Win Loose Or Droned North Dakota To Use Armed Drones

[Sionyn]

some pro police lobbyist has manged to convince North Dakota to use armed drones If the justification is that the officer fears for their safety, how does an armed drone possibly fit into that logic. Was the suspect threatening the officer from 1/2 mile away?!

problem is this will further alienate the police from the communities that they are ostensibly supposed to be serving.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/first-state-legalizes-armed-drones-for-cops-thanks-to-a-lobbyist.html

[Rick Law]

some pro police lobbyist has manged to convince North Dakota to use armed drones If the justification is that the officer fears for their safety, how does an armed drone possibly fit into that logic. Was the suspect threatening the officer from 1/2 mile away?!

problem is this will further alienate the police from the communities that they are ostensibly supposed to be serving. er)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/first-state-legalizes-armed-drones-for-cops-thanks-to-a-lobbyist.html

According to the article you linked to, the drones are armed only with camera so the only thing it can shoot are videos and photos.  It is however equipped with Taser.

I suppose camera drones expand the area police can reach and thus reduce man-power needs.  I suppose there isn't enough of us wanting to pay higher tax for more human officers.

For up-close, I suppose it reduces risk.  Right now, the officer has sub-seconds to decide to go for the gun - or not.  With a drone, the police can hang back giving the policeman more time to make a decision and under less stress.

By the way, the article speaks of "...With all the concern over the militarization of police in the past year..."  How quick people forget, it was by popular outcry immediately after the 1997 North Hollywood shoot out.  Police were out-gunned by two very well armed bank robbers in the shootout.  The police was out in force but powerless, pinned down, and those who got close enough were merely bleeding on the ground along with wounded civilians.  Police had pee-shooters (hand guns) and the robbers had AK47's XM15, HK91, "and centerfire rifles which are all generally capable of penetrating vehicles and police Kevlar vests" (see the wiki article link below).

The police had to borrow a cash-delivery armor truck (happened to be passing by) to evacuate the wounded policemen and civilians, and they had to go to a near by gun shop to borrow heavier arms since the robbers were wearing bullet resistant vests.  After the shootout, the city council approved better (automatic) arms for the LA police and best place to acquire them was of course via military surpluses.

From the link below: ...it is regarded as one of the longest and bloodiest events in American police history...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[Bud]

If the justification is that the officer fears for their safety

If fears for their safety he should not be in that business.

[Zero999]

In the UK a taser is still considered to be an offensive weapon and most police officers aren't permitted to carry them, let alone guns.

Over in the US, you have so many guns the police can't cope. Why bother having a police force at all? Why not just use the army for law enforcement?

[Delta]

If the justification is that the officer fears for their safety

If fears for their safety he should not be in that business.

Coppers - like many other professions - do a dangerous job, but that doesn't mean they are expendable.  They are entitled to expect that their job is made safer if the means to do so exist.

[firewalker]

Police Militarization.

https://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A?t=509

Alexander.

[Rick Law]

...
By the way, the article speaks of "...With all the concern over the militarization of police in the past year..."  How quick people forget, it was by popular outcry immediately after the 1997 North Hollywood shoot out.  Police were out-gunned by two very well armed bank robbers in the shootout.  The police was out in force but powerless, pinned down, and those who got close enough were merely bleeding on the ground along with wounded civilians.  Police had pee-shooters (hand guns) and the robbers had AK47's XM15, HK91, "and centerfire rifles which are all generally capable of penetrating vehicles and police Kevlar vests" (see the wiki article link below).

The police had to borrow a cash-delivery armor truck (happened to be passing by) to evacuate the wounded policemen and civilians, and they had to go to a near by gun shop to borrow heavier arms since the robbers were wearing bullet resistant vests.  After the shootout, the city council approved better (automatic) arms for the LA police and best place to acquire them was of course via military surpluses.

From the link below: ...it is regarded as one of the longest and bloodiest events in American police history...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

ERT or in the US SWAT have heavier weapons the response time was slow. How often does something like that happen even in the US? I don't think a once or twice in a decade  occurence warrants a militarisied police force.
...
Once again the silly facts, statistically you are far more likely to be injured or killed in a police encounter then the cop is.
...
I think a lot of cops watch to many Bruce Willis movies and have problems seperating fantasy from reality.

re: US SWAT have heavier weapons the response time was slow

You are right, by the time SWAT got there (North Hollywood Shootout) the stuff was pretty much done.

It is probably not the frequency of the event but rather the trauma of such major event that was totally avoidable - not unlike Titanic is still on our minds while far more got killed in many earth quakes since. 

Is heavier arms really needed?  After North Hollywood, the general sense was let us make sure the police is able to protect us rather then just go there and be targets like the civilians there.

Major events like North Hollywood is less than once a decade.  After North Hollywood, police being better armed has not been outgunned so badly; so it is hard to say what it would have been.

The lesson should have been learned in 1986 "Worst in FBI history" Miami shootout.  FBI was outgunned and out maneuvered.  The two guys had just one Ruger Mini-14 rifle and hand guns.  But while FBI was reloading their 5-shooter, the guy with the 30 shot magazine advanced and took out the three FBI Agents behind the car reloading.  They killed two FBI agent and wounded five.  It could have been much worst.  Had they take the kill shot every time (like after getting behind the car, had he took a head shot instead of shooting Agent Hanlon at the groin), probably, at least two more FBI agents would have died.  Agent Hanlon survived.

The last and only time I can cite "personal experience" was when we had a near by bank robbery and robber on the loose, (one FBI agent died serving us on that day, RIP), police went door to door knocking and street by street with megaphone telling people to stay home.  It was very discerning when you know a dangerous guy is on the loose and your life may be at risk.  Every swaying tree in the back seem so threatening.  When it comes to choosing between giving police a rifle verses the unlikely event of my lying on the ground bleeding, I choose giving the police a rifle.

re: Once again the silly facts, statistically you are far more likely to be injured or killed in a police encounter then the cop is.

Based on frequency of news stories, accidental shooting of cooperative civilian is very rare.  My sense is that most of the shooting is when folks resisted arrest or challenge the police in threatening ways.  I think in most cases, testosterone of youth is likely at fault.

re: I think a lot of cops watch to many Bruce Willis movies and have problems seperating fantasy from reality.

I agree with you there.  As long as they act professionally (which requires them separating fantasy from reality while working)...  If not, they should choose other occupations.

[Docholiday]

Its only a matter of time and events before lethal weapons are added to these drones. Then some idiot will eventually hack one of these drones and all chaos will ensue from that point forward.

Maybe not in the US but perhaps some other country. I support law enforcement and agree that they must have the tools and means to uphold and protect us. But I feel there are not enough measures in place that properly train our law enforcement in the use of these types of counter measures. Resulting in their unintentional application and at times the cause of bodily harm.

Just like anything else whether it be electronics, machining, or driving, its all in the proper use of a tool without proper training somebody always gets hurt.

[Rick Law]

Its only a matter of time and events before lethal weapons are added to these drones. Then some idiot will eventually hack one of these drones and all chaos will ensue from that point forward.

Maybe not in the US but perhaps some other country. I support law enforcement and agree that they must have the tools and means to uphold and protect us. But I feel there are not enough measures in place that properly train our law enforcement in the use of these types of counter measures. Resulting in their unintentional application and at times the cause of bodily harm.

Just like anything else whether it be electronics, machining, or driving, its all in the proper use of a tool without proper training somebody always gets hurt.

I agree.  Better training is going to be beneficial and necessary.  Current Federal law does not allow police helicopters or planes to be equipped with arms.  Not being a lawyer, I do not know for sure but I would think the way it is worded would include drones as well.

The idea of hiring someone to do a job, and then don't allow them the tools they needed is just counter productive. 

Like telling the electronics guy (I made this up): nope, you can't have a soldering iron, you must clean the dry join and try to use electrical tapes:  Because once somewhere an irradiated electronics guy took out his coworker's eye by jabbing his coworker with the iron, so we don't issue soldering iron anymore.

The issue is, do we as the boss (police work for us civilians) determined if it is suitable- or not.

[pickle9000]

Police Militarization.

https://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A?t=509

Alexander.

That hit the nail on the head.

[edy]

I can see using Drones with INFRA-RED cameras to detect suspects hiding in "the bush" or at night. Find and tracking suspects with the drone (which is much cheaper than deploying a helicopter) would help avoid surprise confrontations or ambush-type situations which could lead to a scuffle and shots being fired. They should equip the drone with a large speaker to tell the suspect to surrender or else they'll get themselves drone-whipped.

But I also can see how it can be used for unwarranted invasion of privacy and catching people "in the act" of doing, growing or using certain things that otherwise wouldn't have been known. Then it would be like BIG BROTHER always watching. I can see how people get this image of "Terminator" with robotic army being remotely-controlled.

[mtdoc]

  How quick people forget, it was by popular outcry immediately after the 1997 North Hollywood shoot out.

I do not recall any such public outcry. It was used as an excuse by some law enforcement agencies to begin the process of militarization. However this process did not really gain full traction on a national level until 9/11 and the establishment of the Dept of Homeland Security.

Ideally police forces serve the public and on a local level that is thankfully still the case. However, the widespread trend is for more militarization and for various law enforcement agencies to more and more act to serve the corporate state.  Drones with tasers is just another step in the trend. One can imagine an army of such drones deployed during mass protests or any civil unrest.

Ah well - as history has shown - this is what happens in the last stages of empire...

[Deathwish]

They have been watching that crazy russian guy and his drone on youtube  .

[ez24]

Police Militarization.

https://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A?t=509

Alexander.

Learned from this is that when you link a YT video, it links in the time you made the link.  So if you want someone to see the beginning you need to link in the beginning.  This is why a video I linked in once failed, because my the video linked in past the point I wanted people to see.  Thanks for pointing this out.  Now I can ask my question again with a proper link to YT.

[ez24]

It is only a matter of time.

When the bad guy's drone shoots down the good guy's drone.  The good guy will put a bigger gun on his drone. 


In San Diego recently, someone was flying a drone over people's heads on the beach.  A person took off his t-shirt and threw it at the drone (so it had to be low) and brought down the drone.  The t-shirt thrower was hauled off to jail and booked and bailed out.  He and the drone owner were both interviewed by local TV news.

The next day charges were dropped.  The drone owner said the damage was $800 and jeopardized his lively hood.

[Zero999]

You are right, by the time SWAT got there (North Hollywood Shootout) the stuff was pretty much done.

It is probably not the frequency of the event but rather the trauma of such major event that was totally avoidable - not unlike Titanic is still on our minds while far more got killed in many earth quakes since. 

Is heavier arms really needed?  After North Hollywood, the general sense was let us make sure the police is able to protect us rather then just go there and be targets like the civilians there.

Major events like North Hollywood is less than once a decade.  After North Hollywood, police being better armed has not been outgunned so badly; so it is hard to say what it would have been.

The lesson should have been learned in 1986 "Worst in FBI history" Miami shootout.  FBI was outgunned and out maneuvered.  The two guys had just one Ruger Mini-14 rifle and hand guns.  But while FBI was reloading their 5-shooter, the guy with the 30 shot magazine advanced and took out the three FBI Agents behind the car reloading.  They killed two FBI agent and wounded five.  It could have been much worst.  Had they take the kill shot every time (like after getting behind the car, had he took a head shot instead of shooting Agent Hanlon at the groin), probably, at least two more FBI agents would have died.  Agent Hanlon survived.

The last and only time I can cite "personal experience" was when we had a near by bank robbery and robber on the loose, (one FBI agent died serving us on that day, RIP), police went door to door knocking and street by street with megaphone telling people to stay home.  It was very discerning when you know a dangerous guy is on the loose and your life may be at risk.  Every swaying tree in the back seem so threatening.  When it comes to choosing between giving police a rifle verses the unlikely event of my lying on the ground bleeding, I choose giving the police a rifle.

There are other things you could've done, such as make it more difficult for people to get hold of guns but the freedom to own a firearm and providing the gun manufacturers with business is seen as far more important, than protecting citizens form harm.

[Rick Law]

You are right, by the time SWAT got there (North Hollywood Shootout) the stuff was pretty much done.

It is probably not the frequency of the event but rather the trauma of such major event that was totally avoidable - not unlike Titanic is still on our minds while far more got killed in many earth quakes since. 

Is heavier arms really needed?  After North Hollywood, the general sense was let us make sure the police is able to protect us rather then just go there and be targets like the civilians there.

Major events like North Hollywood is less than once a decade.  After North Hollywood, police being better armed has not been outgunned so badly; so it is hard to say what it would have been.

The lesson should have been learned in 1986 "Worst in FBI history" Miami shootout.  FBI was outgunned and out maneuvered.  The two guys had just one Ruger Mini-14 rifle and hand guns.  But while FBI was reloading their 5-shooter, the guy with the 30 shot magazine advanced and took out the three FBI Agents behind the car reloading.  They killed two FBI agent and wounded five.  It could have been much worst.  Had they take the kill shot every time (like after getting behind the car, had he took a head shot instead of shooting Agent Hanlon at the groin), probably, at least two more FBI agents would have died.  Agent Hanlon survived.

The last and only time I can cite "personal experience" was when we had a near by bank robbery and robber on the loose, (one FBI agent died serving us on that day, RIP), police went door to door knocking and street by street with megaphone telling people to stay home.  It was very discerning when you know a dangerous guy is on the loose and your life may be at risk.  Every swaying tree in the back seem so threatening.  When it comes to choosing between giving police a rifle verses the unlikely event of my lying on the ground bleeding, I choose giving the police a rifle.

There are other things you could've done, such as make it more difficult for people to get hold of guns but the freedom to own a firearm and providing the gun manufacturers with business is seen as far more important, than protecting citizens form harm.

You don't seriously think another law would stop those armed robbers? Everything that two robbers did that day, there is already a law in the books against that.  Automatic weapons, loaded weapons, armor piercing bullets...  Another law is not going to matter any.

Had North Hollywood LA be like Alaska where practically every average Joe has a rifle in their truck, that shootout would probably have been done in 10 minutes.  Every shooting by crazies did their shooting in "gun free zones".  In gun toting Colorado, that recently sentenced cinema shooter choose a gun free theater to do his shooting.  Guess why?

Common sense just make sense.  If you walk into a cinema where some may be armed, you are more likely to get shot if you start shooting.

If anything, one should look at making it easier for the law abiding citizens to carry fire arms like Detroit is doing.  The Police Chief of Detroit James E. Craig spend 30 years in the LA Police department and Chief Craig certainly credited civilian with weapon as a deterrent to crime. 

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/news/2014/01/03/detroit-chief-says-armed-civilians-would-reduce-crime-rate.aspx

  How quick people forget, it was by popular outcry immediately after the 1997 North Hollywood shoot out.

I do not recall any such public outcry. It was used as an excuse by some law enforcement agencies to begin the process of militarization. However this process did not really gain full traction on a national level until 9/11 and the establishment of the Dept of Homeland Security.

Ideally police forces serve the public and on a local level that is thankfully still the case. However, the widespread trend is for more militarization and for various law enforcement agencies to more and more act to serve the corporate state.  Drones with tasers is just another step in the trend. One can imagine an army of such drones deployed during mass protests or any civil unrest.

Ah well - as history has shown - this is what happens in the last stages of empire...

We recalled different.  I recall the rush of the LA city council authorizing the automatic firearms for the police asap, and then the rest of the big city police, and then the smaller towns.  So we probably spend time on different channels.

re: "Ideally police forces serve the public and on a local level that is thankfully still the case."
We agree.  I think the 2009 stimulus plan that Federal government paid for expansion of local police is corrosive.  A very bad thing to start to federalize local police.

re: "militarization and for various law enforcement agencies to more and more act to serve the corporate state."

I am not sure what you mean by corporate state.  But police as I understand it is there to uphold the law.  So it is up to "We the People" to make sure the law is one that is constitutional and serving the people rather than the ruling class.  We need to throw out those mind numb ruling class politicians.

The day the police serve just the ruling class instead of serving the people, which I think is your assumption that we are too close to that; if/when so is true, "militarization and for various law enforcement agencies to more and more act to serve the corporate state" would be a very worrisome thing.

[Zero999]

You don't seriously think another law would stop those armed robbers? Everything that two robbers did that day, there is already a law in the books against that.  Automatic weapons, loaded weapons, armor piercing bullets...  Another law is not going to matter any.

Then why is it such horrible things don't happen in other countries where is much more difficult to get hold of such nasty weapons?

Of course new laws are not going to stop it. We still have gun crime in the UK but not on that kind of level.

Every shooting by crazies did their shooting in "gun free zones".

Gun free zones will have little effect, as long as it's easy for any nut job to get hold of a gun.

Had North Hollywood LA be like Alaska where practically every average Joe has a rifle in their truck, that shootout would probably have been done in 10 minutes.  Every shooting by crazies did their shooting in "gun free zones".  In gun toting Colorado, that recently sentenced cinema shooter choose a gun free theater to do his shooting.  Guess why?

Common sense just make sense.  If you walk into a cinema where some may be armed, you are more likely to get shot if you start shooting.

If anything, one should look at making it easier for the law abiding citizens to carry fire arms like Detroit is doing.  The Police Chief of Detroit James E. Craig spend 30 years in the LA Police department and Chief Craig certainly credited civilian with weapon as a deterrent to crime. 

Common sense says that more guns = more people being killed by guns. Only in the USA do people say silly things like that, when the opposite is true in most of the rest of the world.

If someone pulls a gun in a cinema, it's true they might get shot but only after countless people have already been already killed: it's always the first to draw who wins a gun battle. Another thing is the kind of people who carry out these shootings don't care if they're shot so it's hardly a deterrent.

[mtdoc]

  How quick people forget, it was by popular outcry immediately after the 1997 North Hollywood shoot out.

I do not recall any such public outcry. It was used as an excuse by some law enforcement agencies to begin the process of militarization. However this process did not really gain full traction on a national level until 9/11 and the establishment of the Dept of Homeland Security.

Ideally police forces serve the public and on a local level that is thankfully still the case. However, the widespread trend is for more militarization and for various law enforcement agencies to more and more act to serve the corporate state.  Drones with tasers is just another step in the trend. One can imagine an army of such drones deployed during mass protests or any civil unrest.

Ah well - as history has shown - this is what happens in the last stages of empire...

We recalled different.  I recall the rush of the LA city council authorizing the automatic firearms for the police asap, and then the rest of the big city police, and then the smaller towns.  So we probably spend time on different channels.

I do not consider the LA city council to be representative of public outcry. Of course the popular media, did as it always does and try's whip up as much hysteria and generate viewers as they can. They to do not serve the general public's interest in most cases.

re: "Ideally police forces serve the public and on a local level that is thankfully still the case."
We agree.  I think the 2009 stimulus plan that Federal government paid for expansion of local police is corrosive.  A very bad thing to start to federalize local police.

re: "militarization and for various law enforcement agencies to more and more act to serve the corporate state."

I am not sure what you mean by corporate state.  But police as I understand it is there to uphold the law.  So it is up to "We the People" to make sure the law is one that is constitutional and serving the people rather than the ruling class.  We need to throw out those mind numb ruling class politicians.

The day the police serve just the ruling class instead of serving the people, which I think is your assumption that we are too close to that; if/when so is true, "militarization and for various law enforcement agencies to more and more act to serve the corporate state" would be a very worrisome thing.

We are really no longer a representative democracy. Corporatocracy, Plutocracy - call it what you will but the end result is that the evolution of the police state is a conscious undertaking to protect the corporate elite and their sock puppet politician's interests as the empire erodes and eventually crumbles.   This has been the historical norm - and despite the constant reassurances from the mainstream media that all is well - and despite the unawareness of the masses glued to their TV sets and stuporous from their fast food, the current empire is no different in this way from past empires. It's not a matter of if the empire falls but when it falls, how it falls and what will come in it's place.  Hopefully, when the time comes enough of the military and law enforcement will act in good conscious - but if history is a guide, I would not count on it.  Politicians and their masters are very good at creating false dichotomies and scapegoats (red vs blue, white vs brown vs black, etc) so that the people's ire is directed at each other instead of at them.

[mtdoc]

For pesky drones (no matter who is controlling them) what we all really need is a consumer version of Boeing's drone killing laser cannon.   How hard could it be to develop one of these?  I see a Kickstarter project....

[Rick Law]

...
...If anything, one should look at making it easier for the law abiding citizens to carry fire arms like Detroit is doing.  The Police Chief of Detroit James E. Craig spend 30 years in the LA Police department and Chief Craig certainly credited civilian with weapon as a deterrent to crime. 

Common sense says that more guns = more people being killed by guns. Only in the USA do people say silly things like that, when the opposite is true in most of the rest of the world.

If someone pulls a gun in a cinema, it's true they might get shot but only after countless people have already been already killed: it's always the first to draw who wins a gun battle. Another thing is the kind of people who carry out these shootings don't care if they're shot so it's hardly a deterrent.

re: If someone pulls a gun in a cinema, it's true they might get shot but only after countless people have already been already killed: it's always the first to draw who wins a gun battle.

If I may remind you, there was one crazy guy and 12 people killed plus 70 injured.  Just say 1/2 the injured carry guns, that is 35.  He may draw the gun and "win" the first short.  What do you think the other 34 is going to do?  As it was, the 12 dead and 70 injured were sitting ducks and the guy was able to reload multiple times.

There is (I hope) more good people than bad people.  If all are armed, we have more good people with arms than bad ones with arms.  That translates to better probability that good guys win.

If more gun = more deaths, lets make sure the good guys are not the ones who die.

...
...

...
...

Mtdoc, I think I understand where you are coming from, and I quoted nothing because I think we are more or less on the same page on that conversation.

Rick

[Zero999]

re: If someone pulls a gun in a cinema, it's true they might get shot but only after countless people have already been already killed: it's always the first to draw who wins a gun battle.

If I may remind you, there was one crazy guy and 12 people killed plus 70 injured.  Just say 1/2 the injured carry guns, that is 35.  He may draw the gun and "win" the first short.  What do you think the other 34 is going to do?  As it was, the 12 dead and 70 injured were sitting ducks and the guy was able to reload multiple times.

No, just put metal detectors at the door of the cinema, like they do at lots of nightclubs here in the UK. Then if someone has a gun or knife they don't get past security. Of course someone on security might get shot but they can go into lock-down and call the police.

[Rick Law]

re: If someone pulls a gun in a cinema, it's true they might get shot but only after countless people have already been already killed: it's always the first to draw who wins a gun battle.

If I may remind you, there was one crazy guy and 12 people killed plus 70 injured.  Just say 1/2 the injured carry guns, that is 35.  He may draw the gun and "win" the first short.  What do you think the other 34 is going to do?  As it was, the 12 dead and 70 injured were sitting ducks and the guy was able to reload multiple times.

No, just put metal detectors at the door of the cinema, like they do at lots of nightclubs here in the UK. Then if someone has a gun or knife they don't get past security. Of course someone on security might get shot but they can go into lock-down and call the police.

Why metal detector?  Not enough good people dying?  The nut case is not going to walk pass that metal detector and turn in his weapon nicely because that darn thing beeps!  This idea is totally mindless.

The cinema declared itself the no-gun-zone while in gun-allowed Colorado.   The cinema implied that it was a safe environment and it was not.  The cinema is complicit in the attack and deaths.  If I have a family member who died, I would have sue the cinema for every cent they own.

More gun = more death is ok, as long as it is evil that died rather than good people dying.  Understand that there will be evil on earth, and understand that good people must fight against evil.  UK, or US, or anywhere else in the world.

This surrender all weapons to allow crazies to do kill is mindless.  Tell that to the mother and son who got decapitated in Ikea  (City of Vasteras, Sweden).

[retrolefty]

The potential for abuse when using drones is real. How much of a stretch is it to start putting thermal imaging or directional mics and other sensors on board and then start doing fishing expeditions?

 The U.S. courts already ruled on this.

A local SWAT team was carrying out a valid operation on a home and had use of IR thermal imaging. They dealt with the  operation and the bored IR operator started just scanning near by homes and noticed one home's attic was 'lit up'. Turns out it was a marijuana grow so they busted the homeowner. The courts threw the case out for lack of probably cause/search warrant. So they could use the IR on the operation on the home they had probable cause/search warrant, but not the house down the street with the 'hot' attic.

 The U.S. is pretty unique in the world in that it has a Constitution that specifically protects individual rights (Bill of Rights, etc) from the federal government. The government does have specific listed powers over individuals and the States, but by default any power not specifically given to the government reverts to the citizens and States. So there is a constant balancing act in trying to find reasonable regulations that don't violate individuals rights Vs reasonable public safety laws. Of course the Constitution can be amended to try and add or remove 'rights', but it's rarely happens as it takes vast majority in congress and States to ratify, usually takes around 10 years. An example was Prohibition in the 1920s which only last about 13 years when it became obvious it was a big mistake, didn't remove drinking and brought about a large mob business.

 I have never owned a gun, fired a few times in the military training, but absolutely want to retain the right to purchase such any time I ever decide to. I will always lean towards more personal freedom Vs more Government control over my freedoms. Most people in many governments don't get much choice or say in such matters.

[Marco]

Common sense says that more guns = more people being killed by guns. Only in the USA do people say silly things like that, when the opposite is true in most of the rest of the world.

In my opinion long as you can keep guns very rare, which has both financial and cultural components, keeping them off the street legally makes some sense (although I'm sure a lot of rape victims will disagree) but if you can't it's best to level the playing field. You can't really reduce gun culture or the ease of access of guns in the US at this point, trying to do it at the Federal level would spark a civil war for a start. When a state makes it harder to get licenses illegal guns still flow in just as readily.

I think once the ease of access and prevalence of illegal guns gets too high allowing easier access to concealed carry licenses at worst doesn't do much harm and is ultimately only fair, I'd say the most likely outcome is that it increases fatalities while reducing crime.

[kosmonooit]

The machines strike back ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34088404

[Augustus]

Now, trim that thing down in size so I could put it on my desk to shoot down any incoming mosquitoes. That would be cool... 

[G7PSK]

When police have to face this every day it is not surprising they want more fire power.

https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xat1/v/t42.1790-2/10402275_257281097800754_1859007212_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjYzNywicmxhIjo1NDB9&rl=637&vabr=354&oh=4aeab7d49f00954cc891195f7995a0cb&oe=55E2E6C1

Hope the link works.

[G7PSK]

I understood that was from a dashcam and  was real and not Hollywood stuff.

[Rick Law]

When police have to face this every day it is not surprising they want more fire power.

https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xat1/v/t42.1790-2/10402275_257281097800754_1859007212_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjYzNywicmxhIjo1NDB9&rl=637&vabr=354&oh=4aeab7d49f00954cc891195f7995a0cb&oe=55E2E6C1

Hope the link works.

It doesn't work now...