5 ms·

Banning a Flipper Zero for Car Thefts is like banning a BB Gun for Firearm Deaths.... You're targeting the wrong device lol. edit: Further perspective: You nee

Banning a Flipper Zero for Car Thefts is like banning a BB Gun for Firearm Deaths.... You're targeting the wrong device lol. edit: Further perspective: You need something that can perform a relay attack. You need someone with a powerful enough antenna to find the remote inside someone's home and relay it to a person near the car. This involves at least 2x CC1101's > As you can see, small embedded antennas are very inefficient, however convenient. In all cases here, the antenna radiated less than 1% of the available RF power. Using a full sized high efficiency antenna has the potential to increase TRP by at least 20 dB, which is 100 times more power or about a 10x increase in communications range. https://antennatestlab.com/antenna-education-tutorials/consumer_antenans/flipper-zero-antenna-patterns https://antennatestlab.com/antenna-education-tutorials/consu... This is the type of device still available, far more useful and powerful than a banned FZ: https://www.analog.com/en/resources/evaluation-hardware-and-software/evaluation-boards-kits/adalm-pluto.html https://www.analog.com/en/resources/evaluation-hardware-and-...

parkcedar 3y ago
Don’t worry, Australia already did that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- da768 3y ago
  Oh no worries, Canadian gov is pretty good at copying Australian laws. Netflix tax, link tax, etc.
web3-is-a-scam 3y ago
this is just on brand for the Liberal government They banned a bunch of sport shooting and hunting guns because they look “scary” when criminals largely use handguns to commit crime. Licensed gun owners in Canada are statistically the least likely people out of all to commit crime of any kind (let alone gun crime), as they are background checked every day. Let alone the fact that criminals use illegal black market handguns smuggled from the US to commit the majority of gun crime and won’t have a firearms license.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- WaxProlix 3y ago
  Their stated aim was reduction in harm in (would be) mass shooting incidents, generally. I own guns, wish I could own more, and dislike 'liberal' and conservative infringements of my rights equally, but at least get the claims straight.
  - evandale 3y ago
    They literally called it an "assault-style gun" ban. If that's not judging guns based on how scary they look then what would you call it?
    - WaxProlix 3y ago
      Depends on what the content of the law was, I suppose, but you're not really addressing my point. Why did they say they wanted to ban these weapons? And why did standard capacity mags get banned around the same time? Hint: your mini 14, my g3, and my buddy's SKS all fell under this rule, despite having some distinct aesthetics (and all being pretty distinct from the dreaded AR15).
      - evandale 3y ago
        I've never heard them come up with reasons beyond that they look scary .. which you're disputing but you don't seem to know why they banned them? I'm so confused now.
        WaxProlix 3y ago
        You seem to be claiming that a specific law invoked scary aesthetics specifically. I obviously can't speak to that - I'm saying that I've seen other rationales given for firearm restrictions. It'd be weird if I did know what you were talking about, right?
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
All guns do is accelerate a lump of metal! Anyone could do this before by practicing their throw! Sometimes tech lowers the barrier to commit crimes and should be regulated.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

parkcedar 3y ago

Don’t worry, Australia already did that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
da768 3y ago
Oh no worries, Canadian gov is pretty good at copying Australian laws. Netflix tax, link tax, etc.

web3-is-a-scam 3y ago

this is just on brand for the Liberal government They banned a bunch of sport shooting and hunting guns because they look “scary” when criminals largely use handguns to commit crime. Licensed gun owners in Canada are statistically the least likely people out of all to commit crime of any kind (let alone gun crime), as they are background checked every day. Let alone the fact that criminals use illegal black market handguns smuggled from the US to commit the majority of gun crime and won’t have a firearms license.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
WaxProlix 3y ago
Their stated aim was reduction in harm in (would be) mass shooting incidents, generally. I own guns, wish I could own more, and dislike 'liberal' and conservative infringements of my rights equally, but at least get the claims straight.
- evandale 3y ago
  They literally called it an "assault-style gun" ban. If that's not judging guns based on how scary they look then what would you call it?
  - WaxProlix 3y ago
    Depends on what the content of the law was, I suppose, but you're not really addressing my point. Why did they say they wanted to ban these weapons? And why did standard capacity mags get banned around the same time? Hint: your mini 14, my g3, and my buddy's SKS all fell under this rule, despite having some distinct aesthetics (and all being pretty distinct from the dreaded AR15).
    - evandale 3y ago
      I've never heard them come up with reasons beyond that they look scary .. which you're disputing but you don't seem to know why they banned them? I'm so confused now.
      - WaxProlix 3y ago
        You seem to be claiming that a specific law invoked scary aesthetics specifically. I obviously can't speak to that - I'm saying that I've seen other rationales given for firearm restrictions. It'd be weird if I did know what you were talking about, right?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

All guns do is accelerate a lump of metal! Anyone could do this before by practicing their throw! Sometimes tech lowers the barrier to commit crimes and should be regulated.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]