• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Company planning to put 'rib-breaking' drones in public schools

bythoughts

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2025
Messages
741
Reaction score
412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
This story is on Daily Mail and hypothetically paywalled - just do "view source" and search for /p>.

'Then we escalate to the pepper mechanism so it's hard for them to see,' said Marston. 'Obviously, if we fly around the corner and we see a person with their gun raised, firing at kids, then we're going to immediately escalate to hitting them.' 'If you get hit by a drone at 60 or 70, miles an hour, it really sucks. It'll break ribs. It'll break bones. But our goal is to quickly incapacitate because they're trying to murder people.
The company is 'Campus Guardian Angel' of Texas. They claim to have done 10,000 hours of training for operators for this thing, suggesting a substantial monetary force behind it. Split second decisions to break kids' bones - what could go wrong? But it is also terribly illuminating that such drone aeronautics might even be possible within a building. The Russia-Ukraine war has definitely come home now.
 
This probably makes a lot of MAGAs happy.

Now, humans won't be needed in the future so these kinds of drones can be repurposed.
 
Apparently not strict enough.

IIRC, the penalty for violating homicide laws is far greater than that for violating “gun control” laws. For the most part, “gun control” laws are simply attempts to convert our 2A rights into mere state issued privileges, thus are said to ‘work’ by reducing the number of folks who (legally) own guns.

 
IIRC, the penalty for violating homicide laws is far greater than that for violating “gun control” laws. For the most part, “gun control” laws are simply attempts to convert our 2A rights into mere state issued privileges, thus are said to ‘work’ by reducing the number of folks who (legally) own guns.
Nonsense.
 
Nonsense.

See edit which includes the following link:

 
Why do you believe that “gun control” laws would be obeyed by those intent on killing other people?



If your argument is laws are useless because someone will just break them, why even bother to make killing people illegal, then?
 
Okay. So no laws is your answer?

Nope, but the advertised (potential?) penalties for illegal gun possession are rarely imposed. We often see news reports of 10K illegal guns were taken off the streets of Chicago last year, yet we don’t see news reports of 10K illegal gun possession convictions in Chicago resulted in incarceration last year. After all, illegal gun possession is a non-violent crime.
 
Because it works. Look at the gun homicide rates in different states and tell me it doesn't.

The homicide rate in IL is among the highest in the country, and CA and TX are basically the same when you account for demographics.
 
Sensible gun control legislation is out of the question.

Nobody who wants STRICTER gun laws is proposing sensible ones. They just keep doubling down on the same stupid ones they've been pimping for decades.
 
The homicide rate in IL is among the highest in the country, and CA and TX are basically the same when you account for demographics.

Perhaps, having strict “gun control” laws and adequately enforcing them are two very different things. See post #17.
 
Perhaps, having strict “gun control” laws and adequately enforcing them are two very different things. See post #17.

That's the problem. The gun control zealots believe in the fantasy that gun control laws can be effectively self-enforcing by reducing availability, as if that philosophy has worked for anything else (drugs?).
 
That's the problem. The gun control zealots believe in the fantasy that gun control laws can be effectively self-enforcing by reducing availability, as if that philosophy has worked for anything else (drugs?).

Yep, because there’s no adequate demand side (illegal possession) enforcement.
 
That state is a freakin' mess in many ways.

Explain the demographics because the gun crime rate is higher in Texas.

OK, but not by much - especially considering that CA has the nation’s strictest “gun control” laws.

 
One of the highest rates of gun violence in America is suicides. It seems there are a lot of very messed up people with serious issues who want guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom