Comment: I hear you but consider that

(See in situ)


I hear you but consider that

I hear you but consider that weaponry has been a continuing quest to kill while minimizing risk.

When I have carried a gun (aside from hiking and backpacking), it's been because I wish to know that I could help someone being attacked without recklessly endangering me or my kids. In other words, to know that I had a weapon I could use from a safer distance. Yes, remotely.

A sword provided that distance, then a longer sword, then a arrow, then a gun, now a drone. The progression is ancient.

And it serves a purpose. I'm not likely to jump in with my fists to save someone who's being knifed on the highway with some road rage incident. I'm a woman, and after years of various martial arts training, I'm still rather slow and lame. I'm just not going to endanger myself or my kids by going up to a man knifing someone with only my fists. I'm more likely to intervene when I have a way to do so that minimizes my risk. I keep a collapsible baton in the car, but even that I probably wouldn't risk if my kids were around. I would need to minimize with a gun, which I do carry when my kids and I take solo adventures.

The risk I minimize to myself and my kids by having more remote weapons that decrease my risk and increase my willingness to be heroic is good. From my point of view. I want to increase my ability to help others while decreasing the thing that will stop me -- fear.

In your post, you seem to not want the police to have that ability. Guns are most certainly a remote killing weapons. You don't want the police to have them? Do you likewise not want me to have them? Yourself?

Or is your point that because a drone operator has zero chance of being harmed/kill, that makes the crux of the difference. So if you have zero change of being harmed if you intervene in a violent act, you shouldn't do so? The chance of harm is the deciding factor?