• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FAA warns public against shooting guns at drones

Do you think buying the license to shoot at drones just MIGHT get a person on some government **** list?:roll:
 
Somewhere back in my inherited vintage military firearms and munitions is a complete 20mm with about 8000 rounds of ammo of which each 6th round is a tracer that came from a WWII P38. That could take a crack at one up to a few thousand feet, but there is exactly no circumstance where I would shoot at a government drone - nor do I find the idea humorous either.
 
Morrigi said:
Predator drones and their offshoots fly at the same altitudes as conventional aircraft. Many others do not, and I'd wager that a good helping of 00 buck would be quite enough to disable them.
Click to expand...

A long barrel 10 gauge can reach fairly high. Drones range in size for hobby size helicopters to small full sized aircraft.

The latest in ultra-tech is the government has via contract managed the technology to control a beetle in flight. The reason is because battery operated micro drones have cannot carry enough battery to be usable, but by using a micro-processor and electric impulse they can control the flight muscles of a beetle - successfully. Currently, they are now developing the micro camera, microphone or sniffer also small enough. Reportedly this second step is significantly easier than figuring how to control the flight.

It's not that far off that the water beetle (most people call them cockroaches by they aren't) scurring across the floor is actually a spy drone. This technology if down to the insect size could be particularly easy if enlarged to the seagull or pigeon size.
 
Henry David said:
Perhaps you could contact Richard Branson so that you could make some money with them. ;)
Click to expand...
Yup. I can imagine that somebody is already working on this. More power to 'em. I would suggest, though, that with every thing else going on, drones are the least of our problems. However, I can well imagine some nerdy-macho someone getting into the "my drone shot your drone down" thing. Especially in the middle of the apocalypse.
 
Stewart said:
Commercial drones would be too high to shoot down, but your DIY drone would be. All unmanned operations above 500ft(sic) require FAA approval. Either risk get shot down or get dinged by the FAA. Worse if you had a collision with another aircraft. Something operating out of controlled airspace.

I know you're only joking. I hope.

Source: Australian fullsize and RC pilot.
Click to expand...
I'm joking. Commercial drones don't fly so high that they can't be touched. Altitude isn't the problem. Identification and targeting would be a bit problematic, but not insurmountable. Drones are the least of our problems here. I do think it's funny to think of someone out in their backyard with a shotgun having a go at them, though. I love shooting clays. Wouldn't care in the least for a visit from the darkened glass Suburbans, though.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Deer Trail, CO. is considering an ordinance that would grant hunting licenses to shoot unmanned government drones. The FAA threatens criminal and civil liability for the hunters, as though they shot at a manned aircraft.

Deliberate destruction of government property, or righteous civil disobedience? Personally, I think the drones are unreasonable search because no warrant was issued, and unconstitutional laws should be disobeyed until repealed. But this has a public safety issue that sort-of muddys the water.

Article is here
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, officer. I thought it was a duck. We need a law that, the next time the government sends one of those drones up in the sky over my neighborhood, they must have a huge sign which identifies it, saying "I am not a duck".
 
Hard Truth said:
I would hope that there is a height below which it is illegal to intrude over someone's property. I would guess that intruding below that minimum height that would be considered trespassing and the property owner has a right to take some action. There may be more aggressive actions legal in a stand your ground state.

However, using a rope or net to catch to catch the drone seems safer and more justifiable legally.

I would like to see citizens use their own drones to fly over the homes of the public officials supportive of the recent expansion of domestic surveillance programs that include people who are not under any suspicion. Small remote control helicopters with cameras are available and relatively inexpensive.
Click to expand...

That's my feeling. If the are "justified" to fly over my property when I have done no crime, I should also be justified in taking it down.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Plus, are you certain you can tell the difference between this passenger aircraft and this drone?

be35.jpg


0131-obama-pakistan-US-drones_full_380.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes.

Anyone who is well versed in identifying aircraft, at least, can absolutely easily tell the difference. I've never even studied those two types of aircraft and can spot a lot of noticeable differences.

Hell, even those not well versed in spotting aircraft - but able to recognize patterns - could do that fairly easily - they're similar, but not so similar it's impossible to distinguish the two.
 
Travelsonic said:
Yes.

Anyone who is well versed in identifying aircraft, at least, can absolutely easily tell the difference. I've never even studied those two types of aircraft and can spot a lot of noticeable differences.

Hell, even those not well versed in spotting aircraft - but able to recognize patterns - could do that fairly easily - they're similar, but not so similar it's impossible to distinguish the two.
Click to expand...

I bet you can't do it at 10,000 feet.
 
Travelsonic said:
Yes.

Anyone who is well versed in identifying aircraft, at least, can absolutely easily tell the difference. I've never even studied those two types of aircraft and can spot a lot of noticeable differences.

Hell, even those not well versed in spotting aircraft - but able to recognize patterns - could do that fairly easily - they're similar, but not so similar it's impossible to distinguish the two.
Click to expand...

You overestimate the discerning abilities of the average overly emotional knee-jerk type reactionary person who is just itching for a fight.
 
Hard Truth said:
I would hope that there is a height below which it is illegal to intrude over someone's property. I would guess that intruding below that minimum height that would be considered trespassing and the property owner has a right to take some action. There may be more aggressive actions legal in a stand your ground state.

However, using a rope or net to catch to catch the drone seems safer and more justifiable legally.

I would like to see citizens use their own drones to fly over the homes of the public officials supportive of the recent expansion of domestic surveillance programs that include people who are not under any suspicion. Small remote control helicopters with cameras are available and relatively inexpensive.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to this, but my best guess is that... barring a warrant... standard safety guidelines would apply. Whatever those are, and also guessing that they may be relatively vague.

I like the net idea, myself.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, but I'm thinking if one hundred to two hundred thousand or more folks applied it just might send a message to any law enforcement wanting to use the darn things.
Click to expand...

As someone else pointed out, there are only 550 people in the one county "offering" them. I highly doubt that all 550 people approve of these permits/licenses.
 
jamesrage said:
Unlike a helicopter a drone doesn't have to manned and can go places a helicopter can without being noticed.Drones can also be mass produced.
Click to expand...


Scenario (not totally unlikely): The FBI is using a drone to follow a known child rapist/killer who is suspected of having kidnapped another child and normally keeps the children alive to repeatedly rape before he kills them. The FBI is using a drone because a helicopter would be noticed much sooner by the suspect and the really want to follow him very closely to see if he leads them to the child.

Some idiot shoots the drone out of the air because he/she feels it violates their privacy rights and the child killer gets away, goes towards the child before the FBI can find him again and kills the child. Yeah, long live civil disobedience!!

Might be a bit far fetched, but with drones the police can much easier follow people and use observe properties suspected of crime to protect the public. Helicopters are useless because they are seen or heard much more easily and as you said they are expensive and not available in the numbers the police might need in a crisis situation.
 
Peter King said:
Scenario (not totally unlikely): The FBI is using a drone to follow a known child rapist/killer who is suspected of having kidnapped another child and normally keeps the children alive to repeatedly rape before he kills them. The FBI is using a drone because a helicopter would be noticed much sooner by the suspect and the really want to follow him very closely to see if he leads them to the child.

Some idiot shoots the drone out of the air because he/she feels it violates their privacy rights and the child killer gets away, goes towards the child before the FBI can find him again and kills the child. Yeah, long live civil disobedience!!

Might be a bit far fetched, but with drones the police can much easier follow people and use observe properties suspected of crime to protect the public. Helicopters are useless because they are seen or heard much more easily and as you said they are expensive and not available in the numbers the police might need in a crisis situation.
Click to expand...

And I am sure that is the excuse and scenario that the proponents of letting the government spy on American citizens will use to allow drones on every street corner.Without that cameras everywhere spying on people crooks could get away. If you do not have drones following people everywhere then people will get away with speeding, shoplifting and so on. It is extremely dangerous letting the government do this.
 
Last edited:
Binary_Digit said:
Deer Trail, CO. is considering an ordinance that would grant hunting licenses to shoot unmanned government drones. The FAA threatens criminal and civil liability for the hunters, as though they shot at a manned aircraft.

Deliberate destruction of government property, or righteous civil disobedience? Personally, I think the drones are unreasonable search because no warrant was issued, and unconstitutional laws should be disobeyed until repealed. But this has a public safety issue that sort-of muddys the water.

Article is here
Click to expand...

Easier to jam the drones than shoot them down.
 
jamesrage said:
And I am sure that is the excuse and scenario that the proponents of letting the government spy on American citizens will use to allow drones on every street corner.Without that cameras everywhere spying on people crooks could get away. If you do not have drones following people everywhere then people will get away with speeding, shoplifting and so on. It is extremely dangerous letting the government do this.
Click to expand...

I could care less if the government would put cctv cameras on every corner of the street in city centers or in the area of bars and clubs. Public safety will improve and the police will be able to pinpoint their efforts much more clearly and will be able to prosecute much easier.

Drones could be a danger but only to those who do things that warrant surveillance. If you do nothing wrong the risk of the government watching anything you do with drones is close to zero. Police do not have the manpower or the resources to watch regular traffic with drones or something like that.

But yes, let's say there are a lot of pick pockets in one area then I think it is perfectly reasonable for police to use a drone to watch that specific area for the thieves. But if the thieves are not found or no one reports their possessions stolen than the police has to delete the footage. There has to be an independent body watching over the shoulder of the government to make sure it does not overstep it's boundaries when it comes to drones and privacy.
 
Peter King said:
I could care less if the government would put cctv cameras on every corner of the street in city centers or in the area of bars and clubs. Public safety will improve and the police will be able to pinpoint their efforts much more clearly and will be able to prosecute much easier.

Drones could be a danger but only to those who do things that warrant surveillance. If you do nothing wrong the risk of the government watching anything you do with drones is close to zero. Police do not have the manpower or the resources to watch regular traffic with drones or something like that.

But yes, let's say there are a lot of pick pockets in one area then I think it is perfectly reasonable for police to use a drone to watch that specific area for the thieves. But if the thieves are not found or no one reports their possessions stolen than the police has to delete the footage.
Click to expand...

The good old I have nothing to worry about so I don't the government do this excuse.


There has to be an independent body watching over the shoulder of the government to make sure it does not overstep it's boundaries when it comes to drones and privacy.
Click to expand...

That independent body doesn't exist and will never exist.
 
danarhea said:
i'm sorry, officer. I thought it was a duck. We need a law that, the next time the government sends one of those drones up in the sky over my neighborhood, they must have a huge sign which identifies it, saying "i am not a duck".
Click to expand...

Rabbit Season!
 
danarhea said:
I'm sorry, officer. I thought it was a duck. We need a law that, the next time the government sends one of those drones up in the sky over my neighborhood, they must have a huge sign which identifies it, saying "I am not a duck".
Click to expand...

"Must be a goose, then! Yeeeeehaaawww!" *blammo*
 
Quick, Ned! It's coming right for us!
 
Don't shoot guns at drones. Skynet is watching.
 
Peter King said:
I could care less if the government would put cctv cameras on every corner of the street in city centers or in the area of bars and clubs. Public safety will improve and the police will be able to pinpoint their efforts much more clearly and will be able to prosecute much easier.

Drones could be a danger but only to those who do things that warrant surveillance. If you do nothing wrong the risk of the government watching anything you do with drones is close to zero. Police do not have the manpower or the resources to watch regular traffic with drones or something like that.

But yes, let's say there are a lot of pick pockets in one area then I think it is perfectly reasonable for police to use a drone to watch that specific area for the thieves. But if the thieves are not found or no one reports their possessions stolen than the police has to delete the footage. There has to be an independent body watching over the shoulder of the government to make sure it does not overstep it's boundaries when it comes to drones and privacy.
Click to expand...

You feel free to invite unfettered snooping into your life, even your bedroom.

Some of us are independent and do not need some agency to hold or hand, coddle us, or make us feel comfortable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom