Ya! Dude!

[robbins.photo]

I agree with his sentiment 100% but discharging a firearm an urban back yard? That sort of mentality is what generates stereotypes!

So that's a bad thing?

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk

 

[JacaRanda]

I don't know how much actual thinking was involved here. lol
But toys are probably all some people should be allowed to have!

Agree 100% times 200.

 

[otherprof]

It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably a catch-all charge designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.

His next logical step: Getting out his scope-sighted .300 Win Magnum deer rifle and firing shots at a news helicopter...you know, because it was "hu'vrin!"

I quite agree with recklessness of shooting at the drone, and don't get the shooter's distinction between shooting a 22 and the buckshot. As I learned in high school physics, whatever is shot upward will slow down due to gravity until at its apex it will have all its kinetic energy converted to potential energy. Then it starts down an all that potential energy is converted kinetic energy. In other words, it comes down basically as fast as it went up (a little energy is lost due to air friction). That buckshot can do damage and hurt innocent people. I think of this lesson in physics whenever I see read about people celebrating by shooting guns in the air. What do they think happens to the bullets?

 

[robbins.photo]

It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably a catch-all charge designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.

His next logical step: Getting out his scope-sighted .300 Win Magnum deer rifle and firing shots at a news helicopter...you know, because it was "hu'vrin!"

I quite agree with recklessness of shooting at the drone, and don't get the shooter's distinction between shooting a 22 and the buckshot. As I learned in high school physics, whatever is shot upward will slow down due to gravity until at its apex it will have all its kinetic energy converted to potential energy. Then it starts down an all that potential energy is converted kinetic energy. In other words, it comes down basically as fast as it went up (a little energy is lost due to air friction). That buckshot can do damage and hurt innocent people. I think of this lesson in physics whenever I see read about people celebrating by shooting guns in the air. What do they think happens to the bullets?

Don't they simple vanish into the same alternative universe that one sock goes into when you activate the dryer?

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk

 

[Designer]

(a little energy is lost due to air friction).

Quite a bit, actually, compared to 25 yards right out of the muzzle. I've been downrange of birdshot, and there is barely enough energy to penetrate a dry leaf. We simply turned our heads so the shot wouldn't hit our eyes.

 

[limr]

More information emerges. Drone operator's flight data shows the drone's altitude at 250 feet: Dispute Emerges Over Drone Shot Down By Kentucky Man The Two-Way NPR

"The issue centers on imminent harm, robotics law expert Ryan Calo of the University of Washington tells tech site GigaOM. He says, "You would probably have to be threatened physically, or another person or maybe your property, for you to be able to destroy someone else's drone without fear of a counterclaim."

The situation can be compared to a trespass, GigaOM says: "In this sense, the law is the same as what applies when a car or a cow trespasses on your land — you can remove the car or cow (or whatever) and bill the owner for your trouble, but you can't simply destroy the invading article."

Another option for opponents of drones, of course, would be to deploy "jammers" that muddle drones' control signals. But that practice isn't legal — and the strategy doesn't address the main reason the FAA doesn't want people trying to shoot drones out of the sky in the first place: They're likely to come down in a very unpredictable, and possibly very dangerous, manner."

 

[table1349]

One excellent method to resolve the issue........Doves. Raise doves, lots of doves. Ever see a flock of doves taking off. Like herding chickens. A natural deterrent. The turbulence they would create could give the little bugger a wonderful ride.

Even better a small AVE (Atmospheric Vortex Engine). Nothing like a small invisible tornado like spiral of air to give the little bugger a dizzying ride.

 

[Designer]

(quote from article) "The drone's owner, David Boggs, says the drone wasn't hovering low over anyone's property, showing flight tracking data to local media that indicates an altitude of more than 250 feet."

Now the two statements (or allegations) do not correlate.

If the drone had never been below 250 feet above the ground, and the effective range of ordinary birdshot is less than that, Shotgun Pellet Size Selection for Upland Game
then his being able to shoot it down is extremely suspect. IOW: he would need a very tight pattern with some quite heavy shot to reach up more than 250 feet.

Oh, and here's an article that tells a slightly different story:

Kentucky man shoots down drone spying on 16-year-old daughter

The article pasted here so nobody has to go off into the interwebs and possibly fail to return here.

"Where should we draw the line between the advancement of technology and the protection of personal privacy? For one Kentucky man, his property line is where he gets to make the call, and he made that point of view perfectly clear when he pointed his shotgun at a drone hovering in his backyard and pulled the trigger.

"It was just right there. It was hovering. I would never have shot it if it was flying," William Merideth said in an interview with Ars Technica. "When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work."

Merideth claims that the drone was first spotted hovering over his neighbor's house—a claim his neighbor confirms—and he had no intentions of taking any actions against it until it entered onto his own property. Merideth's 16-year-old daughter was laying out by their pool at the time, and when the drone pilot decided to stop his vehicle and get an electronic eyeful, he decided enough was enough.

The homeowner fetched his shotgun and pumped three helpings of birdshot into the $1,800 drone, taking it out of the air in short order. Shortly thereafter, the drone pilot and three of his friends arrived at Merideth's property.

"If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there's going to be another shooting," Merideth says he told the men.

The police eventually arrived and Merideth was charged with first-degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment, both related to his discharge of the firearm. The 47-year-old Merideth is confident that the charges will be reduced or thrown out entirely once his trial date arrives."

There are some discrepancies between the the various versions of the story.

 

[table1349]

Bottom of the chart. Keep in mind the information included is with a muzzle at 30 degree elevation. Higher the elevation the shorter the distance above 30 degrees the shot will travel.

While the 40/40 rule is for the most part very accurate, 40 inch pattern at 40 yards, with a properly placed pellet or two you can get a "kill" at further ranges. Past 40 yards the shot pattern (spread) increases dramatically lessening the chance of a clean kill.

 

[otherprof]

It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably a catch-all charge designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.

His next logical step: Getting out his scope-sighted .300 Win Magnum deer rifle and firing shots at a news helicopter...you know, because it was "hu'vrin!"

I quite agree with recklessness of shooting at the drone, and don't get the shooter's distinction between shooting a 22 and the buckshot. As I learned in high school physics, whatever is shot upward will slow down due to gravity until at its apex it will have all its kinetic energy converted to potential energy. Then it starts down an all that potential energy is converted kinetic energy. In other words, it comes down basically as fast as it went up (a little energy is lost due to air friction). That buckshot can do damage and hurt innocent people. I think of this lesson in physics whenever I see read about people celebrating by shooting guns in the air. What do they think happens to the bullets?

 

[otherprof]

(a little energy is lost due to air friction).

Quite a bit, actually, compared to 25 yards right out of the muzzle. I've been downrange of birdshot, and there is barely enough energy to penetrate a dry leaf. We simply turned our heads so the shot wouldn't hit our eyes.

Interesting discussion of this very question, although more about bullets than buckshot, at the Physics Forum How fast does a bullet return to earth

 

[table1349]

It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably a catch-all charge designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.

His next logical step: Getting out his scope-sighted .300 Win Magnum deer rifle and firing shots at a news helicopter...you know, because it was "hu'vrin!"

I quite agree with recklessness of shooting at the drone, and don't get the shooter's distinction between shooting a 22 and the buckshot. As I learned in high school physics, whatever is shot upward will slow down due to gravity until at its apex it will have all its kinetic energy converted to potential energy. Then it starts down an all that potential energy is converted kinetic energy. In other words, it comes down basically as fast as it went up (a little energy is lost due to air friction). That buckshot can do damage and hurt innocent people. I think of this lesson in physics whenever I see read about people celebrating by shooting guns in the air. What do they think happens to the bullets?

Sorry, but terminal velocity will keep the falling shot from reaching anywhere near the initial velocity it had when it left the barrel of the shotgun.

A 30-06 fired up into the air will have an initial velocity of 2,900 feet per second when it leaves the rifle barrel. A .30 caliber rounds will reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second on descent.

 

[The_Traveler]

It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably a catch-all charge designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.

His next logical step: Getting out his scope-sighted .300 Win Magnum deer rifle and firing shots at a news helicopter...you know, because it was "hu'vrin!"

I quite agree with recklessness of shooting at the drone, and don't get the shooter's distinction between shooting a 22 and the buckshot. As I learned in high school physics, whatever is shot upward will slow down due to gravity until at its apex it will have all its kinetic energy converted to potential energy. Then it starts down an all that potential energy is converted kinetic energy. In other words, it comes down basically as fast as it went up (a little energy is lost due to air friction). That buckshot can do damage and hurt innocent people. I think of this lesson in physics whenever I see read about people celebrating by shooting guns in the air. What do they think happens to the bullets?

Anyone who has ever hunted dove or ducks knows from experience that falling bird-shot aren't either painful or dangerous.

 

[otherprof]

It is against the law in virtually any US municipality to discharge a firearm within the city limits, except in the case of LEGAL use of force...even "firing a warning shot" has landed people in jail and court...blasting an $1,800 drone in the airspace above one's home would probably fall into the "criminal" spectrum, and is probably a catch-all charge designed to encompass illegal discharge of a firearm, willful destruction of private property, menacing of the men who owned the drone and who showed up, and recklessly endangering the town/neighbors. As far as his claim that #8 birdshot is harmless...not so much when it rains down...there are over 500 pellets in each average 12-gauge low-base load of 8's...and he shot three times into the air--enough shot to blind some kid six to ten blocks away out playing, or somebody just walking along. Our Kentucky genius threatened people with being shot, while wearing an openly carried pistol...that is menacing. All in all, a series of criminal acts, each with legal penalties.

His next logical step: Getting out his scope-sighted .300 Win Magnum deer rifle and firing shots at a news helicopter...you know, because it was "hu'vrin!"

I quite agree with recklessness of shooting at the drone, and don't get the shooter's distinction between shooting a 22 and the buckshot. As I learned in high school physics, whatever is shot upward will slow down due to gravity until at its apex it will have all its kinetic energy converted to potential energy. Then it starts down an all that potential energy is converted kinetic energy. In other words, it comes down basically as fast as it went up (a little energy is lost due to air friction). That buckshot can do damage and hurt innocent people. I think of this lesson in physics whenever I see read about people celebrating by shooting guns in the air. What do they think happens to the bullets?

Sorry, but terminal velocity will keep the falling shot from reaching anywhere near the initial velocity it had when it left the barrel of the shotgun.

A 30-06 fired up into the air will have an initial velocity of 2,900 feet per second when it leaves the rifle barrel. A .30 caliber rounds will reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second on descent.

Since bullets almost never fall straight down (long axis vertical) would the difference in drag realative to a round object be significant? Also would the buckshot have a smaller area? I thought both were true, but the last gun I fired was my Red Rider pump action BB gun.

 

[Designer]

Speaking of criminality; what would we call taking video of the girl sunbathing? Assuming she was wearing a swim suit, it would not be classified as child pornography, but what about just a video? Is that legal, considering that she had the expectation of privacy in her own backyard?