 |
|
07-30-2015, 03:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: K'nadia, 'merica
Posts: 2,362
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkivory
Yes, I would like to see those drones restricted. Like I already said, no one has the right to spy from the sky.
Just my opinion.  |
Also, as far as 'restricting' drones to operate in a perscribed airspace is that there will be a new birth of longer range telephoto lenses added to these drones with which to 'spy' on a person. (todays satellites can ALMOST read horizontally to 3M resolution)
I have no issues with a drone taking a drive around, snapping pics, etc.
But when it becomes a "TARGETED" stealth sneek and peek (legal term from Canada is 'sniffing')
I hold the belief that unwanted and unwarranted video/photography could be construed as an assault on our privacy and charter.
__________________
Interests: Things that go Zoom, and things that go Boom.
'You can't fix stupid, but for a hundred bucks an hour, we sure can diagnose it"
Pay It Forward.. In Memory of Rob Hanson
|
07-30-2015, 03:30 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Westerose
Posts: 4,075
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian
You're right. The Kentucky man should have shot the guy who operated the drone. Can't blame the drone. Good logic.
|
Well, I'm not going to worry about an assessment of my logic from anyone who could read my statement and reach that conclusion.
ARG
__________________
In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjemac
It has been scientifically proven that a 308 round will not leave your property -- they essentially fall dead at the fence line. But a 38 round, when fired from a handgun, will of its own accord leave your property and destroy any small schools nearby.
|
|
07-30-2015, 03:58 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher
Well, I'm not going to worry about an assessment of my logic from anyone who could read my statement and reach that conclusion.
ARG |
Hey come on. You used the old "it's not the gun, it's the shooter" argument. My modest proposal was merely a swift and slightly extended restatement of your point. 
|
07-31-2015, 06:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 90
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter
Sorry, i love my guns and my ability to own them too much to risk losing them by doing something like that. Morons can ramble on about doing the same but I guarantee you if you did the same thing here you would be arrested, have your firearm(s) seized, your PAL would be frozen, you would be charged with as many firearms related offences that the cops could pin you with, you'd have to hire a lawyer, have court dates, could wind up with a record and could forfeit yours guns to the crown and could lose your PAL for good. Is it worth it? There are other options.
|
whats the other options?
|
07-31-2015, 07:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 90
|
|
are their any frequincy jamers out their that would take the drone down ? no shots needed.
|
07-31-2015, 07:35 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Morinville
Posts: 2,608
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsight
whats the other options?
|
Seriously?? If you think that shooting a drone out of the sky in a residential area is going to end well for you, you truly need your head examined.
|
07-31-2015, 07:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 325
|
|
The simple answer is do not shoot. But that does not seem to be the answer you would be satisfied with.
The convoluted other answer? I do not know. Ask the lawyer you would need to hire.
Though if I hear a gun go off in my neighborhood better believe I will call the cops and watch that individual be swiftly and harshly dealt with. Someone shooting in the city...good luck. If someone shoots where they are allowed to, fine, but not within the city please and thank you.
|
07-31-2015, 01:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,008
|
|
At first blush, good for the shooter. Wouldn't work in Canada where we are becoming a nation of informers. Leeper
|
07-31-2015, 01:41 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,851
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian
You're right. The Kentucky man should have shot the guy who operated the drone. Can't blame the drone. Good logic.
|
Ha ha i always thought that stupid saying made us look stupid hey whos side are you on anyway
|
07-31-2015, 01:49 PM
|
 |
Gone Hunting
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsight
are their any frequincy jamers out their that would take the drone down ? no shots needed.
|
There are options. A high power light pointed at the camera lens ought to blind it. If in range a garden hose would cause it problems, a slingshot or crossbow, a fishing line.
A radio frequency generator might block the control input but probably wouldn't ground it. Most of these things have circuitry that will fly the machine back to it's takeoff point if it looses the control signal.
__________________
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
George Bernard Shaw
|
07-31-2015, 01:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,144
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver
There are options. A high power light pointed at the camera lens ought to blind it. If in range a garden hose would cause it problems, a slingshot or crossbow, a fishing line.
A radio frequency generator might block the control input but probably wouldn't ground it. Most of these things have circuitry that will fly the machine back to it's takeoff point if it looses the control signal.
|
A slingshot or a crossbow would be more dangerous in a city than a shotgun with #8 shot. When you shoot them up into the air, they all come down, and #8 shot won't likely hurt anyone as it free falls downward. On the other hand a larger projectile from a slingshot will do more damage, and a crossbow bolt could easily kill someone.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
|
07-31-2015, 01:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,759
|
|
This article opens an example, as to how these small drones are used and the consequences of them being there. Think about the issues various various celebs and politicians and etc are having with paparazzi "journalists".
Then add in some "event" or another, consider the total picture of the issues involved, they start to look like a very dangerous object.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/30/r...der-firefight/
|
07-31-2015, 02:24 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: rollyview
Posts: 7,860
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:32 PM.
|
Linear Mode
