31–38 of 38 posts
Personally, I’d love to see robot drones remotely apply lethal force to people breaking into vehicles, but it’ll be a long time before enough red tape will be cut to make that happen.
Do you believe no member of your family has ever experienced poverty and had to steal to survive? What a callous thing to say.
Nearly all theft is from drug addiction and greed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know remote gun operation with servos and scoped cameras are a thing. You can definitely get or make them yourself. They are legal in the USA at least.
This is extremely misleading. In the US, the ATF has stated in past rulings that electronically-fired semi-auto weapons are functionally equivalent to full auto weapons in the case where there is not manual user input per shot. (If there is manual user input per shot, it's not clear from any existing rulings and should be treated as an open question that may get you sent to prison). Now, the ATF just makes up new rul…
https://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/mike-schoby/2007/09/rem...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pro law and order in general (although not necessarily pro law enforcement, to split hairs), but I want it to be dangerous for law enforcement to take a life. I want it to be something they have to carefully consider. I don't want it to be easy and safe. This is akin to adding more and more padding to football players...they tackle harder and harder and injuries pile up. The easier and safer we make it for law en…
>The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use. I think the parent post made a compelling counterclaim. The biggest driver of lethal force is to increase office safety. If someone pulls a gun or looks like they are, the safest solution for the officer is to shoot. Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force. The more officers are at…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a horrifying idea. I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)
For drone pilots, it's rumored they actually have a lot of PTSD. You may be looking at a screen and ignore the situation now, but for healthy humans, killing someone will ALWAYS come back to haunt you, even if it's entirely justified like in self defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe no member of your family has ever experienced poverty and had to steal to survive? What a callous thing to say.
I don't believe anyone has to steal to survive. Food from government services and charity are abundant. Nearly all theft is from drug addiction and greed.
Since it is nearly Christmas, that is an effective way to decrease the surplus population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pro law and order in general (although not necessarily pro law enforcement, to split hairs), but I want it to be dangerous for law enforcement to take a life. I want it to be something they have to carefully consider. I don't want it to be easy and safe. This is akin to adding more and more padding to football players...they tackle harder and harder and injuries pile up. The easier and safer we make it for law en…
>The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use. I think the parent post made a compelling counterclaim. The biggest driver of lethal force is to increase office safety. If someone pulls a gun or looks like they are, the safest solution for the officer is to shoot. Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force. The more officers are at…
By that argument, there's no reason for the robot to have lethal options
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use. I think the parent post made a compelling counterclaim. The biggest driver of lethal force is to increase office safety. If someone pulls a gun or looks like they are, the safest solution for the officer is to shoot. Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force. The more officers are at…
> Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force. By that argument, there's no reason for the robot to have lethal options
There are obviously times where lethal force is appropriate even when excluding officer risk. It just constitutes a minority of the uses.