Right to keep and bear arms - Right to not bear arms

Gun Control in the US is a widely debated subject. It is also a point to note that many individuals want to keep arms and ammunition in their household. A few of them are farmers trying to hunt foxes, recreational hunters shooting deer and moose. This is fine and dandy, but when a 12 year old gets hold of a gun and shoots in a public setting there are deep moral issues raised. I am quite sure no one says that an violent act of shooting innocent school children/teachers is justified. It is also not justified when an assailant robs a store and shoots someone.

It is staggering to see gun deaths in 2013 totaling to 11,419. A visualization is available at http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013. The toll seems to be a question of availability and preparedness. The availability of shotguns is being curtailed with background checks, the NY SAFE act  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act seems to be a step in the right direction. Although these measures are good, their implementation and actual education of the public is even more important.

A few measures include storing guns in cabinets, a steel gun cabinet costs $150 on amazon http://www.amazon.com/Stack-On-GCB-8RTA-Security-Assemble-Storage/dp/B004EYTD4W/ref=pd_sim_sbs_hg_2. This should be mandatory for all gun owners to avoid theft and misuse of the arms. Storing of arms and ammunition should be made separate. I cannot think of a situation needing a loaded ready to fire weapon (this is not james bond). A law against misuse of guns should be applied to the gun owner as well as the assailant (the NY SAFE act has some provisions in this direction).

I am a person who will probably never own a firearm. I feel the right to bear arms in the US makes me vulnerable to being shot. I would argue there is a need to put into law "a right to NOT bear arms" or "be protected against armed assailants" which entails people not bearing arms to be protected. This means knowing the folks with gums in the community. This means when they are on vacation (without their guns), they store the guns in a safe place. Another small addition would be to design educations programs and videos mandatory to a gun owner. A drivers license involves untoward scenarios and planning for action, a similar test needs to be conducted for ownership of weapons.

Safety is a big issue and passing the buck will do no good.

Terminating should be an option

I think it is in human nature to plan and control, I want to know what happens next. It maybe the Bayesian brain, learning to adapt to errors in expectation. Adapting to a changing world and changing your viewpoint is therefore harder than living in an personally ideal world (of course, the ideal world is very personal). 

How do I adjust to these errors in expectation and judgement?  I think the answer lies in understanding that all models are wrong and not every variable and parameter can be accounted for. Sometimes your model is correct but the data doesn't fit, other times the data fits but the model is irrational and nonsensical. Understanding these subtle differences and variations will help with adapting the Bayesian brain and optimizing the search. 

While this sounds rosy and rational there are curve balls you need to watch out for. Sometimes the data is non-linear to such an extent that there is no fit. There maybe hidden variables unaccounted for or it is the single outlier that throws any rational model off its trajectory. In such cases, terminating the search should be an option. If you cannot optimize, accept defeat and blame the data. This is what any good algorithm would do. Its never the algorithm its always the data!!