> there are going to have to be regulations about which air corridors they can use (altitude and routes) or it will be chaos
Agree. But a good way to ensure that doesn’t happen is to have folks shooting at drones.
Agree. But a good way to ensure that doesn’t happen is to have folks shooting at drones.
At least one Florida man is out there plinking Walmart drones at 400 feet with a 9mm. Saw another who took one down from a boat also with a pistol (probably 9mm also), but can't find the video now.
The Venn diagram of "shoots at drones" and "concerned with other people's safety" is two separate circles.
But anyway if you aren't rich enough to laugh off half a decade of court costs then you probably shouldn't shoot at them at all.
Most people don’t have dashcams. Drones, on the other hand, would have evidence of both the crime and criminal intent.
Just do a search for "charged with shooting at drone".
> Civilian shootings at drones occur at a rate likely below 15 incidents per year in the U.S., compared to over one million registered drones.
I'm going to have to conclude that this strains and breaks the bounds of the term 'frequently' and the initial term 'incorrect'.
Depending on where you live, they might even be neighbors of yours.
Something showing up every month is pretty damn frequent, especially when it leaks into national news and always grabs headlines, yet idiots still do it.
I mean if a plane fell out of the sky once a month, is that frequently?
What about if your bank blocked access to your account once a month when you needed it?
I frankly don't give a shit to spend time on this with you anymore.
It's pointless to debate our personal definitions.
Have fun