300
Several US schools to install pepper-spraying drones to respond to school shootings
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
300 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
86713 readers
2871 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeahhhhh I'm not super stoked about the government regulating guns. Like I'm absolutely not a "guns in schools" kinda guy, but governments regulating guns just makes the proletariat and individual workers easier to oppress.
Bullying should absolutely not be tolerated but IMO the emphasis should be on restoration and justice instead of punishment IMO.
Sure you can: whoever controlled the drone. If it's autonomous, whoever owns the drone. If the operator or owner is being hidden, it is whoever or whatever system is enabling the hiding.
The US has guns and they're being oppressed just fine.
Because there's no political or popular will to do anything about it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink; that doesn't mean water is useless.
Seems to me that it does in fact mean that that excuse for gun proliferation is pretty useless.
Well that's one hell of a non-sequitur. To make a sweeping generalization, it's not the guns' fault that Americans are cowards.
A majority of US gun owners like what the government is doing, how does that make them cowards?
I'm talking about Americans that don't like what the government is doing (there's a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There's plenty of gun ownership among American liberals, and gun ownership aside the Trump regime's approval rating is in the tank yet barely anybody is actually doing anything.
So they are supposed to kill the majority of Americans who have guns that like what the government is doing?
The majority of Americans do not like what the government is doing, as seen from its approval rating, but also armed revolution usually doesn't happen by killing away everyone who disagrees with you.
The majority of Americans with guns do like what the government is doing though. Gun ownership is well over double for Republicans and they currently strongly support ICE and many other abusive domestic policies.
Please point out an armed revolution that wasn't just wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control. I can name only one and that was Haiti.
Uh... therefore?
I'm not sure how that's relevant here. Most revolutions tend to be about wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control, but also: Yemen, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, Mexico, Ireland*2, decolonization in general. There's also two Frances (1830, 1848) but those are more iffy.
I was just restating what I said already for clarification since that is what we were discussing.
When people talk armed revolution the track record is pretty much shit for human rights. Mythological thinking that an armed rebellion is going to solve our problem is problematic to say the least.
There's something very wrong with your water. It's killing a lot of children.
So just like regular water then.
Exactly! Thats is a perfect comparison. Even water can kill when unrestrained and unregulated.
So then it's not the guns that make resistance possible it's popular will.
I mean obviously, but with popular will you'll want everything to give your cause an edge—hence the guns. It's possible to have popular will and still fail, so factors that give the rebellion (or just plain old resistance, see: Black Panthers) an edge are going to be necessary. In recent history, the Houthis definitely benefited from having guns when they rebelled against the then-government.
The people with the guns, in general, like what the government is doing.
Yeah because the vast majority of the proletariat here are white people who tolerate capitalism because it uses white supremacy and its white privilege to buy their complicity. Same is true for various other bigotries. If we nipped that shit in the bud and developed class consciousness, a revolution would take like three seconds.
Like having a heavily armed populace is literally the only good thing about
What is that heavily armed populace doing? They're not resisting a government that has entered the information warfare age, where every police station has SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters. The guns aren't saving you from the government, they're not saving me from the government, they're not saving Cletus on 10 acre compound if Uncle Sam decides to pay a visit with flashbangs and riot gear.
All the guns are doing is terrifying minorities, who actually can be controlled by them.
Guess how I know.
Except heavily armed populaces have resisted SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters before, but also: Even just forcing escalation to such methods is a win for the rebels/resistance/etc. There's a reason even oppressive governments don't jump straight to tanks and helicopters when they have a revolution that hasn't quite devolved into civil war. Besides, there's no guarantee the people manning the tanks and helicopters are going to be willing to fire into crowds. In a revolutionary scenario the government's grip on its armed forces tends to be shaky at best, and doing things like whipping out tanks to put down rebellion tends to alienate people who might've supported it otherwise. Hell, sometimes governments just give up instead of going through all this. Obviously armed revolution (which doesn't necessarily mean civil war) isn't foolproof, but the hurdle to winning isn't as big as people around here seem to think, since the very fact that such a thing is happening means there's a sympathetic cause that will make some fraction of the army/police/etc not want to fight.