Slashdot Mirror
A Power Outage In Silicon Valley Was Caused By A Drone Crash (mercurynews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the San Jose Mercury News:
A drone crashed into a high-voltage wire Thursday night, causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage and knocking out power to roughly 1,600 people for about two hours, police said... "The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening," said Mountain View police spokeswoman Katie Nelson. "We simply ask that people comply with the rules and that they operate drones safely and sensibly."
The town's city hall was without power -- along with the rest of the 1,600 homes -- prompting a Google software engineer to tweet that "drones are fun until someone flies one into high-voltage power lines." They added later that "apparently the owner 'fled in a white hatchback', which is the least dignified way that someone can flee, I think."
The town's city hall was without power -- along with the rest of the 1,600 homes -- prompting a Google software engineer to tweet that "drones are fun until someone flies one into high-voltage power lines." They added later that "apparently the owner 'fled in a white hatchback', which is the least dignified way that someone can flee, I think."
Good job "not being a troll" https://games.slashdot.org/com...
Respect is earned, not thrown into the back of a white hatchback and hauled off to somewhere people don't know where you got it from.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I'll bite. I have a drone for the same reason as I own an assault rifle: for fun (the rifle is strictly for the range). And that most definitely is a good enough reason. Citizens shouldn't have to justify why they need or even just want drones (or guns); the onus is on the state to come up with reasons why we shouldn't have them. Now if the state wants to regulate these things because of problems, that's fine. Require a license. Require registration. Whatever. But a ban should be the last option, and should require both extremely strong reasons for a ban and proof that a ban is effective and the only effective measure. If you want to take these things from the thousands of responsible operators because of a single irresponsible asshat, then lets start banning knifes and cars too.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
No, it's in a tank. Just ask the Italian army.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not all ranges are indoors... do you know what you're talking about?
Over here, semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons are often called "assault rifles" as well. As long as they look scary enough (that criterium actually appeared in a few EU memos)
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Every one of the ranges in my area permit full auto firing, numbnuts. It's YOU that doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about.
The same could be said for forks, guns, cars, swing sets, dating sites etc. People have and will continue to die from all of those on a regular basis.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Can anyone justify drones being legal? The answer is no. Nobody here can even provide a valid answer as to why they need a drone.
Can anyone justify skateboards being legal? The answer is no. Nobody here can even provide a vaid answer as to why they need a skateboard.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I thought I'd shed some details I witnessed as it happened. I live on Hope St, which is about 1.5 miles from from Polaris Ave. This is what I saw:
1. Incident happened at 20:14 PDT (UTC-0700),
2. Effects were: immediate loss of power, ~0.5 second delay, restoration of power, ~0.5 second delay, restoration of power, ~1-2 second delay, brown-out (as in incandescent lights at half brightness) for ~2-3 full seconds, restoration of power. My UPSes kicked on during this event. Black-outs are one thing, but a brown-out is serious and dangerous. I wonder what the input AC voltage was at the time, same with the waveform. Probably not pretty,
3. For many in Mountain View, this impacted Comcast service for about 1.5 hours. Comcast's nodes have in-line equipment (on utility poles or underground (varies per block/area)) which are powered directly off of PG&E wiring on the same utility pole (or underground). Some of the equipment is battery-backed, some is not; and those which *are*, many of the batteries do not hold a charge any longer (i.e. have been neglected). No idea if power conditioning equipment is used. In this case, I have a feeling a piece of equipment fried/failed due to item #2,
4. Restoration of Comcast service was at 21:34 PDT. Comcast appears to have routed around the failed equipment (at the cable network level); my signal levels were substantially different after the workaround was put in place,
5. Further Comcast repair was done the following day (2017/06/09) at roughly 04:58 PDT and lasted until 05:04. Signal loss was seen during this time; my guess is network/maintenance reverted the workaround from several hours prior. Signal levels were restored to normal values after this.
About drones in general: in the past 3-4 weeks, I've seen several of these being operated *at night* within my local area. There's no way to easily identify who or where the operator is, but noticing the drone is easiest due to sound -- the best analogy is to that of a swarm of bees, except slightly higher in octave. The first time I heard this, I thought "why are bees swarming at night? Wait a minute, what's that thing with blinking red LEDs in the sky? Drones, sigh. Why at night?!?!"
You must be one of those "jet fuel fire cannot melt steel, 9-11 was a controlled demolition" guys.
Power line went down. Police found the charred remains of a drone at the site. Witnesses (plural) living in the area said they saw a guy flying a drone in the area. Therefore the conclusion that a drone caused the event.
Sounds like a simple, rational explanation to me. But please feel free to indulge in fanciful far-fetching conspiracies all you want. Just don't share it with normal people.
Unless there is a way to track the owners of these things when - not if - they do serious damage, we're pretty much fucked in terms of holding anyone truly accountable.
I'm pointing out that (see above, I was right) the poster does NOT own an assault rifle. Owning an assault rifle (in the USA, where the drone story is based) requires a special tax stamp and around $70,000 minimum. They are no longer legal to manufacture or import for civilian use and therefore the supply is severely restricted. I found it highly unlikely a poster here takes a rifle worth a small fortune out to the range, and as it turns out I was right. He's verified this already, above.
Over here, semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons are often called "assault rifles" as well. ...
Only by people who have no clue what they're talking about or who are intentionally trying to mislead others.
Flying these things around other people and their property without liability insurance is pretty foolish. It leads you to doing things like running away when an accident occurs and making everything much worse for yourself.
That's actually the definition of an assault rifle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
so are cars, knives, screwdrivers, axes, pens, electricity, water...ban 'em all! go on, I dare ya, if yer gonna knee-jerk react, ban people from living.
"The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening,"
Really? How did the FAA rules and regulations prevent this from happening?
"The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening,"
Whiles technically true this is ultimately a meaningless statement. From what I gather from the article the only regulation not being followed was flying within 5 miles of an airport and that had absolutely no impact on the crash at all. The drone could just have easily been far enough away from an airport following all the regulations and still crashed into a power line due to any number of reasons. It's true that breaking that regulation can cause accidents to happen but it didn't cause this accident.
They could just have easily said if drones didn't exist there would be zero drone accidents.
Full auto rifles don't cost nearly $70k, you can get them for under $10k
"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...
You should stop while you're way behind
Armalite.
"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...
I guess that's why you're an AC
Not an assault rifle that I've ever seen, but if you can find a decent assault rifle for sale in the USA for under $10K I'll buy it as soon as I exit CA.
I was too young at the time to notice, but anyone know if there was this kind of "lets-ban-all-evil-things!" reaction when remote control cars first became available to average consumers?
Is this a natural reaction to something new, or is there really a never before seen level of danger with tiny unmanned drones in the skies above us?
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, what if the guy escaped on a bicycle? That would be even more embarrassing. At least a white hatchback is a car.
It can bridge between two phase conductors. Or between one phase and a grounded structure like a pole or crossarm.
Have gnu, will travel.
That "operate" some of these gadgets, need to be hauled off. They attempt to fly these things, without knowing one little bit of flying skill, safety or anything else. Just plug them in, charge them up and VOLLA! I'm a pilot! Morons. Been flying R/C for 30 years. You never catch R/C people flying their stuff around power lines, people or other places like that. Bunch of lDIOTS.
The reason you can't have a nuke isn't (and shouldn't be) because you cannot provide a valid reason for having one, it's because there actually are compelling reasons not to let you have one, and because those concerns cannot be mitigated by softer measures such as regulations or registrations. That might seem like a pointless distinction, but it really isn't. It means the state cannot just take away anything because they feel like it, but they can do so if they have good reason to do so, if they show that a ban is the only way and is actually effective, and that the reasons for that ban outweigh your desire to have something. Good grounds not to let you have a nuke. Less so for firearms or drones.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The RC crowd can be quite crazy when it comes to size, there are even 1:1 scale models.
An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. The term 'assault rifle' originally referred to a battle rifle that fires fully automatically but is lightweight. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an particular assault rifle (the M16) but is not itself an assault rifle.
The use of the term 'assault weapon' applied to the AR-15 seems to have followed an arc from "assault-type rifle" (based on its appearance but admitting that it wasn't actually an assault rifle), to leaving off the "-type" but adding on "weapon" in order to avoid the argument that it isn't an assault *rifle*. This seems like a rather disingenuous ploy to confuse the public.
If you want to argue that people shouldn't own rifles that shoot centerfire rifle cartridges, or shouldn't own rifles that exceed a certain level of muzzle energy or just muzzle velocity, then we can have that argument, and we'll include all available firearms that have those capabilities. But to get all hot and bothered about the appearance of the firearm seems pointless to me. The Clinton Crime Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act included a provision to ban certain types of firearms that have come to be called "assault weapons". The ban also included a provision to track the use of these weapons for crimes. It is my understanding that the sunset provision for the ban was not blocked in part because no significant use of these weapons in crimes was found.
As for drones, and as far as "ordinary people" are concerned, I'm not sure the many people using drones for useful purposes would agree with your cavalier assessment that they don't need them. I have a friend with a drone business who provides a service to local farmers to assess the conditions of their fields using the drone. This saves the farmers a lot of time while providing them with a much more comprehensive view of their fields than they could achieve otherwise.
I'm not thrilled with some of the annoying things people do with drones any more than I'm thrilled about how some people use ATVs, personal watercraft, motorcycles, weed whackers, blowers, and other such devices, but they do have useful purposes, and many many people use them carefully and within legal limits. Let's enforce existing laws against the misuse of technology, whether its firearms or drones, but let's not go around making things illegal without evidence that they are a significant problem.
A class III firearms license allows a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon. There are places where you can actually shoot fully automatic weapons legally. You can even fire on your own land as long as the local laws are followed.
Blah blah blah.
The federal government has thousands of nuclear weapons, I've only got three.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just because your life is free of the fear from random gun violence does not mean everyone else is so fortunate. Your argument is based solely on your social privilege, which is why your analogies are so blindingly stupid. You just insulted everyone who has to face gun violence on a daily bases and you obviously are implying that they have no right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Why is Snark Required?
Which will cause an arc, which will trip a breaker, which will autoreset in few tens of seconds.
It had to be one of those million to one things. Broke an insulator and let one phase droop or something like that.
Aerobatic pilots used to throw toilet paper over transmission lines, so they could see where the lines were when playing about them (morons). They thought it was all fun, but the TP would collect dew and arc the next early morning. Took time and money to figure it out. To their credit, the pilots stopped doing it when told what was happening.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Of course the culprit fled: who wants to be hit with thousands of dollars damages that insurance will not cover?
The 1994-2004 so called "Assault Weapons Ban" and several similar current state laws define "Assault Weapons" by a number of means including in some cases "certain specific features". That is not the same and should not be conflated with an Assault Rifle, which the US Army and other military organizations have a strict functional definition of:
"Assault Rifle By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." - https://www.nraila.org/about/g...
And how well are those draconian gun laws working in Chicago?
Meanwhile, in Texas, we have cities with extremely high gun ownership (I'd feel safe to say it averages more than one gun per citizen, easily) where the death toll to guns is ZERO. Cities, not towns. Population 250,000, gun deaths ZERO for several years.
It ain't the guns, Homer.
The correct tax stamp does allow a civilian to own a specific automatic weapon or other classified firearm for which such a stamp is available (such as a silencer) along with some restrictions with regard to crossing state lines and so on, and as long as local laws to not prohibit such possession or use. It's already been established that the guy I responded to did not in point of fact own an assault rifle. He seems to have what is often referred to as a "modern sporting rifle".
Okay, fine, make all guns completely illegal, no exceptions, tomorrow. Think things will get better?
Fucking millennial dumbass.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"Caddy Shack" scene after blowing up the golf course, Looks around, then runs...
I suppose it will only complicate things if I mention that I own two firearms which one can call assault weapons. There is a bit of effort that goes into such. I suppose they'd be confused that none of them are used for criminal activity. Even statistically... You're more likely to harm yourself with the sheets on your bed.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
$70K? You're high. I can get you two Thompsons, for that. Hell, I can get you three and still make a profit.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You were pretty wrong.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Assault Weapon .... yeah don't get me going on that.
A tommy gun is not an assault rifle. I can get an MP5 for around $14k last time I looked. Last time I looked any transferable AR platform assault rifle started around $72K, again, that's been maybe 10 months.
At around 20 kV, the wires from the motors will make fine conductors. And a few millimeters of plastic that drones are made of means nothing.
Have gnu, will travel.
You seem to not understand cause or effect. There are places with lots of guns and lots of crimes. There are places with no guns and little crime. There are places with no guns and lots of crimes. There are places with lots of guns and little crime.
Once a place has high crime and lots of gun murders, does gun control increase or decrease crime? That's irrelevant to the existence of places that aren't in the same gun/crime quadrant.
Learn to love Alaska
Making them illegal is irrelevant. Making them inaccessible would make a difference, But that wasn't your question, because you don't want the answer to that.
Learn to love Alaska
If I want to be pedantic, both weapons (I'm pretty sure) also qualify for the title of "assault rifle."
To keep it simple, and short, I have an M-14 and a Chinese made AK-47, made in 1968. I have posted pics of both. Depending on which definitions they're using, they are either "assault weapons" or "assault rifles."
The only time they (usually) get taken out is when I take them to a "machine-gun shoot." It used to be open to the public, but insurance kinda stopped that. We still hold it and all proceeds go to the DAV. We no longer invite the public, via radio ads. Those who know, and want to show up, do show up. We still donate about the same amount. We just no longer open it up to the public, so to speak.
(It's held down in Starks, as our home in Emden has dried up.)
And yeah, it's pretty much the only time either of mine come out. I also bring two M1s and our favorite shooter is a guy we have to "steal" from the VA. He's 92 and was in WWII, in the Pacific. One, or more, of us will go to the Geriatrics Unit and claim we're family. We sign him out for the day and he gets an M1 to play with - sometimes he gets several and, more than once, we've asked him to repair one.
I'm pretty sure this makes me a horrible person. So, I'd like to apologize for shooting up your children. I'd like to say sorry for encouraging your mentally ill to buy firearms. I'm also sorry that I can't be there to defend everyone. You might ask why I do the above, and why I invest in that - and it does cost some money - and the only answer I can give you was that I served in the Marines - pictures available on request.
(I've been away for a bit, so I'm okay with proving myself again. Picture available if you want. Or just trust me, I've got no reason to lie to you - impressing you means nothing to me.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There needs to be a compelling reason to restrict freedom. What compelling reason is there to prevent me from flying a drone within my own house?
Learn to love Alaska
That wasn't my question because I haven't heard a single viable proposal for how to do so. You must have one, so let's hear it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I don't know. You might think that I'd be the most knowledgeable person about firearms. I'm not.
I have two classed firearms. As I mentioned in another post, I have an M-14 and a Chinese made AK-47. It gets confusing because the Chinese sold that model to the Vietnamese and the model was called the M-60. It's really just an AK-47 and isn't even very well made.
That said, I'm not an encyclopedia of firearm knowledge. I'm betting that you're more right than I, 99% of the time - should we have to argue firearms. There's a ton that I don't know - and I'm not even going to pretend I know. Some people are encyclopedic in their knowledge - and I'm pretty impressed.
Now, I want to share this with you...
The Thompson Sub-machine Gun fires the .45 and, if you're pretty comfortable, you can actually watch the rounds leave the barrel. There's a lot of muzzle rise, but, it's one of the most wonderful things you'll ever witness.
Seriously, it's beautiful. I've seen the rounds go down-range from a BAR. That's just as nice. You can really watch them... However, I digress...
I had the chance to buy one for $7500 and it came with two of the "stick" magazines and three (or four?) of the drum magazines with all but one being 50 rounds and the smallest one being 25 rounds - if I recall correctly. It also came with a bunch of other things, including the cardboard box and oil paper that it came in. There was also a bunch of brass, caps and lead, if I wanted to reload. However, there was a bunch of .45 ACP (I think?) to go with it.
I could have bought it for $7500. I turned that down - not once, but several times. He even had a "hard case" that was shaped a bit like you'd see the trombone (musical instrument) shaped like. And, I turned that down... I didn't just turn it down once - I turned it down even after firing it.
It's at this point that I'd like to remind you that I'm an idiot. I absolutely can afford that. I am an idiot for not doing so. It's too late to say that I'd love to have that put aside for my collection/future generations.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Citizens shouldn't have to justify why they need or even just want drones (or guns);
I've heard Americans use that word 'citizens' a few times. What does citizenship have to do with it? Citizenship for voting, OK, but what does it matter for getting a license? You don't even need to be a citizen to join the US military.
the onus is on the state to come up with reasons why we shouldn't have them.
Surely that part is obvious. Guns can be dangerous. It is normal to regulate dangerous things.
Now if the state wants to regulate these things because of problems, that's fine. Require a license. Require registration. Whatever.
OK, we are on the same page. But licensing implies limits on who can have them. And regulation also means limiting the kinds of weapons.
We need to balance public vs private interest. One person having fun vs another getting shot. The latter seems more important, no?
I'll agree that guns should not be banned, if you agree that there should be limits.
Some people might argue that "its fun" is not sufficient justification for easy availability of weapons whose primary design purpose is to kill people.
The number of people killed by handguns in the US is a pretty good motivation. The question is if banning them is effective.
I don't know. Maybe it is already too late for that where you live.
But a ban should be the last option, and should require both extremely strong reasons for a ban and proof that a ban is effective and the only effective measure.
I think you are saying "ban" for what other people might call a restriction. Regulating emissions is the same as banning overly-pollution, I suppose. It seems you are trying to make an emotional appeal with that word.
What is so terrible about having to reload after you take a shot?
If you want to take these things from the thousands of responsible operators because of a single irresponsible asshat, then lets start banning knifes and cars too.
Calm down. Nobody is "banning" guns. Or knives. Just regulating. Flick-knives are bad. 50-cal machine guns on the back of your pickup are bad. You want a kitchen knife or a deer-hunting gun? No problem. Sorry if the gun requires as much paperwork as your car.
AR-15's are great for mowing down children, tho, amiright?
From your article looks like a loss of power for a few seconds.
Here down under we have possums that use the power lines as highways. Every so often one gets fried, trips the breakers for a few seconds. But no way a possum could shut down the high voltage transmission lines, it would just be vaporized.
And I reckon the story is a beat up, because a possum is much heavier than a plastic drone with maybe a few grams of metal in it.
I did once hit transmission lines with a Glider cable. I was driving the winch, glider blew off course and dropped the cables on the lines. Huge and spectacular bang. But no real damage to the transmission. Might have tripped the breakers for a few seconds but we thought it best not to enquire. A small bit of cable was left dangling from the lines, but nobody would volunteer to clear it.
That cable was about 6mm think, MUCH more conductor than even the largest drone. (Fortunately, one drivers a winch from inside a metal cage.)
... our favorite shooter is a guy we have to "steal" from the VA.
Can he also fly any aircraft ever made, and does he answer to the name "Mad Dog"?
I would be more concern if it was a sniper shooting at power transformers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack
And in the gun-control hell that is Europe, all you have to do is join a militia, and they will give you a real assault rifle for free to keep in your home.
What kind of drone it is, what model? Was it that hard to make a good HD photo with a smartphone camera where one can see something?
Drones (RPAS) can deliver urgent parcels with documents, cash for banks, etc. and by this realistically free roads from traffic jams, significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, so naturally the automobile lobby and their clients are concerned.
That is why the FAA issues 700 pages prohibiting regulations for RPASs. But it is hard to do not having a single photo of a documented RPAS accident. So finally we have got a photo from an RPAS accident where one can not distinguish anything. Was it a drove powered by petrol? Why it burned that much?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't have one. I don't have to be right to prove you wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
Fuck no. He can piss himself, on command, and can still strip an M1 down - without actually looking. No, really, he can piss himself on command - or without command. He deserves some privacy so I'll skip mentioning his name. He's big on pissing his pants. But, he can strip an M1 down and put it back together. He's also grouchy - all the time.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It's not irrelevant - bans and regulations tend to be applied to all quadrants, needed or not.
So a ban on guns in NYC affects Houston? Please explain in more detail.
Learn to love Alaska
"The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening,"
Well, it looks like they work great.
Good job, FAA! Keep up the good work on those regulations! Glad they prevented this mishap!
We should regulate against heart attacks next! Think of the lives that it will save!
Respect is earned, not thrown into the back of a white hatchback and hauled off to somewhere people don't know where you got it from.
Ah-ha! It was O.J. Simpson! He's at it again!
It's too bad that CNN didn't get cover the slow-speed getaway. They could have streamed it live . . . from a camera drone!
That would have been proper justice.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
And yet all you've proven is that you and I hold different opinions, I can back mine up, and you don't have any better idea how to achieve what you propose than I do. None of that makes me wrong.
I've actually heard a few proposals along the lines that you suggest, but none of them account for guns illegally smuggled across the border or stolen from law enforcement and military personnel, or how we defend ourselves against nations with guns if we take guns out of the hands of our military and law enforcement in order to solve the latter half of that. As I'm sure you're aware, the majority of guns used in violent crimes (by a very large margin) are not legally owned; meanwhile, the majority of guns in this country are legally owned, by an even larger margin. To add to that, most guns used in violent crimes are imported illegally, rather than being stolen. In other words, getting rid of legally owned guns wouldn't make a dent in gun crime. I'll grant that it would probably cut down on gun theft, but that's really not what we're discussing, is it?
So, no, you don't have to be right to prove me wrong, but it would help your cause if I hadn't already checked my facts. Someone else can (and, in your case, often does) do the job of being right, but it is on you to find and present them.
I've looked, for the 34 years of my life during which I did not own a gun (I'm 35, mind you), I looked for an answer, I sought out anyone who purported to have an answer, or even an inkling of an answer, and the best I ever found was "well, if it was possible to get make guns disappear tomorrow" and I actually agree with that.
But we can't do that. Prove me wrong.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Assault weapon is pretty nebulous, depending on the date and locale both or neither of the listed weapons may be assault weapons, or even legal to own, again depending on local ordinances and so on. For instance in CA I believe ANY fully automatic capable firearm requires some pretty special dispensation or possibly a federal dealers license. A simple NFA tax stamp is not enough to satisfy state and local laws and allow a peasant to receive such a thing.
The M14 is not an assault rifle, the 308 (7.62x51) is not an intermediate power rifle round. It is IMO a highly desireable firearm and I'm pretty envious right now. An M21 is actually top of my list for acquisition after I leave the peoples republic and return to America.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Learn what a ghost gun is, where and how they're made, and hoe many of them end up in the US on a given day, thank come talk to me.
As someone with ties to law enforcement, I can tell you that the reality is far from what the media would have you believe. When you've actually had a beer with someone who stopped a trunk-full of hand made Colt 1911 clones from illegally crossing the border, then you can talk to me about how many illegal guns enter the country legally.
You're working form an ignorant viewpoint and quoting media-approved statistics while I have firsthand knowledge.
Furthermore, you're trying to claim we can "make [guns] inaccessible" while admitting that some number of guns enter the country illegally. You can't have it both ways. You can make guns less accessible, but as long as they exist they'll be accessible to anyone sufficiently motivated.
Beyond that, have you stopped for one moment to think there's a reason we kill each other in this country and that guns have nothing at all to do with it? The kinds of guns people of your ilk most often try to remove from circulation (black rifles) account for fewer deaths than knives (which you seem to be fine with), blunt objects (basically every solid object without a blade falls into this category and you seem to be fine with that), or *gasp* fists and feet.
In 2014 (the most recent data I can find), that's 248 rifle deaths. That's all rifles, not just the scary black ones, so the number is even smaller for those, but the FBI doesn't differentiate so I'll be generous and give you all of those. Compare that to 1756 knife deaths, 435 blunt objects, and a whopping 660 people killed with fists or feet. Hell, on that last point I'll add in all other non-pistol firearms: 262 shotgun deaths and 93 "other gun" deaths. That brings the non-handgun firearm total (where the type of firearm was known) up to a whopping 613, still fewer than fists and feet. If we divvy up the "type not stated" category proportionally, we can add 29 rifle deaths, 84 shotgun deaths, and 78 "other gun" deaths, for a total of 804 non-handgun firearm deaths. Finally, we've stretched the numbers so that non-handgun guns kill more people than fists and feet, though the number still pales in comparison to knives.
That's not to say guns don't account for most murders in this country; they certainly do when you also consider handguns, but nobody is calling for those to be banned.
That's right, the simple handgun accounts for more than half of this country's murder rate; yet, I can more easily get a handgun than a black rifle. Why is that?
Also, I am reminded of our previous argument, where I pointed out that, per capita, "gun-free" Francs has more gun violence than the US. Yes, the US has higher overall numbers; we also have a higher overall population; if our population was the size of France, or vise-versa, they would very much outrank us in terms of overall numbers.
But that reality makes you uncomfortable, so you refuse to face it.
It's not my fault you never learn and can't face reality.
Here's a fun exercise: Look at this data (source) and tell me where you, if murdered, are most likely to have been murdered by a gun. The answer is Liechtenstein, followed closely by Puerto Rico, but they've got incomplete data, so we'll have to look at #3, which is Sierra Leone, ranked #164 worldwide in gun ownership with 0.6 firearms per capita and 128 annual homicides by firearm. That's 2.28 per 100,000, to the US' 2.97, where the US has 88.8 guns per capit
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And so many people on Slashdot think the solution to the issue of how dangerous flying cars would be is basically automating them to be drones. It's good to have a reference example that self-driving, flying cars wouldn't magically create anti-gravity. Just imagine if it were a car with people in it instead.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Learn what a ghost gun is, where and how they're made, and hoe many of them end up in the US on a given day, thank come talk to me.
Either you are a liar or an idiot. Ghost guns are not prevalent. They aren't even a rounding error in crime statistics. They are a toy that makes gun nuts feel powerful by making them. Either you don't know anything about them, or you are lying about it. Either way, your delusions and lies won't change reality, and the mind of an evil person like yourself is unchangeable.
Learn to love Alaska
When you go on calling people evil, consider why they want you dead and not how they might do it. And no, that's not a threat, my body count will remain at 0, because I'm so evil.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If you'd bothered to read the respected scholarly journal you linked to you'd see it doesn't really back up your points at all.
And at least we end a war on the same side we started on, you retarded spaghettifresser.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Would someone please explain to me how a drone can damage any power lines?
I was under the impression that you need to complete a circuit to cause current flow,
and that high voltage wires are far enough apart that a small drone could never touch 2 wires at ones.
Birds have no problem perching on high-voltage wires.
Perhaps there is more to this story?!
Like, perhaps, that the drone was equipped to intentionally short the wires?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
When was the last time you looked, 1987? If you live in the US you're off by at least a factor of 2.
Didn't we just have registration and marking requirements up until a few weeks ago? Did that help anything? Even though I'm no longer required to label/register for non-commercial flights, I still have my FAA code on my quads.
It's been approximately one year ago and I didn't do a lot of heavy shopping, I just looked for FA AR platform rifles that were for sale and transferable. Was mostly curious. The MP5 and similar weapons were much less, for one I would like to own it was in the vicinity of $14k. The AR rifles were in the vicinity of $70K and up, quite a bit up in some cases. Again, if they are now under $10K I'd like to know where.
Sigh.
Some British cities were pretty hard-hit by the Luftwaffe. More German cities were much harder hit by Bomber Command. Britain was never in serious danger of successful invasion. By the time US forces arrived in strength in Europe and the Med, the Axis was losing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ever looked at the prospects of invading Britain in WWII? In 1940, which was their best chance, German planning treated the English Channel as a particularly wide river. While the British Army was seriously short on heavy equipment, it was pretty strong in manpower, so a successful invasion would have to be in force. It would need to be supplied, and the appropriate ports were rigged for demolition. German bombers were not good at attacking shipping in this period, so the RN was able to keep three or four destroyer flotillas and a battleship in Channel ports, and, particularly after the losses and damage in the invasion of Norway, the German Navy had nothing to match that force. Churchill would have welcomed an invasion attempt.
Later, some of this changed. The Stuka pilots became adept at hitting ships. Germany could have made real landing craft. Germany did get a couple more battleships. However, the Luftwaffe would not be able to get superiority again against the RAF in Britain, the British Army in Britain was strong and well-equipped, the RN had plenty of older battleships, and the ports were still rigged for demolition.
In WWI, the Russian government collapsed because of losses in territory and men that were relatively small compared to what Germany achieved in the summer of 1941. Stalin's government kept control of the Soviet Union, which few people expected at the time. The Red Army was unable to stop a major German strategic offensive except by outrunning it until 1943. There was no reason to think the Soviet Union could withstand such losses and come back. Conquering the Soviet Union wasn't going to happen. Defeating it and taking large amounts of territory looked, at the time, frighteningly likely.
US involvement in the war against Germany was minimal in 1942. The first Eighth Air Force raid was in July, with bombers borrowed from the RAF. The first clash of US and German troops was around the end of 1942. The opening of the US to U-boat raids cost the Allies a lot more than the USN contributed. In other words, the US was only nominally in the war for the first big raid on Hamburg.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Fucking assault rifle is a made up term. It's a rifle fer chrissakes - a weapon plain and simple. /.'rs to be better informed than that.
A full-auto rifle requires the moolah to buy one or make one (not too prohibitive) and a $200 tax stamp.
We expect
Back OT that pic I've seen doesn't look like a drone - plus - given teh size is relatively small - what gap did it bridge to channel a difference of potential? Something sounds off about teh story - not that I'd ever accuse the press of sensationalizing.
Fucking assault rifle is a made up term.
Well I reckon all terms are invented by someone, however don't conflate assault weapon, which is a vague and mercurial term, with assault rifle, which is strictly defined by organizations such as the US Army. They are similar sounding but vastly different.
Sure. None of them were over a large body of water that was patrolled by a much superior navy. Even Norway doesn't fall into that class, as the British were pretty much unable to interfere with the shipping to southern Norway. Germany sent a force to capture Narvik which did have to go through British-accessible waters. The force was destroyed and Narvik retaken, although the Allies decided it wasn't worth keeping Narvik once most of the rest of Norway had fallen. The claim that the invasion of Britain would not have been harder is hilarious. Germany planned for an invasion of Britain at its weakest, and there's good reasons why they never actually tried it. Hitler would have loved to conquer Britain.
You're using 20/20 hindsight here, which is completely inapplicable to Hitler's decisions at the time. In fact, in 1941 and 1942 the Germans were incredibly more successful than the Germans were in WWI, and that resulted in the fall of the Russian government and a peace treaty very favorable to Germany. There was no compelling reason to think that the Soviet Union and Stalin would be so tremendously more resilient than Tsarist Russia and Nicholas.
The British Army, while of generally good quality, was never large enough to force a decision against Germany. It's conceivable that the Brits could have conducted all the Western Allied operations through the end of 1943 without the US, but no further. The RAF was strong, and the RN dominated.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes