Why we can't have nice things?

Quadcopter as gun platform. :fearful:


The two main reasons are that: 1. “having” only vaguely implies some sort of transaction or experience, and 2. what appear to be “things” are only conceptual shorthand for processes. Some people like to imagine that they can somehow possess processes without considering what this would mean / how it would work in practicality.

Huh?! :confused:

Well, I was wondering how to reconcile the idea of your posts title (a question I always wonder about), and the video you linked.

Most of the economic and technological push for developing drones involves their use as weapons, so I didn’t find anything especially new or startling about this. Beyond the concept itself, which seems to be, for better or worse, rather well-established.

Doesn’t seem like a very safe thing for a couple of drunk deer hunters out in the woods. They’re gonna fly it back to themselves and hit the shoot button by mistake for sure.
So I approve of it.

And the technological push shouldn’t be weaponry. It should pizza. Pizza delivery out in the woods.


I can’t believe it hasn’t been happening much sooner. People have been using drones for recon and GIS privately for years. I find it very hard to believe there haven’t been plenty of electronics-savvy rednecks who think it’s a good idea to put a gun on a flying machine. Just in case the gubmint comes to take their other guns.

Pizzas aren’t particularly aerodynamic. I’m gonna petition for falafel and gyro delivery out in the woods. That’d be the tasty way to get close to nature, after ending the hunting trip empty-handed.

1 Like

Personal drone technology is cool and desirable. Shooting people is not. Overtly linking the two makes it more likely that someone writing laws will think of 9mm slugs rather than video footage when someone talks about shooting from an aerial drone. And then we lose access to the nice things.

That’s what the autonomous ones are for. They can try arresting it, if they’d like.

It has been done before, but the video I’ve seen had the drone falling out of the sky as it fired. That one does a tidy job of managing the recoil.

1 Like

Yeah. I have a cousin who does lots of RC cars, boats, and planes. He had a huge RC plane about 15 feet long with a massive wing span. He was really proud of it being able to carry an old tippman painball gun, a nearly-empty 200ml CO2 bottle, and a trigger-pulling servo. It’s line of fire was directly forward from just under the nose.

It was a beast. This was back in 2005. He didn’t have a long enough runway to land such a heavy craft, so of course, the landing procedure involved firing the cannon continuously as it came in for a landing to slow it down.


It doesn’t bother me so much, any more than any other potential killing machine. But I do appreciate the democratization of it. Most of the people who have ever threatened me with weapons have been police, who in the US are armed with lethal weapons. The primary risk to my life is further encounters with police.

Not flying drones, but I have looked into autonomous turrets a bit. And would feel more confident of my kids safety with a capable drone escorting them than calling upon LEOs who already cause us grief.

Basically, I don’t carry guns. But I wouldn’t mind setting up my house to automatically deal with anybody else who enters with them.

If you booby trap your house with turreted firearms then any death that results is likely to result in a murder charge as you’d planned it in advance.

That’s pretty much the same thing I say about any people who file into this place with guns drawn. They can always give people a chance to disarm, as I like to consider myself sporting.

This is also a somewhat simplistic interpretation of “autonomous”, which would mean that they act only if certain criteria are met. They are not “booby traps” if they only target specific people, booby traps are indiscriminate. If I am unarmed, and people chase me in my home with guns, I think it’s pretty easily demonstrable as being an act of defense. Also, the US has tried to use autonomous killing machines to set precedent of the deniability of their responsibility for killing, so they seem to be indicating that it is the right thing to do. I don’t personally believe this myself, and will happily stop once they do.

Somewhat related, in Iraq, the military only pays out loss of life claims if they are directly caused by soldiers when they’re off-duty.

They won’t pay, for instance, if a kid steps on an undetonated clusterbomb.

1 Like

How much longer will corrupt scumbags who massively fuck over all of humanity feel secure outside of their mansions?

Just sayin’…


This topic was automatically closed after 582 days. New replies are no longer allowed.