I'm not trying to get to you, I'm trying to engage with you - it's OK for us to disagree on something and discuss both sides of it.

> You talk about these people like their lives are very important, and that it's both worthy and honorable to protect them.

> In reality, this is what it's like: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1301407648420593664

> It was scary as hell to have a drive-by happen. The cops couldn't do anything. They were long gone by the time the police came. And then they came back and shot up the same place again a few hours later.

I don't personally care so much about the lives of people who engage in this kind of behaviour, but I do care about living in a peaceful society where violence is regulated by the law rather than being handed out vigilante-style. Arming everybody does not prevent gun violence, it enables it. You need only look at the blatant correlation between the number of guns per capita in the US and the number of shootings in the US. I'm in the UK - you know what we don't have lots of? Guns. You know what we also don't have lots of? Gun violence. It still happens, of course, but it's far rarer, and I don't feel the need to arm myself just to stay safe. That drive-by you were unfortunately so close to was made easier by increased access to weapons.

> If I had a drone that could track them, they may have been brought to justice. I don't see this tech the same way you do. I see it as a stepping stone towards a world where people can protect themselves and their loved ones, as they do with guns.

The trouble is, the easier it is for you to get hold of this kind of drone tech, the easier it is for everyone, which obviously includes those who would do you harm. See my comment above. You want a drone that can follow people around? So do a host of spurned lovers and over-protective parents and so on and so on - it's not the clear win for society that you seem to think it is.

> ...I just don't get how people can calmly live in a country that was earned through bloodshed, while decrying those who were willing to lay down their lives for you.

You seem to think I'm ragging on the military, but I'm not - perhaps you're referring to other comments? In general, one's neighbours shouldn't be laying down their lives for each other on a day to day basis unless they're in the military or the police, who are, at least in theory, trained and regulated in their use of force and when to deploy it (yes there are obvious potential problems there too, but that's a different discussion).

I would also like to point out that the bloodshed is supposed to be temporary - once the wars are won and safety is assured (I'll assume you're referring to the World Wars here), we're supposed to stop shooting each other.

> This is a military device.

So are AR-15s - how many of those are in the hands of twitchy civilian militia groups and other randomers with a grudge?

> I think the people here who are saying that there's nothing honorable about killing someone should teleport themselves back to Midway in 1942 and tell your great-grandparents that, face to face.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of those who served in World War II didn't see anything honourable about it either, just that it was a grim necessity, which it absolutely was. Honour and glory are concepts the armed forces use to encourage people to do necessary but horrible things - we should of course be eternally grateful for and respectful of their sacrifices, but I think it's actually disrespectful to the fallen to glorify war, as they gave everything so their descendents wouldn't need to engage in it.