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

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

And when it happens...will you then conclude that it should be illegal?

[MisterPinstripe]

And when it happens...will you then conclude that it should be illegal?

Putting a gun on a drone in my mind is pretty unwise. However I believe really the gist of his argument is that it is already illegal. Brandishing a firearm in public, discharging a firearm in public, etc is all already illegal. What new law would be required for a gun on a drone that isnt already covered by the existing laws?

 

It is already definitely illegal to have a hand gun drawn if not on your own private property or defending yourself.

[Bang]

Definitely aware it is piloted. Some of those things have some pretty good range.

 

I'd be more trusting of an autonomous machine.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

Perhaps an analogy is in order. 

 

Should we have a law that makes it illegal to walk into a bank, carrying a shotgun, and wearing a ski mask? 

 

(I assume it already is, but I'm pretending that no such law exists, yet.) 

 

After all, firing the shotgun is already illegal.  So is pointing it at anybody.  So is threatening anybody.  Demanding cash from the bank is illegal. 

 

So, if the guy with the ski mask and the shotgun tries to rob the bank, then existing laws will already cover any attempt to do so. 

 

All the open shotgun and the ski mask do, is improve his odds of getting away with it, if he chooses to do something that's illegal. 

 

(Well, that, and the fact that he did it, in the first place, really makes it clear that he intends to to something illegal, too.) 

 

----------

 

Me, I think you look at whether prohibiting ski masks and shotguns in banks will help protect people.  And on whether prohibiting it will constitute an undue burden on non-criminals. 

 

Yes, prohibiting guns on drones does have the potential of imposing restrictions on paraplegic deer hunters.  And forbidding ski masks in banks might infringe on the freedoms of burn patients. 

 

But I think they're kinda outnumbered by the number of people who would use such openings, to do harm. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

How much movement do you think a gust of wind produces on a drone? 

Actually, I think you'd be fairly surprised at just how good these things are. Here is the same model we use at work in high wind tests. It is EXTREMELY stable and with the gyroscopic mounted camera it isn't too much of a stretch to realize the applications for things other than video. If a gun could be successfully mounted on that gyroscope and aligned with the camera all it really takes then is zeroing the aim and adding a sighting mechanism. 

Granted, that's a LOT to accomplish, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility to establish an accurate shooting platform.

 

 

Now, I'm much more inclined to agree with ~Bang on this, we already have laws against spring-loaded home security booby-traps, to me this is just an extension of that and shouldn't be allowed for civilian use. For the 2nd Amendment ideologues...spare me the "shall not be infringed speech" I don't give two flips if you want to own a flying shooting platform anymore than I want you to own a rocket launcher. There are limitations to free speech just as their are limitations to the ownership of arms.

[MisterPinstripe]

Me, I think you look at whether prohibiting ski masks and shotguns in banks will help protect people.  And on whether prohibiting it will constitute an undue burden on non-criminals. 

It is actually illegal in VA and some other states to wear a mask in public, or on private property unless you have received permission from the owner, unless you meet certain exceptions. Job/safety, doing a theatrical production, for medical reasons, etc.

 

Not sure about carrying a shotgun into a bank, but even if there is no law against it I guarantee that banks do not allow guns on their private property. 

[zoony]

Thank god the fat kids have the 2nd amendment so they don't have to be able to run.

I think I just described West VA, Kentucky, and Tennessee in fair general but accurate terms. Zoony, please confirm.

Yes that's it exactly

[Larry]

It is actually illegal in VA and some other states to wear a mask in public, or on private property unless you have received permission from the owner, unless you meet certain exceptions. Job/safety, doing a theatrical production, for medical reasons, etc.

Not sure about carrying a shotgun into a bank, but even if there is no law against it I guarantee that banks do not allow guns on their private property.

Wondering whether you INTENTIONALLY missed my point.

Or I suppose I may have missed yours.

Is there any rule, of logic or morality or whatever, that society cannot prohibit something who's obvious purpose is to increase the odds of someone getting away with something that's already illegal?

[MisterPinstripe]

Wondering whether you INTENTIONALLY missed my point.

Or I suppose I may have missed yours.

Is there any rule, of logic or morality or whatever, that society cannot prohibit something who's obvious purpose is to increase the odds of someone getting away with something that's already illegal?

I just tend to be unintentionally daft.

 

I would say the ski mask is a good example of that. It has perfectly legit and legal reasons to be used. If someone is walking down the street wearing a ski mask and it is freezing outside, I doubt they will be stopped by the police as it has an obvious use. However if they do so when its not cold the law is there that allows police to stop them. Its all context, as its just a piece of clothing.

 

In fact I would say its reasonable suspicion that a crime could be about to happen.

 

With this issue though I still dont see a big issue with it. Because doing what he did anywhere but his own property would be illegal, it would be brandishing a weapon. If I want to walk around my property naked its legal for me to do so, but if I do so in public/public view not so much.

 

All the laws we currently have in place would apply to this situation, I just dont see how a law would be created to combat this other then what we already have. Unless people are saying you shouldnt be able to do this on your private property.

[mjah]

Raise your hand if you have ever flown a quadcopter, hexacopter, or other commercially available rotary wing R/C aircraft.

 

For those with their hands up: Keep your hand up if and only if you have NEVER, at any time, experienced inadvertent triggering, response failure, sporadic/inconsistent operation, "twitchiness," etc. of a servo, actuator, transmitter/receiver, rotor, bearing, or motor on that R/C device due to electromagnetic interference, poor manufacture/assembly, component failure, embedded software imperfection, battery power fluctuation, excessive vibration, or any other embodiment of plain old unidentified "gremlins."  In other words, due to one of the many substantial imperfections of the R/C device and system itself.

 

Anybody with his hand up right now is a liar.  

 

Even in expert hands R/C aircraft are twitchy, buggy, fault-prone, often-unreliable devices, and failures very often occur with no warning at all.  For a wise operator, every single flight is wrapped in the anti-security blanket of constant preparedness for the device failure that will eventually come.  Maybe this flight, maybe next flight.  Maybe next week.  It will come.

 

I love R/C aircraft.  Great fun and I fly pretty regularly.  But mounting a firearm, however reliable one might think it is, on a Chinese-made assembly of aluminum spars and plastic bits with a few bucks worth of low-bidder control electronics aboard, is insanely stupid and dangerous.  Mounting it on a one-off custom built rig you or some other hobbyist ginned up yourself as a self-styled "expert," out of more complex versions of the same basic components, might be stupider still.  

 

You are a hundred yards away, communicating via finger twitch and a chain of a half-dozen E/M and physical links to control a killing device's altitude, orientation, and state of firing operation.  How can you POSSIBLY claim to have any truly reliable control over even just the one simple actuator with its "finger" constantly on the trigger?  Even if you as an operator are perfect (false), and even if the flight and visibility/video conditions are truly perfect (never), the hardware and software associated with these devices are very, very far from great.  And your end-to-end flight environment -- devices plus human plus conditions -- will never be any better than its weakest link.

 

The potential for mortal harm is so completely self-evident that we don't even need to have this conversation.  Yet here we are.  Some college kid managing to squeeze off 4 shots from far away is seriously being labeled (by some) as "demonstrating safety?"  Idiocracy is today, right now.

 

As pointed out before, this whole idea ought to be flatly illegal for the same reasons why spring-triggered guns are illegal.  Even under the illusion of "good" or "safe" control, a drone-gun Frankenstein rig is not fully under the operator's control, ever.  It is akin to a spring-triggered weapon with a somewhat RANDOM altitude and orientation at the time of firing!  In other words, it's worse than the thing that is already against the law.

 

And if the argument is that it should be legal because only a stupid person would do something this insanely unsafe in his private life in the first place, meaning the device itself should be left unlegislated-against... well, until we flatly outlaw morons we will have to occasionally outlaw some of their most egregiously dangerous and idiotic contraptions/behaviors instead.  It is reasonable to anticipate that two widely available commercial products already owned by millions and thousands of people, respectively, will eventually be put together needlessly to yield a system that puts everyone in the area in immediate and unreasonable physical peril.  ...While achieving nothing of consumer value to balance that peril.  It's pointless danger.

 

I also noted a claim earlier that "drones" are not aircraft.  That is legally incorrect.  Legally they ARE aircraft, even if they are flying 5 feet off the ground, even if they are doing so on your property under control of parties unknown!  Deliberately damaging one in flight by any means is a violation of Federal law.  I believe the maximum penalties are 20 years in jail and a $250k fine, though I sincerely doubt anything like that would be levied for broomsticking the Phantom 2 hovering outside your bedroom window after dark.  Operators using drones for illegal activity are obviously breaking the law, but you may be subject to prosecution yourself if you pop a few pellets into one that buzzes your house during a summer BBQ.

[Jumbo]

I'm on a very limited budget these days, but taking some experience from my misspent youth, I am taping M-80's to the latest generation of Styrofoam gliders from the dollar store and will be testing this munitions delivery system at the local Wal-Mart's "squatters parking zone." 

 

Film at 11. 

[MisterPinstripe]

You are a hundred yards away, communicating via finger twitch and a chain of a half-dozen E/M and physical links to control a killing device's altitude, orientation, and state of firing operation.  How can you POSSIBLY claim to have any truly reliable control over even just the one simple actuator with its "finger" constantly on the trigger?  Even if you as an operator are perfect (false), and even if the flight and visibility/video conditions are truly perfect (never), the hardware and software associated with these devices are very, very far from great.  And your end-to-end flight environment -- devices plus human plus conditions -- will never be any better than its weakest link.

 

 

 

As pointed out before, this whole idea ought to be flatly illegal for the same reasons why spring-triggered guns are illegal.  Even under the illusion of "good" or "safe" control, a drone-gun Frankenstein rig is not fully under the operator's control, ever.  It is akin to a spring-triggered weapon with a somewhat RANDOM altitude and orientation at the time of firing!  In other words, it's worse than the thing that is already against the law.

 

This is definitely the best legal argument for saying it should just be illegal as a whole. I was just thinking about it in general terms, but the lack of complete control over the weapon and when it may fire is a great point.

 

I will say the most frightening thing about drones that I never thought about, and something mentioned here, is someone strapping a bomb to a drone and just flying it somewhere. Those things have great range and cameras on them.

[PokerPacker]

For those worried about bomb-carrying drones, one of the senior design projects I saw this past spring included a drone with a payload delivery system. It was intended for search-and-rescue operation, but one could easily pop a bomb in there and drop it.

[Corcaigh]

liar.  

 

insanely stupid and dangerous.  

 

self-styled "expert"

 

stupider.  

 

Idiocracy

 

stupid

 

insanely

 

morons

 

egregiously dangerous

 

idiotic contraptions/behaviors

 

unreasonable physical peril

 

legally incorrect

Using all these fancy intellectual and ambiguous terms is no way to make a convincing argument.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I will say the most frightening thing about drones that I never thought about, and something mentioned here, is someone strapping a bomb to a drone and just flying it somewhere. Those things have great range and cameras on them.

To be used as a bomb delivery vehicle they'd have to be much bigger since the payload on drones is not very much at all.

Like all things it is about scalability, only with aviation the scalability is more exponential than additional.

[MisterPinstripe]

To be used as a bomb delivery vehicle they'd have to be much bigger since the payload on drones is not very much at all.

Like all things it is about scalability, only with aviation the scalability is more exponential than additional.

I guess Im thinking more along the lines of a small device just looking to hurt small groups of people.

[mistertim]

Where did those bullets end up? As a gun owner myself I'm a bit worried by the apparent lack of concern for whatever is behind whatever "target" they're shooting at. I don't care if it is in bum**** nowhere. Cardinal rule of gun safety.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I guess Im thinking more along the lines of a small device just looking to hurt small groups of people.

Then we end up with the same laws preventing bomb making materials, and explosives with enough force to do much damage are heavy. And why would someone want to spend $8,000 on a drone to fly a 5 pound pipe bomb into a crowd to hurt 4 people? There are much more lethally efficient ways to terrorize a population.

[Xameil]

I guess Im thinking more along the lines of a small device just looking to hurt small groups of people.

Hey, chemical warfare doesn't need a high weight or volume to kill groups of people

[mjah]

Using all these fancy intellectual and ambiguous terms is no way to make a convincing argument.

 

Shut up, dingbat!  

 

Just kidding.  

 

I am occasionally guilty of mixing reason with judgment.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Hey, chemical warfare doesn't need a high weight or volume to kill groups of people

Right...where are you going to buy it? And why would you choose this delivery method?

[Mad Mike]

I guess Im thinking more along the lines of a small device just looking to hurt small groups of people.

And you are correct. Even a small pipe bomb wrapped in a bag of wood screws and set off over a crowd would be devastating.

[Bang]

Right...where are you going to buy it? And why would you choose this delivery method?

I'm thinking if i want to spread ricin or some airborne agent ..  flying it out over a crowd with a leak in the bag would be a pretty easy way to do it.

Especially if i want to terrorize in the process.

 

~Bang

[PokerPacker]

I'm thinking if i want to spread ricin or some airborne agent ..  flying it out over a crowd with a leak in the bag would be a pretty easy way to do it.

Especially if i want to terrorize in the process.

 

~Bang

I always liked the parade-balloon method.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm thinking if i want to spread ricin or some airborne agent ..  flying it out over a crowd with a leak in the bag would be a pretty easy way to do it.

Especially if i want to terrorize in the process.

 

~Bang

Well, we've certainly gone well beyond the putting a gun on a drone with our hypotheticals.