1 edit
PS only in America do killer robots seem to be a sane solution, like arming school teachers in the classroom in case a shooter shows up. It’s an insane solution to a problem which should have been dealt with over a hundred years ago, namely de-militarizing the civilian population right after the Civil War.
@moonbus saidAhhh, with non-Americanism comes great wisdom.
PS only in America do killer robots seem to be a sane solution, like arming school teachers in the classroom in case a shooter shows up. It’s an insane solution to a problem which should have been dealt with over a hundred years ago, namely de-militarizing the civilian population right after the Civil War.
@shavixmir
America has a number of unresolved issues which drove me to vote with my feet. I still care because I have friends and family there.
@moonbus saidThat would require repealing the 2nd amendment. Not so simple.
PS only in America do killer robots seem to be a sane solution, like arming school teachers in the classroom in case a shooter shows up. It’s an insane solution to a problem which should have been dealt with over a hundred years ago, namely de-militarizing the civilian population right after the Civil War.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@moonbus saidI wasn't aware the population was militarized.
PS only in America do killer robots seem to be a sane solution, like arming school teachers in the classroom in case a shooter shows up. It’s an insane solution to a problem which should have been dealt with over a hundred years ago, namely de-militarizing the civilian population right after the Civil War.
What do you mean by that exactly?
@jj-adams saidWe’ve have been using remote controlled vehicles with a shotgun attached for bomb / suspect package disposal for decades, these are not robocop by any stretch of the imagination.
I just read that the robots won't have guns, they will carry explosives, so they can just blow up the bad guys.
Glad to hear they aren't carrying a machine gun like in Robocop, otherwise they might hurt someone.
@metal-brain saidNegative. It would only require reading and applying it in the context in which it was written.
That would require repealing the 2nd amendment. Not so simple.
2 edits
@moonbus said" like arming school teachers in the classroom in case a shooter shows up. It’s an insane solution to a problem which should have been dealt with over a hundred years ago, namely de-militarizing the civilian population right after the Civil War."
Negative. It would only require reading and applying it in the context in which it was written.
You cannot take away guns from the civilian population. The 2nd constitutional amendment prohibits that. Read it sometime.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/make-way-killer-robots-government-expanding-its-power-kill
Here is an excerpt from the link above:
"Yet as investigative journalist Sam Biddle points out, this is “what nearly every security agency says when it asks the public to trust it with an alarming new power: We’ll only use it in emergencies—but we get to decide what’s an emergency.”
A last-minute amendment to the SFPD policy limits the decision-making authority for deploying robots as a deadly force option to high-ranking officers, and only after using alternative force or de-escalation tactics, or concluding they would not be able to subdue the suspect through those alternative means.
In other words, police now have the power to kill with immunity using remote-controlled robots."
That is unacceptable. There should be more checks and balances applied before letting this happen or it will be abused. The police should be required to get authorization from the governor. That way the buck stops there.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidYeah in the remote robots you mention the shotgun is used in bomb disposal to detonate explosives, not shoot at people.
We’ve have been using remote controlled vehicles with a shotgun attached for bomb / suspect package disposal for decades, these are not robocop by any stretch of the imagination.
Please try to keep up.
@metal-brain saidI should think the citizens of Uvalde have some thoughts about leaving decision making to high-ranking police officers.
"Yet as investigative journalist Sam Biddle points out, this is “what nearly every security agency says when it asks the public to trust it with an alarming new power: We’ll only use it in emergencies—but we get to decide what’s an emergency.”
A last-minute amendment to the SFPD policy limits the decision-making authority for deploying robots as a deadly force opti ...[text shortened]... The police should be required to get authorization from the governor. That way the buck stops there.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@metal-brain saidSo if a sniper is barricaded and is randomly shooting people, you don't think the cops should be able to send a bomb robot in to stop him?
In other words, police now have the power to kill with immunity using remote-controlled robots."
That is unacceptable. There should be more checks and balances applied before letting this happen or it will be abused. The police should be required to get authorization from the governor. That way the buck stops there.
@metal-brain saidStop lying this has nothing to do with making the police immune from prosecution, it’s just another tool in their bid to try and combat them 300,000,000 members of well regulated militias who, thanks to weird interpretation of the 2nd amendment, are are armed with the best military grade weapons money can buy.
" like arming school teachers in the classroom in case a shooter shows up. It’s an insane solution to a problem which should have been dealt with over a hundred years ago, namely de-militarizing the civilian population right after the Civil War."
You cannot take away guns from the civilian population. The 2nd constitutional amendment prohibits that. Read it sometime.
...[text shortened]... The police should be required to get authorization from the governor. That way the buck stops there.
@jj-adams saidThat depends. Do you know he is not holding hostages? If you cannot see him, how can you know he does not have a hostage? If you can see him why cannot you have a sniper shoot him?
So if a sniper is barricaded and is randomly shooting people, you don't think the cops should be able to send a bomb robot in to stop him?