - or at least it would be difficult for any AI to lie about the result since the data pulled is factual in all respects.