Virginia woman blasts trespassing drone out of the sky with her shotgun

[Kellhound]

I'm not sure that I follow? Does that mean the comparison isn't valid?

Because I think it's quite valid.

Shooting at an occupied vehicle on the ground vs an unoccupied vehicle in the air has major differences.

[Dsc]

30 mph drone. = I was in fear for my life. Solid self defense shooting. She should have shot the operator too! They want the same privileged as airplanes? Get licensed by the FAA and put up with regulations and inspections. F'em

[TZucchini]

Shooting at an occupied vehicle on the ground vs an unoccupied vehicle in the air has major differences.

Well of course. You don't attempt to compare things that are exactly the same. They must differ in some way.

But sure. Let's adjust the scenario to make it more similar.

Someone drives their motorcycle onto my property. Get's off, and leaves. I notice that their motorcycle has a dash cam, and I can tell it's on, pointed at my house.

Can I shoot it legally? Would a judge dismiss those charges if I did such a thing?

[Kellhound]

You can design it completely differently, if the only purpose was what you mentioned. But it's not the only purpose, now is it?

It's not very efficient killing tool, if it was very hard to handle and operate in general. Shows what little you know. If you want to play smart, then atleast try to be right. To do what you mentioned, you need the barrel with bullet in it's breech, then something to seal the breech with, something to strike the end of the bullet with (firing pin) and last something to hit that firing pin with. A rock can do that.

Will it be useless if designed with only those parts? Yes. Will it do what you mentioned? Yes.

No it will not. There would be very little predictability in the trajectory of the projectile.

Portability/ease of handling compromise predictability/accuracy, it is a trade off. The most effective "killing tool" (as you want to call it) I have ever owned was also the least portable and hardest to handle.

Oh, and FYI, bullets dont have primers. They are both parts of a round of ammunition (bullet, case, primer, powder are the major parts of a center-fire cartridge).

[TrumpIsPresident]

No, sorry, the comparison is valid. You see a car pull into your driveway. You have no idea what their intentions are. They sit there for a minute. You feel your privacy is violated. Maybe they're looking through your windows. So you shoot the vehicle.

A vehicle can harm you. A drone can harm you. A vehicle has an operator. A drone has an operator.

Why can't I legally shoot the vehicle if I feel the operator is violating my privacy?

I duno man I think the comparison isn't valid at all since shooting at a drone and shooting at a person are not the same thing.

[Kellhound]

Well of course. You don't attempt to compare things that are exactly the same. They must differ in some way.

But sure. Let's adjust the scenario to make it more similar.

Someone drives their motorcycle onto my property. Get's off, and leaves. I notice that their motorcycle has a dash cam, and I can tell it's on, pointed at my house.

Can I shoot it legally? Would a judge dismiss those charges if I did such a thing?

Depends on the local laws regarding discharging of a firearm, the type of firearm used, and the danger posed by firing. Personally, I would just seize the motorcycle and part it out as abandoned.

[Azadina]

No it will not. There would be very little predictability in the trajectory of the projectile.

That's just you being bad at shooting poorly designed weapon. You not being able to aim or control it is not the weapons fault. The bullet will fly out the barrel just the same.

Oh, and FYI, bullets dont have primers. They are both parts of a round of ammunition (bullet, case, primer, powder are the major parts of a center-fire cartridge).

Caseless ammunition doesn't have case. Good try.

[TZucchini]

Depends on the local laws regarding discharging of a firearm, the type of firearm used, and the danger posed by firing. Personally, I would just seize the motorcycle and part it out as abandoned.

I guess a better question is should it be legal. Should we be legally allowed to shoot mechanical devices because we're concerned about our privacy? I'd imagine most people would say no.

[Logwyn]

You own 500ft of airspace above your property, good for her.

US Courts at a height of 500 ft in urban or suburban area and 300 feet above the surface or tallest structure in rural areas. In 2016, The FAA set regulations that "allow" drones to fly below 400 feet to prevent interference with planes above that height, and makes it a felony for a landowner to block drones flying through the lower altitudes regardless of ownership.

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=20515

[lockedout]

I guess a better question is should it be legal. Should we be legally allowed to shoot mechanical devices because we're concerned about our privacy? I'd imagine most people would say no.

Who cares what "most people would say?" The question is if it's legal. You're also not comparing the same scenarios.

- - - Updated - - -

US Courts at a height of 500 ft in urban or suburban area and 300 feet above the surface or tallest structure in rural areas. In 2016, The FAA set regulations that "allow" drones to fly below 400 feet to prevent interference with planes above that height, and makes it a felony for a landowner to block drones flying through the lower altitudes regardless of ownership.

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=20515

Under the final rule, the person actually flying a drone must be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate. To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, an individual must either pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center or have an existing non-student Part 61 pilot certificate. If qualifying under the latter provision, a pilot must have completed a flight review in the previous 24 months and must take a UAS online training course provided by the FAA. The TSA will conduct a security background check of all remote pilot applications prior to issuance of a certificate.

I believe your link pertains to commercial use, I could be wrong though.

[TZucchini]

Who cares what "most people would say?" The question is if it's legal. You're also not comparing the same scenarios.

Well. Considering the fact that legislators are elected, I'd say it matter very much what most people would say.

That should be obvious.

[lockedout]

Well. Considering the fact that legislators are elected, I'd say it matter very much what most people would say.

That should be obvious.

Only if those people are writing a new law. Currently if there is a law on the books it doesn't matter what people think. Just like you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, no one cares...

[TZucchini]

Only if those people are writing a new law. Currently if there is a law on the books it doesn't matter what people think. Just like you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, no one cares...

Or. More incidents like this occur. People start seeing that laws allow it. Feel outraged. Only vote for politicians that vow to change it.

Oh look, Democracy!

[Kellhound]

That's just you being bad at shooting poorly designed weapon. You not being able to aim or control it is not the weapons fault. The bullet will fly out the barrel just the same.



Caseless ammunition doesn't have case. Good try.

Predictability is, at its core, something doing what you expect. If you want X to do Y and it is not capable of doing so, it is not predictable.

Caseless ammunition is also not considered center-fire ammunition.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess a better question is should it be legal. Should we be legally allowed to shoot mechanical devices because we're concerned about our privacy? I'd imagine most people would say no.

Yes it should be legal.

- - - Updated - - -

Or. More incidents like this occur. People start seeing that laws allow it. Feel outraged. Only vote for politicians that vow to change it.

Oh look, Democracy!

Or, people dont care and nothing changes.

[lockedout]

Or. More incidents like this occur. People start seeing that laws allow it. Feel outraged. Only vote for politicians that vow to change it.

Oh look, Democracy!

Until the law changes it doesn't matter what people think. Which is what I initially said no matter how you try to contort that it doesn't matter.

[rayden54]

Maybe now, but that's not what weapons were made for originally. It was precisely to more effectively kill people. Being better for hunting than spear was just added bonus. Just like swords weren't made to replace knives as kitchen utility, they were made to kill more effectively.

So, the original design intent of those items vary greatly, even if all can somehow kill a person. Only one was designed for that exact purpose.

You realize that depends a lot on the gun right?

[Sesshou]

Shotgun bird-shot pellets falling from a ballistic trajectory are pretty much harmless.

Because everyone will be smart enough to use that... Have you not seen enough stories about people doing something incredibly stupid with their gun and ending up shooting someone?

I'm not saying this lady shouldn't have shot the drone or that you couldn't do what you're suggesting to do it safely. I'm saying the idea of 'it is totally legal to pull out your gun and shoot a drone flying over your property' will eventually end up with some dumb ass confused why they are going to prison when the shot hit more than a drone.

[Kellhound]

Because everyone will be smart enough to use that... Have you not seen enough stories about people doing something incredibly stupid with their gun and ending up shooting someone?

I'm not saying this lady shouldn't have shot the drone or that you couldn't do what you're suggesting to do it safely. I'm saying the idea of 'it is totally legal to pull out your gun and shoot a drone flying over your property' will eventually end up with some dumb ass confused why they are going to prison when the shot hit more than a drone.

Drone hunter safety class.

[TZucchini]

Yes it should be legal.

I'm not entirely surprised that you think so.

For what it's worth, the FAA disagrees. They also believe it's a Federal crime.

- - - Updated - - -

Until the law changes it doesn't matter what people think.

Just who in the fuck do you think has the power to change the law?

Oh, right. The people.

Of course it matters what people think.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Hillbillies and technology don't mix.


...at least till they figure out they can make their moonshine deliveries that way.