Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

CNN: Handgun-firing drone appears legal in video, but FAA, police probe further

China

By China
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

Obviously more then you do

Yawwwwwnnnnn........seriously. This debate is about a gun on a drone and you want to go off on rants about ricin? And I'm the one that doesn't comprehend?! The logic of outlawing drones because they can deliver ricin is absurd because then following that same logic you'd then have a claim to outlaw any ricin delivery device...like an envelope or a ziploc bag.

But I'm the stupid one....gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xameil

Xameil

Posted
Posted

Yawwwwwnnnnn........seriously. This debate is about a gun on a drone and you want to go off on rants about ricin? And I'm the one that doesn't comprehend?! The logic of outlawing drones because they can deliver ricin is absurd because then following that same logic you'd then have a claim to outlaw any ricin delivery device...like an envelope or a ziploc bag.

But I'm the stupid one....gotcha.

Lol never once did I say to ban drones...again you don't pay attention much. All I said wad that a drone could be used to deliver far worse then a gun.

That is where your comprehension is lacking. So stop trying to read between the lines because that's not my style. If i am against something I spell it out since I know there are some who don't comprehend well...or only have article links as their opinion.

I hope they don't ban drones because then it's a short jump to RC helicopters and RC planes.

So..nope not angry or mad..that title still belongs elsewhere ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Yeah, the weak minded need a go-to ad hominem means of attacking me rather than my argument when all else fails.  B)

Your complaint that he doesn't have anything else to say might work better, if you didn't have to remove 3/4 of his post, when you quote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xameil

Xameil

Posted
Posted

Yeah, the weak minded need a go-to ad hominem means of attacking me rather than my argument when all else fails. B)

Lol and your arrogance blinds you since I never said I was talking about you.

But as always you never fail to entertain

Lol wait...you had an argument in your 1 line post about someone being angry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sacase

sacase

Posted
Posted

Here is my take. I don't think that we need new laws for this at all and here is why.

 

1) Murder other crimes that are committed by a weapon are already illegal. No need to criminalize something that is already criminal. If a criminal was going to use a armed drone to commit a crime, its going to be much better than the RC aircraft shown in the video. Which brings up another point. When did RC aircraft turn into drones....oh I know, when the media decided that it would sell clicks. RC aircraft have been around for a while. These are not drones. I don't think people realize how big drones actually are. 

 

2) Just put armed drones under military equipment to prevent the sale to civilians or put them under something that requires a class 3 license. However, what I mean by armed drones is something that has longer range, targeting systems and a plethora of other associated systems. Dumb RC aircraft systems like the one in the video I have no issue with. I don't want to discourage the back yard tinkerer who is doing something "cool" ,those people are harmless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjah

mjah

Posted
Posted

1) Murder other crimes that are committed by a weapon are already illegal. No need to criminalize something that is already criminal. If a criminal was going to use a armed drone to commit a crime, its going to be much better than the RC aircraft shown in the video.

 

Spring guns and deadly-force mantraps are illegal.  ...Should we eliminate laws against them?  The act of recklessly killing or maiming people is already a criminal act -- so should we get rid of those specific laws entirely?

 

Goodbye, vehicular manslaughter laws.  Why invoke the car specifically?  We already have a law for that.  One size fits all.

 

There are many, many laws which that line of reasoning would eliminate from the lawbooks.  There would be no less crime -- just fewer ways to convict criminals according to the specific natures of their crimes and mindsets.  Not good.  

 

Personally, I think those laws should stay on the books.  Wanton and undue endangerment of other people, be it due to either stupidity or cunning, does not become criminal only the moment after someone dies violently or is gravely injured.  It is a criminal act beforehand, and in many cases the means matter.  As with spring guns etc., a specific law reminds and enforces not just the directive "don't kill people," but additionally the specific sentiment "don't even attempt this because in truth you cannot adequately control it."

 

I also disagree that somebody daft enough to attempt a stickup via combo of quadcopter and pistol would necessarily be using the top-quality versions of either device.  Quite the opposite IMO, for a number of reasons.

 

 

2) Just put armed drones under military equipment to prevent the sale to civilians or put them under something that requires a class 3 license. However, what I mean by armed drones is something that has longer range, targeting systems and a plethora of other associated systems. Dumb RC aircraft systems like the one in the video I have no issue with. I don't want to discourage the back yard tinkerer who is doing something "cool" ,those people are harmless. 

 

In your opinion, how harmless did the guy in that exact video turn out to be?   :huh:

 

The systems you describe are already restricted from the public.  The home cooked hand-cannon copter is the topic of discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sacase

sacase

Posted
Posted

 

Spring guns and deadly-force mantraps are illegal.  ...Should we eliminate laws against them?  The act of recklessly killing or maiming people is already a criminal act -- so should we get rid of those specific laws entirely?

 

Goodbye, vehicular manslaughter laws.  Why invoke the car specifically?  We already have a law for that.  One size fits all.

 

There are many, many laws which that line of reasoning would eliminate from the lawbooks.  There would be no less crime -- just fewer ways to convict criminals according to the specific natures of their crimes and mindsets.  Not good.  

 

Personally, I think those laws should stay on the books.  Wanton and undue endangerment of other people, be it due to either stupidity or cunning, does not become criminal only the moment after someone dies violently or is gravely injured.  It is a criminal act beforehand, and in many cases the means matter.  As with spring guns etc., a specific law reminds and enforces not just the directive "don't kill people," but additionally the specific sentiment "don't even attempt this because in truth you cannot adequately control it."

 

I also disagree that somebody daft enough to attempt a stickup via combo of quadcopter and pistol would necessarily be using the top-quality versions of either device.  Quite the opposite IMO, for a number of reasons.

 

 

 

In your opinion, how harmless did the guy in that exact video turn out to be?   :huh:

 

The systems you describe are already restricted from the public.  The home cooked hand-cannon copter is the topic of discussion. 

 

 

Ok once again, how were the two connected. In fact, please tell me how making armed model aircraft illegal would have prevented his legal problems. 

 

Look, if you want to make a law, what do you want it to accomplish? So you murder someone with a drone, what do you want them to get 40 to life instead of 25? Make it a capitol offense? I don't see how making a law against it is going to help anything other than making a new law. 

 

The home-cooked hand cannon (to much destiny huh?) isn't accurate. Looking at how that thing was shooting I would be surprised if it would hit a broad side of the barn.  Handguns are notoriously accurate and shooting from an unstable platform without any way to site your target is a lucky shot at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

Why is there such a thing as a "hate crime" and why does it carry stronger sentences?

 

Every single thing that can be labelled a hate crime is already a law.

So why add the enhancer?

 

Robberies and many other crimes carry stiffer penalties if a gun is used. Does it offer a deterrent? Maybe,, we might not know because it may have caused a crime or ten to not happen in the first place.

 

Most of the mass shootings do not target anyone in particular, just indiscriminate firing into shoppers, movie goers, classrooms. Who needs to have perfect sights to cause mayhem?

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjah

mjah

Posted
Posted

Ok once again, how were the two connected. In fact, please tell me how making armed model aircraft illegal would have prevented his legal problems. 

 

You're having a hard time understanding how the hovering hand-cannon builder's mindset was connected to the criminal behavior he engaged in both before and after cobbling together and flying a wildly unsafe, potentially fatal semiautomatic-weapon-wielding radio control toy?  You're struggling with that?

 

No, you aren't. Tell another one.   ;)

 
I know you see the kind of person who would be inconvenienced by laws against flying bullet-choppers as being "harmless" individuals, and you "don't want to discourage" a "backyard tinkerer."  (Your words, neither misquoted nor recontextualized.)  Well, the one available data point about exactly the subset of backyard tinkerer you invoke kinda obviates that innocent characterization.  I have yet to chat with a fellow tinkerer who started a conversation with, "So I was deploying my mantrap the other day, when it occurred to me...!"  Any tinkerer who would mount real handguns to squirrelly rotor-wing toys is a dangerous fool, and I absolutely do want to discourage him by force of law.  
 
It's the same as with the case of spring-guns, which -- unless I missed something in this thread -- you're seemingly okay with outlawing specifically.  (Or better yet, aren't you?)  What makes the pistol copter different from spring-guns in your mind?  Is it that quadcopters are the cool new thing?  Or is it that a criminal spring-gun builder is somehow even more likely to follow up his harmless tinkering by assaulting cops?
 

 

The home-cooked hand cannon (to much destiny huh?) isn't accurate. Looking at how that thing was shooting I would be surprised if it would hit a broad side of the barn.  Handguns are notoriously accurate and shooting from an unstable platform without any way to site your target is a lucky shot at best. 

 

Yep.  Worse yet, the platform isn't just unstable.  It's occasionally downright uncontrollable, period.

 

Yet ... you don't want it to be illegal.  Okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

It's the same as with the case of spring-guns, which -- unless I missed something in this thread -- you're seemingly okay with outlawing specifically.  (Or better yet, aren't you?)  What makes the pistol copter different from spring-guns in your mind?  Is it that quadcopters are the cool new thing?  Or is it that a criminal spring-gun builder is somehow even more likely to follow up his harmless tinkering by assaulting cops?

I've been wondering why it is that society, as a whole, (not any particular, individual, poster) seems to have no problem with legislating against things which are obviously dangerous, and in fact, ought to be considered proof of intent to kill, merely by possessing them, but will rally to defend this case.

I think it's obvious that it's because this particular IED involves A GUN. And therefore triggers (interesting choice of words, there, isn't it?) the "must oppose any restrictions on guns whatsoever" reflex.

(It also explains why the same, traditional, stupid arguments are used).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjah

mjah

Posted
Posted

A GUN.

 

Bingo.

 

I am still wondering who is willing to go on the record regarding their feelings on, say, laws explicitly covering spring-guns and other fatal, passively-triggered booby traps.  Specifically, to explain why they should all be repealed, why a killer's intent and mindset should be tossed out the window as considerations during prosecution, and why our enforcement tools for dealing with criminally dangerous would-be killer cowards should be deliberately watered down in the process.  Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Assemblyman explains why he pushed law regulating drone use

 

The law prohibits drones from being weaponized. Why?

I know there are people who want to develop that. I have seen UAVs equipped with very, very powerful machine guns on YouTube. It can be done. It’s one of those things people think about when they think of UAVs, so I wanted to be able to say, “This isn’t allowed in our state.” That’s another way, I think, to make people more comfortable with the technology.

Does that apply to law enforcement too?

Correct.

Is there a concern police might weaponize UAVs?

No. I don’t think law enforcement is interested in that. I think law enforcement is interested in officer safety during tactical operations.

Click on the link for the full article
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted
I find the second paragraph suspect.

"Autonomous weapons capable of attacking targets without human intervention don't yet exist, but that hasn't prevented fierce debate about their potential creation and use."

There has to be a hobbyist or classified project involving autonomous weapons. There just has to be. I mean, it's really not that hard to implement. Given the right parts, I could make/program a machine that would detect a human face, target it, and pull a trigger (note to self: create automated paintball turrets; there must be a market for that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Lol did that assemblyman's nose grow when he said that about cops using weaponized UAV's

 

Granted, I've only read the parts that China quoted, but I'm wondering which part of what he said, do you think the politician is lying about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
  • Author
Posted
 

I find the second paragraph suspect.
"Autonomous weapons capable of attacking targets without human intervention don't yet exist, but that hasn't prevented fierce debate about their potential creation and use."

There has to be a hobbyist or classified project involving autonomous weapons. There just has to be. I mean, it's really not that hard to implement. Given the right parts, I could make/program a machine that would detect a human face, target it, and pull a trigger (note to self: create automated paintball turrets; there must be a market for that).

 

I believe it's called SkyNet:

 

 

I am terrified.  How far are we away from this:

 

termHK.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...