# Should you be allowed to shoot down a drone?



## LovePhotography (Aug 1, 2015)

If there is a drone hovering over your fenced-in back yard, presumably videoing or photographing your teenage daughter sunbathing in a skimpy bikini, or shooting footage though your bedroom window, or, violating your privacy in any other way, for that matter, should you be able to shoot it down?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2015)

Highly unlikely, there are likely laws against discharging a firearm, your life would need to be in jeopardy. Its a lawsuit against the drone owner, and possibly a charge by police for violating several laws.


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 1, 2015)

Interesting question. Shooting it down would probably be against the law, but if you had disco lights on with those lasers that affect/destroy camera sensors then I wonder whose fault it would be? wink, wink, nudge, nudge.  8)

But on a serious note, if a camera is over your back yard and you suspect it of taking video or images of your children or anything else like that, then I would call the police immediately.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 1, 2015)

In Texas?, shoot it down surly.... 8)

In the UK, use a hose and drown the thing... 

Anyway there are laws about flying them around people etc in the UK, mind you getting plod to do something is where you will need the hose...


----------



## rs (Aug 1, 2015)

I wonder how long it will be before a market emerges for signal blockers for drones? Firefighters etc would benefit from them, and I'm sure some large corporations and wealthy individuals would purchase them.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 1, 2015)

We had a fatal helicopter accident at an emergency site, due to a drone from a newspaper. Since then I believe we have a new regulation, allowing emergency responders to shoot down drones, under certain conditions. 
If I did it as a private person, I believe I would be in trouble though. However, with the growing population of drones, there should be a good market for jammers.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 1, 2015)

Yeah, shoot it down, into a spiral of uncontrolled descent, thats a proportionate response that could see the broken drone land on a busy road and go through a moving cars windscreen, or have the still spinning rotors cut a pedestrians face open.

The only thing stupider than shooting it down is the notion that civilians are allowed guns.

So, a metaphorical shooting down then, but really... what next, shoot folk with long lenses in case they can see onto your property?

The laws and practices around drones really really need tightening up, but I woukd say idiots with guns do far more harm.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 1, 2015)

I think a lot of the comments Tinky are tongue in cheek (I'd hope), I'd not risk shooting it down for many reasons.

The law here in the UK is clear.

https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=16012

"no flying in built up area's" for one.

Invasion of privacy is another matter.

CCTV systems for example, you can film the open street, looking over fences and through windows is another story.

As for jammers I am an old radio ham, fire out a stone enough signal and you will flatten anything "else" RF based, taking control, that's another option


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 1, 2015)

Eldar said:


> We had a fatal helicopter accident at an emergency site, due to a drone from a newspaper. Since then I believe we have a new regulation, allowing emergency responders to shoot down drones, under certain conditions.
> If I did it as a private person, I believe I would be in trouble though. However, with the growing population of drones, there should be a good market for jammers.



There are plenty of regulations new and old, but drones are becoming an ever increasing problem. Remember those drones reported over the French nuclear sites, then that fire in the US which hampered the rescue services. Numerous have been reported by pilots of commercial aircraft. Jammers do not work as I read that somewhere on the BBC about a recent attempt to do just that.

And what's worse the drones are getting smaller and smaller and yet still more powerful.

Tinky, I agree with arthurbikemad that many of the suggestions - mind included - were for fun. Then again....


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2015)

Overload the inputs..... Could do that easily.....

Just take a high gain antenna, a tracking mount, and a high power amp (got a 400watt one at work that will do that frequency band) , and blast it..... You can overload the GPS signal at the same time....


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 1, 2015)

Who said anything about guns?

I'm now imagining a SAM system that I could install on the roof


----------



## kaihp (Aug 1, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Overload the inputs..... Could do that easily.....
> 
> Just take a high gain antenna, a tracking mount, and a high power amp (got a 400watt one at work that will do that frequency band) , and blast it..... You can overload the GPS signal at the same time....


The 2.4GHz ISM band is a good guess for where to look.

Here in Denmark you need a license to fly a drone, just as you need a license for a firearm. I'm not sure which license that is the hardest to get hold of...


----------



## Tinky (Aug 1, 2015)

Just for clarity, in case anybody doesn't undestand irony...

...no I absolutely do not think anybody should be shooting drones out the sky. The debris has to come to earth somewhere, and that somewhere could be on top of somebody elses property or head. A damaged drone wouldn't drop like a stone, it's wee motors would be going nuts trying to stabilise it as it spun and fell in an unpredictable arc.
I was being sardonic. I've not heard anything so stupid in a long time. Consequences people, consequences!

I do happen to think that the notion of civilians having firearms is bonkers. I remember Prince Philip saying that The Dunblane massacre could have easily happened with a cricket bat. Emmm. No it couldn't. Firearms are dangerous.
And civilians should not be allowed near them. Lets see that nasty dentist bloke take on a lion with a cricket bat to test Prince Philips theory. 

And totally serious that civilian access to firearms does more harm than civilian access to recreational drones.

Yes the controls need tightening for everybody (although the commercial requirements in the uk need graded to suit different craft... the present costly and overkill training deters people from taking training and obtaining a license, getting insurance etc it's counter productive, so folks just wing it and take to the air with no training at all)

And civilian access to firearms should be rebuked. No irony involved.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 1, 2015)

I agree with you 100%

Of late the whole lion killing for example disgusts me..

For the record, the lion was killed with a compound bow, you can buy one here in the UK with no licence, but hunting with one here is totally against the law, no matter what.

Guns are dangerous, sadly they were designed by man to kill man and other living things, most of what mankind does is not nice, mass killings are only possible with automatic weapons and the public have no need for such a weapon imo.

Anyway guess I've gone way off topic..


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 1, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Just for clarity, in case anybody doesn't undestand irony...
> 
> ...no I absolutely do not think anybody should be shooting drones out the sky. The debris has to come to earth somewhere, and that somewhere could be on top of somebody elses property or head. A damaged drone wouldn't drop like a stone, it's wee motors would be going nuts trying to stabilise it as it spun and fell in an unpredictable arc.
> I was being sardonic. I've not heard anything so stupid in a long time. Consequences people, consequences!
> ...



I think most of us here understand irony.

Chill out.

As said, most of the comments above were said in humour. This is not a serious thread!


----------



## Tinky (Aug 1, 2015)

i'm perfectly chilled, thanks.


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 1, 2015)

Tinky said:


> i'm perfectly chilled, thanks.



Good to know! Got a bit wild/serious there for a moment!

Cheers.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 1, 2015)

Site needs a "like" button


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 1, 2015)

http://personalliberty.com/kentucky-man-faces-felony-charges-for-protecting-privacy-by-shooting-drone-hovering-over-his-backyard/

Digital voyeurism. I say, "Nyet".


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 1, 2015)

Your property and personal airspace here in the us extends to 500ft above your property. That's about the range of a good shotgun. You would be within your rights to blast one out of the sky if it was within your property airspace....that is if owning and discharging a firearm in your local is legal. Some communist states prohibit such.

You could not blast one out of the sky in public airspace or in someone else's private airspace.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 1, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> Site needs a "like" button


----------



## tolusina (Aug 1, 2015)

Not keen on the firearm idea, what goes up has to come down. In the U.S. I'm pretty sure it's illegal within city limits anyway, there'd be unpleasant legal consequences.

Has it been established anywhere that private property includes low altitude air space directly above?

I am quite liking the laser, water hose and jammer ideas.
How about paint balls or going after the offending drone with your own drone, chase it off and follow it home.


----------



## canonistic (Aug 1, 2015)

(You would be within your rights to blast one out of the sky if it was within your property airspace..)

Not really, a fellow in Kentucky was arrested for that very infraction.
Shooting it down is not permissible. 
Jamming is also not permissible, you may have a knock on your door from the FCC.

So, what recourse do you have?
I like the laser pointer and fire hose suggestions, can't think of any legal reason they wouldn't be okay.
I personally think, fly your drone over YOUR OWN property all you want. 
KEEP OUT of the airspace within 500' over my property.

This phenomenon is going to become more and more contentious in the years ahead.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 1, 2015)

I guess this thread is about this:-

http://www.dailydot.com/technology/kentucky-drone-shooting/


----------



## tpatana (Aug 1, 2015)

Tinky said:


> but I woukd say idiots with guns do far more harm.



Agreed.

First step is to outlaw idiots.

Second step is to outlaw idiots with guns.

Third step is to outlaw idiots with drones.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 1, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Your property and personal airspace here in the us extends to 500ft above your property. That's about the range of a good shotgun. You would be within your rights to blast one out of the sky if it was within your property airspace....that is if owning and discharging a firearm in your local is legal. Some communist states prohibit such.
> 
> You could not blast one out of the sky in public airspace or in someone else's private airspace.



Can you clarify two points.
Which right are you referring to that allows you to blast it out of the sky?
When you refer to communist states are you referring to other countries or other states in the US?


----------



## Click (Aug 1, 2015)

tpatana said:


> First step is to outlaw idiots.
> 
> Second step is to outlaw idiots with guns.
> 
> Third step is to outlaw idiots with drones.




+1


----------



## jthomson (Aug 1, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> As said, most of the comments above were said in humour. This is not a serious thread!


 
Totally agree that the comments have been funny, but the topic is serious. As others have pointed out the original question is based on an incident that was in the news.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2015)

rs said:


> I wonder how long it will be before a market emerges for signal blockers for drones? Firefighters etc would benefit from them, and I'm sure some large corporations and wealthy individuals would purchase them.



In the US, jammers are looked upon very dimly by authorities, they could be used to jam other devices or even modified to jam commercial communications. There will not be much of a market, but there will be some under the table selling of devices from overseas, and a few jail terms.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 1, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> In Texas?, shoot it down surly.... 8)
> 
> In the UK, use a hose and drown the thing...
> 
> Anyway there are laws about flying them around people etc in the UK, mind you getting plod to do something is where you will need the hose...


 
Who are you calling surly?  
And Shirley you jest? :

Sorry, I really tried the first time but I just couldn' t resist the second time I read it.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 1, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > but I woukd say idiots with guns do far more harm.
> ...



Steps two and three are redundant in your ordering. A more correct order would be:
1. Outlaw idiots with guns.
2. Outlaw idiots with drones.
3. Outlaw idiots

While 1 and 2 are perfectly reasonable and achievable goals, I don't think 3 is even possible. There is one born every minute. Fortunately most are harmless


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 2, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how long it will be before a market emerges for signal blockers for drones? Firefighters etc would benefit from them, and I'm sure some large corporations and wealthy individuals would purchase them.
> ...


Actually, jammers are loved by authorities....

It's jammers in civilian hands that they are not too crazy about....


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 2, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > but I woukd say idiots with guns do far more harm.
> ...


what about idiots who mount their pistol on a drone......


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



Law enforcement agencies use cell-phone jammers to cut off communications in certain situations, such as hostage-taking incidents. When a criminal is holed up with hostages, police want to be able to control communication with that person. They can switch off all but one telephone land line going into a building, then use a jammer to make sure the hostage-taker can't use a cell phone to contact accomplices or the news media. Jammers can also be used to establish a security perimeter. Terrorists commonly use cell-phone signals to detonate bombs remotely. Convoys in Iraq have used jammers as a protection measure, and, according to CNN, the presidential motorcade includes a vehicle equipped with a jammer


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 2, 2015)

Hi Folks. 
Deal with this by going for a quiet walk, when you find the person staring intently at the image of your garden, daughter, bedroom etc on their tablet or controller, walk very quietly up behind them and shout boo in their left ear and watch the drone spiral in as it tries to follow the inputs from the tablet that is either flying through the air or being hastily stuffed in a pocket! ;D

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Northstar (Aug 2, 2015)

Yes...if it is flying over your property at a low height...yes, absolutely.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2015)

After thinking about it, I think that you should get your own drone, and chase it off, or shoot a net into the props. It should come down on your land, of course.

Crashing into it is a expensive option, but there might be enough parts between the two to build a new one. All it might take on your part is a cheapie small drone that could be sacrificed. If the camera survives, you might gain a nice camera as well 

The owner would have to reveal himself and risk a criminal charge if he wanted to complain, since he was intruding into your airspace and collided with you, it was obviously his fault.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 2, 2015)

Northstar said:


> Yes...if it is flying over your property at a low height...yes, absolutely.



And hope the fpv feed isn't being recorded.

And making sure that as you take aim at the drone that there isn't a person or window or animal or somebody ekses property in the trajectory of your shot, should you miss, and are holding your weapon at a low angle.

You are as well to keep your gun with you at all times, because these drones have a short flight time, what if by the time you went and got your gn, unlicked the cabinet, unlocked the ammo drawer, locked it all back up in case anybody got into it if left lying open, loaded your gun then came back outside, can't be too careful, so yeah, you should basically carry a loaded gun with you at all times in case you see a drone over your land, it's the responsible way to deal with it.


----------



## TheJock (Aug 2, 2015)

After reading this news report, and if you have a daughter who likes to sunbath in the garden, have your own drone with 4 (for stability) long legs sticking out with upturned blades on the ends. Simply fly it into the rotors of the offending drone, thus cutting the rotors on it, it will plummet into your property, _et voila_, 1 new drone/camera…….and evidence for a law suit.


----------



## zim (Aug 2, 2015)

Ah 'Drone Wars' I feel a TV series coming on


----------



## TheJock (Aug 2, 2015)

How about this as a solution!!!!!!!!!!! ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0GBeOnxA4M


----------



## Old Sarge (Aug 2, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



I found that Youtube video fascinating. I am not an engineer but it seems like it would take some real skill to design a drone that could stay that stable under the recoil of a .45acp. I heard it was shooting at some kind of shooting range and I really would like to have seen the target.



canonistic said:


> (You would be within your rights to blast one out of the sky if it was within your property airspace..)
> 
> Not really, a fellow in Kentucky was arrested for that very infraction.
> Shooting it down is not permissible.
> ...


The Kentucky case is interesting. Part of the pending charges are caused by a "discharging a firearm where prohibited" type charge but the other charges are criminal mischief charges which would be appropriate whether the drone was damaged by firearms, fire hoses, or lasers. Assuming that the drone was at 200 ft. and not presenting any kind of danger of damage or injury, the operator was probably not violating any law. So intentional destruction of his property by any means would probably result in a criminal charge. As you note, "This phenomenon is going to become more and more contentious in the years ahead."

I was once involved, in a minor way and an official capacity, in a similar case (not so high tech). A neighbor had mounted "security cameras" on his second story which looked over the fence into the yard where a young lady would sunbathe. Unfortunately there was no violation of the law. I understand some officer recommended that the offended party, wanting to make his home and neighborhood more secure, mount an extremely powerful halogen "security" light which would be aimed at the offending neighbors camera, but purely to light up that side of the house. I don't know that it was done or worked but the case seemed to loose steam (a "peace bond" may have been issued against both parties, I don't remember). I did see the offended party a few years later when, in a different official capacity, I performed the marriage ceremony for the young lady who used to sunbathe in the yard.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 2, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> what about idiots who mount their pistol on a drone......


Nominate them for a Darwin Award.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 2, 2015)

OK, I'll bite.

If one lives in a rural area in the country on a large lot (where this would never happen anyway) and uses a shotgun, fine. But in general, shooting down a drone is idiotic. And it's over sensitive. Get over it. Unless you are some kind of huge celebrity, no one is really that interested in you. The drone you see is probably just some kid (or adult) having their own fun. If the drone is indeed malicious or intentionally disturbing, shoot the drone with your cell phone or other camera and give the evidence to the police. I agree that if "shot down" by any means, the drone is a dangerous falling object and any projectiles like bullets used to attack the drone are now more dangerous on their way back down. People have actually been killed by falling bullets at New Years that punctured their roof and hit them in their homes. I doubt falling drones will puncture the roof and kill you but that's beside the point.

I haven't had time to mess with drones myself. But I built model rockets when I was a kid. Played with friends that had model airplanes. I think drones are extremely cool and people should be able to enjoy them responsibly. I would LOVE to be a teenager today! And my son (18) purchased a nice drone about 8 months ago and has used it responsibly in various places with no problems. The footage he showed was really neat.

Drones are no different than anything else that requires responsibility, maturity and good sense. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of folks out there that have none of those qualities but they do have enough money to buy a drone anyway. It is for that reason that drones will eventually be regulated and probably require some kind of license (kind of like, laughingly, CB radios required in the '70's). But drones are really fun, interesting and useful. And at some point, most of the morons will probably lose interest when the next cool thing comes out.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 2, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> OK, I'll bite.
> 
> If one lives in a rural area in the country on a large lot (where this would never happen anyway) and uses a shotgun, fine. But in general, shooting down a drone is idiotic. And it's over sensitive. Get over it. Unless you are some kind of huge celebrity, no one is really that interested in you. The drone you see is probably just some kid (or adult) having their own fun. If the drone is indeed malicious or intentionally disturbing, shoot the drone with your cell phone or other camera and give the evidence to the police. I agree that if "shot down" by any means, the drone is a dangerous falling object and any projectiles like bullets used to attack the drone are now more dangerous on their way back down. People have actually been killed by falling bullets at New Years that punctured their roof and hit them in their homes. I doubt falling drones will puncture the roof and kill you but that's beside the point.
> 
> ...



Exceptionally well put.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 2, 2015)

Old Sarge said:


> I did see the offended party a few years later when, in a different official capacity, I performed the marriage ceremony for the young lady who used to sunbathe in the yard.



If only you had said she was marrying the neighbour....


----------



## Zv (Aug 2, 2015)

I would just tell my daughter to go indoors. Then I would pull down my pants and moon the offending drone. Pretty sure no one wants to see my hairy ass! Retreat! Retreat! Can't unsee that! Hahaha!


----------



## Zv (Aug 2, 2015)

Wait til we have drones with frickin lasers on them, then we'll be in real trouble!


----------



## Click (Aug 2, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...




...And AR15 with Full Auto


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> yeah, you should basically carry a loaded gun with you at all times in case you see a drone over your land, it's the responsible way to deal with it.



I have a shotgun by my back door. A box of birdshot shells next to it. (I don't keep it loaded). So far, no drones, but my next door neighbor has a ultralight  The gun is used to chase off coyotes, we are way out in the country, and guns may be legally discharged, particularly at Coyotes. The sound scares them off, birdshot would not hurt them, but I'd not shoot it at them, just in the air over there heads. We also get cougars and bears, but shooting cougars is prohibited unless they are threatening someone and its a last resort, and bears seldom come near homes. I haven't used the gun for 3 years, and then only for target practice.

Being on a rural farm, like all our neighbors, we have guns.


----------



## TeT (Aug 2, 2015)

I am guessing this is not an NRA sanctioned site...

It would be nice to shoot one down, but anyone familiar with responsible gun ownership and use would realize that unless you have a large amount of acreage behind your field of fire. Discharging a fire arm can be potentially dangerous to any downrange of a missed target. And then there is the bit about the damaged drone flailing about....


Drones don't take pictures, people take pictures...


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 2, 2015)

I'd not be worried about a damaged drone flailing about. We are not talking about drones of Global Hawk proportions. We're mostly talking about toys used by obnoxious neighbors. A simple rig of a couple of hex nuts tied to cordage thrown into the plastic rotors would do the trick. If rocks and such brought down Huey helicopters in Vietnam (composite rotor blades), little Johnny's drone carrying a GoPro camera will not be a problem.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 2, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> If there is a drone hovering over your fenced-in back yard, presumably videoing or photographing your teenage daughter sunbathing in a skimpy bikini, or shooting footage though your bedroom window, or, violating your privacy in any other way, for that matter, should you be able to shoot it down?



Good idea? Where I live people regularly get killed by random shootings into the air. Elderly and kids seem most at risk when the bullets start falling down.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 2, 2015)

A lonely highway at 3 a.m., a man with a gun, a drone.

What could go wrong?

Just about anything!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/31/texas-man-wounded-shooting-armadillo/30971441/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32306096


----------



## jthomson (Aug 2, 2015)

Zv said:


> I would just tell my daughter to go indoors. Then I would pull down my pants and moon the offending drone. Pretty sure no one wants to see my hairy ass! Retreat! Retreat! Can't unsee that! Hahaha!



Very Braveheart! Best response yet. ;D


----------



## Tinky (Aug 2, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, you should basically carry a loaded gun with you at all times in case you see a drone over your land, it's the responsible way to deal with it.
> ...



The same in this country. It's all about having a legitimate reasonable justifiable reason for having a firearm.
Sounds like you have.

Shooting a drone because you think it is over your land (very hard to tell actually once something is in the air without scale reference or context, unless, like a farmer perhaps in your case you do own all the land as far as the eye can see) isn't that good a reason.

Drones are being put to all sorts of use these days, including SAR, topographical survey (as I heard this week, to monitor invasive hogweed in difficult terrain in the Scottish Highlands)


----------



## Old Sarge (Aug 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Old Sarge said:
> 
> 
> > I did see the offended party a few years later when, in a different official capacity, I performed the marriage ceremony for the young lady who used to sunbathe in the yard.
> ...


That would have been a good story but he was your basic dirty old man (older and dirtier than me even). She was about the appropriate age to be his grand-daughter. I always hated those neighbor disputes, never a good resolution to them.


----------



## RGF (Aug 3, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> In Texas?, shoot it down surly.... 8)
> 
> In the UK, use a hose and drown the thing...
> 
> Anyway there are laws about flying them around people etc in the UK, mind you getting plod to do something is where you will need the hose...



Throw a big rock at it, knock it to the ground, accidentally step on it and toss it the trash


----------



## gsealy (Aug 3, 2015)

I would love to shoot one down if it were spying on me. But that is dangerous for everybody else. So I know I would be calm and call the police. 

I really don't think this 'drone thing' is going very far when it comes to neighborhood flying. People are simply not going to put up with it. Drones do have legitimate purposes though and can do some things better than a low flying airplane can. For example, here in central Arizona farming country drones are being used to inspect crops for water and insects.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 3, 2015)

gsealy said:


> I would love to shoot one down if it were spying on me. But that is dangerous for everybody else. So I know I would be calm and call the police.
> 
> I really don't think this 'drone thing' is going very far when it comes to neighborhood flying. People are simply not going to put up with it. Drones do have legitimate purposes though and can do some things better than a low flying airplane can. For example, here in central Arizona farming country drones are being used to inspect crops for water and insects.


I have also seen one used for rigging wires..... the drone carries fishing line, which is used to pull a light rope, which is used to pull a heavy rope, which is used to pull the wire.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 3, 2015)

It's probably a geographical thing, but when people mention drones, I instantly think of UAVs like Predators and Reapers. Good luck trying to shoot one of them down!


----------



## sanj (Aug 3, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> If there is a drone hovering over your fenced-in back yard, presumably videoing or photographing your teenage daughter sunbathing in a skimpy bikini, or shooting footage though your bedroom window, or, violating your privacy in any other way, for that matter, should you be able to shoot it down?



YES. 

Although I do believe satellites have a clear view of it all.


----------



## rpt (Aug 3, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Who said anything about guns?
> 
> I'm now imagining a SAM system that I could install on the roof


I was thinking paint gun but I like your idea better. ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 3, 2015)

Crashing drones reminds me of an old experience.

I was stationed in a meteorological station, and the CO made a point of showing me how a weather balloon was released and tracked by radar, which locked to a big aluminum sphere attached to it. When the demonstration was over, I asked what happens when the balloon exploded.

The CO scratched his head, as the question never occurred to him, then he said the balloon reaches a high altitude at which a permanent jet stream (= high speed wind) would carry it over the border (read: to SEP-land).

One day I told this story to a friend, who went to the back of the apartment, and came back with a big aluminum sphere that crashed on her car a while ago. She said the insurance guy was perplexed, but she was paid. Still, she kept it in hope one day she would find out what's the deal with aluminum spheres falling out of the sky.

That closed the loop for her, and she has an interesting story about how a weather balloon crashed on her car, which always evokes the question "and did little green men come out of it?"


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 3, 2015)

Hi Antono. 
Wow that sounds like what goes up must come down but providing it is not coming down on me I don't give a $*¥#. If it damaged a car imagine what it would do to a person. 
SEP Land? Single engine piston? (as in aircraft). 
Glad your friend got closure. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Antono Refa said:


> Crashing drones reminds me of an old experience.
> 
> I was stationed in a meteorological station, and the CO made a point of showing me how a weather balloon was released and tracked by radar, which locked to a big aluminum sphere attached to it. When the demonstration was over, I asked what happens when the balloon exploded.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 3, 2015)

rpt said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Who said anything about guns?
> ...


I was thinking of a hybrid CWIS/paintgun system.... 150 paint pellets per second on a tracking mount..... and when not in use fighting drones you could paint houses.....


----------



## RGF (Aug 3, 2015)

I think all drone should be required to be registered to fly and anyone should be able to get the id from the drone and find the owner.

Then the owner would face criminal charges if they spied on you.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 3, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> ..... and when not in use fighting drones you could paint houses.....


Really? Could that work? Seriously, is there something patentable or copyrightable here?
I so want this to be "A Thing©", "A Real Thing™".

edit.....
Now trying to imagine the sounds of house painting.


----------



## Kristofgss (Aug 3, 2015)

How about a helium party balloon and a really long wire to tangle up the rotors? it would be a controlled crash.

I sense a returning market for these 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 3, 2015)

tolusina said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ..... and when not in use fighting drones you could paint houses.....
> ...


already tried it out.....

The first image is with Canon paintballs....
The second image is with Sony paintballs....

Note the greatly improved DR and colour saturation with the sony paint balls.....


----------



## Tinky (Aug 3, 2015)

The sony looks over-saturated and noisy compared to the Canon though.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 3, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> SEP Land? Single engine piston? (as in aircraft).



Somebody Else's Problem-land, I would presume (following the HHGTTG books).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2015)

RGF said:


> I think all drone should be required to be registered to fly and anyone should be able to get the id from the drone and find the owner.
> 
> Then the owner would face criminal charges if they spied on you.



In the USA, we are coming close to that, but, as with guns, those who are using them illegally would not bother with the laws.

There are already laws on the books about trespassing and voyeurism. 

Here is a excerpt from a recent law in our state.

The state House also passed legislation limiting the ability to spy on private citizens, stating, "[…] drones, including those capable of gathering personal information such as photos, could be used on private property if landowners or tenants give permission and if the drones are labeled with the owner's contact information."


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 3, 2015)

SEP-land is, indeed, the country in which everything is somebody else's problem.

I always wonder whether I worry too much, or lucky enough to have all the stories about a weather balloons crashing on toddlers published in SEP-land newspapers.



Valvebounce said:


> Hi Antono.
> Wow that sounds like what goes up must come down but providing it is not coming down on me I don't give a $*¥#. If it damaged a car imagine what it would do to a person.
> SEP Land? Single engine piston? (as in aircraft).
> Glad your friend got closure.
> ...


----------



## jthomson (Aug 3, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> The first image is with Canon paintballs....
> The second image is with Sony paintballs....
> 
> Note the greatly improved DR and colour saturation with the sony paint balls.....



I don't think you pushed the sky enough in post on the Second Image :


----------



## gregorywood (Aug 3, 2015)

tolusina said:


> Not keen on the firearm idea, what goes up has to come down. In the U.S. I'm pretty sure it's illegal within city limits anyway, there'd be unpleasant legal consequences.
> 
> Has it been established anywhere that private property includes low altitude air space directly above?
> 
> ...



Flamethrower. 

More spectacular and less risk of hitting someone with a projectile.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 3, 2015)

RGF said:


> I think all drone should be required to be registered to fly and anyone should be able to get the id from the drone and find the owner.
> 
> Then the owner would face criminal charges if they spied on you.



I think all gun owners should be registered to shoot, and that anyone should be able to get an id from the bullet to find the owner.

The owner would then face criminal charges if their gun was used in a crime.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 4, 2015)

Here in California, we are having a problem with drones interfering with Tanker Airplanes dropping both water and fire-retardant. 

I expect that law enforcement will stat shooting down drones at the next wild land fire.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 4, 2015)

jthomson said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I think all drone should be required to be registered to fly and anyone should be able to get the id from the drone and find the owner.
> ...



I think there was this very judgmental movie about these judges who would do things and drive around in their judge-bikes to hand out sentences to bad people and such. The judges used special guns that would imprint dna every time you shoot so they'll know who shot the bullet. But this one judge was framed so then he was judged by the other judges and all things went south and sh#t. I think the movie was called The Punisher.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 4, 2015)

gregorywood said:


> Flamethrower.
> 
> More spectacular and less risk of hitting someone with a projectile.



Go ahead, set the world on fire!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 4, 2015)

jthomson said:


> gregorywood said:
> 
> 
> > Flamethrower.
> ...



I shiver at the thought of flamethrowers. The sky here is so full of smoke that its just gray with limited visibility. Fires are popping up everywhere, and its a big rush to put them out before they grow out of proportion. Its only early August, normally we would see something like this in late August.

The sun looks bright red from the smoke. I tried to photograph it, but not enough DR


----------



## Tinky (Aug 4, 2015)

tpatana said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



have factories stamp them with batch no's. When you buy them you show your id, this is recorded next to batch number.

Not totally foolproof, but if the idea is planted that the bullets can be traced back, more care might be taken with storage, with operation.

This woukd not stop high school shootings or terror attacks because the perpetrators aren't giving a damn about getting caught, maybe just very strict licensing based on actual irrefutable need.

Certainly the more I hear nonsense about rednecks wanting to shoot at kids toys in the sky, the more I think we are ignoting the greater problem.

"daddy that man shot my quadcopter"

"son, that man is a dick but he has a gun and is clearly effing mental, lets just hide behind this tree for five minutes"


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 4, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Certainly the more I hear nonsense about rednecks wanting to shoot at kids toys in the sky, the more *I think we are ignoting the greater problem*.
> 
> "daddy that man shot my quadcopter"
> 
> "son, that man is a dick but he has a gun and is clearly effing mental, lets just hide behind this tree for five minutes"


+1 
In the beginning of this thread I wanted to add some comment but for some reason I just continued to read and stay tuned. 

Right now I must say this thread went havoc or you must have a real specific sense of humor or cynicism to take it seriously any longer. : : :


----------



## kelpdiver (Aug 4, 2015)

jthomson said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I think all gun owners should be registered to shoot, and that anyone should be able to get an id from the bullet to find the owner.
> ...



Judge Dredd, in fact. Done twice, the first time by Stallone, and that one has the DNA tagging you refer to. 

The fantasy of tracking all bullets back to their owners is exactly that. Every year, American citizens leave billions of bullet casings (brass) at gun ranges. These get swept up and reused (reloads). But if you want to commit crime, you just need to grab some and sprinkle them around your crime scene (and pick up your own). As for the slug itself, ballistic science has never been particularly effective, and again, it's easy to find plenty of them at the range. Then again, efficacy has never been a relevant aspect of these proposals. It's a misguided desire to make bullets so expensive that people would give it up. But the criminal only needs a box of ammo to commit crimes for years, whereas the citizen who wants to maintain basic accuracy needs 10+ boxes per year. 

In this particular situation with overhead, you'd want to use a shotgun anyway, and there's no chance at all at a system by which the birdshot gets marked. Also the least hazardous in terms of falling back down to the earth, though the same is true for handgun rounds. 

A sinker on a fishing line (no hook) might be the best weapon of attack. Shouldn't violate any laws.


----------



## rfdesigner (Aug 4, 2015)

Require all drones to have a clearly visible registration number, viewable from underneath, and a registration system tying numbers to owners. All violations can be enforced from home movies.

Any drones flown without registration numbers can be confiscated and destroyed along with any "cargo" (i.e. cameras slung underneath)

problem solved.


----------



## Kristofgss (Aug 4, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> Require all drones to have a clearly visible registration number, viewable from underneath, and a registration system tying numbers to owners. All violations can be enforced from home movies.


That would not prevent people flying with fake numbers and how are you going to put a number on the tiny micro drones like this? http://www.revell.de/en/products/revell-control/quadrocopters/id/23971.html (which are actually fun to fly, I have one of these and you can even do that in public places without anybody interfering as it's no larger than a butterfly)


----------



## jthomson (Aug 4, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly the more I hear nonsense about rednecks wanting to shoot at kids toys in the sky, the more *I think we are ignoting the greater problem*.
> ...



Seriously, you don't see the humour in the original news item?
You don't think that shooting at a kids toy is funny?
Most of the poster, me included, certainly do.
Guns and idiots are a bad combination.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The sun looks bright red from the smoke. I tried to photograph it, but not enough DR



Watch it, Neuro might become involved if you DRone on. :


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 4, 2015)

Get your own drone, tape a bunch of strands of super-braid fishing line on the bottom of it loosely hanging down about 20-30' like Rapunzel's hair and just drift it over the top of their drone.. The tape will let go once their rotors draw in the loose fishing lines and voila... now you have video proof of the drone on your property plus a disabled drone laying in your swimming pool with a plastic donut of fishing line wound into its rotors - anyone else ever get a piece of that stuff wound around your boat prop? The rocky reefs in the northern lakes are covered with a tangled web of that stuff from people snagging bottom and breaking lines off and leaving them in the water. It's great stuff for fishing... nasty stuff to cut out of a prop. 

I like the hose idea too - give the drone a little shower to clean it of it's bad intentions. 

Jammers - while sexy in a spy vs spy sort of way likely won't get far... it's pretty hard to imagine the legal ramifications of intentionally creating and selling a device intended to disrupt another person's radio rights. 

If Amazon ever starts delivering packages via drone... it will be like a little bonus prize when it drops it's payload.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 4, 2015)

Tinky said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > jthomson said:
> ...




Google Gnat warfare. And FYI... many of the shooters taking part are Olympic contenders... it IS in fact a sport, whether you want it to be or not. 

I'm not going to debate that with you. You're entitled to your opinion about guns.. You're also granted the rights of your locale to own/buy or not own/buy guns, just as I am. 

I reload my own ammo. I don't have a way to mark my bullets or each individual piece of shot in my shotgun cartridges (roughly 400 pellets in a 1oz target load)... and to be honest, marking them would alter their ballistic properties enough that I wouldn't do it even if I could. I've competed in world competition representing my country. I'll continue to do so. Thanks for your support and childish name calling.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 4, 2015)

wooooooah!

Back uo there matey.

I'm ardently anti-civilians owning guns. Not because of fine upstanding club shooters or olympians, but because of Dunblane.

I think civilian access to Guns is a stain on your nation, and the problem with the guns is them getting into the wrong hands, or the privalege of ownership being abused.

Nowhere in your otherwise articulate response do you state whether you are for or against anybody with a gun (and you must know that there are some arseholes with guns, the same way as there are some arseholes with cars) shooting their lethal weapons at potentially kids toys, potentially in built up areas, putting in their neighbours windoes or worse.

The idea of civilians shooting down quadcopters is utterly ridiculous and just gives childish name callers like me more ammo, if you excuse the pun.

As a responsible gun owner yourself you might see that guns in the hands of the less steady, less reasoned, less able than yourself, with an endorsement to shoot at quadcopters might be damaging for the many reasons i've outlined previously (hitting something or somebody else, falling debris etc)

So, where do you stand on that? You are right, you are unlikely to change my mind on guns, either of us are unlikely to change the legislation in our locales, but as a discussion point... you think anybody with a gun should be allowed to shoot at quadcopters in what circumstances? never? not in a built up area? only before 10 at night? always?


----------



## global pillage (Aug 4, 2015)

'Murica:

http://www.vice.com/read/drone-hunter


----------



## jthomson (Aug 4, 2015)

global pillage said:


> 'Murica:
> 
> http://www.vice.com/read/drone-hunter


I think he's right. The town might make a lot of money from the licenses. I' m tempted to get one myself.
Great addition to the resume, licensed drone hunter. 8)
Only in the USA. ;D


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 4, 2015)

I don't want to spend a lot of time or typing on this but I feel compelled to say a short bit about the gun issue in this thread.

The problem with most serious debates like this (gun ownership, abortion, freedom of speech, etc) is the fact that each side tends to lean toward arguing absolutes. The problem with "gun control" is that it is an illusion and unobtainable. Guns can't be eliminated, outlawed or made to disappear. They also can't be made "safe" or "foolproof". Neither can automobiles which also have the potential to kill. And there are already a lot of laws on the books to regulate both. You can't stop DUI driving by adding more laws or prohibiting alcohol.

It doesn't matter what is done with regard to guns because the guns aren't the problem. Humans are the problem. And we can't control humans either. The only thing we can truly control is ourselves and to a lesser degree, our children. Pick any problem in society you like, they all are influenced and propagated by individuals either alone, working in groups, voting for or participating in governments. The only way long term change will happen in the world is for society to improve on an individual level. If everyone would make responsible decisions, strive for having good character and avoiding flaws like hatred, greed and selfishness, most (if not all) of our problems would diminish or fade away. Unfortunately, our society is more self centered, corrupt, narcissistic, entitled and materialistic than ever. Personal responsibility, honor, self reliance, conscience and shame are not traits that are aspired to anymore.

Overly "poly-anna" and simplistic? Sure. Nothing is perfect and we don't live in Eden. But it's silly to assume that trying to eliminate gun ownership will solve a crime problem or suddenly remove idiots from our midst any more than eliminating abortion will stop irresponsible people from having unprotected sex. It's simply not effective and only serves to punish the honest people who feel compelled to follow the rules and observe the law. No matter what you do, there will always be careful responsible people and there will always be idiots and those that simply don't care. What we truly need is an increase in the number of responsible people. (Which is why I volunteer in church, school and boy scouts. I want society to improve. It's not all about me. It's about my contribution to the world. I hope all my time with youth helps increase the number of good citizens in the world.) We already have a TON of rules, regulations, laws and policies in place to control guns and how to drive cars. Piling on even more won't change the fact that some people simply won't follow them anyway which means senseless gun deaths and fatal car crashes from wreckless or drunk driving.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 4, 2015)

Rusty,
That' s basically, the guns don't kill people, people kill people argument. 
My answer is that idiots with guns kill people. So let's try to keep guns out of the hands of idiots.
Licensing and registration should not be a problem for responsible gun owners. Sensible gun control legislation works, the UK response to Dunblane and the Australian response to Port Arthur have shown that.
More laws won't eliminate the problem,but they certainly reduce the problem.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 4, 2015)

jthomson said:


> Rusty,
> That' s basically, the guns don't kill people, people kill people argument.
> My answer is that idiots with guns kill people. So let's try to keep guns out of the hands of idiots.
> Licensing and registration should not be a problem for responsible gun owners. Sensible gun control legislation works, the UK response to Dunblane and the Australian response to Port Arthur have shown that.
> More laws won't eliminate the problem,but they certainly reduce the problem.



Yes, you are correct. People are the problem and idiots/idiocy can't be remedied or outlawed. With all the laws already on the books, what additional laws do we add that will force magical compliance from those that simply refuse to care? The extensive laws already in place only seem to work with responsible citizens who don't need more laws in the first place. So why over regulate them just to reach those that can't be reached? But hey, the already law abiding citizens will now be even MORE law abiding, right?

Honestly, legal gun owners, gun advocates, gun store owners, et al all agree that idiots and criminals shouldn't have guns. Gun advocates aren't against gun control, they are against _excessive_ gun control. No one wants to see gun violence and crime. It's tragic and sad. And it creates problems that legal and safe gun owners have to deal with. But I refuse to punish/blame everyone for the despicable acts of a few. Tighter gun control is a short sighted and misdirected solution that doesn't work. But it's easier to demand that than to deal with the much bigger and more complicated problems of society, culture, education and personal character.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 4, 2015)

so, all that said:

"should you be allowed to shoot down a drone?"

Key word being 'allowed': as discussed, the mouth breathers will do it anyway.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 4, 2015)

and now for something completely different.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZPxkRmmH4s


----------



## tpatana (Aug 4, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> and now for something completely different.......
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZPxkRmmH4s



Some reason I was expecting this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ


----------



## jthomson (Aug 4, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> and now for something completely different.......
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZPxkRmmH4s



liked the bit where he said you don't bring a gun to a drone fight. ;D


----------



## Tinky (Aug 4, 2015)

https://youtu.be/lEsieFoe-ns


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 5, 2015)

lol crikey, there's an awful lot of "shoot down drone" movies on youtube. Seems to have almost become a sport. 

Maybe it will make the Olympics one day. If Frisbee throwing can, why not!! ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 5, 2015)

jthomson said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and now for something completely different.......
> ...


There are some threads where you just can't keep a serious expression on your face.....


----------



## tolusina (Aug 5, 2015)

An alternative drone take down........
https://youtu.be/UFWUlObSgn0


----------



## jarrodeu (Aug 5, 2015)

While much of this has been said in fun, it's obvious some members don't have the maturity or skills to operate a firearm and thus don't want others owning them either. 
Jarrod


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 5, 2015)

This pretty much rocks. Highly entertaining and interesting! And it's even right on topic!

Game of Drones! (Drone Combat!)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk5n2SYzHg4iLNa44blPkug

Indestructable!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl2Z9N4Q82g


----------



## Kristofgss (Aug 5, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> and now for something completely different.......
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZPxkRmmH4s



That was absolutely hilarious and so true ;D


----------



## Tinky (Aug 5, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> While much of this has been said in fun, it's obvious some members don't have the maturity or skills to operate a firearm and thus don't want others owning them either.
> Jarrod



Damn, thats me rumbled. Immature, skill-less and jealous.

It's not that I vividly remember when news reports trickled through of a shooting at a school. Of hearing bulletin by bulletin the horrible extent of the massacre. It's not that in the days and weeks and months afterwards I thought more of the parents who had to bury their children than of the recreational shooters who had to curtail their hobby.

It's not that I wept as I read Mick Norths book about losing his daughter Sophie, it's not the anger that boiled up inside of me when I read of how the local gun club refused to remain silent during the funerals an act of defiance that meant gunshots could be heard as the small coffins of five and six year olds were being lowered into the ground.

It's not that Thomas Hamilton, despite being known to the Police, was allowed to obtain a gun license despite no occupational or lifestyle need, its not that he was able to obtain quite legally automatic high calibre hand guns, not bb guns, not shotgun pellets, not airguns, but serious weaponary....

it's none of that. It's down to my lack of maturity, and envy of marksmenship of course.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 5, 2015)

Here is a (famous) mothers memory of what happened that day. 


http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jun/17/judy-murray-dunblane-massacre-just-left-car-and-ran


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 5, 2015)

jarrodeu said:


> While much of this has been said in fun, it's obvious some members don't have the maturity or skills to operate a firearm and thus don't want others owning them either.
> Jarrod


I work on a military site....right beside a VERY active range......

We always had guns in the house when I grew up.... Rifles and service revolvers in a locked gun case (parent's bedroom), ammunition in another locked case(basement), bolts in a small safe (china cabinet).... that's how you safely store them and yes, just like the comedian said, ABSOLUTLY USELESS IN AN EMERGENCY!

I have spent more hours than I care to remember on firing ranges... trained by and shooting with members of the RCMP tactical team......

I will NOT have a gun in my house. I have no need for it nor do I think that in the case of an "emergency" I will suddenly be transformed into RAMBO...... I have spent enough time around professionals to have an accurate grasp of the situation and my views are coloured by that experience, not by movies and television....

Go ahead, attack me for lack of emotional maturity and inexperience....


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 5, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > While much of this has been said in fun, it's obvious some members don't have the maturity or skills to operate a firearm and thus don't want others owning them either.
> ...


+1 
Thank you for saing that so clearly, Don.
There is no reason, no "emergency" to have guns in your house. 
The "emergency" only exists in the head of those who WANT one in their house and that'll sometimes cause the REAL emergencies. 

And now I am out of this thread because I can't stnad it anymore without becomming subjective.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 5, 2015)

Obviously this thread has (predictably) steered into a gun debate. And I also agree with Don that guns properly stored at home are not useful for an emergency protection scenario. The first thing I purchased before I got back into firearm ownership, training and shooting was to buy a safe. A real safe. A safe good enough to replace the need for a safe deposit box at a bank. (Which isn't safe at all but that's another topic.) I got the safe to prevent my guns from ending up on the street after a break-in or being destroyed in a fire.

Folks, the reason for gun ownership should be whatever the owner chooses. Collecting, recreation, hunting or protection. I enjoy shooting my firearms just like I enjoy shooting my cameras, cutting wood and building things in my shop and tinkering with my car. I enjoy owning things that give me satisfaction and pleasure.

But Protection is an individual responsibility however it is achieved. It's not up to the police or anyone else to protect you and your family. A more realistic protection scenario is when the police are overwhelmed and not available. Any time society and social structure is weakened or suspended, it's even more critical that the individual assume responsibility for their own protection. The police are NOT protectors. The police are NOT a security force. They simply respond to requests from the citizenry to enforce the law when someone has suffered from a breach of law. So we own both lethal and non-lethal forms of protection and we will use them as we see fit given the situation. If someone is properly trained in firearm use and ownership, they learn that firearms are a LAST RESORT protection. This fact is often omitted from most discussions.

I live in a nice neighborhood that is surrounded by a lot of low income apartment complexes. When things go bad and there are people in the streets rioting, looting and contributing to various forms of random violence where do you think they will go first? The same place they go now to break into our cars and case our homes to rob them. Because to them, we are the "rich" folks who have more than they have and should be able to afford for them to take it.

I don't own firearms to shoot the random intruder that breaks in when I'm not home. I own firearms so my sons, my wife and myself are familiar with their operation and use just like driving a car. And if it's ever up to us to protect ourselves in a tense and bad situation, we won't be defenseless. I wouldn't go looking for trouble but if trouble comes looking for me, I won't be unprepared. The old saying goes hope for the best and prepare for the worst. If all other protections are ignored or breached, the firearms will be the final measure used to end the struggle.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 5, 2015)

Survivalist much?

https://youtu.be/ipujWRYUjS4


----------



## jthomson (Aug 5, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> If someone is properly trained in firearm use and ownership, they learn that firearms are a LAST RESORT protection.


So wouldn't it be sensible to ensure that everyone is properly trained before they are allowed to buy a gun?
Then no one would be shooting at drones as there is no way this can ever be described as a last resort


----------



## Tinky (Aug 5, 2015)

"Hey bad guy, aaaaaah got a gunnnnn"

"So have I"

Outcome.. everybody gets shot at.

It's all very cinematic. 

Life is quite boring here in the UK by comparison. We just call the Police and they come and deal with it for us.

Nobody has guns except for very very hardened criminals (not at the housebreaking end of the scale) and cops and so very very very few people get killed by people using guns.

I think it is a better way. There are other hobbies like darts, kiting, or watercolour painting which is quite relaxing.

None of these make you feel like a real man right enough. None of these hobbies give you a sense of empowerment and authority that you may otherwise lack. None of them make you feel like John Wayne in an old movie. 

And not many drones get shot down.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Aug 5, 2015)

Hi Tinky, ever been burgled?
I have, 4 times. Once by a pro (no danger there), once by a guy who was subsequently convicted of attempted murder and twice by a guy who was convicted of the murder of a young fit Black Belt on his next burglary (after getting out of prison for mine!).
Yes you are right the UK is an entertaining place to live but my lack of the right to defend myself (not worried about the property) is not very entertaining at all!
I am VERY lucky to still be here - no thanks to UK law!

To the original question - no I do not approve of a general right to attack "Drones" in any form unless they represent an immediate danger to public safety eg at Airports.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 5, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Life is quite boring here in the UK by comparison. We just call the Police and they come and deal with it for us.
> 
> Nobody has guns except for very very hardened criminals (not at the housebreaking end of the scale) and cops and so very very very few people get killed by people using guns.
> 
> ...



Perhaps a conversation with George Digweed (26 time world champion FITASC shooter - with the latest title being won in July 2015) or Cheryl Hall winning the ladies' title at the same event as George (definitely all woman, just for reference to feeling "manly"), Richard Faulds (2014 World Shooting champion) just to name a couple - all of which are "civilian", "hobbyist" Brits may enlighten you to just how many people in the UK have guns. 

Thought it might shed some light on hobbies available in your own beloved UK (the origination point for nearly all shooting sports and hunting with firearms, historically). 


While the gun topic sparked the longer more intense debate, isn't the real topic at hand here a bunch of douchebag drone owners, or even more douchebagg-y parents buying their kids copters that are not respecting privacy, not following rules, not using common sense or at least common decency? After all, using the case of a kid's toy - shouldn't the parent be responsible for watching the kid use the toy safely? After all, the rotors are practically ninja blades spinning just waiting to decapitate some poor innocent bystander. ;D 

The short of it: I don't blame someone who's privacy is invaded for having the gumption to say they'd like to shoot it down. Doing so, though, they take responsibility for what they've done... just as a drone pilot needs to for their actions/decisions. In the case of planes being disrupted from flight or emergency responders being impeded... the drone pilot probably should be serving time in prison for being a menace to society.


----------



## rfdesigner (Aug 5, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Hi Tinky, ever been burgled?
> I have, 4 times. Once by a pro (no danger there), once by a guy who was subsequently convicted of attempted murder and twice by a guy who was convicted of the murder of a young fit Black Belt on his next burglary (after getting out of prison for mine!).
> Yes you are right the UK is an entertaining place to live but my lack of the right to defend myself (not worried about the property) is not very entertaining at all!
> I am VERY lucky to still be here - no thanks to UK law!
> ...



Point is burglers don't generally carry guns becuase 99.99% of people don't have them. Had your four burgulars carried guns because of threat of their victims having guns too do you think you'd be more or less likely to be alive?

You can still play guns in the UK, just join a club.

You want to keep an arsenal under you bed? well no you can't, and that's better for the rest of us.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 5, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Hi Tinky, ever been burgled?
> I have, 4 times. Once by a pro (no danger there), once by a guy who was subsequently convicted of attempted murder and twice by a guy who was convicted of the murder of a young fit Black Belt on his next burglary (after getting out of prison for mine!).
> Yes you are right the UK is an entertaining place to live but my lack of the right to defend myself (not worried about the property) is not very entertaining at all!
> I am VERY lucky to still be here - no thanks to UK law!
> ...



Yes I have been burgled. On a few occassions, usually happens daytimes in these parts when folks are more likely to be out.

On one occasion I disturbed a guy forcing open my neighbours door (the perils of editing late into the night).

I ran down stairs and jumped over the fence to confront him. Thankfully he had fled or was hiding, long enough for common sense to kick in and I ran back to my house and called the police. As they put the call out a patrol unit was passing the main road at the back of my house just in time to catch the guy climbing over a fence. 

He had a machete, which he had been using to lever doors, and possibly in case he was confronted.

Had there been guns involved what could have happened? Me facing a murder or manslaughter charge? Me being shot? Guns wouldn't have made the situation any better. All for what, a petty crime and material goods that were insured anyway?

And the lesson for me is that you can make wreckless decisions when fear or adrenalin kicks in.

The guy was 19, and had actually got into mine a couple of years before, long term heroin user, now dead.

I didn't shed any tears, but I'm not god. I wasn't in danger until I went outside, and If I had a weapon to hand I would have probably lifted it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 6, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I will NOT have a gun in my house. I have no need for it nor do I think that in the case of an "emergency" I will suddenly be transformed into RAMBO...... I have spent enough time around professionals to have an accurate grasp of the situation and my views are coloured by that experience, not by movies and television....


I'm ex-army too and I feel the same. Many of my friends are still into shooting, but the thought of having rifles in my home with my kids around scares me to death. In the extremely remote chance that someone breaks into my home when I'm there, well, I've always thought a field hockey stick would be a useful item to defend myself with. 

Luckily, living in Australia, we don't have a big gun culture in our larger cities. If anyone broke into my home, they're likely to be teenage drug addicts who will run off the moment they see you. They're not going to be armed or looking for a fight. Knowing that most people aren't armed takes a lot of the pressure away to be armed yourself.

Not saying that bad things don't happen, but out murder rate is fairly low and nearly all family related. To put it in perspective, you're 5 times more likely to be murdered in the USA or 90 times more likely to be murdered in Honduras. In Honduras, 85% of murders are firearm related and I understand they don't have much in the way of gun control legislation.


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> After reading this news report, and if you have a daughter who likes to sunbath in the garden, have your own drone with 4 (for stability) long legs sticking out with upturned blades on the ends. Simply fly it into the rotors of the offending drone, thus cutting the rotors on it, it will plummet into your property, _et voila_, 1 new drone/camera…….and evidence for a law suit.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 6, 2015)

Another tragedy:

http://time.com/3986703/11-year-old-charged-3-year-old-shooting/

Now of course, everybody here acts responsibly, and this could never happen to them, but the sad bit is that these things do happen because not everybody is responsible. And thats why gun control is needed. Especially when (we assumed the irony, was it actually ever present) it is enquired about discharging a potentially lethal weapon becuase of an imagined threat from a toy.

I am heartened to read that two seperate forum users with extensive professional firearms training and vast experience recognise their danger and don't want them around their homes. 

And in reply to the earlier sarcasm about gun clubs and my beloved uk... folk don't have guns in their glove boxes here. We have Policing by consent. And the figures bear out that if you have less civilians with guns you have less folk getting shot by people with guns. Who would've guessed it?


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Aug 8, 2015)

Tinky, your world sounds fantastic. Where I live, practically everyone has a gun. In fact, I've used mine twice in the last two days to kill rattlesnakes on and near my driveway. I've grown up around guns, my kids grow up around guns, there is no "cool" factor with guns around here. It's unfortunate what happened in the story you mentioned, but the simple fact that it made the news tells me that it is not expected. Yes, it is unfortunate what does happen some times, but for the most part, for the majority, for the owners who are never in the news, we have to recognize that their are pros and cons to everything. I live in Oklahoma, right in the middle of the grade ol' USA, and in my state we have what is referred to as the "Make My Day" law. If someone breaks in to our home and we shoot them, our actions are 100% justified. You may disagree, but in the moment, I don't have time to assess if the person is a 13 year old kid who is meddling, or a convicted felon. I have a wife and kids to protect and have 0 shame in maintaining my right to do so. Plenty of lives are taken and saved by people wielding guns, but there is absolutely zero chance, the US will ever be an unarmed country. If you move here, I recommend buying a gun, if your gun shy, then I would stay where you are.

Oh, by the way, I live on about 400 acres and if a drone shows up at my front door, it dies. If the owner wants it back, they can find the pieces in a black trash bag by the curb.

Cheers from the land of the free!
-Tabor


----------



## rpt (Aug 8, 2015)

There are good arguments on both sides.

It is well known that guns and bullets don't kill people. People kill people. Therefore don't get rid of the guns. Get rid of the people! Problem solved!


----------



## Tinky (Aug 8, 2015)

George Takei shapred an i teresting take on it the other day...


----------



## tpatana (Aug 8, 2015)

Tinky, would you admit that not one solution might work for everyone? Can't you imagine that there are places where it makes sense for any normal person to carry a gun?

Like I said earlier, it's much more important to ban stupid people. Since that's unfortunately difficult and long task (I wish Darwinism worked faster), next best step is to improve mental health care and a way to make sure that people with mental illnesses don't have access to guns.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 8, 2015)

I can't imagine any scenario where civilians carrying guns makes that community or society a safer or better place.

All for improved mental health. But until everybody is stable and happy and not living in fear of other people with guns (read, the 'wrong people', not you tpatana Sir, the other people, the_ wrong people_) lets not give everybody and anybody a gun.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 8, 2015)

And where do you stand on the burning issue of shooting down multi-rotors Tpatana?
Enshrined right or bloody stupid?


----------



## tpatana (Aug 8, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I can't imagine any scenario where civilians carrying guns makes that community or society a safer or better place.



Let's say you live in remote village, and wolves frequently try to attack your farm animals. Would that be good enough reason?


----------



## tpatana (Aug 8, 2015)

Tinky said:


> And where do you stand on the burning issue of shooting down multi-rotors Tpatana?
> Enshrined right or bloody stupid?



If there's neighbors closer than the maximum range of said gun, it's very stupid and irresponsible. He should be fined on many counts.

If there aren't anyone within the range, it's just normal stupid. Owner of the drone should sue him for property damage.

Regardless, assuming the story is correct, in both cases the shooter should sue the owner of the drone for invasion of privacy or something.

I would have used garden hose. If water don't bring it down or out, then use the hose itself to hit the drone. Sure it'd come down by then.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 8, 2015)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Tinky, your world sounds fantastic. Where I live, practically everyone has a gun. In fact, I've used mine twice in the last two days to kill rattlesnakes on and near my driveway. I've grown up around guns, my kids grow up around guns, there is no "cool" factor with guns around here. It's unfortunate what happened in the story you mentioned, but the simple fact that it made the news tells me that it is not expected. Yes, it is unfortunate what does happen some times, but for the most part, for the majority, for the owners who are never in the news, we have to recognize that their are pros and cons to everything. I live in Oklahoma, right in the middle of the grade ol' USA, and in my state we have what is referred to as the "Make My Day" law. If someone breaks in to our home and we shoot them, our actions are 100% justified. You may disagree, but in the moment, I don't have time to assess if the person is a 13 year old kid who is meddling, or a convicted felon. I have a wife and kids to protect and have 0 shame in maintaining my right to do so. Plenty of lives are taken and saved by people wielding guns, but there is absolutely zero chance, the US will ever be an unarmed country. If you move here, I recommend buying a gun, if your gun shy, then I would stay where you are.
> 
> Oh, by the way, I live on about 400 acres and if a drone shows up at my front door, it dies. If the owner wants it back, they can find the pieces in a black trash bag by the curb.
> 
> ...



Land of the free? I'm guessing you're not in the local tourism industry because you make it sound like a nightmare.

You can say that a law "100% justifies" taking a life but of course it does not, could not and never will. The vast majority of break-ins do not result in anything more than theft. Ergo in the vast majority of cases you would be taking a life against all probability that it could ever be justified. 

Having untrained people with guns is simply a bad idea. Talk to any professional about it and they will tell you why.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 8, 2015)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/calgary-man-accidentally-shoots-gun-inside-home-bullet-hits-neighbour/article25895478/

Not an accident, negligence. Don't know why charges haven't been laid. The Crown is responsible for laying charges it doesn't matter what the victim thinks.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 8, 2015)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I live in Oklahoma, right in the middle of the grade ol' USA, and in my state we have what is referred to as the "Make My Day" law.
> Cheers from the land of the free!
> -Tabor



Why would shooting at someone Make Your Day? Been watching too many Dirty Harry movies?


----------



## Old Sarge (Aug 8, 2015)

jthomson said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Oklahoma, right in the middle of the grade ol' USA, and in my state we have what is referred to as the "Make My Day" law.
> ...



I was puzzled by that one. Actually those type of laws are commonly referred to as "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws. Some do use the "make my day" terminology but I think the other two are better descriptions of the law. Texas, where I live, has laws very similar to Oklahoma, where Tabor lives.

As one who has used a firearm in a legal situation I can testify it won't make your day.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 8, 2015)

Just googled "three year old shoots" and got scores of hits. Here are the top 4.

http://fox59.com/2015/08/06/police-3-year-old-boy-shot-to-death-by-11-year-old-boy-in-detroit/

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/08/07/3-year-old-child-shoots-kills-himself-in-anchorage-home/

http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/neighborhood/2015/07/05/child-shot-in-nw-harris-county/29742527/

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/4-Year-Old-Shot-in-the-Head-Miami-PD-320592982.html

etc etc

No doubt a price worth paying for living in the land of the free.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 8, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Just googled "three year old shoots" and got scores of hits. Here are the top 4.
> 
> http://fox59.com/2015/08/06/police-3-year-old-boy-shot-to-death-by-11-year-old-boy-in-detroit/
> 
> ...



There are days when I wish you needed license to breed. Just having that would cut out most of these.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Aug 8, 2015)

Old Sarge said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > Tabor Warren Photography said:
> ...



I am certainly not arguing the case that it would make anyones day. Having to use lethal force always does and will have consequences, both on the person who died, as well as anyone else involved in the situation.

Texas is very similar in gun ownership laws as Oklahoma. Many of us here, myself included, are licensed to carry in most environments. Almost daily, I have to escort trespassers off of my property, most are fine, but some are belligerent. In all cases, I am thankful that I do not have to simply rely on gravel to defend myself if, (in the unlikely circumstance), they pull a gun. Just like the mark of a great hunter is the shot they _don't_ take, the mark of a responsible gun owner is in the times they restrain when necessary.

If anyone is curious about how well gun control works in the US, look at Chicago, Illinois vs Houston, TX. Similar in many regards, but one has a fairytale mindset when it comes to gun control.

My use of firearms is mainly against rattlesnakes and skunks, though mildly protective against mountain lions and idiots.

If the US suddenly rid the nation of guns, (which we should know is not going to happen). My family and I are suddenly more at risk to the wildlife around us. I simply do not agree with that. Burglary is an afterthought in my opinion. Bad snakes die of lead poisoning.

tpataza, I also wish we also were required a license to breed.

AlanF, ever Googled, "saved by concealed carry", of course not, it doesn't pad your mentality.

We all need to realize that both good and bad come from the Pandora's Box of guns. I carry responsibly, many do not, but it is silly to try and blanket guns as being good or bad. Maybe they are good for me and a many others, and bad for the remaining members of society. Regardless, a responsible citizen being armed is not a bad option in any circumstance.

fragilesi, no, I have nothing to do with tourism and probably shouldn't as you've noticed. If you are at all curious about what I am referring to here in Oklahoma, you can look at The excerpt from Title 21; (I started to bold the important matters, but it's all important). You are correct in that there are some exceptions, such as if the person owns the home they are entering or is picking up their kids, etc, but as stated before, I was referring to if someone breaks into our home, so, here you go.

Title 21. Crimes and Punishments 

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized 
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments 
Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons 
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder 
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __ 


A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. 

B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: 

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and 

2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 

I hope this helps wrap up where I am coming from. Tulsa is an amazing place, the countryside is beautiful, and there are fewer bad snakes every year.

Cheers!
-Tabor


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 8, 2015)

This thread has run its course I'd say.

Don't fly your drone close over someone's house.


----------

