Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 24, 2017, 08:12:15 PM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  General Category
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  Gun Laws don't work!
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 Print
Author Topic: Gun Laws don't work!  (Read 115255 times)
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,587



WWW
« Reply #380 on: November 12, 2017, 07:50:37 PM »

You must have some rationale for believing this. I donít think the TX shooting was by some political leftist. Just a mad man.  What makes you think the Las Vegas shooting wasnít done by a guy who was rich and out of touch with reality. I think he was just living in a fantasy world where he could do whatever he wants. I figure his shooting spree was just his idea of having fun. Like a thrill seeker. He didnít need a job and probably lived a cushy life. He probably got the idea to do this from playing too much GTA and thought to himself ďWouldnít it be cool to try this in real life?.Ē Thatís my theory based on his lifestyle.

The prevailing rumor that was being discussed within 48-72 hours of the shooting was from people supposedly within the LVPD.  The guy was a government front man running guns to ISIS and ISIS affiliated groups much the way Fast And Furious did to Cartels south of the border.  His contacts found out who he really was and at the meeting whacked him, did the shooting to put it on him, and then left in the confusion. 

True?  I dunno.  Does it make sense?  It does explain some of the questions, such as why he suddenly sent his GF out of the country with enough cash to go to ground if she needed as well as why the hard drive was removed from his laptop and hasn't been found.  It also makes it very difficult for the government to say who really did it because they can't say, "We were running guns to the bad guys to track where they went and things went sideways and, um, yeah...sorry all of you got shot and killed or wounded."

Could this all be just a colossal screw-up by LE involved in the investigation?  Certainly.  But there are enough odd happenings and questions that make me think that rather than incompetence as the reason, it's orchestrated.

Why was the guard allowed to leave the country?
Why was there an armed guard at the guard's house?
What is the exact citizenship status of the guard?
Why wasn't the guard on record with the state?
Why did the guard finally "surface" on Ellen?

Too many questions.
Logged

Kurt
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,567


« Reply #381 on: November 13, 2017, 01:34:03 AM »

I wouldít assume much about the SSRIs. Millions of people take them without incident.

Apparently a very high percentage of those who commit (or attempt) the mass murders have been on SSRI's. It's possible that they're on them because of the mental issues that eventually led to them going out with a bang and taking others with them, or if they led to that final exit through their effects. Either way, there are two things we do see: There is definite correlation (not necessarily causation) with these events, and when compared to the general population which is taking them, they are definitely low percentage edge cases.

Do you know how many people in this country are prescribed SSRIs? Trying to draw a link between SSRI usage because many shooters are on them is like trying to draw a link between brown hair because many shooters happen to have brown hair.

I'm definitely curious about what actual role they're playing so that we can know what appropriate measures to take to prevent future tragedies. (Maximum medication rates/amounts, necessary genetic testing, required psych evaluations, etc.)

Quote
The TX shooter was just a sick, violent bad guy. He just sounds evil based on what he did.

Just attempting what he did definitely marks him as evil. But he is unusual in that normally such people leave some indication of what motivated them to try to kill so many people; a rambling rant of someone indicating some kind of psychosis, or social media posts indicating significant anger at x, or a suicide note, or involvement with the "Religion of Peace Pieces", or something. (The Texas ******** last weekend had the kind of known tendencies and precursors that I'm talking about.) There were other oddities about that particular case that are still unexplained.

As far as what I've read, the Texas shooter has had numerous violent actions in his history, including talking about killing his inlaws, and cracking the skull of his step-son. This shooting is no surprise to anyone who was spoken about him.  Any conspiracy involving left-wing ideologues will have to ignore this case.

But those oddities only apply to one specific case. Most of the rest have similarities that's we've come to expect. I personally don't see anything that screams "conspiracy" to me. Nothing, that is, except for the convenient timing relative to the Hearing Protection Act about to come up to a vote, and the same with the SHARE act. And this latest shooting came just after Schumer backed away from gun control and suggested that other Democrats do too. That encouraged me to think that it was getting to be time to put the SHARE act back on the docket. It is that timing, and only that timing, that has me wondering if there's more than simple happenstance at play.

Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,567


« Reply #382 on: November 13, 2017, 01:47:05 AM »

You must have some rationale for believing this. I donít think the TX shooting was by some political leftist. Just a mad man.  What makes you think the Las Vegas shooting wasnít done by a guy who was rich and out of touch with reality. I think he was just living in a fantasy world where he could do whatever he wants. I figure his shooting spree was just his idea of having fun. Like a thrill seeker. He didnít need a job and probably lived a cushy life. He probably got the idea to do this from playing too much GTA and thought to himself ďWouldnít it be cool to try this in real life?.Ē Thatís my theory based on his lifestyle.

The prevailing rumor that was being discussed within 48-72 hours of the shooting was from people supposedly within the LVPD.  The guy was a government front man running guns to ISIS and ISIS affiliated groups much the way Fast And Furious did to Cartels south of the border.  His contacts found out who he really was and at the meeting whacked him, did the shooting to put it on him, and then left in the confusion. 

True?  I dunno.  Does it make sense?  It does explain some of the questions, such as why he suddenly sent his GF out of the country with enough cash to go to ground if she needed as well as why the hard drive was removed from his laptop and hasn't been found.  It also makes it very difficult for the government to say who really did it because they can't say, "We were running guns to the bad guys to track where they went and things went sideways and, um, yeah...sorry all of you got shot and killed or wounded."

Could this all be just a colossal screw-up by LE involved in the investigation?  Certainly.  But there are enough odd happenings and questions that make me think that rather than incompetence as the reason, it's orchestrated.

Why was the guard allowed to leave the country?
Why was there an armed guard at the guard's house?
What is the exact citizenship status of the guard?
Why wasn't the guard on record with the state?
Why did the guard finally "surface" on Ellen?

Too many questions.

The top part of your post is interesting. And if that happened, it would resolve those questions. But it sounds too James Bondish to me. It's an attractive theory just because humans are naturally inclined to rich story telling. Something about intense drama and highly involved plot structures are attractive to the human brain, lol.  But the thing about conspiracy theories is that due to the loose nature of how they are formed, they are made to form-fit unsolved questions. It's like taking soft clay and pressing it onto a mold. When your imagination runs free, you can create whatever story that neatly fits any and all manner of mysteries.

I don't know what you mean by the guard stuff though. I must have not have heard about that.

Either way, I think someone needs to figure out a way to prevent these massacres from happening. Maybe install armed security at public events. Or atleast have gunshot detectors installed in many public places. Or even install bulletproof doors and panels on public buildings so that occupants can shield themselves once a shooting starts happening. I don't know; I'm just brainstorming here.
Logged
EODBombtechnician
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36



« Reply #383 on: November 13, 2017, 02:44:39 AM »

Damn Short-N-Sassy - I guess this thread got the "derail" treatment as well.
Logged
EWTHeckman
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #384 on: November 13, 2017, 09:23:11 AM »

Frostburg,

Sorry, I meant the case with the oddities was the LV shooter, not the one in TX. The TX shooter was the more normal one. Somehow I was thinking as if you wrote that the LV shooter was evil. If I hadnít gotten that wrong I would have properly specified which one I was talking about.

In my book, both are fully evil.

As for the SSRIís, please read what I wrote a little more carefully.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,567


« Reply #385 on: November 13, 2017, 02:37:39 PM »

Hmm. I was thinking about solutions to mass shootings.

My proposal is two fold:  

First off, it might be a good idea to set up delineated safety zones in public areas with ballistic glass/walls/panels.  They would not serve as permanent places of refuge during shootings, but a place where people can quickly run/dive for cover before planning their escape or counter attack. People likely panic or freeze because they don't know what to do or which direction to run once they are getting shot at. Having hardened points of cover would help minimize life loss if they could quickly scramble to bulletproof areas.  There should be more than one location in case the shooter tries to cut people off from one.

The second idea is rapid interdiction of the shooter. It is not always feasible to have trained and armed guards everywhere, and not everyone is capable of defending themselves. I was thinking of Active Shooter Response Drones paired with gunshot detectors throughout public places.  These would be drones that are housed in various locations of a city, waiting on the launch pad to be launched the instant the first shot is registered by the gunshot detectors.  Gunshot detectors placed throughout a city would detect gunfire, the drone would automatically launch at high speed into the air above the city. Once the drone is launched, a computer calculates its flight path, and it is flown to the area of gunshots. A trained LEO would be on call to manage and help guide the drone, and help precisely guide its flight path once the drone is in visual contact with the area of the shooting. All drones have advanced imaging equipment, so the LEO should be able to see everything. The drone would be armed with .308 or .50 caliber guns which would be able to accurately target shooters automatically via laser ranging tech, the same as is used in modern tanks. The drone would also be armed with other tools such as less lethal weaponry and smoke/CS grenades to use against a shooter. The LEO manning the drone would determine which weaponry to fire, as well as giving the drone the all-clear take the shot. The actual targeting and firing would be controlled by the drone. I would imagine that a drone that is launched from within, even a large city, would be able to reach an area of a shooting within seconds due to the fact that it is flying way up in the air.  I'd randomly guess that the drone could be above the shooter within 30 seconds to a minute of the first shot fired. The LEO would be on call and positioned at the computer within the 911 dispatch office.

I know lots of people chafe at the thought of drones being used above American cities, but these would not be spy drones or drones that do surveillance for Federal Agencies. Rather, they would be specifically used by local law enforcement for the explicit use to deal with active shooters. They should be brightly colored hunter florescent orange so they are clearly visible from the ground. They are not there to stealthily assassinate anyone, but are rather a law enforcement tool to deal with shooters. They can even be equipped with loud speakers/PA systems to tell people to clear the area, or warn the shooter to "drop their weapon and put their hands up."

I know people will cite cost of these drones as a concern. They will probably each cost several million each. That's honestly nothing. DNR uses drones to watch wildlife patterns as well as catch poachers, perform search and rescue, and detect wildfires.  Maryland state police uses helicopters for medical evacuations that has individual pieces of equipment that cost several million dollars. That's nothing to the govt.

What do you guys think?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 02:45:31 PM by Frostburg » Logged
Verfed
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50



« Reply #386 on: November 13, 2017, 04:33:57 PM »

I was thinking of Active Shooter Response Drones paired with gunshot detectors throughout public places.  These would be drones that are housed in various locations of a city, waiting on the launch pad to be launched the instant the first shot is registered by the gunshot detectors.  Gunshot detectors placed throughout a city would detect gunfire, the drone would automatically launch at high speed into the air above the city. Once the drone is launched, a computer calculates its flight path, and it is flown to the area of gunshots.... All drones have advanced imaging equipment, so the LEO should be able to see everything. The drone would be armed with .308 or .50 caliber guns which would be able to accurately target shooters automatically via laser ranging tech... The drone would also be armed with other tools such as less lethal weaponry and smoke/CS grenades to use against a shooter. The LEO manning the drone would determine which weaponry to fire, as well as giving the drone the all-clear take the shot. The actual targeting and firing would be controlled by the drone.

What do you guys think?

I think that's a terrible idea, reminds me of slaughterbots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA But it could be an amazing tool for future autocratic technocrats to control a disarmed populace.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,567


« Reply #387 on: November 13, 2017, 06:24:04 PM »

That video is fake man. Just sensationalism to make people scared of the future. Just like self-driving cars, I think this technology is a great way to save lives by being able to quickly stop attacks.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 06:31:33 PM by Frostburg » Logged
RabbitSlayer
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,021


« Reply #388 on: November 14, 2017, 05:33:18 PM »

Drones with guns for police...
How about no.  I wear a badge and think it is a bad idea for a million reasons.  First of all, the constitution was written to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.
So what if I have to defend my house from some home invasion rapist, shoot his ass, then some rookie cop gets to fly a drone to my house and smoke me?  No thanks.

Chicago has those gun shot detectors, sure working out great for them.

The problem isn't guns or lack of police.  The problem is a society with no morals.  My friends and I used to ride our bikes to each others houses in JR high with rifles and shotguns on our shoulders or handle bars, we would hunt all day after school, and never was there a problem.
Logged

''The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.''
-Thomas Jefferson
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,567


« Reply #389 on: November 14, 2017, 08:40:23 PM »

Drones with guns for police...
How about no.  I wear a badge and think it is a bad idea for a million reasons.  First of all, the constitution was written to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

Constitution used to protect the people from their govt. not the other way around. So how do drones diminish this? They would be used to protect the people from psychos. How is that any different from police? The drones would only be an extension of police.


So what if I have to defend my house from some home invasion rapist, shoot his ass, then some rookie cop gets to fly a drone to my house and smoke me?  No thanks.


 

You get smoked from a rookie cop controlled drone? How is that any different from getting smoked from a rookie cop arriving on foot? The function of the drone is identical to that of an officer responding to a shooting in progress.  It just travels faster, and via the air.  So the question is, what's stopping a standard patrol cop from smoking you in your house that would not prevent a drone from doing the same? The drone would atleast be able to recognize threats more accurately due to computer imaging, as well as place rounds on target more accurately. You would still have a trained LEO controlling it (Ideally a high ranking or instructor LEO).


Chicago has those gun shot detectors, sure working out great for them.

Does Chicago have response drones?

The problem isn't guns or lack of police.  The problem is a society with no morals.  My friends and I used to ride our bikes to each others houses in JR high with rifles and shotguns on our shoulders or handle bars, we would hunt all day after school, and never was there a problem.

Do you have a solution to our moral problem? I am suggesting a practical solution to solve real world shootings. Can anyone think of a better alternative rather than suggesting teaching morals? Personally, I don't think you can teach morals to an angry sociopath. When you get into people who do mass shootings. Morals or lack thereof are no longer a relevant factor in the equation. The only solution to deal with these mass shooters is rapid interdiction of the shooter once the shooting has begun.

« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 09:13:02 PM by Frostburg » Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,587



WWW
« Reply #390 on: November 14, 2017, 11:18:06 PM »

Drones with guns for police...
How about no.  I wear a badge and think it is a bad idea for a million reasons.  First of all, the constitution was written to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

Constitution used to protect the people from their govt. not the other way around. So how do drones diminish this? They would be used to protect the people from psychos. How is that any different from police? The drones would only be an extension of police.


So what if I have to defend my house from some home invasion rapist, shoot his ass, then some rookie cop gets to fly a drone to my house and smoke me?  No thanks.


 

You get smoked from a rookie cop controlled drone? How is that any different from getting smoked from a rookie cop arriving on foot? The function of the drone is identical to that of an officer responding to a shooting in progress.  It just travels faster, and via the air.  So the question is, what's stopping a standard patrol cop from smoking you in your house that would not prevent a drone from doing the same? The drone would atleast be able to recognize threats more accurately due to computer imaging, as well as place rounds on target more accurately. You would still have a trained LEO controlling it (Ideally a high ranking or instructor LEO).

I won't argue whether there is a difference, because in the end, the result is the same.  What baffles me is that we're even having this conversation.  

First, there is the departmental policy on use of force and what constitutes an appropriate response.  If a police officer responded and someone turned with a firearm in their hand, then a reasonable man could be judged to see that as a thread and use of force would be justified because someone had a gun and the officer was present and potentially under threat.

If you remove the officer and make it a drone, then you have completely voided the police department's right to use lethal force in the scenario you describe.  The homeowner, one Mr. Rabbit S. Layer, is standing in his door waiting for the human police to show up when the Drone Police fly by and see this.  Since there is no human currently being threatened (or potentially being threatened), then the drone would have zero...and I mean ZERO justification for shooting him.  In short, use of force would not be authorized and if it was used, then it would/should be treated as a homicide and investigated as such.

Police can only use force under certain very limited circumstances.  I won't debate individual department guidelines, but I do know that for me here in PA, I can use lethal force when AOJP has been met, I fear for my life or believe that I am threatened with immediate grievous bodily harm, or to act on behalf of another who is in a similar situation.  An armed drone, following similar rules, could only act on the latter because in no way would a human be in any fear if they were operating the drone.

Quote
Quote
Chicago has those gun shot detectors, sure working out great for them.

Does Chicago have response drones?

The problem isn't guns or lack of police.  The problem is a society with no morals.  My friends and I used to ride our bikes to each others houses in JR high with rifles and shotguns on our shoulders or handle bars, we would hunt all day after school, and never was there a problem.

Do you have a solution to our moral problem? I am suggesting a practical solution to solve real world shootings. Can anyone think of a better alternative rather than suggesting teaching morals? Personally, I don't think you can teach morals to an angry sociopath. When you get into people who do mass shootings. Morals or lack thereof are no longer a relevant factor in the equation. The only solution to deal with these mass shooters is rapid interdiction of the shooter once the shooting has begun.


Commander Adama told President Roslin the following when she suggested using the military to police the fleet:  There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

Advocating for armed drones is one more step down the path of viewing the people as enemies of the state.
Logged

Kurt
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,567


« Reply #391 on: November 14, 2017, 11:49:35 PM »

Drones with guns for police...
How about no.  I wear a badge and think it is a bad idea for a million reasons.  First of all, the constitution was written to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

Constitution used to protect the people from their govt. not the other way around. So how do drones diminish this? They would be used to protect the people from psychos. How is that any different from police? The drones would only be an extension of police.


So what if I have to defend my house from some home invasion rapist, shoot his ass, then some rookie cop gets to fly a drone to my house and smoke me?  No thanks.


 

You get smoked from a rookie cop controlled drone? How is that any different from getting smoked from a rookie cop arriving on foot? The function of the drone is identical to that of an officer responding to a shooting in progress.  It just travels faster, and via the air.  So the question is, what's stopping a standard patrol cop from smoking you in your house that would not prevent a drone from doing the same? The drone would atleast be able to recognize threats more accurately due to computer imaging, as well as place rounds on target more accurately. You would still have a trained LEO controlling it (Ideally a high ranking or instructor LEO).

I won't argue whether there is a difference, because in the end, the result is the same.  What baffles me is that we're even having this conversation.  

First, there is the departmental policy on use of force and what constitutes an appropriate response.  If a police officer responded and someone turned with a firearm in their hand, then a reasonable man could be judged to see that as a thread and use of force would be justified because someone had a gun and the officer was present and potentially under threat.

If you remove the officer and make it a drone, then you have completely voided the police department's right to use lethal force in the scenario you describe.  The homeowner, one Mr. Rabbit S. Layer, is standing in his door waiting for the human police to show up when the Drone Police fly by and see this.  Since there is no human currently being threatened (or potentially being threatened), then the drone would have zero...and I mean ZERO justification for shooting him.  In short, use of force would not be authorized and if it was used, then it would/should be treated as a homicide and investigated as such.

Police can only use force under certain very limited circumstances.  I won't debate individual department guidelines, but I do know that for me here in PA, I can use lethal force when AOJP has been met, I fear for my life or believe that I am threatened with immediate grievous bodily harm, or to act on behalf of another who is in a similar situation.  An armed drone, following similar rules, could only act on the latter because in no way would a human be in any fear if they were operating the drone.

Yes, I believe this is true. But I was also under the impression that a LEO can use lethal force against an assailant if the assailant is actively threatening another innocent, not just the LEO her/himself. Sure, the drone could not perceive a threat to itself, and therefore would not fire in response to that, only if another human is being threatened. This would actually allow for a decrease in the use of lethal force by L.E. units as the drone's "life" is not a consideration that needs to be protected. The drone is only concerned with protecting innocent life. So, Yay! Also, you would have human controller viewing what the drone can sees, and can make adjustments as well as not allowing the drone to shoot unless the LEO clears it.  Since the drone is essentially a computer, it can probably perceive thousands of bits of information per second as well as make hundreds of flight and targeting adjustments per second. This will allow for more accurate shots fired against assailants who are threatening innocents, as well as far fewer errors in regards to "Shoot/Don't Shoot" scenarios.  I'm not seeing any negatives to this situation.  

Quote
Quote
Chicago has those gun shot detectors, sure working out great for them.

Does Chicago have response drones?

The problem isn't guns or lack of police.  The problem is a society with no morals.  My friends and I used to ride our bikes to each others houses in JR high with rifles and shotguns on our shoulders or handle bars, we would hunt all day after school, and never was there a problem.

Do you have a solution to our moral problem? I am suggesting a practical solution to solve real world shootings. Can anyone think of a better alternative rather than suggesting teaching morals? Personally, I don't think you can teach morals to an angry sociopath. When you get into people who do mass shootings. Morals or lack thereof are no longer a relevant factor in the equation. The only solution to deal with these mass shooters is rapid interdiction of the shooter once the shooting has begun.


Commander Adama told President Roslin the following when she suggested using the military to police the fleet:  There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

I'm not arguing for the use of the military in the role of policing. That's a horrible idea, lol. I'm advocating the use of drones a part of L.E. using L.E. rules and procedures.  The drone can even shout commands for compliance.

Advocating for armed drones is one more step down the path of viewing the people as enemies of the state.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 12:31:34 AM by Frostburg » Logged
RabbitSlayer
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,021


« Reply #392 on: November 15, 2017, 07:23:41 PM »

Quote
The function of the drone is identical to that of an officer responding to a shooting in progress.
WRONG!  There is no human element to a drone, it doesn't matter if it is controlled by a person, it takes the human interaction completely out of the situation.

We need less government not more.
F*ing police drones that respond to gun shot detectors? 
How about no.

Remember I am a cop too.  I do my best to deescalate and be a nice, compassionate person.  How the hell can I deescalate or be compassionate if I am engaging people with a F-ing robot?  You have to be kidding me.  I signed up and swore an oath to be serve my community, and uphold the constitution; Not to be a mercenary for the government.


You want answers for a messed up society?  Too bad, we are just people.  We don't have the right to tell other people to choose their morals, we don't get to dictate things be the way we want them to be.  Felons are people too, and they also have rights.  The government doesn't just get to kill people because they committed a crime.  This country is about liberty, and most importantly liberty from the government.  Just because I am a cop does not mean I do not completely value and uphold the ideals our founding fathers wanted.

Active shooter?  I will face him in person, and do what is right.  If I get killed so be it, better off I die than our government playing minority report with freeking drones.
Logged

''The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.''
-Thomas Jefferson
RabbitSlayer
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,021


« Reply #393 on: November 15, 2017, 07:25:35 PM »

Drones with guns for police...
How about no.  I wear a badge and think it is a bad idea for a million reasons.  First of all, the constitution was written to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

Constitution used to protect the people from their govt. not the other way around. So how do drones diminish this? They would be used to protect the people from psychos. How is that any different from police? The drones would only be an extension of police.


So what if I have to defend my house from some home invasion rapist, shoot his ass, then some rookie cop gets to fly a drone to my house and smoke me?  No thanks.


 

You get smoked from a rookie cop controlled drone? How is that any different from getting smoked from a rookie cop arriving on foot? The function of the drone is identical to that of an officer responding to a shooting in progress.  It just travels faster, and via the air.  So the question is, what's stopping a standard patrol cop from smoking you in your house that would not prevent a drone from doing the same? The drone would atleast be able to recognize threats more accurately due to computer imaging, as well as place rounds on target more accurately. You would still have a trained LEO controlling it (Ideally a high ranking or instructor LEO).

I won't argue whether there is a difference, because in the end, the result is the same.  What baffles me is that we're even having this conversation.  

First, there is the departmental policy on use of force and what constitutes an appropriate response.  If a police officer responded and someone turned with a firearm in their hand, then a reasonable man could be judged to see that as a thread and use of force would be justified because someone had a gun and the officer was present and potentially under threat.

If you remove the officer and make it a drone, then you have completely voided the police department's right to use lethal force in the scenario you describe.  The homeowner, one Mr. Rabbit S. Layer, is standing in his door waiting for the human police to show up when the Drone Police fly by and see this.  Since there is no human currently being threatened (or potentially being threatened), then the drone would have zero...and I mean ZERO justification for shooting him.  In short, use of force would not be authorized and if it was used, then it would/should be treated as a homicide and investigated as such.

Police can only use force under certain very limited circumstances.  I won't debate individual department guidelines, but I do know that for me here in PA, I can use lethal force when AOJP has been met, I fear for my life or believe that I am threatened with immediate grievous bodily harm, or to act on behalf of another who is in a similar situation.  An armed drone, following similar rules, could only act on the latter because in no way would a human be in any fear if they were operating the drone.

Quote
Quote
Chicago has those gun shot detectors, sure working out great for them.

Does Chicago have response drones?

The problem isn't guns or lack of police.  The problem is a society with no morals.  My friends and I used to ride our bikes to each others houses in JR high with rifles and shotguns on our shoulders or handle bars, we would hunt all day after school, and never was there a problem.

Do you have a solution to our moral problem? I am suggesting a practical solution to solve real world shootings. Can anyone think of a better alternative rather than suggesting teaching morals? Personally, I don't think you can teach morals to an angry sociopath. When you get into people who do mass shootings. Morals or lack thereof are no longer a relevant factor in the equation. The only solution to deal with these mass shooters is rapid interdiction of the shooter once the shooting has begun.


Commander Adama told President Roslin the following when she suggested using the military to police the fleet:  There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

Advocating for armed drones is one more step down the path of viewing the people as enemies of the state.

Yes, very well said.  Thank you.
Logged

''The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.''
-Thomas Jefferson
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,587



WWW
« Reply #394 on: November 15, 2017, 08:32:59 PM »

Yes, I believe this is true. But I was also under the impression that a LEO can use lethal force against an assailant if the assailant is actively threatening another innocent, not just the LEO her/himself.

This is correct, whether it is a civilian or LEO.


Quote
Sure, the drone could not perceive a threat to itself, and therefore would not fire in response to that, only if another human is being threatened. This would actually allow for a decrease in the use of lethal force by L.E. units as the drone's "life" is not a consideration that needs to be protected. The drone is only concerned with protecting innocent life. So, Yay! Also, you would have human controller viewing what the drone can sees, and can make adjustments as well as not allowing the drone to shoot unless the LEO clears it.  Since the drone is essentially a computer, it can probably perceive thousands of bits of information per second as well as make hundreds of flight and targeting adjustments per second. This will allow for more accurate shots fired against assailants who are threatening innocents, as well as far fewer errors in regards to "Shoot/Don't Shoot" scenarios.  I'm not seeing any negatives to this situation.

You remove the human element.  How do you deescalate a situation with a Terminator?  You are arriving on the scene with something that is inherently terrifying to the average, the "reasonable man", and expecting it to deescalate the situation?



  

Quote
Quote
Commander Adama told President Roslin the following when she suggested using the military to police the fleet:  There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

I'm not arguing for the use of the military in the role of policing. That's a horrible idea, lol. I'm advocating the use of drones a part of L.E. using L.E. rules and procedures.  The drone can even shout commands for compliance.

But that's exactly where the problem comes into the picture, Frost.  The police have become more and more militarized over the past fifty years to the point where they possess the training and arsenals that a third world nation of similar population would have.  A tool can't be issued without the tool user wanting to use it and looking for situations where he/she can employ it.

Here's a field survey for you, Frost...every time you see a cop, ask them if they're a civilian or a cop.  If they don't immediately answer "civilian", then they've already taken the first step in distancing themselves and viewing themselves as something more than their fellow civilians...they aren't military, they're civilian.

You're looking at the nuts and bolts of it, the facts if you will, without taking into consideration the human element, the context if you will, of the situation. 

Do you remember when wearing a seatbelt was an afterthought?  Then it became something "suggested".  Then, laws started to be passed making not wearing a seatbelt as an "add on" offense to a moving violation (i.e. they couldn't pull you over because you weren't wearing a seatbelt).  Then, without much fanfare, it became a primary moving violation in most (if not all) states and now you can be pulled over solely because you aren't wearing a seatbelt.

Now, take that creeping incrementalism and apply it to policing and drones and extrapolate the conclusion.
Logged

Kurt
EWTHeckman
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #395 on: November 16, 2017, 01:19:53 AM »

And just to focus on a practical issue, it strikes me that a drone would only be useful in the event of an extended event (i.e., only a mass shooting or large scale conflict like a riot) where the shooter is outdoors, or sticking close enough to a door or window (because he's shooting out those portals) for a drone to be able to engage him. To my knowledge, the only event like that in the last 10 years or so was the Las Vegas shooting. That doesn't strike me as all that practical.

Expanded concealed carry and maybe an officer or two equipped with rifles and a shot direction indicator (they do exist) posted at large outdoor events would be a lot more practical while simultaneously being less dangerous to freedom.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,567


« Reply #396 on: November 16, 2017, 03:00:27 AM »

Yes, I believe this is true. But I was also under the impression that a LEO can use lethal force against an assailant if the assailant is actively threatening another innocent, not just the LEO her/himself.

This is correct, whether it is a civilian or LEO.


Quote
Sure, the drone could not perceive a threat to itself, and therefore would not fire in response to that, only if another human is being threatened. This would actually allow for a decrease in the use of lethal force by L.E. units as the drone's "life" is not a consideration that needs to be protected. The drone is only concerned with protecting innocent life. So, Yay! Also, you would have human controller viewing what the drone can sees, and can make adjustments as well as not allowing the drone to shoot unless the LEO clears it.  Since the drone is essentially a computer, it can probably perceive thousands of bits of information per second as well as make hundreds of flight and targeting adjustments per second. This will allow for more accurate shots fired against assailants who are threatening innocents, as well as far fewer errors in regards to "Shoot/Don't Shoot" scenarios.  I'm not seeing any negatives to this situation.

You remove the human element.  How do you deescalate a situation with a Terminator?  You are arriving on the scene with something that is inherently terrifying to the average, the "reasonable man", and expecting it to deescalate the situation?

This is in response to you and RabbitSlayer, but how does an officer deescalate a situation when he arrives when shooting is in progress? I mean, I figure once people are getting shot at, it's not time for diplomacy, but immediately ending the threat and causing a termination to active physical violence. The drone is not going to get called in unless shots are detected. I mean, the drone isn't responding to a wife and husband who are getting into a heated argument. Normal 911 can deal with that. Keep in mind, the drone can be armed with more than just .308 projectiles or whatever. It would have a PA system, FLIR and smart imaging, microphones to hear auditory input, high intensity strobe lights and loud noises, warning flares, even rubber bullets/beanbag rounds/flashbangs if necessary.  A department can arm and outfit a drone however they like. The drone's responsibility is to respond to active shooting, not deescalate domestic disputes or the like. If an assailant drops his weapon but is still not following orders of the drone, a taser, strobe or some other thing can be used if needed or equipped; it doesn't really matter. The drone's primary use is to interdict active shooters while using proper use of force and stop further loss of life, not to be deployed general LEO duties. As long as people are no longer being shot for the moment, that's all that matters.


  

Quote
Quote
Commander Adama told President Roslin the following when she suggested using the military to police the fleet:  There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

I'm not arguing for the use of the military in the role of policing. That's a horrible idea, lol. I'm advocating the use of drones a part of L.E. using L.E. rules and procedures.  The drone can even shout commands for compliance.

But that's exactly where the problem comes into the picture, Frost.  The police have become more and more militarized over the past fifty years to the point where they possess the training and arsenals that a third world nation of similar population would have.  A tool can't be issued without the tool user wanting to use it and looking for situations where he/she can employ it.

Here's a field survey for you, Frost...every time you see a cop, ask them if they're a civilian or a cop.  If they don't immediately answer "civilian", then they've already taken the first step in distancing themselves and viewing themselves as something more than their fellow civilians...they aren't military, they're civilian.

You're looking at the nuts and bolts of it, the facts if you will, without taking into consideration the human element, the context if you will, of the situation.  

Do you remember when wearing a seatbelt was an afterthought?  Then it became something "suggested".  Then, laws started to be passed making not wearing a seatbelt as an "add on" offense to a moving violation (i.e. they couldn't pull you over because you weren't wearing a seatbelt).  Then, without much fanfare, it became a primary moving violation in most (if not all) states and now you can be pulled over solely because you aren't wearing a seatbelt.

Now, take that creeping incrementalism and apply it to policing and drones and extrapolate the conclusion.

I agree that police militarization is not a good thing, but sometimes it has been necessary for police to be better equipped and organized. SWAT teams are necessary, and past shootouts with heavily armed bad guys have highlighted this need. When you have bad guys who are well armed, armored, organized etc, you can't have cops responding wearing nothing more than a blue shirt and a 9mm.
Overall, I do agree that cops should not be militarized and am hopeful that departments try to minimize the militarization and stuff. But also keep in mind, the drones are still only acting as an extension of L.E. They are really no different from the old fashioned police helicopter with the guy with the rifle sitting out the helicopter door. Just in a smaller package and modern technology. The purpose of this is for more rapid deployment of L.E. assets to interdict active shooters.

« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 03:10:45 AM by Frostburg » Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,567


« Reply #397 on: November 16, 2017, 03:08:58 AM »

And just to focus on a practical issue, it strikes me that a drone would only be useful in the event of an extended event (i.e., only a mass shooting or large scale conflict like a riot) where the shooter is outdoors, or sticking close enough to a door or window (because he's shooting out those portals) for a drone to be able to engage him. To my knowledge, the only event like that in the last 10 years or so was the Las Vegas shooting. That doesn't strike me as all that practical.

Expanded concealed carry and maybe an officer or two equipped with rifles and a shot direction indicator (they do exist) posted at large outdoor events would be a lot more practical while simultaneously being less dangerous to freedom.

I've already considered this, lol. Yes, the drone would be most beneficial in outdoors shootings, but there are ways around this. It might be possible to have a smaller drone piggy back on the larger drone. One that can separate and fit through a doorway or window. It could either by flown (most likely) or ground (wheel based) that can gain entry into a building, use sound signatures to quickly locate and identify the shooter, and thus respond lethally or non-lethally as necessary.  All the tech I've mentioned is already feasible, and they all exist in some form or another. It would be no great milestone creating the hardware and software to achieve these things. You can buy a small drone that can be flown indoors with a great deal of accuracy at walmart for pete's sake. Defense contracting agencies that deal with drones and robotics should have no major challenge developing designs here.  It might take a few years to get down just right, but it is completely feasible with today's tech.
Logged
RabbitSlayer
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,021


« Reply #398 on: November 17, 2017, 06:52:56 PM »

https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA?t=7m9s
Logged

''The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.''
-Thomas Jefferson
SHORT-N-SASSY
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,804



« Reply #399 on: November 20, 2017, 03:42:39 PM »

Our Changing Times:


(https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teachers-guns-okay-oklahoma_us_56b50fcbe4b04f9b57d9a561)


(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/19/florida-church-warns-at-every-door-are-heavily-armed.html)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 Print 
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!