Posted on 06/04/2022 4:30:33 AM PDT by McGruff
Taser developer Axon said this week it is working to build drones armed with the electric stunning weapons that could fly in schools and “help prevent the next Uvalde, Sandy Hook, or Columbine.” But its own technology advisers quickly panned the idea as a dangerous fantasy.
The publicly traded company, which sells Tasers and police body cameras, floated the idea of a new police drone product last year to its artificial intelligence ethics board, a group of well-respected experts in technology, policing and privacy.
Some of them expressed reservations about weaponizing drones in over-policed communities of color.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
I think that we have to consider every possible solution.
Democrat attacks on the second Amendment don’t work.
They’d have to be equipped with a set of janitor keys.
Don’t taser weapons require wires between the taser element and unit base? Or are they now wireless?
It would seem that a drone would have to get within several feet of the target [perp] to be effective. How would that work inside a building?
Another leftist idea that looks good on paper, but probably has little practical application.
—
Maybe they would be better off getting EVERY people on the planet to get an under-the-skin chip. Then, if the person turns bad, the operations officer can just zap the perp into oblivion.
Nah, people would shy away from unnecessary jabs or injections. Unless the deep state could make the program happen — under false pretenses — like, say, a pandemic or something. [Note to self: buy more heavy-duty aluminum foil.]
Because by the time you do all of this, he has already killed all he is going to kill.
The idea of police drones that take out anyone the government does not like, is a bad idea.
I really wouldn’t be overly concerned about some future police drones pepper spraying people when they can just shoot you today.
“Because by the time you do all of this, he has already killed all he is going to kill. “
That wasn’t the case in this one. The police were on scene quickly. The killer took his time. Kids from the room were calling 911 30 minutes later saying they were still alive. The killer was playing songs to each kid before he shot them.
“Because by the time you do all of this, he has already killed all he is going to kill. “
That wasn’t the case in this one. The police were on scene quickly. The killer took his time. Kids from the room were calling 911 30 minutes later saying they were still alive. The killer was playing songs to each kid before he shot them.
Most of the killing was done before the police got there.
True, this is an outstandingly stupid case.
The police could have gone in much earlier.
An armed teacher or staff could have stopped it in the first minute.
If you are going to wait for a drone, or the police, it is too late to stop most of the killing.
Yes, the previous statement was an exaggeration. I should have said
"90% of the killing will be done before the police even arrive."
You really think they will stop with pepper spray?
Let’s say there are 10 patrol cars on duty around town. 3 of those officers should have ballistic shields (I think all), helmets, high power rifles, door entry devices, maybe drones, etc. in the trunk. They should also have the mentality to engage. Those guys should have their patrol areas spread out geographically, so their response time to any one incident is quick. No waiting for some tactical swat team to arrive with all the toys 45 minutes later.
“You really think they will stop with pepper spray?”
They have lethal force “things” today. That horsey is already long out of the gate.
Exactly so. Why encourage them?
Why is pepper spraying someone encouraging them to shoot too?
So how many mass shooters will be using them also? Maybe carrying Compositiion C-4 or jellied gasoline/naphthalene? or both? Dozens of them?
This is a non-answer to anything that comes under the 2nd Amdt rule.
The best and only answer to the "David vs Goliath" dilemma is the continual progressive familiarization, respect, and adeptness with personal arms, and accountability for them, from the infant status up to and through the child, teenager, and young adult phases. We do the same with knives, hammers, chain-saws, automobiles.
This was a common practice in all public and private schools. In my small high school of about 150 students, about 25% were coached in how to use and shoot firearms, equally girls and boys, and even more taught only at home.
This was being regularly practiced until (about 1961) the increasing implementation of psychoactive drugs were being administered to individuals with significant mental problems.
In a nation governed under the First and Second Amendments guaranteeing recognition and implementation of natural God-given rights, we also MIST supply an educational background for everyone regarding the practical use of these "rights." Prior to the last fifty years, this kind of instruction was implemented through the Christian principles cited in the churches and taught in the public schools prior to the unionization of the teachers, and prior to the barring of prayer and religious training still offered there. And most of the people not claiming a personal attachment with that religion still thought it beneficial to imitate its standards as much as they could.
In this kind of training for the success of the First and Second Amendments, the Supreme Court rulings on "separation of church and state" (a figment of imagination of liberal jurists), and reluctance of "Christian" denominations to proclaim the morality for which government under the Founders' Constitution was enacted only, have now obviously totally undermined those Amendments to our foundational law.
The Marxist and anarchist anti-God heathen, using the age-old rules recently summarized by Saul Alinsky, and put into practice by politicians like the Clintons and Obama, have sabotaged the underlying principle that this was to be a nation teaching and implementing Judaeo/Christian principles.
This sharp inflection in the "gun violence" curve was also coincident with the inauguration of (college) Students For a Democratic (= Socialist) Society (SDS) at Port Huron in 1962. The effects of this whole movement needs to be negated.
In my pondering on this issue, the only reasonable approach to cause these mass shootings to cease is to:
(1) Stop prescribing psychoactive drugs without full accountability of the prescriber as to knowing and recording the potency and possible behavioral responses of their patients whose mentality is open to question.
(2) Remove the infringing unconstitutional federal laws, state statutes, and local ordinances on the freedom of any citizen (perhaps even felons) to keep and carry on his/her person arms for the protection of ones self and possessions. BUT that means accepting the consequences when the 2nd Amdt has to be invoked, and though some deaths might ensue, they will be far less than those hving the latitude of "gun-free (killing) zones.".
(3) Implement in the educators' syllabus a scheme of graduated level of instruction in the purpose, ethics, and practical use of the lethal instruments to be freely deployed under the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution, thus restoring its authority and effectiveness as originally intended. This is imperative for training law enforcement or armed forces; why not for every child who is to become a responsible voting citizen who ought to be aware of the features of liberty enacted by the Constitution across the nation, no state excepted. (The tongue can be as sharp and lethal as a knife or gun.)
I believe that those "teachers" and administrators employed by a local citizenry to school their children should be forbidden to organize as dues-paying unions that ignore the primary function of the educator to benefit the student, not the purses or Progressive ideals of the individual teachers or the organizational officers holding them individually as hostages.
Originally, the NEA was a professional organization, a meritocracy, to which the local teacher could join and support, or not. It was not a unit with the concession of being the sole bargaining agent (a massive bludgeon) with local schools or state executives, individual teacher ability or overall student performance being ignored to the point of ridicule.
I believe the only way to stop the "mass shoot" effect is to stop producing citizens of a "mass shoot" mental deficiency, educating them in the nature and essence of personal arms for personal defense. Thus prepared, the logical voter will not permit legislators create "gun-free zones," the kind to which ignorant logic-deficient citizens have agreed, the zones that bottle up their helpless children like a cluster of grapes that attracts the attention of unprincipled slaughterers.
Long exhortation, I know, but there is more than one causative factor involved.
Looks like we have to retrain LEO like the local ones at Uvalde in what their job really is when they have gun-freer killing zones in their own district. At least the CBD agents still have some sand in their craw, willing to stop the slaughterers.
With armed teachers on site, the shooter would NOT have gone there. With armed teachers, it would no longer be a gun-free “killing zone.” Even a handful of aggressive LEOs would have kept him away. Apparently, he had already “cased” the premises for any kind of valiant child-protectors and found none? Anybody know about this aspect?
Rampage killers want to rack up a big score.
The chance of that goes down significantly with more armed responders on site.
Anyone else getting that feeling?
I suppose some women would see it as an act of emancipation from unwanted responsiblity.
Wouldn't that be an immoral act for them? p>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.