FAA says don't shoot down drones

[KZN02]

So some city put up some rules encouraging shooting down drones, but now the FAA steps in to say no.

Link

So what I'm wondering is what weapon available to the US public can shoot down a drone?

[Valerius]

Wow. This is just crazy. I like how the focus of that short article is on FAA response to the town, and not that the town wants to blow government property out of the sky in the first place! America (or at least parts of it) must be even nuttier than I thought.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Typical. Honestly, I've never seen the logic of freaking out over drones. I think it's much more evil to send soldiers in to get killed when you have the technology to do the job without our people getting sent in to die.

[Yla]

Typical. Honestly, I've never seen the logic of freaking out over drones. I think it's much more evil to send soldiers in to get killed when you have the technology to do the job without our people getting sent in to die.

'the job' being killing people. Sending drones lowers the hurdle/investment to go to war(be it open or dirty).

I support the development and use of drone craft in principle; but I see the downsides, and I do not support their current 'job' in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Also, since we're talking about US cities, I think this is less about armed drones and more about surveillance drones.

[Distind]

I've got to say that lowering the investment hurdle to these things isn't really a downside. Putting them into the hands of people who will use them may be, but half of them would have just sent troops in instead anyway.

That said, no shit shooting down drones is a bad idea. They may not be huge but even a 3 foot span drone is gonna leave a mark when it slams into the ground, without even considering the fact it's federal property. I kinda wanted to say let them do it, then launch every drone intended for mothballing directly over the town. The rest should sort itself out.

[Dakota Bob]

So what, the American government might start using drones on the civilian populations? Well, politicians might care more if a drone blows up a wedding if it kills White people I guess.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Typical. Honestly, I've never seen the logic of freaking out over drones. I think it's much more evil to send soldiers in to get killed when you have the technology to do the job without our people getting sent in to die.

'the job' being killing people. Sending drones lowers the hurdle/investment to go to war(be it open or dirty).

I support the development and use of drone craft in principle; but I see the downsides, and I do not support their current 'job' in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Also, since we're talking about US cities, I think this is less about armed drones and more about surveillance drones.

I know it makes the investment slightly lower (let's be honest, the politicians see soldiers as one does a pawn in chess, not as people), but I cannot argue that we should risk human lives over it. Less dead soldiers = good. That said, surveillance drones can be used badly, but in principle, they are not bad.

I've got to say that lowering the investment hurdle to these things isn't really a downside. Putting them into the hands of people who will use them may be, but half of them would have just sent troops in instead anyway.

That said, no shit shooting down drones is a bad idea. They may not be huge but even a 3 foot span drone is gonna leave a mark when it slams into the ground, without even considering the fact it's federal property. I kinda wanted to say let them do it, then launch every drone intended for mothballing directly over the town. The rest should sort itself out.

I say, if they attack drones, drones have every right to attack back.

 

[Askold]

So what, the American government might start using drones on the civilian populations? Well, politicians might care more if a drone blows up a wedding if it kills White people I guess.

Don't you mean, the American goverment might start using drones one their civilian population as well?

[Jack Mann]

The drones under discussion are surveillance drones, not armed drones.

[Art Vandelay]

It's hilarious, really. Nobody seems to give a shit about police helicopters being a thing, but take out the pilot and suddenly it's the end of liberty and our very way of life.

[Distind]

It's hilarious, really. Nobody seems to give a shit about police helicopters being a thing, but take out the pilot and suddenly it's the end of liberty and our very way of life.

Well yeah, they can actually afford to use drones. The police actually being effective is a threat to a lot of people, so we do our damndest to ensure that never happens. Then complain whenever the police fail at catching someone else.

[rookie]

First to KNZ's question about weapons available to the civillian population that could take down a drone. It depends really on how high up they're flying. But there is quite an impressive array o really good rifles designed to take big horn sheep from mountain tops. A long range elk gun  with a good scope might not be able to take it down,  but it could hurt it in regards to the electronics.

As for not freaking out over police helicopters, there's the issue of juristictions. For some reason, some have in their heads that local and state agencies are the ones supposed to deal with Americans in America. Obviously, there are exceptions like the FBI or Secret Service. But they think drones, they think military or CIA or NSA or other scary acronym. And those guys are sulposed to concern themselves with dark people in third world countries who wear either turbans or general's military uniforms. Not to go messing with ordanary hard working Americans.

I hope that helps.

[Witchyjoshy]

What if they painted drones with obviously police colors?

Assuming they haven't already...

[Old Viking]

Whether drones are good or bad, if you can afford the weaponry it sounds like fun.

[PosthumanHeresy]

I wonder what a bunt gun would do.