12 ms·
of course they did! Ring's PR strategy heavily involves law enforcement: they feed LE juicy surveillance in order to get softball quotes that play on people's i
by maximente 7y ago
of course they did! Ring's PR strategy heavily involves law enforcement: they feed LE juicy surveillance in order to get softball quotes that play on people's insecurity about how infrequent crime actually is, thus increasing their incentive to buy Ring stuff, increasing Ring's market share, surveillance collection potential, and making law enforcement more and more supportive.
getting a permanently funded government agency as an advocate for your thing is a great startup play: you'll easily crush competitors and roll your way into an enshrined monopoly because "we cannot possibly lose this valuable tool against criminals everywhere"
- scarface74 7y agoIsn’t that the same scare tactics that gun manufacturers use? They act as if anyone is dumb if they don’t carry around an automatic weapon to protect themselves against the lawless hordes roaming the streets of suburban America.
- dsr_ 7y agoEvery issue of the NRA's monthly magazine has a column that runs reports of people defending themselves with guns. They are typically not sourced well enough for an independent confirmation.
- CompanionCuuube 7y agoAnd practically none of them are against "lawless hordes". Who would have thought? Edit: Some people getting angry about their juvenile strawman being pointed out.
- Frondo 7y agoLetters to Penthouse, NRA Edition
- dsr_ 7y agoTypically third person rather than first, but it's not clear that they have much greater factual basis.
- flyingfences 7y agoYou can visit /r/dgu for an aggregation of reports from news sources.
- pjc50 7y agoStartup idea: combine the two! Personal gun cameras with high speed photography on the trigger pull that can be used to exonerate lawful shootings and conveniently deleted if not. Maybe use machine learning for that.
- CompanionCuuube 7y agoNext step, get funding from Bloomberg to push legislation that makes those "smart guns" required to price regular people out of gun ownership.
- big_chungus 7y agoJoking aside, Mr. Biden wants to make this a law: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18952042/joe-biden-smart-gun-control-democratic-debate-2020-regulation-biometric-trigger https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18952042/joe-biden-smart-... He of course fails to consider that this will simply make guns more un-affordable from the poorest Americans. Those people tend to live in the worst neighborhoods where police respond poorly, and therefore often need them most.
- wbl 7y agoReturn of the Navy Laws.
- gjs278 7y agothat’s what the taser corporation already does with the bodycams
- ngold 7y ago"Their coming right for us." Would be an appropriate voice command to delete the footage.
- Balgair 7y ago> Maybe use machine learning for that. Too late?[0,1] PGFs (Precision Guided Firearms) will take a picture, and help you aim too. They even have apps for your iPhone. Like how CA has a tech focused start-up culture, TX has something of a gun focused start-up culture [2]. IRL aim-bots have been around for ~6 years now, though those companies tend to snatched up by the DoD pretty quickly, so it's tough/expensive to acquire. [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23571-self-aiming-rifle-turns-novices-into-expert-snipers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23571-self-aiming-rif... [1] http://www.tracking-point.com/ http://www.tracking-point.com/ [2] Can MA give us an education focused start-up culture? Maybe NC a health care focused one?
- CWuestefeld 7y agogun manufacturers ... automatic weapon It's illegal in America for private citizens to own automatic weapons manufactured after [some date - 1984?]. Since gun manufacturers thus can't sell them such weapons, they have no interest in making people want them.
- alacombe 7y agoThis is blatantly false. Private transfer of fully automatic weapon is fully legal, provided you live in the right state and register it with the ATF (and pay a $200 tax stamp). The prohibition target the manufacture of such weapon for civilian market past 1984. As such, there is naturally a very high demand for a very low offer, and prices are astronomical, IIRC about $20k for a pre-1984 M-16 receiver. If you have the money to buy a such receiver and your state law do not prohibit you from owning the weapon, go ahead, fill the ATF paperwork, wait 6 months, and enjoy your full-auto M-16. With more paperwork, you can even shot it as a full-auto suppressed SBR. 100% legal.
- Consultant32452 7y agoDid the GP edit their post? Because your post does not conflict with theirs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- moate 7y agoI mean, why not? Wouldn't it be reasonable to stoke a desire for that in order and use the resulting frustration as a way to continue to keep a segment of their consumers frustrated with government overreach and limitation on 2A? There's plenty of gun mags that talk about all the high powered tech that the military has access to. If there was no civilian interest in that stuff, it wouldn't be published. You want motivated consumers screaming for your products, and large segment of keeping the 2A in place is reminding consumers that "if you don't have access to guns, bad people will do bad things that could have been prevented".
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoOnce you get to a population density that allows police departments big enough that most cops can have social circles that are only other cops (I'm not claiming cause or effect, just that this seems to be about the crossover point) cops tend to start wanting everyone else not be armed. Edit: yes I'm totally wrong which is why city police departments constantly fight against gun control. /s
- catalogia 7y agoThere are certainly exceptions, I've met a few, but in my experience small-town cops aren't typically bullish on private gun ownership either (except for themselves of course..)
- rpmisms 7y agoOne of my small-town shooting buddies is a cop. He's quite supportive of individual responsible gun ownership.
- blocko 7y agoWell that's just about all the data I need to come to a firm conclusion on the matter
- Rebelgecko 7y agoWhen I've looked at the stats in California, the rate that CCWs are issued at (which depends upon what the local sheriff's or police department considers to be a "good cause") is inversely correlated with population density.
- catalogia 7y agoA sheriff or police chief approving CCW permits does not necessarily mean that person personally approves of private firearm ownership. It may be the case that the sheriff is putting aside their personal beliefs when on the job. Their willingness to do so might reflect the nature of small town politics (particularly in the cases of sheriffs, who are elected, but also in the case of police chiefs who are nominated by somebody who is in turn elected.) The phrase "I don't approve of what you're doing but I'll defend your right to do it" comes to mind.
- Consultant32452 7y agoThe primary one gun manufacturers use is shining a spotlight on every instance of a Democrat comment or putting forth legislation that limits gun ownership. I think most people would be surprised at how frequently this happens when you include local governments. Of course, most of those bills never have a chance of passing, they're just virtue signaling for the left. But it really invigorates the right. When Obama took office some types of guns and ammo were not widely available for literally years. People were so afraid he'd take their guns they hoarded them like crazy.
- catalogia 7y agoI wager hollywood and the video game industry drive more gun sales than the NRA and all the marketing firms hired by gun manufacturers combined. The John Wick movies probably sold more guns than a hundred editions of NRA magazines.
- scarface74 7y agoAnd that worries more. The last thing I want is a “War on Guns”. If it’s anything like the “War on Drugs”, it will only be a “War” on minorities.
- minikites 7y agohttps://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-... >Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.” >The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.
- jboggan 7y agoA firearm, like a fire extinguisher, is one of those items which is completely pointless to have until it's the only thing in the world that matters. In my experience it wasn't a horde - just one man - but I needed it all the same.
- nexuist 7y ago"Statistics don't matter when it happens to you."
- shrimp_emoji 7y agoEven then, more wanted than needed (unless you're inform and/or immobile).
- Scramblejams 7y agoThat statement implies a lot of assumptions that may not be correct.
- lilyball 7y agoThe best way to increase your odds of getting shot is to own a gun. Owning guns is dangerous. Occasionally for some people it will turn out to be a positive, but in general, owning a gun is a negative.
- vturner 7y agoReplace "gun" in your sentence with say "power tool." Any powerful piece of technology in careless hands is dangerous. Goodness, even computers are dangerous in the hands of narcissistic hackers! That doesn't mean they are not perfectly safe useful tools in the responsible hands.
- p1necone 7y agoSure but you actually need the power tool for something.
- homonculus1 7y agoThis doesn't seem like a very intellectually honest appraisal of the situation. Most obviously, gun manufacturers are not exclusively serving people who live in safe suburban areas. Also, gun manufacturers tend to only advertise in publications and spaces that gun enthusiasts frequent, so anyone who might be influenced by them has already decided to include violent crime in their threat model and prepare accordingly. And lastly, perhaps anecdotally, I've never ever seen anything to the effect of that message outside of tongue-in-cheek internet forum shitposting. Firearms manufacturers are highly feature-oriented in their marketing, with some generic patriotic bells and whistles if anything. What you wrote is just a gross caricature of the motivation and practice of self defense.
- scarface74 7y agoYou haven’t seen all of the uproar about taking away automatic weapons? Why else would you need an automatic weapon except to go against a group of people? I’m not anti-gun - especially at home. If someone breaks into my house, I’m going to assume they mean me harm. There are only four people who should be coming into our house without us letting them in and they all have the code to our alarm.
- homonculus1 7y agoSeen it? I'm part of it. But it's not some influence campaign from gun companies, who can't even legally sell them to anyone except the government.
- shpongled 7y agoWhat are you even talking about? Ownership of automatic weapons in the US is extremely rare and highly regulated. There have been < 5 deaths in the US with automatic weapons since the NFA passed. This comment is one reason why it's so hard to discuss firearm issues, one side is completely emotional and has no understanding of the facts or current laws.
- scarface74 7y agoAren’t you kind of making my point? Hardly anyone owns automatic weapons but there is still an uproar about “taking them”.
- rdiddly 7y agoYep and it leaves the same question unanswered: Who or what protects the rest of us from these people protecting themselves with { cameras | guns }?
- scarface74 7y agoI live in the south. It amazes me that anyone thinks it’s a good idea to break into someone’s house to steal something with the number of people who own guns. There are much less dangerous ways to obtain money illegally.
- Shivetya 7y agothe current trends, going by metro Atlanta news, is simply trying to find cars which are unlocked and slider attacks at gas stations; where they look for people who leave valuables in their if not the keys while they pump gas. The number of people leaving valuables in their cars and in full view is not insignificant
- shpongled 7y agoWhy do you need protection from someone else protecting themself? Are you committing an act of violence against that person?
- scarface74 7y agoWell, if you watched the news about how many people have felt threatened by a “menacing looking minority” you would understand why “people protecting themselves” is often worrisome.
- rdiddly 7y agoWell, why does that person need protection? Is it because he's committing an act of violence against whoever he thinks he needs protection from? No, but ironically, he is committing an invasion, against everybody. To himself he's a disciplined warrior defending his precious family against the forces of chaos. To me he's a poorly-trained, hysterical coward willing to pollute the entire world and fill it with guns and surveillance cameras pointed at ME on behalf of his family about whom I'm not obliged to care in the slightest. God forbid I should be in that neighborhood if I'm black or "acting weird" in accordance with my god-given rights. What are this random guy's criteria and thresholds for threat assignment? With the police, I know what they are or could find out. And ostensibly they're trained for each thing. So yeah, ironically, as little as many people trust the police, they're still way more trustworthy than this guy.
- eth0up 7y agoThis comment seems to have initiated a surprisingly long thread on the topic of guns. A worthy topic, but I was hoping to see more discussion on surveillance, privacy and related things. Perhaps someone should drop an inflammatory submission on firearms and let the flames frolic there.
- scarface74 7y agoNo one has said that “all guns should be banned” and that gun owners are “obsessed with their bibles and guns” nor has anyone on the other side called people who don’t own guns “skinny jeans wearing liberals”. This has been a relatively non inflammatory discussion.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]