3 ms·

It seems your right. And it deeply saddens me to think that it may cost someone's life before anything will change.

by click170 11y ago

bigiain 11y ago
Unlike gun laws?
- mikeash 11y ago
  Where did that come from? Please don't try to derail the conversation like this.
  - bigiain 11y ago
    Just trying to point out a seeming lack of perspective. Not trying to derail things (but, in retrospect, I suppose that argument inevitably would get misconstrued, even if I'd made it well.) People fear drone incidents may possibly harm or kill someone - without any concrete evidence of actual harm. But threaten the "right to arm bears", and from some corners all hell breaks loose. How does that work? Why are drones even something that gets discussed in the context of improving personal safety when there's _so_ much other low hanging fruit where real differences could be made?
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      Guns aren't exactly low-hanging fruit. If you actually separate out acts of violence by motivation, goal, or type of violence, rather than by the weapon used, you will see that solutions based on restricting guns are not solutions at all. For instance, the current hysteria surrounds mass shootings. But statistically you're about as likely to get struck by lightning. And in places where guns are restricted, its true they don't have mass shootings as often, but that's only because we are defining the act based on the weapon used. The actual class of the attack-mass murder/assault-continues, but using a different weapon, such as arson or poison gas. Gun deaths are also lumped together as well, so suicides and self defense are treated the same way as unarmed murder, which also muddies the waters. So "how it works" is that people are irrational when it comes to fear and risk and their instinct is to "kill" whatever it is that makes them fearful. In the case of drones, no one feels particularly strongly in favor of free range drones (and such a situation ultimately is untenable anyway) so there isn't a lot of push back. In the case of guns, not only do many people have strong, reasoned arguments why guns should not be (more) restricted, but they also possess the same irrationality about fear and risk, thus "all hell breaks loose."
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Guns are only "low hanging fruit" if you ignore politics, which is nonsensical when talking about regulation. Passing a sensible drone regulation framework is pretty much trivial. Passing a sensible gun control framework would be a heroic effort requiring a leader with charisma and persuasion like we haven't seen in decades. That gun control is such a hot-button political issue is why this is a bad comparison and why even mentioning it looks like an attempt to wreck the discussion.
shkkmo 11y ago
I find your uninformed fear mongering unhelpful, the dangers posed by these drones is relatively negligible. The laws already exist to prosecute those who deserve it and the currently proposed registration system should help with that. The current problem is twofold: 1) We need better education of new UAS owners (and articles like this one don't help). 2) We need sane new rules and guidelines that allow drone operators to safely and legally do the sorts of things that are currently not allowed (autonomous operation, FPV flight outside of line-of-sight, and commercial operations) I think 2) is important because you need buy-in from the community so that they self-police and self-educate. If your rules are asinine and un-informed you will alienate pilots and your enforcing job will be MUCH harder.

It seems your right. And it deeply saddens me to think that it may cost someone's life before anything will change.

bigiain 11y ago

Unlike gun laws?

mikeash 11y ago
Where did that come from? Please don't try to derail the conversation like this.
- bigiain 11y ago
  Just trying to point out a seeming lack of perspective. Not trying to derail things (but, in retrospect, I suppose that argument inevitably would get misconstrued, even if I'd made it well.) People fear drone incidents may possibly harm or kill someone - without any concrete evidence of actual harm. But threaten the "right to arm bears", and from some corners all hell breaks loose. How does that work? Why are drones even something that gets discussed in the context of improving personal safety when there's _so_ much other low hanging fruit where real differences could be made?
  - cgriswald 11y ago
    Guns aren't exactly low-hanging fruit. If you actually separate out acts of violence by motivation, goal, or type of violence, rather than by the weapon used, you will see that solutions based on restricting guns are not solutions at all. For instance, the current hysteria surrounds mass shootings. But statistically you're about as likely to get struck by lightning. And in places where guns are restricted, its true they don't have mass shootings as often, but that's only because we are defining the act based on the weapon used. The actual class of the attack-mass murder/assault-continues, but using a different weapon, such as arson or poison gas. Gun deaths are also lumped together as well, so suicides and self defense are treated the same way as unarmed murder, which also muddies the waters. So "how it works" is that people are irrational when it comes to fear and risk and their instinct is to "kill" whatever it is that makes them fearful. In the case of drones, no one feels particularly strongly in favor of free range drones (and such a situation ultimately is untenable anyway) so there isn't a lot of push back. In the case of guns, not only do many people have strong, reasoned arguments why guns should not be (more) restricted, but they also possess the same irrationality about fear and risk, thus "all hell breaks loose."
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Guns are only "low hanging fruit" if you ignore politics, which is nonsensical when talking about regulation. Passing a sensible drone regulation framework is pretty much trivial. Passing a sensible gun control framework would be a heroic effort requiring a leader with charisma and persuasion like we haven't seen in decades. That gun control is such a hot-button political issue is why this is a bad comparison and why even mentioning it looks like an attempt to wreck the discussion.

shkkmo 11y ago

I find your uninformed fear mongering unhelpful, the dangers posed by these drones is relatively negligible. The laws already exist to prosecute those who deserve it and the currently proposed registration system should help with that. The current problem is twofold: 1) We need better education of new UAS owners (and articles like this one don't help). 2) We need sane new rules and guidelines that allow drone operators to safely and legally do the sorts of things that are currently not allowed (autonomous operation, FPV flight outside of line-of-sight, and commercial operations) I think 2) is important because you need buy-in from the community so that they self-police and self-educate. If your rules are asinine and un-informed you will alienate pilots and your enforcing job will be MUCH harder.