telle
fella
What do you mean? I would say it worked out pretty well. The US has a police force do they not?
The US certainly does... however, the line between policing abroad and at home has become very blurred.
What do you mean? I would say it worked out pretty well. The US has a police force do they not?
Agreed. It's like, you guys do realize that drones are a thing right? Your guns don't mean shit.i love it that you want guns to protect urself from the government tbh
Elaborate, please
Agreed. It's like, you guys do realize that drones are a thing right? Your guns don't mean shit.
Never mentioned how many people call police when they need help either.
"Help me Help me nearest criminal help me!"
Instead, people tend to focus on the negatives because that is the path of water.
If you'd read my comment more carefully I said it could explain some of the deaths, of course not all. To explain that, you'd have to go wayy deeper...And the knife
And what of all the stabbing deaths in Europe?... How would one explain those away so easily?
The 2 year old shooting someone could have just as easily happened if someone would have left a car running and said 2 year old put said car in drive and ran over someone, right? I am sure it has happened...
Me... I would explain it as criminals being criminals...
The two year old shooting someone could have easily happened with a car of someone had left it running and said 2 year old put said car in drive. I am sure it has happened somewhere... That 2 year old's gun owner was not being safe and responsible. They do come with safety manuals for a reason. The government can't be your nanny your entire life.
Here in the US, if you maliciously ran over someone with your vehicle, you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon just like a gun. A vehicle can be used a weapon.
Very few I'd say. Especially since, in this scenario, "saving" someone actually means killing someone else.You never mentioned how many people are saved because someone nearby has a license to carry a firearm and stopped an attacker.
What?"Help me Help me nearest criminal help me!"
Explained a few posts up...
UAVs have been a "thing" for a hundred years...
Allies took out German Zeppelins with them.
They are not new.
If you'd read my comment more carefully I said it could explain some of the deaths, of course not all. To explain that, you'd have to go wayy deeper...
By the way, it's entertaining to see you grasping at straws in this debate, when every research done (except those funded by the gun industry ofc) point out, that it's safer to not have guns in your home.
Very few I'd say. Especially since, in this scenario, "saving" someone actually means killing someone else.
What?
The people controlling the drones cannot be seen by the militia. The drones will bomb the militia without the militia even knowing the drone was there. You can shoot at the sky, you can send up your own UAV that isn't a stealth drone, but your tactics are obsolete. No hope. Only death.I'm pretty sure they do, the people carrying guns outnumber the drones by the millions.
True
The people controlling the drones cannot be seen by the militia. The drones will bomb the militia without the militia even knowing the drone was there. You can shoot at the sky, you can send up your own UAV that isn't a stealth drone, but your tactics are obsolete. No hope. Only death.
UAV is simply the same thing as a drone absent of the ability to operate without human control. Any UAV a civilian may have developed to counter a drone is at a laughable disadvantage. Also, zeppelins are rather obvious in their approach when compared to a drone.Explained a few posts up...
UAVs have been a "thing" for a hundred years...
Allies took out German Zeppelins with them.
They are not new.
What if you were to type something that isn't nonsensical? What a tweest!What if the guy controlling the drone is actually part of the militia plot twist
Even though you're correct, everyone can see how faulty your argument is. Hammers, kitchen knives etc aren't made to kill. Guns are. Of course having a gun around will provide a bigger risk of an accident happening than having a hammer laying around in your garrage.He stated drones are the "thing". I merely pointed out that they have been around for a century, they are not new. I did not address his comment on UAVs vs guns, because an armed UAV is not available as an off the shelf item without a license that I am aware. Although, I have never looked into it since it does not interest me what-so-ever, it may be.
Naturally any place will be safer if anything that can harm you is not present. Anyone should realize this...
Is my garage safer because I don't have my hammer there? Sure... I can't accidentally hit my hand with it while driving a nail.
That rug in my entryway? I better get rid of it... People have been known to slip & fall and break their necks on such things.
Oh my Lord! my kitchen!! We won't even start there...
I hear carpets let off chemical vapors too. Better get rid of that!!
And vehicles, oh my... plane travel is much much safer.
Spending of cash...ewww... it is so so filthy. How can anyone even touch the stuff?
Before you know it we will all be living the Amish lifestyle.
At any rate, with this little show you all can easily see how ANY place can be safer by taking a single thing away. You could take your computer monitor away and make it "safer".
I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I was saying zeppelins were UAVs....anyways, the point I was trying to make there was that UAVs taking out zeppelins in the past and UAVs taking out drones today aren't even two scenarios that should be compared unless one is trying to illustrate how ridiculous an individual's rebuttal was.I would say that every flying drone is a UAV, but every UAV is not a drone.
I did not state a Zeppelin was a UAV. I stated UAVs took them out.
You do realize most of the US's military R&D is civilian based.
In fact, a "civilian" company did develop the drones in the US arsenal today. One like the Predator RQ-1L, for example, was developed by General Atomics. No so laughable...
...It always seems the ones that are the LOUDEST in a crowd are the minority...
Which ones for example?That is a very valid point, nevertheless, many other objects are created specifically to hurt, maim, or kill and there is very little, if any, fuss on the restrictions on them.
One word changed, and suddenly it sounds like a desscription of Trump.It always seems the ones that are the LOUDEST in a crowd are the minority. And I don’t mean race, I mean minority. The overwhelming majority of Americans are probably fine with the laws the way they are now. But you have those few blowhards that want to speak for everyone, and say that “my world was torn apart because of muslims”.
What if you were to type something that isn't nonsensical? What a tweest!