SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
'Campus Guardian Angel' Drones Can Also Smash Windows And Ram Attackers
This is how the Campus Guardian Angel drone system is designed to work:
The drone defense firm's CEO underlined that “the first 120 seconds are incredibly critical, because that’s when most of the shooting happens.” That implies that he thinks Campus Guardian Angel drones could be successfully deployed within that very narrow time window. But Uvalde was quite unusual, as responding law enforcement seemed paralyzed, waiting over an hour to enter the classroom.
These school-based drone systems are not without their critics. Some say that the funds may be better spent on prevention than cure. Even Mithril’s founder and CEO’s opinion seems to be that if these drones aren’t prompted into action within two minutes, they aren’t living up to their promise.
There is also the concern that drones could misidentify students or protection officers when controllers are under pressure. Others say that military-style drone systems aren’t appropriate for schools, and will cost a lot more than simple measures and routines regarding locked doors.
With the three states proceeding with pilot programs this year, we may see the true value and capabilities of the Campus Guardian Angel drones. If these drone-protected schools don’t suffer any terrible shooting incidents, then it may be claimed that the drones are at least a deterrent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 05, @02:47AM (2 children)
I believe a fair number of founding fathers did indeed have that interpretation. After all, privately owned cannon and military ships were legal at the time, for example. Can't say those are mere firearms.
Badly misinterpreting the first part is not paying attention to it! It's just a genuine form of ignoring. As I noted, the first part is purely explicative. That doesn't change no matter how much more attention we pay to it than we already are.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday August 07, @07:32PM (1 child)
I don't believe that, and your belief isn't provable nor relevant. Cannon weren't exactly weapons any idiot could use without training either.
Yes, it's explicative; how does that translate into something that can be ignored? Your way lies madness; if we decide we can selectively ignore parts of other amendments we might as well not have them anymore. The sheer fact that the exclusion of that set of words completely changes the meaning of the amendment means it is disingenuous to insist on ignoring it. "Any idiot can own any firearm" in 2026 is very different than "We need people trained to use weapons in case we need a militia; let's make sure people can own them" in 1789.
Either way, it needs to be updated. Thanks to idiots interpreting the 2nd like you are, we won't be doing that anytime soon. Good day, sir.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 08, @12:28AM
You don't believe what? That private ships were tooling around with cannon and even engaging in privateering (legal piracy)?
Welcome to the English language. Explanations and other justifications have no legal power. By definition.
It does mean that your assertion is nonsense. For the above reasons.
This is one of those legal principles that people routinely don't get. When you do anything beyond the minimum of defining and stating the rule, then that fluff becomes a perceived loophole by people who are looking for any excuse to break the rule. Sometimes you need to do that anyway - for example, say because compliance with a rule is better when people know why the rule exists, or because you can't get the rule implemented (due to opposition) without the explanation such as in the case of the Second Amendment.