Quote of the Day
AI companies can do an enormous amount of public good by empowering chatbots to share evidence-based information on gun safety. They should seek advice from law enforcement and gun violence prevention experts on when to highlight gun safety information to users. In training their models and in governing their behavior after release, AI companies should give greater weight to vetted or evidence-informed information about gun safety practices, firearm laws, and gun violence statistics that comes from credible sources.
A non-exhaustive list of pro-safety chatbot responses includes:
- Informing new firearm owners that storing a firearm unloaded and in a locked storage device is the best way to prevent unintentional child shootings, theft, and unauthorized access to the gun.
- For new firearm owners or users interested in acquiring their first firearm, identifying training courses that cover state and federal firearm laws, safe handling of firearms, and the risks of keeping a gun in the home.
- Informing users of the importance of separating loved ones who are in acute distress from firearms.
- Providing accurate information on extreme risk protection orders to users concerned about a loved one engaging in self-harm or harming others (including state-specific resources explaining where this safety tool exists) and providing accurate information about locations where a person in crisis can temporarily store their firearm out of the home.
- Providing accurate information about firearm-prohibiting court orders and local violence prevention resources to users afraid of being victimized by intimate partner violence or interpersonal gun violence.
- Providing accurate information about home defense alternatives to firearms.
- Ensuring that chatbots share vetted and accurate gun violence statistics and studies on gun violence prevention topics, avoiding dangerous misinformation or hallucinations.
Krystal LoPilato, Sriraman Madhavan, Ruhi Bengali, Olivia Li, Justin Wagner
September 26, 2026
Artificially Assisted Gun Violence: Chatbot Risks and Preventative Steps for Responsible AI Companies | Everytown Research & Policy
Via:
The best response in the thread was from Entropy Generator who uploaded some quotes from the Everytown paper to ChatGTP, asked its opinion, and asked for an image with its quote to post. The result was:
To be fair I read the entire post and there is some good content in there. But it seems they could not help themselves from going too far.
Not sure about the advanced versions as they change too fast for me to keep up with but the crude versions are “trained” by Wikipedia and Reddit which should be sufficiently left-wing for the activists.
Even the “good content” is phrased to maximize fears of guns.
And of course, since they always lie, if you asked them for examples of the “misinformation” they want to “avoid”, they’ll certainly give examples of factually accurate information, and when they say “shared and vetted”, they mean “the lies that they want people to believe”.
AI is as ignorant as most of the Internet addicted public, which is no surprise given the way LLMs are trained.
The important firearm safety rules were taught by Jeff Cooper
Never point your firearm at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until your sites are on the target.
Treat all firearms as loaded until YOU verify they are completely unloaded TWICE!!
Be aware of your target and what’s beyond it. IE: don’t shoot at unidentified objects, etc
Cooper’s corollaries:
Keep firearms out of reach of irresponsible people
Drugs and / or alcohol and firearms don’t mix!
Yeah, right, AI isn’t fair because AI is programmed to reason from evidence including the law, which to someone who disagrees, is putting a thumb on the scale in an unfair way.
Right, because the law totally says, “Get this non-gun self defense item instead”. That was literally one of the things they were wanting it to suggest: “Providing accurate information about home defense alternatives to firearms.”
And that’s without touching on the literal decades of BS the gun control *control freaks* have been very thoroughly proven to engage in. The “evidence” they want included will largely be *FALSE*. That’s their track record.
So yes, they are asking for a partisan thumb on the scale.
And they aren’t even hiding it, you just don’t want to see it. Direct quote:
“They should seek advice from law enforcement and gun violence prevention experts” (*themselves*, of course).
See, I don’t want “gun violence prevention experts” for a very, VERY simple reason: there are definite and EASY ways to reduce “gun violence” that absolutely do NOT reduce “violence” at all (and in fact, make it much more prevalent).
We should not have “gun violence prevention experts” at all. We should have JUST “violence prevention experts”.
The problem is that one of the best ways to prevent “violence” in general is responsible gun ownership (which the dishonest partisans we’re talking about here HATE). Yes, that DOES mean more “gun violence”, but it means less TOTAL violence (by a lot), which is a big win.
Corpses don’t care if they were shot, stabbed, blown up, poisoned, or beaten to death, after all, so we shouldn’t single out one method as “bad” and give the others a pass.
There is ONLY ONE REASON that any political entity should want to get involved in “gun safety policy” and that is for the purpose of eventual citizen disarmament. Don’t be fooled by their occasional attempts at feigning “reasonableness”. It’s only a ruse. If they had the power, they’d send in the Gestapo right now and seize your weapons, and probably arrest you at the same time just for not being on their side or for refusing to worship their idols, and then celebrate the riddance of your sorry ass.
So it works like this. Either the person you’re dealing with is in the know, and personally wants to disarm every American, non LEO, non-military citizen, OR he’s being influenced, either directly or indirectly, by such a person. There are no exceptions.
Therefore, when you find someone in politics who seems absolutely genuine, and seems to have reasonable concerns, and only wants “common sense gun legislation” or some such drivel, understand that, whether that person knows it or not, he’s shilling for the beast, as it were.
This is how the entire world works, as far as political, religious, and social influences go, and it’ll be this way until the end.
Point is, there are only two sides. There’s no in-between. Rush Limbaugh never knew just how correct he was, for example, when he said, as he often did, that a “Moderate” is just a leftist in denial.
Same goes here. Either you accept the second amendment in its full meaning and intent, or you’re an enemy of the second amendment. And that of course follows with all of the Bill of Rights. It’s a single package. You either take the whole thing and uphold and protect it, or you’re an enemy of the whole thing. You can pretend for a while, and fool a few people, including yourself, but you can’t do it forever. Eventually, all the masks, and all the bullshit, and all the excuses, will be exposed for what they are.
Same goes for whether you belong to Christ or the devil. There’s no in-between. You can try to sit on the fence, but eventually the fence will be pulled out from under you.
What’s the difference between an antigun extremist and an antigun moderate?
An antigun extremist wants to exterminate gun owners in order to set up a Communist regime forever.
An antigun moderate wants to exterminate gun owners because he thinks they have small dicks.