Meet Dogo, A tiny tank robot with a Glock pistol

[thirtyonebravo]

Meet Dogo, A tiny tank robot with a Glock pistol

From Geekologie:

Meet Dogo, a small 26-pound remote controlled tank robot that carries a 9mm Glock pistol inside. The tank is capable of climbing stairs and is outfitted with two-way audio communications so you can try to negotiate with your target before shooting and killing them. The gun can hold up to 14 rounds and is capable of remote-firing five rounds in two seconds with impressive accuracy due to the tank's ability to absorb recoil. I just added one to my Christmas list! Along with 'a really good lawyer.'

How cool is that?!

[streaker69]

How much for the C4 Negotiation Attachment?

[thebearpack]

Sure, John Conner probably thought the first Terminator was cool too. This is how the rise of the machines starts. Game over man.

[bogey1]

Too bad we cant own one unless we have a registered f/a glock.

[Carnes]

This is scary stuff, but it is modern technology. Can't supress it. However, we must ensure that citizens have access to the same 'arms'.

The 2A was terrifying to the politicians that penned it, and it should continue to be a scary thing.

It's already been 'time'. But, if this kind of tech is limited to MIL/LEO only, then we are that much deeper in the moment.

The right to bear arms means that every free citizen has the right to use any available means to protect their individual selves from any reasonable threat.

[thirtyonebravo]

This is scary stuff, but it is modern technology. Can't supress it. However, we must ensure that citizens have access to the same 'arms'.

The 2A was terrifying to the politicians that penned it, and it should continue to be a scary thing.

It's already been 'time'. But, if this kind of tech is limited to MIL/LEO only, then we are that much deeper in the moment.

The right to bear arms means that every free citizen has the right to use any available means to protect their individual selves from any reasonable threat.

That's a very good point! While I think it's a very cool piece of a technology (I mean I'm a tech-nerd, so I find it insanely cool), that's a very valid point.

Being that it's basically an R/C "drone" with a publically available pistol docked into it, in theory there should be no legal reasons you or I could own one, without BS regulations and laws and such. That being said, I wouldn't put it past our all-knowing-better-than-us legislators to make exception to that.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

That's a very good point! While I think it's a very cool piece of a technology (I mean I'm a tech-nerd, so I find it insanely cool), that's a very valid point.

Being that it's basically an R/C "drone" with a publically available pistol docked into it, in theory there should be no legal reasons you or I could own one, without BS regulations and laws and such. That being said, I wouldn't put it past our all-knowing-better-than-us legislators to make exception to that.

The FCC, despite having no legal authority to regulate drones, already is. They also considered armed (flying) drones illegal, again, with no legal authority to do so.

[raxar]

And we're just going to gloss over that whole "Are you justified in killing someone who can't actually kill you?" thing.

[thirtyonebravo]

The FCC, despite having no legal authority to regulate drones, already is. They also considered armed (flying) drones illegal, again, with no legal authority to do so.

It's definitely an interesting fine line to cross. I mean, I never would have guessed to call such a thing like this as a "drone" either, it's basically an radio-controlled car just like the toys you get for kids, but has cameras and two-way communications, and can move a lever to pull a gun docked in it. I only called it a drone, as it's a more common terminology today with airborne R/C vehicles today, that also have cameras. Toys for adults, I guess.

I understand the jurisdiction of potential regulation on it though, being radio controlled among other things.

[thirtyonebravo]

And we're just going to gloss over that whole "Are you justified in killing someone who can't actually kill you?" thing.

I think that's a bit oversimplified. In theory, it's designed for military roles, or police roles such as hostage situations. While technically yes that's something that could be used against Joe citizen in an overreach of power or worse, so say that they couldn't actually kill you is a stretch. I mean, they can kill (said: destroy) the "drone".

And how would you differentiate this from an actual military drone that could also kill you, but you couldn't kill the pilot or executioner of it's mission?