Across California, police departments are rapidly expanding “Drone as First Responder” programs, triggering intense public backlash over warrantless surveillance and corporate overreach.
Across California, police departments are rapidly expanding “Drone as First Responder” programs, triggering intense public backlash over warrantless surveillance and corporate overreach.
That’s a really good way to kill people. They already make non ballistic ways to take out drones.
Yeah, they do!
What do you think is easier to acquire and more legally protected for an average person to possess, in the US, in CA?
A shotgun?
Or a high voltage military grade active radio frequency jammer?
Or were you maybe thinking of an even higher voltage military grade microwave / laser beam emmitter?
… just please tell me you were not thinking of a net gun that can somehow reach an altitude of a hundreds to thousands of feet.
But hang the fuck on for a second…what if the net also spits out jammers at 400 feet… See that could work…
Can’t tell if this is a joke or not. You’re not hitting a drone with a shotgun at 400 feet, much less thousands of feet.
Slug maybe?
They make shells for longer birding ranges that are like hybrids between birdshot and buckshot, but at that range you’d need a pretty skilled shooter with a good gun, and then you still have the problems that come with firing a gun. Unfortunately nobody has found a compact, easy-to-replicate mid-range solution. Buuuut if you’re an electronics person with a little knowledge, I’ve seen both internet hobbyists and Ansarallah soldiers with DIY directed jammers the size of a large rifle.
This is the 21st century…
Yes, those are illegal to possess, much less use, and they are fairly easily triangulated.
Due to the wifi/5g black hole they will indiscriminately create within their effective radius.
Build and turn on one of those and you’ll be geolocated nearly instantly, and then go to jail for quite a long time.
You would also be arrested for skeet shooting a police drone… given that my argument was about the safety of that not the legality I’m not sure what you are on about.
Ah, no, not if you know how to shoot something while also being not easily identifiable on camera, from a location you are not associated with.
Did you think about how creating an 1/8 to 1/4 mile telecomm blackhole might cause some injuries or perhaps deaths?
Maybe one of your neighbors was having a medical emergency, might have been useful for them or someone nearby to be able to use their phone, have EMS dial in to their location, get there real fast?
No, you didn’t, otherwise you’d not be unsure of what I’m on about.
Anyway best of luck with your purchase history.
You are making a lot of assumptions about your ability to kill all the electronics onboard in one shot and assuming that one drone will be the only one in the air…
Best of luck with your “good ‘ol boy” solutions.
You don’t know anything about guns or electronics, or the relevant laws, or level of police attention they garner, so yeah, sure, just keep imagining you have any idea what you are talking about, that’ll work.
deleted by creator
Maybe if you’re shooting slugs, but I’ve never heard of anyone being dumb enough to go skeet shooting with slugs
You’ve clearly never been to Texas
Ain’t nobody gonna waste expensive slugs like that, plus they are useless against drones. Birdshot is what’s uses for skeet shooting. Any proper Texan would know this.
Source: Lived in Texas for 22 years.
Idk friend. I went to A&M
My condolences.
SOURCE: 🤘
It doesn’t matter if you are using a fucking 9mm even, what goes up must come down and unless you are capable of firing directly up and in no wind it’s going to come down with a ballistic trajectory.
If you shoot birdshot (small bb gun pellets) up in the air, they will have very little speed on the way down. Birdshot is what is used in skeet shooting.
That doesn’t make it safe to shoot in urban areas.
I would advise you look into terminal velocity and see just how much power you’re working with firing 20 guage birdshot. There’s a reason you never see anyone getting injured by crossfire when hunting birds or skeet shooting, it simply doesn’t have the power.
You’ll definitely get rained on by birdshot though, it just won’t hurt.
I very much want you to try that
I’ve been rained on by birdshot, now go look at what I said
It’s very annoying how nerds who don’t even shoot spout confidently incorrect bs.
Guns are scary arcane sticks that go boom, infinitely complex and unable to be deciphered - better to never touch them or try to understand the physics behind them.
You said it won’t hurt.
So like… I chuck a small pellet into the air and it hits some child in the eye. And your claim is it won’t hurt.
And that sounds right to you?
Oh, you’re worried about kids?
Ok, I’ll tell you what - find me a list of kids injured by birdshot in the past 10 years and I’ll find you a list of kids killed by cops. We can compare the difference.
Also yes, outside of a freak accident it’ll feel like getting hit by airsoft pellets. Should we ban kids from playing with airsoft guns or paintball guns because they might get hit in the eye?
Well, they have helmets and eye protection for paintball and airsoft, at least where I live, so I suppose it has already been banned.
For what it’s worth, I’ve had birdshot bounce off a hard target and hit me in the cheekbone, and it stung but didn’t do much damage
You probably should’ve done a quick Internet search on that first.
Maybe you should have read what you shared.
The person I am replying to specifically mentioned crossfire… please read before trying to gotcha.
You’re right, now find enough instances of crossfire with birdshot that proves this is a regular occurrence and not a freak accident.
Edit: also the issue here is more that I said never. I acknowledge that there are freak accidents that prove exception to the rule.
You are correct and I missed the crossfire bit. Never point a ballistic weapon at anyone you don’t want to injure or kill.
That acknowledgement out of the way, I think you are trying so hard to win an argument, rather than acknowledge that your initial comment was incorrect, that you have drifted into making yourself look foolish (no hostility intended)
I think it has been well established that this was incorrect. Birdshot fired at an airborne drone is extremely unlikely to injure anyone, much less kill them.
Although technically true, these are not available for civilian purchase and/or are highly illegal to use, so they might as well not exist.
I get that your original reply was well intentioned, but it was ill informed. Hopefully this discussion has helped.
As long as we are assuming that “skeet shooting” always means birdshot then sure… but I grew up around enough rednecks to know better than to make that assumption.
As I said to the other commenter, so is shooting a police drone… the legality of disposing of police equipment isn’t what is up for debate here.
Yeah typically speaking what you shoot at will get hit. This is why gun safety is important, the people who unsafely shot directly at her are a hazard and shouldn’t have guns. She’s especially unlucky in the sense that she was struck in a sensitive area.
That being said, I’ve been rained on by birdshot and I’ve never had something like this happen to me. YMMV, but you couldn’t have found a more freak accident scenario to present.