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.
I’ve a little DJI drone and an old Matrix drone, the matrix has four 800 watt motors spinning 15" blades. You’re welcome to try and stick your hand in that one to see if you can catch it.
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.
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.”
“Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction”
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.
Just like fighting gym leader Brock with Charmander.
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.
A friend was annoying me with one, so I caught it with my hand from behind, and held it steady.
I’ve a little DJI drone and an old Matrix drone, the matrix has four 800 watt motors spinning 15" blades. You’re welcome to try and stick your hand in that one to see if you can catch it.
“Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction”
This assumes that there is a potential for harm reduction in this proposal…which there is not.
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.
Wait until you find out drones are used for patrols too.
Outside this makes total sense. Inside, not at all. And I say this as a quadcopter pilot myself.
This isn’t a case of perfect being the enemy of good. This is a case of the drones simply not being a good response.