[JumpCrisscross]

> the idea of an unmanned sponge-bullet turret in my neighborhood that would fire without notice is pretty sensational anyway

Isn’t it objectively better than lethally-armed soldiers?

[ceejayoz]

That was the idea behind cops carrying tasers. The reality wound up being that cops still use guns in the situations where lethal force was previously warranted, but they go for the taser in situations they'd previously have had to non-violently deescalate.

[tyingq]

I imagine that's a complicated question. Do people remotely controlling weapons naturally make the same kind of decisions as those looking right at people?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Do people remotely controlling weapons naturally make the same kind of decisions as those looking right at people?

I'm not sure. I could see it going both ways: de-humanised killers unleashed, or a lack of fight-or-flight prompted panics. Absent information on that, though, non-lethal is better than lethal.

[alvarezbjm-hn]

non-lethal is still lethal.

[cronix]

There are plenty of US military drone operators that can answer that.

[tyingq]

I'm not sure that's the best comparison. Regular pilots are even somewhat detached from the effect of their weapons. It's hard to compare directly to handling a gun.

[MonkeyMalarky]

I think it just adds to dehumanization of both sides.

[yucky]

No.

First, it dehumanizes the target. You're effectively playing a video game.

Second, it obfuscates the operator and makes culpability harder to assess.

[alvarezbjm-hn]

Why was this downvoted? Seems a honest opinion. I even agree with such opinion.