Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

Reminds me of laws or signs stating "Gun Free Zone.". Yeah, right.  I'm sure some criminal type bent on criminal activity came across one of those signs and turned around because the sign said no guns.  

If someone is going to do something war or terrorist like with a drone, they don't care about your laws, signs, etc.

That's an oversimplification. If guns are 100% illegal in all circumstances, then anyone with a gun is by definition a criminal and can be engaged accordingly. That makes things vastly simpler from a defensive/law enforcement perspective. It would absolutely, positively reduce the number of mass murders, gang killings, and other firearms associated fatalities. Those numbers are very obviously shown in countries that have outright bans on firearms. 

 

I'm completely against that position, but trying to boil it down to "the bad guys will have it anyways" is excessively simplistic.

 

This applies even more so to drones. It is simply easier to do something illegal with a tool that is legal than it is to do with an illegal tool. If we go so far as to say that civilian drone ownership is illegal, then the ROE for drones gets very simple very fast. See it, shoot it.

 

I'm against making guns illegal because I believe in the core premise of the second amendment. The risk of government-induced tyranny is far worse than the loss of life associated with the legalization of firearms. I do not believe that premise extends to drones. 

 

I'm also not advocating for making drones illegal (haven't given it enough thought), but it's a hyper-libertarian argument to say that "bad guys will have it anyways" and almost every hyper-libertarian argument collapses upon contact with reality.

[HeloDude]

48 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's an oversimplification. If guns are 100% illegal in all circumstances, then anyone with a gun is by definition a criminal and can be engaged accordingly. That makes things vastly simpler from a defensive/law enforcement perspective. It would absolutely, positively reduce the number of mass murders, gang killings, and other firearms associated fatalities. Those numbers are very obviously shown in countries that have outright bans on firearms. 

War on drugs…pretty sure it was still relatively easy to get drugs 

[Lawman]

War on drugs…pretty sure it was still relatively easy to get drugs 

Yes, however nobody was confused that you may or may not be holding cocaine legally.

That’s the premise with highly regulating a commercial substance, same reason while criminals can get hand grenades or fertilizer, they can’t just walk into any old shop and go and acquire it, nor would an attempt to buy 1000lbs of certain precursor chemicals go unnoticed.

If drones were turned into a highly regulated item, the guy trying to walk one to a sporting event would stick out pretty well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, raimius said:

Airspace rules, yes, as it would give greater authority to disable offending drones.

Operator certificates and transponders?  Nah, all that really does is add an extra civil fine/misdemeanor the DOJ can impose after someone conducts an act of war/terrorism.  Not effective deterrence.

Respectfully disagree 

The registration and other admin is to distinguish legitimate drones from nefarious ones, if a legitimately registered drone is used for ill, the transponder tied to a certificate is to give a starting point for the investigation.  

I could probably come up with more but eventually I’d start arguing for a Scorpion jet purchase to protect us against rogue drones so let’s just call it bygones 

Break Break 

Sabotage in Sweden 

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-ally-reveals-mass-act-unexplained-sabotage-2081784

 

[uhhello]

7 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Respectfully disagree 

The registration and other admin is to distinguish legitimate drones from nefarious ones, if a legitimately registered drone is used for ill, the transponder tied to a certificate is to give a starting point for the investigation.  

I could probably come up with more but eventually I’d start arguing for a Scorpion jet purchase to protect us against rogue drones so let’s just call it bygones 

Break Break 

Sabotage in Sweden 

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-ally-reveals-mass-act-unexplained-sabotage-2081784

 

We're not discussing this in the realm of follow on investigations.  If this is used, the nation won't be worried about investigations.  It will be very clear who and why.  

[Clark Griswold]

We're not discussing this in the realm of follow on investigations.  If this is used, the nation won't be worried about investigations.  It will be very clear who and why.  

Maybe maybe not, depending on the size and scale, an op like the ones the Ukrainians just did yes, a single attack like an assignation probably not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

War on drugs…pretty sure it was still relatively easy to get drugs 

Yup. But since not everything in the universe is correlated to everything else in the universe, I'll need you to expand a little bit more. 

 

There are also examples of countries that severely punish drug use, and as such have wildly lower usage rates. Again, that's not me endorsing the punishment, but to deny the reality that it *can* be controlled is silly. 

 

And there's a whole separate conversation about whether or not something becomes pointless just because it cannot be pursued to perfection. Just because you *can* get meth doesn't mean we should legalize it. Fewer meth heads is a societal good. But we can start another thread on the inanity of libertarian purism if we want to continue that discussion.