CNN: Handgun-firing drone appears legal in video, but FAA, police probe further

[PokerPacker]

The thought has occurred to me. I assume that drone-based marksmanship probably sucks. Whereas, as the saying goes, close only counts . . . .

Marksmanship may be a problem for the kid's prototype, but put the gun on a dual-servo setup along with a camera and use something like openCV to track your target and write a PID controller to auto-aim and you may find its effectiveness improve drastically.

[Slateman]

Again. ONE college student did a limited test; FOUR SHOTS, and you think that proves it's safe?  You're standing pat with that? REALLY? 

 

I'm a gun owner so yeah, I understand exactly how a gun works. DO YOU?

 

The video doesn't show a target or if it was hit. Just random shots. A percentage of a millimeter movement can send a bullet off target by yards depending on the distance to target. How much movement do you think a gust of wind produces on a drone? 

 

I'm very confident that I sound like a sane, rational person who can see the potential for both tragic accidents and criminal use of what can only be classified as a home made, military weapon system. How do you think you sound?

Yes, it has been shown that it can be done safely.

 

Are you sure you know how it works instead of simply understanding how to operate it? Because the amount of "breeze" it would take for a Glock to fire without the trigger being manipulated is impossible to duplicate on the planet without divine intervention.

 

Whether or not the target was hit is irrelevant. Now we're dealing with whether or not it can be effectively employed. But, to continue your question: None. The firearm discharges outside of any influence from the drone's thrust. A percentage of a millimeter ... what does this even mean? Do you mean fraction? Are you referring to adjustments for wind and drift?  Because the drone doesn't affect this. The environment does.

 

I see plenty of potential for accidents and criminal behavior ... doesn't mean it should be illegal. Because a lot of things have the potential for accidents and criminal behavior and they aren't made illegal. Only the manner in which they are used is made illegal.

Absolutely. Bombs attached to drones should scare anyone. Fortunately the bombs themselves are illegal and this provides some barrier to use as the FBI and ATF do a pretty good job of tracking bomb making materials already. 

 

No drone zones can go a long way toward reducing the threat as well. Unfortunately a drone with a gun can stand off and still do a lot of damage.

 

You just nailed the reason they must be made illegal.

So you want to make software that is designed to track targets on camera and do math illegal? Congratulations, every smart phone with a camera is now illegal.

 

The only way this armed drone thing becomes a real problem is if an industry pops up selling ready made kits and targeting software making an armed drone easy to put together and operate.  If that became popular and dodged gun laws by not actually selling guns, I could see some lunatic eventually getting bangs hotel scenario in his head. 

The software already exists.

[Mad Mike]

All you've said is that you want to make what the college student illegal because you're scared someone somewhere might do something nefarious with this technology.

 

Your right... Lets make land mines, RPGs and missiles legal as well. After all it's just an irrational fear that someone might do harm with them.

[Slateman]

Your right... Lets make land mines, RPGs and missiles legal as well. After all it's just an irrational fear that someone might do harm with them.

Ah yes, extremism. So you too have checked out of the rational thought process and embraced insanity. Well, fun chatting with you.

 

Oh, by the way, you probably shouldn't own a firearm. It's pretty obvious that you have no idea how they work and probably no idea how to handle them safely. So that "responsible gun owner" that you and the left are always bringing up as an example of some idiot who shoots himself or someone else "accidentally," ... well that's you. So yea, sell that thing and get yourself a can of mace or something.

[Larry]

Yes, it has been shown that it can be done safely.

If your definition of "done safely" is "hand an anonymous, remote controlled, lethal weapon to someone, and if that someone chooses to fire it at an empty farmer's field, then it probably won;t hit anybody."

By that line of reasoning, if Timmy McVeigh had chosen to blow up a rental truck full of ANFO in an abandoned gravel pit, then that would have proven that truck bombs were "proven safe".

Ah yes, extremism. So you too have checked out of the rational thought process and embraced insanity. Well, fun chatting with you.

He's using exactly the same reasoning that you've been repeating, multiple times. "Well, they can be used safely. (If nobody is near the target area.)"

 

Oh, by the way, you probably shouldn't own a firearm. It's pretty obvious that you have no idea how they work and probably no idea how to handle them safely. So that "responsible gun owner" that you and the left are always bringing up as an example of some idiot who shoots himself or someone else "accidentally," ... well that's you. So yea, sell that thing and get yourself a can of mace or something.

 

 

Oh by the way, you should probably stay away from making personal attacks.  It's pretty obvious that your ability is limited to parroting sound bites that you've been programmed to recite, without even noticing that they contradict each other. 

[Mad Mike]

Yes, it has been shown that it can be done safely.

 

Are you sure you know how it works instead of simply understanding how to operate it? Because the amount of "breeze" it would take for a Glock to fire without the trigger being manipulated is impossible to duplicate on the planet without divine intervention.

 

Whether or not the target was hit is irrelevant. Now we're dealing with whether or not it can be effectively employed. But, to continue your question: None. The firearm discharges outside of any influence from the drone's thrust. A percentage of a millimeter ... what does this even mean? Do you mean fraction? Are you referring to adjustments for wind and drift?  Because the drone doesn't affect this. The environment does.

 

I see plenty of potential for accidents and criminal behavior ... doesn't mean it should be illegal. Because a lot of things have the potential for accidents and criminal behavior and they aren't made illegal. Only the manner in which they are used is made illegal.

So you want to make software that is designed to track targets on camera and do math illegal? Congratulations, every smart phone with a camera is now illegal.

The software already exists.

 

It wasn't tested to hit its target. IT WAS NOT TESTED FOR SAFETY. PERIOD. 

 

If I build a pipe bomb and live, it doesn't mean its is safe to build pipe bombs, It means I survived... THIS TIME.  Is that difficult for you to comprehend?

 

And the operative is GUN... Let me use simple words for you... GUN KILLS. CAMERA DOESNT. Banning guns on drones DOES NOT EQUAL BANNING CAMERAS. ONE IS NOT EQUAL TO THE OTHER.

 

I'm outa here, If I have to deal with such stupid arguments much longer I'll get myself banned. And to be clear... I'm saying your argument is monumentally stupid.

[Mad Mike]

Ah yes, extremism. So you too have checked out of the rational thought process and embraced insanity. Well, fun chatting with you.

 

Oh, by the way, you probably shouldn't own a firearm. It's pretty obvious that you have no idea how they work and probably no idea how to handle them safely. So that "responsible gun owner" that you and the left are always bringing up as an example of some idiot who shoots himself or someone else "accidentally," ... well that's you. So yea, sell that thing and get yourself a can of mace or something.

 

I HAVE NEVER used the term responsible gun owner to describe someone who performs an irresponsible act with guns. In fact every time it is used I raise hell about it. I can post links. 

 

With that I'm done with you.

[sacase]

Hi

I'm in a hotel room i just rented.

i'm maybe 3 floors up,, one of thousands of faceless windows looking down into this street.

 

I have my gun on a drone, and i am flying it along the street.. i will empty the clip into whoever i want, ditch it in a trash can, and then it's just an casual stroll away.. no one the wiser.

 

catch me if you can.

 

this ridiculous never-could-happen-and-thus-should-never-be-considered-a-possibility-until-too-late scenario brought to you by very little imagination at all.

 

BangBangBangBangBang

 

~Bye

Hi

I'm a responsible gun owner who always obeys every tenet of gun safety.

 

because, as a responsible gun owner, i know that my gun is perfectly safe when it's loaded and ****ed (primed to fire) and most importantly, flying free and not in my responsible hand.

And it's especially safe when the trigger is operated by a simple mechanical device that would never accidentally fire, because everyone who has ever flown a drone knows how unbelievably easy to fly and control all of them are. None of those hand held controls are difficult or touchy at all.

 

~Dang

Under your scenario, what is going to stop a criminal from doing that?

[Slateman]

Uh ... wasnt tested to hit its target? Do you know if it did or did not? The firearm operated the way designed. I think it's safe to assume that if it was aimed at a target within its effective range, it was certainly capble of hitting that target. There was nothing the drone was doing that would have negated that.

If you drive to work safely, is it safe to drive?

Guns do not kill, people do. There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in the US that have never killed a person.

Under your scenario, what is going to stop a criminal from doing that?

No one can answer that. I mean, we've only been using drones on our enemies for 10+ years. I'm sure it never occured to them to utilize the same technology.

[Larry]

Deleted. 

 

(Really wish we still had the old :gus: smiley.) 

[Slateman]

Well, there you have it, folks.

Criminals break laws. Therefore laws are useless.

No need to weigh possible risks or benefits of technology or laws. Laws are useless. (When it's gun laws. Other laws? We're cool with those.)

What is the benefit to banning a firearm connected to a drone?

[Larry]

What is the benefit to banning a firearm connected to a drone?

 

What is the benefit to banning murder? 

[Slateman]

What is the benefit to banning murder?

Because murder is morally wrong and usually one party does not consent.

We have laws against murder and negligent homocide. We have laws for unlawful discharge of a fire arm. We have laws against brandishing firearms. The unlawful use of a firearm connected to a drone and fired by a remote operator is effectively covered. So again, why do we need a law for this specific issue which has been shown to have lawful purposes.

[Larry]

Because murder is morally wrong and usually one party does not consent.

We have laws against murder and negligent homocide. We have laws for unlawful discharge of a fire arm. We have laws against brandishing firearms. The unlawful use of a firearm connected to a drone and fired by a remote operator is effectively covered. So again, why do we need a law for this specific issue which has been shown to have lawful purposes.

 

Should I point out that your justification for why arming drones for remote controlled killing must be legal, is that it is possible to do it without breaking a law, right now? 

 

Still, I suppose that arguing that there should never be any new laws is better than arguing that there shouldn't be any.  Small steps. 

[Slateman]

Should I point out that your justification for why arming drones for remote controlled killing must be legal, is that it is possible to do it without breaking a law, right now?

Still, I suppose that arguing that there should never be any new laws is better than arguing that there shouldn't be any. Small steps.

The default should always be that behavior is legal until shown why it should be illegal. Discharging a firearm on private property can be done legally. This method is legal and no one has presented a reason why it shouldn't be. Anything done in a criminal manner with this drone is already covered by current laws.

I've never argued for no laws. I just fail to see what what tacking on another law will accomplish.

[Larry]

I've never argued for no laws.

Yes, you have.

Every single time you (or everybody else) have pointed out that criminals break laws, and then stood smugly back like you think you've said something logical.

 

(That is, unless you happen to know of any laws that criminals haven't broken.  Somehow, I suspect they're rather few.) 

[visionary]

A drone that explodes would be more effective than a drone with a gun at causing terror and at killing people.  Video games have been teaching us that for years.  Nothing more annoying than those enemies that just fly into you and blow up. 

I remember reading about some bombmakers looking into something like this a few years back in Syria (trying to figure out the best ways to blow up military checkpoints without getting any of their people hurt.  At the time they were working mainly on remote-controlled cars and trucks).  I don't recall if they ever figured out how to get it to work well, but I've seen some amateur drones made out of remote control planes since then.

[PokerPacker]

Yes, you have.

Every single time you (or everybody else) have pointed out that criminals break laws, and then stood smugly back like you think you've said something logical.

 

(That is, unless you happen to know of any laws that criminals haven't broken.  Somehow, I suspect they're rather few.)

He pointed out that criminals are already breaking laws, so making something illegal to prevent someone from committing another activity that is already illegal is redundant at best.

[daveakl]

I imagine Law and Order SVU or NCIS Los Angeles will have an episode about this sometime in the fall.

[Bang]

Every criminal law we have is in place to attempt to prevent the criminal from doing it, or to lay a groundwork for punishment once they do.
 

EVERY criminal law is made because of what someone MIGHT do.

 

Some people think you should be allowed to driv e drunk. hell, some of them can probably even show a 15 second video of them doing it on the internet just to prove how safe it is.

Some people can drive 130 MPH really well.

Some people feel so comfortable with themselves that they think pants are a bother, and they'd really like your mother to see everything they have.

 

 

Laws do not prevent crime, obviously. Our police are quite busy.
The penalty of death does not deter murder.

Incarceration in violent prisons do not deter robberies.

 

 

And yet the laws exist.

How stupid we must be to waste or time with such things. 
Here we are in a republic, a country derived from laws, with no idea why we should have them, because they clearly don't work.

 

New technology has us paralyzed, we can't even fathom that while we scream "this country has a mental health problem", somehow we can't see why allowing people to put weapons on drones is a bad idea.

 

Crazy, man.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

Every criminal law we have is in place to attempt to prevent the criminal from doing it, or to lay a groundwork for punishment once they do.

 

EVERY criminal law is made because of what someone MIGHT do.

Well, I assume that most of them are written in response to things that people have done. In an attempt to discourage them from happening again.

 

----------

 

And I do think that it's at least possible for a new law to be stupid.  To be "piling on". 

 

I recall when I was living in Oklahoma City, and the city decided that they had a gang problem.  So the city passed a law that made it illegal to fire a gun from a moving vehicle. 

 

And my response was "Hey, wasn't shooting at people already illegal in this town?" 

[visionary]

Well, I assume that most of them are written in response to things that people have done. In an attempt to discourage them from happening again.

 

----------

 

And I do think that it's at least possible for a new law to be stupid.  To be "piling on". 

 

I recall when I was living in Oklahoma City, and the city decided that they had a gang problem.  So the city passed a law that made it illegal to fire a gun from a moving vehicle. 

 

And my response was "Hey, wasn't shooting at people already illegal in this town?" 

There's a difference between shooting at people and shooting randomly from a moving vehicle though.

[Bang]

true, i can agree new laws can be dumb, 

This is why they must go through the process to be sure the kinks get ironed out of ideas before knee-jerk reactions hold sway.

 

But to think we should never even look at potential new laws because someone could just break them anyway is ludicrous.

No wonder our country is so full of crooks, cheaters and thieves.

Listen to the enabling that goes on.

 

Laws are stupid, they can't actually STOP you. They're just words on papers. 

 

~Bang

[Larry]

There's a difference between shooting at people and shooting randomly from a moving vehicle though.

Somehow I suspect that shooting randomly was also illegal, in Oklahoma City, prior to this law.

(Although, the state has gone really hard right, after I left. Might be legal, now.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yay. Nothing bad can happen.

 

the potential for home defense and the amazing cool factor with your friends means this should all be totally legal.

After all, the founders definitely intended we should be able to fly around our own anonymous weapons platforms.

 

you know.. to stop tyranny and all.

 

~Bang

FWIW the drone is not autonomous. It is piloted.

The government uses drones to save the lives of serving infantrymen, while fighting terrorism. They aren't some yokel in the Alabama backwoods attaching a pistol to a hovercraft and flying it wherever he wants.

Connecticut....like you know one of them thar real bass-akwards states.

I am terrified.  How far are we away from this:

Really? How far are we away from armies of fully autonomous robots that employ time travel to eliminate the human threat?

If that terrifies you then please by all means stop voting.