Hexacopter Shot Out of the Sky
Jun 29, 2015 15:21:37 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
It is AGAINST the law to discharge a firearm within 500 feet of any home... or over a road. it is against the law to shoot a drone out of the sky- according to the FAA. If you have a complaint, you take it up with officials. I am an avid hunter and 2nd amendment supporter- and am against people doing stupid things with guns, they give the rest of us a bad time, and jerks like the POTUS and governors, etc. etc, for an excuse to take 'em.
If this guy lived next to me, he'd have a lot to answer for. Not because of his shooting, i don't have a problem with that, but because of the direction. That is plain wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33312582
If this guy lived next to me, he'd have a lot to answer for. Not because of his shooting, i don't have a problem with that, but because of the direction. That is plain wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33312582
Jun 29, 2015 17:47:53 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Just because your own a shotgun. that doesn't mean you can aim and fire wherever you want. Read the whole article.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/man-shoots-downs-neighbors-hexacopter-in-rural-drone-shotgun-battle/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/man-shoots-downs-neighbors-hexacopter-in-rural-drone-shotgun-battle/
Aww Heck,
Anyone can shoot down a drone with a shotgun. Be a Real Man and do it with an Automatic rifle!!!
Kinda reminds me of a saying I once saw out west in a truck stop restroom. "Anybody can pee on the floor, be a hero and take a dump on the ceiling"!!!
I keep looking up at restroom ceilings in truck stops and rest areas.
Jun 29, 2015 17:49:23 #
rpavich wrote:
Yes, and if everyone put a shot-gun hole in everyone's car that cut them off in traffic or parked too close then we'd really have nirvana. :(
SEMPER-FI Bro
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jun 29, 2015 17:50:25 #
RichieC wrote:
It is AGAINST the law to discharge a firearm withi... (show quote)
That's correct, let's shoot em!!!
Jun 29, 2015 18:11:22 #
DaveHam wrote:
What a good idea. If more of the intrusive, noisy, pointless things get shot out of the sky then maybe the world will be a better place. Certainly those of us who work with wildlife will think so.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Jun 29, 2015 19:21:00 #
OK..let's be relistic! If this was a CIA drone...I believe the return fire would out gun anything you have.:-)
Also there is a reason shooting a firearm within city limits is usually illegal.
What goes ups up comes down, including your bullets. With the 4th of July around the corner this bit of info will be repeated in the news. They warns folks not to celebrate with shooting off their guns.
Rest assured if the small drone is 100' in the air it it very unlikely getting a detailed shot of your personal property, with the typical junky toy drone camera.
On the other hand if it's outside your window...grab your baseball bat:-)
Also there is a reason shooting a firearm within city limits is usually illegal.
What goes ups up comes down, including your bullets. With the 4th of July around the corner this bit of info will be repeated in the news. They warns folks not to celebrate with shooting off their guns.
Rest assured if the small drone is 100' in the air it it very unlikely getting a detailed shot of your personal property, with the typical junky toy drone camera.
On the other hand if it's outside your window...grab your baseball bat:-)
Jun 29, 2015 23:47:55 #
I'm glad he shot it down. Citizens living in this country, and especially in THE country, have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Unfortunately our technology has outpaced manors, and the law.
It was reasonable for Mr McBay to assume the drone was spying.
Mr Joe's claim that the drone crashed 200' away fro Mr McBays property does not preclude the possibility of spying. Indeed shotguns are line of sight and so the drone was within line of sight of Mr McBay, who was on his own property, at the time of the shooting. Cameras are line of sight so it was reasonable for Mr McBay to assume the drone could have been spying.
Mr Joe (a man with two first names) cites the fact the drone landed 200' from Mr McBays property is proof it was not over his property: (1) it is not necessary to be over a property to conduct spying, see above; (2) it is unlikely the drone descended vertically, it likely traveled sideways some before landing; (3) a 2' foot wide target 200' away is a difficult shot. Reportedly there was only one shot. Either it was a very lucky shot or more likely, the drone was much closer.
Thus facts point toward the drone being much closer when the shot took place.
Let's suppose that Mr McBay was a rich Hollywood star and her bodyguard shot down the drone. Naturally there would be no case because she's famous and she deserves a reasonable expectation of privacy when she is on her own property, and besides, she's rich and famous. Why should the rules be different for anyone else?
It was reasonable for Mr McBay to assume the drone was spying.
Mr Joe's claim that the drone crashed 200' away fro Mr McBays property does not preclude the possibility of spying. Indeed shotguns are line of sight and so the drone was within line of sight of Mr McBay, who was on his own property, at the time of the shooting. Cameras are line of sight so it was reasonable for Mr McBay to assume the drone could have been spying.
Mr Joe (a man with two first names) cites the fact the drone landed 200' from Mr McBays property is proof it was not over his property: (1) it is not necessary to be over a property to conduct spying, see above; (2) it is unlikely the drone descended vertically, it likely traveled sideways some before landing; (3) a 2' foot wide target 200' away is a difficult shot. Reportedly there was only one shot. Either it was a very lucky shot or more likely, the drone was much closer.
Thus facts point toward the drone being much closer when the shot took place.
Let's suppose that Mr McBay was a rich Hollywood star and her bodyguard shot down the drone. Naturally there would be no case because she's famous and she deserves a reasonable expectation of privacy when she is on her own property, and besides, she's rich and famous. Why should the rules be different for anyone else?
Jun 30, 2015 04:06:13 #
Wellhiem wrote:
It does raise the question, how far above your property do you own? If you fired a SAM at a commercial airliner, flying above your property, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get the opportunity of just paying for the damage.
The "notice" below conforms with CASA (Cival Australian Safety Authority) regs.
CASA of course complies with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) So FAA regulations are probably identical.
If you dont like a drone operating in your vicinity call the FAA. They may enforce law that will regulate that pesky drone.
Jun 30, 2015 04:08:07 #
Wellhiem wrote:
It does raise the question, how far above your property do you own? If you fired a SAM at a commercial airliner, flying above your property, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get the opportunity of just paying for the damage.
Possibly 400 feet.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.