FAA warns public against shooting guns at drones

Originally posted by mrnotobc


If there's a danger of them hitting a house after getting shot down, here's a novel idea, stop flying them.

So you would accept no responsibility if you shot one down and it killed people in that house?

People are idiots..first off, you would not hit what your shooting at, therefore there would be bullets coming down in populated areas.

Secondly if some idiot does manage to shoot one down and it kills a few people..will these gung ho idiots accept responsibility or claim it's the governments fault.

If idiots want to shoot their guns off randomly at flying objects they perceive to be drones, then all they are doing is proving the anti gun people right. People should not be allowed to own weapons because of stupidity and carelessness.

Then don't fly them over the head of U.S. citizens. It's as simple as that. Aren't we innocent until proven guilty? If so, why are we being treated like terrorist with these drones?

Heck, if we can't shoot 'em with bullets, let's go get some rocket kits and blast them out of the sky.

Originally posted by Onslaught2996

first off, you would not hit what your shooting at,

Opening Post: FAA quote

A drone "hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air," the statement said.

Well which is it Onslaught2996?

If what you say is true,
why the FAA warning?

And if the FAA has a real concern
why are you contradicting them?

Chose a lane please.

Mike

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


You did not know that they were already armed? They are flying armed drones over you . They aren't playing .

reply to post by mikegrouchy

first off, you would not hit what your shooting at, therefore there would be bullets coming down in populated areas. Secondly if some idiot does manage to shoot one down and it kills a few people..will these gung ho idiots accept responsibility or claim it's the governments fault.

My original statement...not with the added FAA statement.

Notice I said it was not possible and then stated EVEN IF it was...would you take responsibility for the deaths it may cause.

Read what I wrote and notice I only took one side... I took the side that it was not possible and that it would just be idiots shooting at objects they could not possibly hit.

Unmanned aerial vehicle

Hand-held 2,000 ft (600 m) altitude, about 2 km range
Close 5,000 ft (1,500 m) altitude, up to 10 km range

NATO type 10,000 ft (3,000 m) altitude, up to 50 km range
Tactical 18,000 ft (5,500 m) altitude, about 160 km range
MALE (medium altitude, long endurance) up to 30,000 ft (9,000 m) and range over 200 km
HALE (high altitude, long endurance) over 30,000 ft (9,100 m) and indefinite range

Originally posted by Onslaught2996
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

first off, you would not hit what your shooting at, therefore there would be bullets coming down in populated areas. Secondly if some idiot does manage to shoot one down and it kills a few people..will these gung ho idiots accept responsibility or claim it's the governments fault.

My original statement...not with the added FAA statement.

Notice I said it was not possible and then stated EVEN IF it was...would you take responsibility for the deaths it may cause.

Read what I wrote and notice [color=gold] I only took one side...

I took the side that it was not possible and that it would just be idiots shooting at objects they could not possibly hit.

Unmanned aerial vehicle

Hand-held 2,000 ft (600 m) altitude, about 2 km range
Close 5,000 ft (1,500 m) altitude, up to 10 km range

NATO type 10,000 ft (3,000 m) altitude, up to 50 km range
Tactical 18,000 ft (5,500 m) altitude, about 160 km range
MALE (medium altitude, long endurance) up to 30,000 ft (9,000 m) and range over 200 km
HALE (high altitude, long endurance) over 30,000 ft (9,100 m) and indefinite range

Fair enough for me.

Now if you'll just sign our petition
right here ...
telling the FAA to "blow it out their ears"


Mike

oh, and star for all the juicy data and facts!

reply to post by HomerinNC


They are gearing up for drone attacks on their own civilians for violating their "laws" which aim to protect the military industrial complex, why do you think American citizens can be tried for terrorist charges? don't you think this is a pre-emptive strike using fear to deter any kind of civil action? they took your guns away so you can't shoot back... so who is this message really aimed at? the rebel fighters in various gangs that actually do have the capability to fire a shot or two in return? "skynet" is very much in operation. you might think its humans behind governments that orchestrate this, so it must all be safe, but in fact its the same force running the show behind ALL governments and they have a hatred for all humans and want only one thing- your power. hence why you are being moulded into a slave with no rights, no voice and no means to challenge what these "guys" want to bring about.

they are playing chess against you and they keep winning with one pawn- you.

I get the seriousness of this whole thing but the OP main post made me laugh like i havent done in awhile. Colorado is getting to be as weird as California and I love it. It's got character but where do people come up with this stuff?

reply to post by Onslaught2996


My airspace isn't in a populated area, so I'm not worried about collateral damage other than the odd ground hog or coyote.The airspace I have right now is rented and temporary. The owner can shoot his own drones down. I won't mind, and can't say that I'd blame him if he did.

Originally posted by Auricom
Then don't fly them over the head of U.S. citizens. It's as simple as that. Aren't we innocent until proven guilty? If so, why are we being treated like terrorist with these drones?

Heck, if we can't shoot 'em with bullets, let's go get some rocket kits and blast them out of the sky.

I hear there are some surplus stingers on the international arms market.

reply to post by nenothtu


Hah, but you get more pleasure taking down those UAV's with a little DIY project.

I'd have some fun with the drones. I'd put together a big RC plane myself and trail some thing paracord behind it. I'd love to see those drones keep flying when the prop is jammed full of nylon paracord.

reply to post by nenothtu

I saw a Russian Mi-8 HIP chopper shot down by a 60 year old Afghan using an ancient Enfield .303. Damned Hill Folk! Someone oughtta tell 'em that can't be done so's they stop doing it!

It's called gravity dude... That chopper must of been low, which makes sense since they are ground support... A bullet shot from a gun, rifle, whatever doesn't have the range to hit a drone. What goes up, must come down.

Zero gunplay, but 100% Flash Gordon crap.

Laser those targets with cheapo lasers. Burn out the optics so they don't come back.

When they do come back, burn, then scramble cell signals to minimize damage controls of the devices. Blind and deaf is the way we want invasive drones.

Least, blind then Blow up the F'tards hovering around.

Us civies will never see the military aspect of the drones. ...we'll just take a page from the Iranian tactics on drone warfare when we do....

Let's hope for the best.

reply to post by Auricom


*cough, cough* steel cable like fishing leaders but longer *cough cough* can be had by the reel at mill supply shops *cough, cough* million dollar weed eater when it hits the props *cough cough*

Man, I gotta quit smoking!

Originally posted by Chargeit

It's called gravity dude... That chopper must of been low, which makes sense since they are ground support... A bullet shot from a gun, rifle, whatever doesn't have the range to hit a drone. What goes up, must come down.

edit on 22-7-2013 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)

There is no such thing as gravity - we're just held to the surface because the Earth sucks!

The Mi-8 was being used as a troop transport, and yes, it was low, flying NoE. Mi-24's flew low, too... for a while. 4 Stingers and 3 splashes just outside Jalalabad changed all that for the HINDs, though. They started flying a lot higher after that, reducing their effectiveness for ground attack. Bummer for them. It really sucked for the troops in the Mi-8, too. Got a picture of the old dude standing on top of the wreck with his rifle like he was posing for a safari trophy shot.

There are all sorts of drones these days, flying at all sorts of heights. I know of a sheriff's department in Va that has one (state won't let them fly it, though) that is a "quadracopter" which won't climb much higher than a hundred feet. The Mossberg mentioned above would ruin it's day - but evidently the FAA has outlawed shooting at drones with Mossbergs.

The thing is, you keep insisting on people shooting at them in populated areas. I gotta ask why they're flying over populated areas to begin with if the mission is as stated for agricultural and National Park surveillance.

This is a big country with few people per square foot. There is a whole lot of unpopulated dirt to drop drones into.

Now, honestly, for the really high flyers, if I was gonna get one, it would be closer to launch or landing, when it's lower. No percentages in waiting until it gets to altitude. Of course, I'm not gonna get one, because I'm a really nice guy, and besides, I think it's a lot more fun to practice E+E against 'em. True enough that I can't hit what I can't reach, but it's equally true that they can't hit (or watch) what they can't see!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Imagine the poor Ultralight pilot getting lost or hung out toward the end of the day in poor lighting....

Idiot 1: Hey Bubba! I hear me a drone a comin'! Hear dat lawnmower engene theys got?

Idiot 2: Heck ya! It be a comin' right over dem trees! Let 'er rip when you see it and don't hesertate!


Next thing ya know the pilot thinks he's in a time warp back to WW-II Germany or something, taking AA fire.

How many ways can we say bad idea?

you might get an unmanned drone and a manned aircraft mixed up. Most wouldnt.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I can actually understand this.

Regardless if you agree with drones or not, trying to shoot them out of the sky is frankly stupid.

Say you actually hit the drone and cause it to crash, next thing you know your going to be standing up in court trying to defend yourself for the murder of the 10 orphans who died with the drone you shot down crashed into the orphanage and burnt it to the ground.

So of course the FAA is going to advise against it!

Its a matter of public safety

edit on 20-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

I disagree. Enough band together, by the majority and the tyranny is gone.

However, I'd be apt to think a group could lure the drone out of town....

I personally would rather live in a country where all the adults phoned up their minion employees and said, You are fired, and your pensions are gone with salary retroactively for your criminal fascist behavior.

And if drones were everywhere, the vast majority went drone hunting.

I believe court offiicials serve the people on bended knees or they should be running.

The drone is an illegal thing itself, its under the control of an empire, its fascist. That is a crime in itself that its there.

I prefer the people's will to the thugs and their symbols handed back to them.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Some drones are also for civilian use. I suppose as long as a person shoots a predator they are likely shooting a police or military drone, but still. I tend to side with the FAA on this.

I don't want military surveillance, however I think in the hands of good police and local law enforcement, and in the hands of farmers doing surveillance or other work on their private land, drones can be a tool for good.

Anybody that shoots a drone must be prepared to accept the outcome, including risk to civilians on the ground

-rrr

reply to post by HomerinNC


If you take away all of the politics and terminology, here's what you have:

- A nation's government decides to use military aircraft directly above its own citizens, on its citizens.
- A town in that nation sets up a no-fly zone, powered by a militia with incentives.
- That nation threatens those citizens to not listen to their own town's legislative process and to only listen to the national government.

Isn't this pretty much how all of the "Arab Spring" stuff starts? I wonder when some super power will come save us?

We need to be trying to figure out how to hack into them and take them over.

That way, they can just be landed an confiscated for study.