Why the furor over drones? Even weaponized drones?

[quaker bill]

49. First

The notion that these are robots is incorrect. They are not automated, just flown by people remotely. Second there is no evidence that weeaponized versions will be used here by other than the military, and obviously only under the extreme circumstances where the military might get involved domestically. Thirdly, I do not think that under such extreme circumstances, drones would be the first choice. Historically these rare occasions are "boots on the ground" situations.

Finally, I never said or implied that drones would be an improvement. I just said that people die in the process of arrest pretty much every day, usually at the wrong end of a handgun. It is rare that we get particularly bent about it. Read the news, it is all over the place. The notion that drones would be somewhat less spectacular, notable, or newsworthy than the use of handguns is absurd. The use of handguns to accomplish this has become so mundane that you have to search hard to find most of it in the news, unless the action is at a shopping mall in broad daylight. In fact we would pay far more attention to these deaths if they were using drones to do the deed.

Paying more attention might be better. It is at least arguable. The point however is pretty much moot because they will not be doing it. Sniper rifles are so much less newsworthy that they will be the first choice for many decades to come.