FAA Investigating Teen That Made The Gun-Firing Drone

maxius said:
NO ONE SEES THAT A GUN FIRED FROM REMOTE ARIAL PLATFORM IS NOT AN ISSUE. SINE WHEN DID DRONES GET 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IF THE DRONE MALFUNCTIONED AND SOMEONE WAS SHOT WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE?!
Click to expand...

Capslock?

but seriously, the whole point of 2nd amendment rights is to provide the right/responsibility to be able to go to war with the government. No joke, read it. So in actuality, there should be NO regulations on weapons of ANY kind, as the 2nd amendment wishes the commoner to be able to organize into non-government militias that can challenge the government.

The Drone is the wepon, it does not posses the weapon.
 
KazeoHin said:
Capslock?

but seriously, the whole point of 2nd amendment rights is to provide the right/responsibility to be able to go to war with the government. No joke, read it. So in actuality, there should be NO regulations on weapons of ANY kind, as the 2nd amendment wishes the commoner to be able to organize into non-government militias that can challenge the government.

The Drone is the wepon, it does not posses the weapon.
Click to expand...

It's a hugely difficult issue to discuss that you can't really simplify. Like most people are too stupid and emotional to stay sober when they have to drive or pay their bills They don't at all need to be able to own nerve agents or like city destroying bombs, but yeah that was kinda the idea of the 2nd amendment when it was written...mostly because such things didn't exist and weren't something those people could even imagine back then.

The best way to end the debate and keep an irresponsible society safe from itself is to just get rid of that amendment completely and then there's no more weight behind the argument that it exists. It'll be pretty painful for people who need a firearm to feel masculine, but it's best for everyone in the long term to disarm average people by taking away firearms and regulating knives, pencils, shoe laces, and other stuff that they could use to accidentally or intentionally hurt themselves or other people.
 
wizzi01 said:
What exactly would the atf do?
Click to expand...

Considering they enforce (harr harr harr) on a federal level laws covering firearms depending on how they interpreted the gray area two different felonies and a large fine.

Also because it is in CT you've got some funky laws that can come up, and the whole state park (and I don't know if he was policing his brass) thing might also get pushed.
 
Merc1138 said:
The idiot operating it, just like anyone who negligently discharges a firearm they're holding in their hand... using existing laws that we already have.

BTW, your caps lock key seems to have malfunctioned.
Click to expand...

There is no way to determine who is operating drones.
 
This drone is clearly out of FAA jurisdiction.
Flying a drone that low does not give FAA the right to prosecute anyone.
Trespassing? Maybe. Gun ownership violation? There's a chance. Discharging of firearm in non-approved location? Possible.
Other organizations could well prosecute, but the FAA has no beef in this case.
 
BoogerBomb said:
There is no way to determine who is operating drones.
Click to expand...

Actually you can within certain limitations.

If you have the drone and then take X# of controllers from people and match the pair you know.

If you have just the drone (which can be brought down through various destructive and non-destructive means) you can determine based on GPS where the drone launched from and then pair it to any phones in the area. Or just search any files stored on the drone like past GPS locations that might you know be from someones house when they powered it on. Or even through any GPS locator that's added to the drone that works via SMS.

Most drones have some form of on board storage and many have GPS that also stores basically everything from when its been powered on. Think about just how much can be recovered from a hard drive in various states of wipe/destruction and you know that some unwiped storage on a drone is basically a jackpot of info for people.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Oh boo fucking hoo at your "freedoms" of making unmanned vehicle that remotely fired guns might be infringed in the future.
Click to expand...

Is an unmanned vehicle that remotely fires a gun illegal? If it is, then I wonder how DoD got their exemptions or does government just hate competition? Or is it freedom for me, but not for thee? Incremental encroachment on rights, freedoms, and liberties is a serious issue, but hey, you just keep on being cavalier about the whole thing. Besides, why do you care since your clear dismissive attitude doesn't warrant an opinion or commentary.
 
Methadras said:
Is an unmanned vehicle that remotely fires a gun illegal? If it is, then I wonder how DoD got their exemptions or does government just hate competition? Or is it freedom for me, but not for thee? Incremental encroachment on rights, freedoms, and liberties is a serious issue, but hey, you just keep on being cavalier about the whole thing. Besides, why do you care since your clear dismissive attitude doesn't warrant an opinion or commentary.
Click to expand...

So without going full bore legal on you.

Yes and no

It falls into what the remote/unmanned vehicle is and what the intent is. However in this case none of that matters as an aerial platform that is weaponized be it remote or manned does fall into FAA territory. The actual process to get a "legal" weaponized drone for civilian use is pretty questionable as there aren't any cut and dried documents about it that I'm aware of but we both know why the DoD has drones that can work.

People hear FAA and they think this is about the airspace and it isn't, what it boils down to is that when you strap a weapon to an aircraft be it a drone or a plane you have some federal hoops you need to jump through to get the correct registration and authorization to operate it.
 
Methadras said:
Besides, why do you care since your clear dismissive attitude doesn't warrant an opinion or commentary.
Click to expand...
Dismissive? No, quite the opposite. The reason why I care is because that is the nature of things, for for the same reason someone think that a civilian aircraft with remote fired weapons should be legal because the military uses them, there's people like me who think that under no circumstances should that be allowed to happen.
 
caddys83 said:
Always someone who has to fuck shit up for the rest of us.:mad:
Click to expand...


Like people haven't been flying them in places they couldn't, already. Wait until some jackass hits a plane with one.

C'mon this was a logical step that somebody was going to make, at least he did a good job of combining the two.
 
LBJM said:
Like people haven't been flying them in places they couldn't, already. Wait until some jackass hits a plane with one.

C'mon this was a logical step that somebody was going to make, at least he did a good job of combining the two.
Click to expand...

Look up "bird strike" on aircraft and you see why around airports it is a no fly zone for drones as well as takeoff/landing approaches.
 
LBJM said:
Like people haven't been flying them in places they couldn't, already. Wait until some jackass hits a plane with one.

C'mon this was a logical step that somebody was going to make, at least he did a good job of combining the two.
Click to expand...

It really is a shame when a few bad apples screw things up for others, but I agree it was only a matter of time. This will not be the last I'm sure, you can guarantee after this vid was made there are dozens if not hundreds of people out there trying to build their own now.

And just as predictably, some BS feel good laws will come along that do nothing to anyone actually willing to break the law to hurt people in the first place....

The only thing that would make this not happen, and has kept it happening before now, is for the tech to be expensive. And that cat is leaving the proverbial bag.

I'm waiting for the bomb dropping software, I think the auto stabilization soft/hardware I've seen online that is pretty consumer level could handle it. IED's falling from the sky, I bet this sorta thing keeps some people up at night. I feel for em.
 
Ramses said:
It really is a shame when a few bad apples screw things up for others, but I agree it was only a matter of time. This will not be the last I'm sure, you can guarantee after this vid was made there are dozens if not hundreds of people out there trying to build their own now.

And just as predictably, some BS feel good laws will come along that do nothing to anyone actually willing to break the law to hurt people in the first place....

The only thing that would make this not happen, and has kept it happening before now, is for the tech to be expensive. And that cat is leaving the proverbial bag.

I'm waiting for the bomb dropping software, I think the auto stabilization soft/hardware I've seen online that is pretty consumer level could handle it. IED's falling from the sky, I bet this sorta thing keeps some people up at night. I feel for em.
Click to expand...
Software? It wouldn't be that hard to make a basket that can dump an object out. Hell, amazon has been fiddling around with that for a while.

Quick, make more laws against it!

Even though the criminals don't already care about laws in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be killing people, destroying property, etc.
 
Merc1138 said:
Software? It wouldn't be that hard to make a basket that can dump an object out. Hell, amazon has been fiddling around with that for a while.

Quick, make more laws against it!

Even though the criminals don't already care about laws in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be killing people, destroying property, etc.
Click to expand...

I was thinking actual targeting software that would sample wind and object movement and alter the drones position to make whatever it's dropping hit the target. Stuffs been around for aircraft forever in one form or another.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Yes, it's great to wait around until someone gets killed or maimed to react rather than proactively addressing the problem. I'm sure if someone you cared about was killed by a kid with an RC toy he stuck a gun onto, you'd be upset that no one addressed this issue until after the fact when a life is already lost.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about? Like I said. Murder or manslaughter is murder or manslaughter. Putting the gun on the drone still makes it the operator's gun. Whatever happens to someone else because of that is the operator's problem, just as certainly as if he held the gun himself and shot someone.

You don't need MORE laws for that. We already have it.

Your comment is a knee-jerk reaction to make yourself feel better by passing a law. A law that people dumb or vicious enough to break are going to break anyway.

In case you had not figured it out yet, I think anyone who does this is out of their damn minds because they can be, should be and are morally bound to be liable for what happens.

Just like if you run someone down with your car doing something stupid. 6000lbs of car in a teenager's hands is more likely to kill you than a dumb drone gun stunt. But either one could.

How many laws does it take to define every last stupid thing a human being can do?

Just tell these people that every known gun law on the books still applies while they fly these things and that they are going to be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens and they WILL screw up their lives sooner or later playing with these things.
 
Blazemore said:
Just a matter of time before a drone is used in a murder if it hasn't already....that's scary.
Click to expand...

Predator says hi

predator-7.jpg
 
I wonder if they'd be upset if I hung a pistol from a tree branch with some strings, then tied another string around the trigger and pulled it from a few yards away?
 
Think realistically about this. OK so what a person gets a RC vehicle and attaches a gun to kill someone. Sounds like an amazing idea right, everyone is so scared, OMG its the perfect murder. But realistically this is even more overblown than the obsessions people had with xbone spying. In any murder you have evidence and if you want to get away with it you don't want a trail of evidence. You could go get a rifle of which there are millions and just shoot someone from a distance. You could pack a handgun and do it from a shorter range and just try to do it when you are unlikely to get caught. Or you could come up with a ridiculous plan to use a "drone". The problem with your plan is you now have isolated yourself as a primary suspect because the reality is everyone in the town is going to know who that guy who flys the drones is or who is buddy is or whomever is technically inclined enough to pull it off. Even if they don't you still are going to have to plan this out extremely well in order to make sure you cover all your tracks and none of the drone or parts are traceable. Because drones are much less common than and noticeable than just using a handgun. And I didn't even touch on the possibility that you will simply screw this up and miss. Oh and if you were thinking of using the element of surprise this loud flying thing might not work. It's also worth mentioning if you want to commit a murder its a really good idea to increase your odds of getting away with it by making sure no one finds the murder weapon. Well now you got a problem because your drone has to be disposed of too which is probably bigger, and harder to get rid of and even more noticeable. Meanwhile none of you blink at the fact that you are most likely to get killed by a car, nope you are going to run out and jump in your car tomorrow. Instead we freak out about the extremely remote chance that someone is going to murder our useless selves with a gun strapped onto a drone.
 
Ramses said:
I was thinking actual targeting software that would sample wind and object movement and alter the drones position to make whatever it's dropping hit the target. Stuffs been around for aircraft forever in one form or another.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I get what you mean. Although that level of complexity is really unnecessary. If you're going to go through all of that, just strap the bomb to the thing and fly it into whatever the target is and detonate it. It's not as if a terrorist would need to be dropping anything from much of an altitude to cause an incident(and it's not as if multiple quadcopters couldn't be used), and they could have done that long before 1 guy posted a video on youtube. Heck, the ability to pull that off via RC vehicles has been around for years and I don't see it suddenly being an issue just because it's cheap to get something that flies now.
 
Advil said:
What are you even talking about? Like I said. Murder or manslaughter is murder or manslaughter. Putting the gun on the drone still makes it the operator's gun. Whatever happens to someone else because of that is the operator's problem, just as certainly as if he held the gun himself and shot someone.

You don't need MORE laws for that. We already have it.

Your comment is a knee-jerk reaction to make yourself feel better by passing a law. A law that people dumb or vicious enough to break are going to break anyway.

In case you had not figured it out yet, I think anyone who does this is out of their damn minds because they can be, should be and are morally bound to be liable for what happens.

Just like if you run someone down with your car doing something stupid. 6000lbs of car in a teenager's hands is more likely to kill you than a dumb drone gun stunt. But either one could.

How many laws does it take to define every last stupid thing a human being can do?

Just tell these people that every known gun law on the books still applies while they fly these things and that they are going to be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens and they WILL screw up their lives sooner or later playing with these things.
Click to expand...

In general, I agree that we need fewer laws. The one that permits people to own weapons by defining it as an exceptional case, the 2nd amendment, needs to go. We can repeal it and eliminate firearms altogether with is a good middle ground for us both that gets rid of a law that's stupid in modern times and removes the entire matter of what is and isn't acceptable with respect to ownership of weapons because it removes the legal loophole that those idiots who made it created in the first place and cascade downward into removing the host of other laws associated with the regulation of firearm ownership, just replacing it with a big, sensible "Nope!" instead.

It'd suck for a while while a few loud crazies protest the change (just like they're doing over that dumb flag removal thing right now), but a few generations later, it won't matter to anyone. We have to start somewhere and I agree that reducing the number of laws is a great direction to go.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
In general, I agree that we need fewer laws. The one that permits people to own weapons by defining it as an exceptional case, the 2nd amendment, needs to go. We can repeal it and eliminate firearms altogether with is a good middle ground for us both that gets rid of a law that's stupid in modern times and removes the entire matter of what is and isn't acceptable with respect to ownership of weapons because it removes the legal loophole that those idiots who made it created in the first place and cascade downward into removing the host of other laws associated with the regulation of firearm ownership, just replacing it with a big, sensible "Nope!" instead.

It'd suck for a while while a few loud crazies protest the change (just like they're doing over that dumb flag removal thing right now), but a few generations later, it won't matter to anyone. We have to start somewhere and I agree that reducing the number of laws is a great direction to go.
Click to expand...

I couldn't believe what I was reading until I saw your username. I don't think I need to call you delusional because most people I'm sure already know that.

So, how do you plan on "getting rid of all the guns"

Please enlighten us all on how this can be done.

Once law abiding good people no longer have means to defend their families, how do you propose getting all the guns from the criminals and gangs in the illegal/stolen gun business?

Do you want to volunteer to go into Compton, south central, Kensington, Detroit, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Trenton, Camden, Chicago, Boston, etc to take all the guns away from the gang bangers, drug dealers, pimps, and murderers?

Or maybe you would just like to send in some jack booted thugs to go around door kicking innocent people's homes until they find them all? Which wouldn't even work, because it's impossible to find them all.

You are so delusional and your ideas are so toxic that it sickens me
 
Converge said:
I couldn't believe what I was reading until I saw your username. I don't think I need to call you delusional because most people I'm sure already know that.

So, how do you plan on "getting rid of all the guns"

Please enlighten us all on how this can be done.

Once law abiding good people no longer have means to defend their families, how do you propose getting all the guns from the criminals and gangs in the illegal/stolen gun business?

Do you want to volunteer to go into Compton, south central, Kensington, Detroit, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Trenton, Camden, Chicago, Boston, etc to take all the guns away from the gang bangers, drug dealers, pimps, and murderers?

Or maybe you would just like to send in some jack booted thugs to go around door kicking innocent people's homes until they find them all? Which wouldn't even work, because it's impossible to find them all.

You are so delusional and your ideas are so toxic that it sickens me
Click to expand...

Oh I totally don't think it'd happen overnight. Getting people out of the "must own a gun to feel safe" mindset and also at the same time taking them off the streets and out of the hands of criminals would be a long process that would have to start with making sure all legally owned firearms are gathered and recycled into something more useful first and that alone would be a big deal because of people who are so skittish about it (like the Texans that were reportedly burying their guns out of fear of them being taken away during an unrelated military exercise). I'm thinking attrition over time is the only realistic way to approach it and even that's not gonna be a 100% solution. Just like how in more intelligent, better nations, there are still occasional gun-related violence things happening, the US will hafta deal with that for many years to come, but seizures and stuff will fix it over time and slowly shift culture away from the outdated gun owning societal problems we have now.
 
Oh and by the way, those "idiots" who created the 2nd Amendment and the Constituion built this nation for all people, even blabbering fools like you. Without the 2a, you wouldn't have a country let alone a 1st Amendment to be able to go around spewing your toxic sludge poorly concealed as an opinion.

It's nice to know you don't want innocent people to be able to protect their families and themselves. Let me guess, they should just call the police if 3 people break into their home and decide they don't want to leave witnesses? Just call the police right.... ?
 
Converge said:
Oh and by the way, those "idiots" who created the 2nd Amendment and the Constituion built this nation for all people, even blabbering fools like you. Without the 2a, you wouldn't have a country let alone a 1st Amendment to be able to go around spewing your toxic sludge poorly concealed as an opinion.

It's nice to know you don't want innocent people to be able to protect their families and themselves. Let me guess, they should just call the police if 3 people break into their home and decide they don't want to leave witnesses? Just call the police right.... ?
Click to expand...

The number of instances where a person can benefit from having a safely stored firearm to stop a home invasion is really, really low. Nevermind the number of home invasions in total being super low to begin with so I doubt that there'll be a meaningfully significant change in those demographics during the time period when we're adjusting. Its just that sort of thinking in general that has to get addressed and changed at a basic cultural level to clear the US of broken, outdated thinking that's largely based on biased sources of information that prey on male insecurities.

Anyhow, I'm okay with most of the amendments, but there's really nothing about the 2nd one that I think changed or benefited people in a meaningful way. Of course, that's water under the bridge and unless you have a time machine so we can go back in time and tell those people that they can't write stuff that implies citizens can maintain a dangerous NBC stockpile, we won't be able to measure the differences beyond armchair speculation.
 
so even the government doesn't know if it's own arbitrary rules were violated.

sounds about right.
 
Dead Parrot said:
My question when I saw the video was which govt agency would investigate. FAA for aviation violations, ATF for firearms, HSA for it being a possible terrorist threat, or CIA wanting to hire the kid to assist with their development of the same thing.:cool:
Click to expand...

How about the local sheriff arrest him for disturbing the peace or endangering the public.
Let's not over think this guys motives.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The number of instances where a person can benefit from having a safely stored firearm to stop a home invasion is really, really low.
Click to expand...
It's actually so low that a firearm, kept for defence, is many times more likely to result in the injury or death of a family member.
 
low is a subjective value.

luckily, if you don't feel comfortable with a firearm in your home, you don't have to have one.
 
Merc1138 said:
Ok, but making it illegal for people to do it who aren't causing any actual problems, does nothing to stop the people who would do it for the purpose of disrupting the lives of others.
Click to expand...

I'm more so thinking that, if the FAA would actually codify the things they think should or should not be allowed, we might be able to avoid the foolishness of the FAA investigating a case of misused firearms, simply because someone strapped said firearm to an object that flies.
 
Draax said:
It's actually so low that a firearm, kept for defence, is many times more likely to result in the injury or death of a family member.
Click to expand...

I yelled at my guns all the time to get them to go out and kill. Guess mine are defective since none of them went out to kill anyone.

I'd love to have statistics on my side but I prefer my .45 and not leave it to chance. I have a gun so I'm not part of those statistics.
 
Oh, crap. There goes the neighborhood.

Despite calls to arrest the man, police say they can't find any reason to charge him. "It appears to be a case of technology surpassing current legislation," they said. Todd Lawrie, the chief of police where it happened, said, "We are attempting to determine if any laws have been violated at this point. It would seem to the average person, there should be something prohibiting a person from attaching a weapon to a drone. At this point, we can't find anything that's been violated. The legislature in Connecticut (recently) addressed a number of questions with drones, mostly around how law enforcement was going to use drones. It is a gray area, and it's caught the legislature flatfooted." The FAA and other federal agencies are still investigating and trying to figure out if any criminal statutes were violated
Click to expand...
 
fail to see the issue, US has been using drones overseas to kill civilians for years, why make a fuss now

lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top