| ▲ | footy 2 hours ago |
| for certain types of tools (and I'd certainly class weapons as this type) you have to assume that a certain number of operators will be, as you put it, "shitty". Whether it's because they're having a bad day, are genuinely incompetent, are malicious, whatever the reason---some percentage of the operators will be using your tool in a way you'd discourage for PR reasons. Maybe I am too cynical, but I don't think the people making these tools actually care about this either, not beyond the potential for bad publicity. |
|
| ▲ | scottyah 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| There's also the escalation timeline. In a hypothetical situation where nonlethal force is being used, but there's a threat that requires more than a gentle "please don't" type of heating, I don't think we'd want it to be limited. Gentle crowd suppression is great till someone pulls out a gun or knife, and though it's debatable opinion and there are a lot of factors to consider, I think a few collateral 2nd degree burns beats switching to a rifle and opening fire into the crowd. |
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | hilariously an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Most people fleeing across the border have braved significantly worse, this is just another way to harm people we see as lesser for the accident of where they were born. | |
| ▲ | stvltvs an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Every individual has their own risk tradeoff calculation. People already risk death to cross the border, so it's not clear how much this would move the needle. | | |
| ▲ | 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > People already risk death to cross the border At what percentage would you say? 1%, 3%, 87%? Does the country they are fleeing have no culpability? Why are they leaving? | | |
| ▲ | nielsbot 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Crossing the border illegally (for now) is a civil misdemeanor and seeking asylum is legal under US and international law. > Does the country they are fleeing have no culpability? The US definitely has some culpability for making other places harder to live in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... > Why are they leaving? They're not doing it just for funsies. | |
| ▲ | hilariously an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A man runs out of a burning building.
You shoot him.
Dang, that building really should have had more culpability. | | | |
| ▲ | no-name-here 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >> People already risk death to cross the border > At what percentage would you say? Why do you ask? If it was the lowest figure you mentioned, or halfway between the lowest and highest, would one of those make it better? Is the argument that this new tech will only kill n people on top of those that already die, so whether we fry less than 1% or a far higher figure, that one of those is better? | |
| ▲ | stvltvs an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Focusing on the specific death rate doesn't change that crossing the border is risky, and some people will take their chances with or without the heat ray. It's one more variable in the calculation. Wikipedia is available if specific mortality rates matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexic... |
|
|
|
