Hacker News Reader

Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

See, this is the sort of thing that I hate reading about.

Like, yes, we have drones, and yes, we have firearms, and yes, we can add one to the other--but is it really a good idea?

The potential for abuse of such systems is absurd; I cannot believe that any engineer with a shred of morality would voluntarily work on such things without at least a solid explanation of why doing so is permissible.

Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and dissidents--not standing armies.

View on HN

> Mark my words: these things will mostly be used against civilians and dissidents--not standing armies.

Which is why I (German) really hate our weapons law. War will come back to Europe, we are on the fringe of a fucking Cold War turning into a Hot War with the Russians in Ukraine. Not to mention the rising inequality in Europe - if it blows up one day, it will hit hard.

I'd like to be equipped and trained properly instead of being restricted to gas revolvers, stones and arrows. Or knives, which are useless as I'm a terrible close-range fighter.

I don't really understand how buying your own gun/rifle/whatever would be of any help in surviving a war. The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers. And while talking about inequality, I am quite uncertain about how a gun/rifle would help you. You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike? I am quite skeptical that a proliferation of this kind of thing would help you much with your "problems".

> The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers.

EU vs Russia may not be fought on German territory any soon, but civil wars inside the EU are not that far away (hell, they're hunting down jews and black people already)...

Also, I'm not really a supporter of big-caliber shotguns in private hands - but we're not even allowed to own handguns! Fine, not being allowed to carry in public is something I accept and deem necessary, but not even being allowed to possess them is just ridiculous given the huge number of illegal guns.

> they're hunting down jews and black people already

What are you talking about?

Anti-Israel protests escalating in Hitler greets, synagogues being attacked by mobs. Right now. In Germany, in France, probably even more all over Europe.

As for the blacks, there have been multiple attacks of right extremists where they have beaten black people near to death in Germany.

And I don't even want to talk about the anti-Roma sentiments ALL over Europe, beginning from France with the rise of Front National and ending in Hungary with Viktor Orban and his cronies doing NOTHING at all to stop mobs from even killing Roma.

We have in our midst a civil war brewing.

And hey, I'd like to have a gun when the left+right wing extremists are all armed to the teeth with illegal guns, pipe bombs and stuff. Add in motorcycle gangs and the various Mafia clans, and you have a shitload of guys with big guns and no respect for anyone but their own safety and cash.

> "The last couple of recent wars (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc) were fought mostly with "big tech" (airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc) which is pretty deadly to low level mosquitoes like civilians and foot soldiers."

In those wars, was it both parties using airplanes, bombs, and tanks? Or was it one side using those things, and the other side holding out without them for over a decade? The opposing tanks in Iraq were shredded in hours, it was the guys with rifles and improvised weapons that held out.

In Berlin there is a Soviet war memorial that is known by some locals as "The Tomb of the Unknown Rapist". You can imagine why. When you are in a warzone, you cannot depend on anyone but yourself to keep you safe from the soldiers of the conquering army. Having a gun will not put you on equal footing with them, but at least it will give you the opportunity to attempt to defend yourself.

> "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?"

Where the hell did those suppositions come from?

> > "You would shoot the guy going through your trash? Or the guy stealing your bike?" > Where the hell did those suppositions come from?

Actually, he is not far from what I'd do. I'd just keep the bastard at gunpoint until the cops come. Not the first time I had to resort to this with my gas revolver.

Lesson learned (for the two fools): never go to a shooting with a knife (the fact that one had a knife actually yielded him a bigger sentence for the attempted theft; it's called "Diebstahl mit einer Waffe").

With a thief that might be reasonable, but I think that'd be a bit overboard with somebody that was just going through your trash. I definitely wouldn't confront a thief with no gun though.

I really don't understand this kind of reasoning. What do you expect will a couple of lightly trained people with guns do against a huge, well-trained army with tanks, modern weapons, jets, and combat experience. If only it will make things worse because once civillians are starting to fire at will, it will be much easier for soldiers to decide to shoot at civillians, too.

I refer you to this beautiful Onion article. http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one...

I'm particularly happy with our German gun laws, and I highly doubt that war will easily come back to mainland Europe. And if Russia really decided to start a war and bomb Germany, dude, not having a gun will be the least of your problems.

Well you can look at how the US has done in the middle east for an example of the economic cost of asymmetric warfare. Though I generally agree with your point that it's not going to work out well for the invaded country either unless another state actor comes to their aid. It's also worth noting that the French Resistance was considered important not just for the acts of sabotage and intelligence it gave the allies as they advanced but also in the rapid growth of the FFI after the allies invaded.

At least drones tend to have cameras, and their operators cannot excuse their own actions by claiming that their lives were at risk. Drones have the potential to be more audit-able.

The mantra I usually hear around here in regards to tech's harms--like putting people out of work--is to make the advances and let society adapt. It seems very shortsighted.

Well, someone's going to do it.

That doesn't mean the person who does it can't think about ways to deal with the social implications.

Right, but it does mean the solution isn't "Just don't build the weapon"

I'm not the one saying that.

Once you invent something, it exists; You have little power over the social implications.

I think that technology that provides goods and services more efficiently is quite different from technology that kills people more efficiently. Think of all those hunters and gatherers who were put out of work with the advent of farming, or all those farmers who lost their jobs when we switched away from a subsistence farming economy. "Make the advances and let society adapt" has worked quite well in the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com