464
Several US schools to install pepper-spraying drones to respond to school shootings (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
173 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 3 months ago (9 children)

They're not that easy to hit. I once invited someone to try hitting my camera drone with a 9mm and they couldn't, despite all bluster and claims otherwise. it might have been easier inside a building.

But, any rounds expended toward the drone are rounds not sent to children/staff. And an FPV drone to the face even without pepper spray can mess up someone's aim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)
    1. The point is that the terrifying systemic problem of school shooters should be tackled at its root causes, not merely suppressing symptoms. It's beyond absurd that schools in the US have become institutions of normalized violence.
    2. Going to another room and closing the door renders any drone "not very effective…" School shooters have nothing left to lose. These drones are an extremely expensive yet stupid way of defusing such people. From the article:

    The drones can remain airborne for about eight minutes on a single battery charge
    I know the US is plagued by obesity, but I'm pretty sure the average shooter can outrun a drone for more than 8 minutes inside a building. What a bad joke. This is simply about signing contract deals for weapons manufacturers because everything about this screams poor taste.
    However, not everyone is convinced the drones are the right approach.

    That includes Tony Montalto, whose 14-year-old daughter Gina Montalto was among the 17 people killed in the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida. He told WPTV: “These drones aren’t patrolling – they just pop up when needed. So that’s part of the problem. We need to focus on the prevention piece rather than the reaction piece.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    "Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    “Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction”
    2lSOYohMU6B4G3C.jpeg

    Non sequitur fallacy and then some. Not only didn't I say "it's not perfect", I said it's completely stupid such as what's depicted in the illustration above. I also didn't say "no effort should be expended", in fact, my first sentence proves the contrary: most efforts should be concentrated on the root causes. And the last sentence quotes the article, symptomatic measures should be prevention, e.g., patrol. Money towards these drones can be spent far more wisely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    A friend was annoying me with one, so I caught it with my hand from behind, and held it steady.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •