back to article Dad who shot 'snooping vid drone' out of the sky is cleared of charges

A father who shot down a drone that was hovering over his family home in Kentucky has been cleared of all charges. Dad-of-two William Merideth thought the quadcopter was spying on his daughters in their yard in Hillview, and blasted the gizmo out of the sky with a shotgun. That earned him the title "Drone Slayer" from pro- …

  1. Chris G Silver badge

    Bullit County

    I love it Nominative Determinism!

    Nice to see a judge with a little common sense, if some of the dipshits who fly their drones without concern for othershear of this , perhaps they will think a little more.

    Or perhaps not.

    1. chivo243 Silver badge

      Re: Bullit County

      Beat me to it... I too am glad to hear there is some sanity still prevailing in the courts... I hope this sets an early precedent against this kind of snooping. If the operator's last frame is two circles with fire streaming at him, he should just shut his mouth and cut his losses. Especially if this earlier footage contained the marksman's daughters.

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: Bullit County

        >Especially if this earlier footage contained the marksman's daughters.

        For sure. Curiously, the article didn't note if any evidence of deliberate spying was presented in court, only that "Merideth *thought* the quadcopter was spying on his daughters in their yard". (my emphasis)

        1. toughluck

          Re: Bullit County

          @Dave 126: That is immaterial. He had no way of knowing if the drone operator was filming his daughters or not, and it didn't matter because the operator was invading his privacy.

          If Mr. Merideth had a way of knowing that the drone was clearly facing away and if the flight pattern clearly showed it was flying through the area rather than loitering, then he could be in trouble. I presume the court established that. Even if not, if Mr. Boggs attempts to appeal or sue, the onus is on him.

          In a similar situation, if you're cornered by a thug brandishing a knife, but you're armed, you have no duty to retreat, and you are not expected to inspect the knife to make sure that it's actually dangerous. If you shoot him and the knife turns out to be a plastic toy (some toys these are), it doesn't play much of a role, you had no way of knowing and you were protecting yourself against what seemed to have been a very real danger.

          1. Allan George Dyer Silver badge

            Re: Bullit County

            "In a similar situation, if you're cornered by a thug brandishing a knife"

            But the situation was not similar. Perhaps a person wearing a baseball cap and carrying a baseball bat walking towards you is more similar... no cornering, no brandishing, the potential weapon has legitimate uses.

            Secondly, how much violence can be legitimately used in defence of privacy? He discharged a potentially lethal weapon (not at a person, admittedly) in a residential area.

            I'd say the garden hose option would be much preferable.

            1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

              Re: Bullit County

              The snooping (real or potential) could be someone monitoring a house in preparation of committing a serious crime such as the rape of the daughters. Destroying the drone probably did not prevent a rape because it probably was not considered.

              I believe the drone was shot down using a shotgun which is less likely to endanger people down range. One the range of shotgun is not the far, much shorter than most rifles.

              1. chivo243 Silver badge

                Re: Bullit County

                You are correct, shotguns are dead on in close range, but lose their punch when pointed skyward and the shots have to go up and down and drift apart. It might sound like sleet hitting your roof if you heard anything. I've never heard of an injury from falling shot...

                In the end if you are being surveilled, you would want to take action no?

                Liberties and freedoms are slipping away....

            2. James Micallef Silver badge

              Re: Bullit County

              "But the situation was not similar"

              The drone was over his property = trespass. If someone was physically there, the owner would be fully entitled to ask the trespasser to leave, and forcefully eject him if not complied with. In this case it isn't clear whether he could identify / communicate with the drone pilot, I'm guessing not.

              The guy was fully entitled to forcibly eject the drone from his property. Now, maybe it's possible that the guy could have used some non-fatal (to the drone) way of bringing it down, but probably not. So shooting it down should be OK.

              The only reason I would censure the shooter would be if for example the trajectory of the shot got bits of shot on a public area where they could hurt someone (which I guess is the 'endangerment' part of the charge brought against him), but that is related to correct firearm usage and not strictly related to shooting the drone down.

              1. Nigel 11

                Re: Bullit County

                All in all congratulations to the judge. For once USA law is not an ass.

                A drone is a piece of equipment, not a person. The only issue at stake in its destruction is property rights. It's far less of a moral issue than shooting at a person, even at a person clearly threatening violence. The maximum penalty should be the replacement cost of the drone paid to its owner, plus administrative costs to the law. (And in my book the drone owner ought to be on the hook for those administrative costs if his complaint is not upheld).

                It's right that the law considers whether discharging a shotgun (upwards) in a built-up area presented any significant threat to the population at large. I'm no expert but I think not. Shotgun pellets won't be dangerous when they fall back to earth (unlike much heavier bullets, especially ones discharged only slightly upwards from the horizontal). So, no public safety issue.

                So what needs to be decided is the relative rights of a landowner over whose territory a drone is hovering, and rights of the owner of that drone. I think they've got this right. A drone hovering at low altitude over my land is invading my privacy, and there's no practical way to remove it that's nondestructive. So blasting it ought to be allowed. (Incidentally what's the upwards range of a shotgun? )

                At a later date maybe there will need to be a statutory definition of hovering versus flying across, and an altitude below which a non-hovering drone is not allowed to cross private property without consent. But even after that's in place and someone blasts a "legal" drone, I'll go back to my original point. It's a piece of equipment. Maximum penalty = reasonable replacement cost. Damage to its owner's ego - tough!

                1. jgarry

                  Re: Bullit County

                  For those who think random shotgun pellets falling from the sky into your eye aren't dangerous, consider two things:

                  There are a lot of pellets scattered semi-randomly

                  Pellets are round pieces of metal, so terminal descent velocity is not exactly feathery

                  Now google for shotgun pellet in eye injury images.

                  Now do the math: http://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2012/9/24/its-the-math-stupid/

                  1. Morat

                    Re: Bullit County

                    You need to distinguish between firing up in the air at a drone and firing direcly at a person's chest at 10 yards (which is what the article you linked to is talking about).

                    Shotguns are specifically designed to take out airborne targets without causing damage on the ground to beaters, pickers up, gamekeepers etc who may well be "downrange" of the gun line but safe because the guns shoot upwards. I've been hit by falling shot many times, it just patters off your coat like rain.

                2. Elf
                  Pint

                  Re: Bullit County

                  Shotgun Ballistics (Based On Shell Type) I'm unsure what load he was using as it seems unspecified in any articles I can find. Were I his neighbour I'd take some umbrage at tossing a slug around my place but I find this unlikely. I might also have some problems with buckshot. Were I his direct neighbour though, and he were tossing some birdshot in the air at a drone over his property, well, might hand him a beer, look at the wreck, and say "Well...damn shame to have to kill a decent chunk of tech because the operator was stupid.".

              2. bobstay

                Re: Bullit County

                "The drone was over his property = trespass."

                By that logic you'd be entitled to shoot down any 747 that flies over your house, which is clearly absurd.

                What height are you going to draw the line?

                1. chivo243 Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: Bullit County

                  @bobstay

                  Or what depth... 250m below the surface of the earth oil is found, is it yours?

                  Back to your question, I doubt you have the firepower to take down a 747. However, if it were close enough to hit with a shotgun, he's flying mighty low and I doubt the voyeurs on the plane are really thinking about copping a quick flick of nude sunbathers.

                  Also, I have to doubt the 747 is just hovering about here and there over your garden...

                  "What height are you going to draw the line?"

                  I would have to believe that line would be just above the range of your firepower... legal laws or no. Laws of physics still apply.

                2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: Bullit County

                  "By that logic you'd be entitled to shoot down any 747 that flies over your house, which is clearly absurd.

                  What height are you going to draw the line?"

                  In most places the law says 400 feet. And blood good on this man for fucking that drone up. Doubly good on the judge for letting him. Finally some sanity regarding this drone bull.

            3. LucreLout Silver badge

              Re: Bullit County

              @Allan George Dyer

              Perhaps a person wearing a baseball cap and carrying a baseball bat walking towards you is more similar... no cornering, no brandishing, the potential weapon has legitimate uses.

              Sure, but if you're in my yard, without invitation, while my children are there, then I'm not going to assume you're looking for the batting cage. I'm going to stand my ground and defend my family and my home. You may well win, but you'll not be unharmed.

              Secondly, how much violence can be legitimately used in defence of privacy?

              Violence towards a drone? Total destruction seems a sensible limit. Against the operator? Only as much as is required to restrain you until the authorities arrive.

              Sorry, but my home is not your play ground.

            4. Eddy Ito Silver badge

              Re: Bullit County

              I'd say the garden hose option would be much preferable.

              A garden hose isn't likely a viable option. Even if he has 80 psi head pressure he's going to lose quite a bit once it reaches the far end of a 1/2" maybe 3/8" copper line with assorted tees, elbows, shutoffs and freeze protection valves. Add to that the potential age of the construction with scale built up inside the pipes and you're not going to get much range when it reaches the end of a 50 foot garden hose. It is a garden hose attached to a bib after all; it's not a water cannon connected to a fire hydrant.

            5. StudeJeff

              Re: Bullit County

              A garden hose doesn't have the range or stopping power of a shotgun.

          2. Tom 13

            Re: flight pattern clearly showed it was flying through

            That's easily dismissed. Even if

            - yuv got your best shoot'n iron in an easy release rack on the back of yur pick-up

            - it's loaded with the appropriate shot for drone hunt'n

            - yur outside at the time of the flight

            it still takes more time to get it, cock it, aim it, and pull the trigger than the drone would need to fly through your airspace in a straight line.

            QED.

          3. CheesyTheClown

            Re: Bullit County

            Let's start by saying I enjoy a day at the shooting range when the opportunity presents itself and I can get a friend in the military or the police to "share some ammo" since I'll take up macrame before shooting at those prices. And I don't even know what macrame is.

            I grew up in New York, was mugged 3 times growing up and generally found that being intelligent and speaking calmly and considering "Why would this guy need a 15 year old's $10 so bad he'd resort to this? Is he doing it because it's fun or because he's desperate? Can I come up with a better solution here than people ending up hurt or arrested?". In two of three of the cases, I ended up at McDonald's sharing a meal and stories with the guys. This is no exaggeration or joke. In one case, I felt (in my young naivety) that I might have helped the guy see a better solution to his problems.

            As a guy, and a not so attractive one, I don't generally worry that someone will want to rape me. I guess it could be a concern with my wife or daughter, but there's things in life which make sense for anyone which is "If you're out on a party night in the city, travel in groups. Alcohol + People = Stupid people with bad judgement". Still, the best solution in general is not to go out of my way to place myself or my family's lives in positions where these things can be an issue. I'm not running or cowering, it's more like how I don't try to juggle knives. It seems like a lot of fun to me, but I know I'm bound to learn a hard lesson from it.

            You state "In a similar situation, if you're cornered by a thug brandishing a knife, but you're armed, you have no duty to retreat,"

            And all I could read there is "Are you really that impressively stupid?" ... I honestly really love the wording you used. It sounds as if this is a matter of duty and honor, as if we're all battlefield and glory. This isn't battlefield and glory and there is absolutely no such thing as glory on the battlefield unless you're an idiot anyway. That's crap that governments sell weak minded people to make sure they have someone on their team. Being a soldier is just a job... a VERY WELL PAID job... but roughly equal to driving a garbage truck or delivering news papers. If you're dumb enough to think that swinging guns around and shooting people for a living is heroic, you're a moron. It's a shit job and it screws you out of years of developmental opportunities that prepare you for when you can't play fun and games running around shooting people you don't even know for reasons you don't even understand.

            There is no duty, honor or sanity in what you say. Even more so... you're saying "Even if I can get away, my bravado and pride makes it so that the better thing to do is to pull my gun and escalate the problem". You're just as much of a criminal as the other guy if you think this way.

            1) I have no problem with people having guns. I live in Norway now which has one of the highest percentage of gun owners. Carrying a gun on the street is illegal and generally pointless. Even the cops don't do it.

            2) I do have a problem with people who seem to think there's an issue of duty or honor to "pop a cap in that bitches ass" when they threaten me with a knife or make me generally sad. I have an issue with some moron who thinks "Hey! If I have a gun. Let me shoot first and ask questions later! Oh... I prepared myself for this situation... no I didn't learn things like how to manage conflicts. I went to the shooting range and made sure I clearly understood my rights regarding how to properly shoot them so I can go to court and win". Seriously... you clearly demonstrated that you have a pre-prepared defense it seem you've been practicing to justify killing another person while simply waiting for an opportunity to use it. I personally would love to know the name of the prosecuting attorney in the trial when it happens so I could share this posting with him. To me this is practically premeditated murder by a person who hasn't even identified his victim but wakes up each morning praying for a change to exercise his rights by law to kill someone.

            Do you intentionally hang out in band neighborhoods? Do you have a conceal carry permit? Do you keep it close by? Are you so confident of you rights and defense that you don't even keep a lawyer on speed dial for defending you against charges over the murder but instead have 10 lawyers on speed dial in case someone tries to take your gun away from you? Do you wake up each day hoping someone from the government will come and try and take your gun away so you can exercise your second amendment right and shoot them because it's clear a tyranny has come into power and it's your personal responsibility to take up arms against them... no... not your right. It's you're duty!

            People like you give me nightmares. Armed idiots who premeditate murder, sometimes for years or decades and simply hope the world is so bad that you'll get a chance to finally do it. You're actually the reason we need stricter guns laws and why the second amendment needs to be further amended to include some "within reason" clause.

        2. WalterAlter

          Re: Bullit County

          Yah, right, the drone was just "passing through", meanwhile dad has time to run to the gun cabinet, load his Mossberg run back out to the yard, aim and blast that sucker with birdshot which has an effective maximum range of 60 yards. That operator peckerhead succombed to the temptation of voyeurism.

          Beware you nude sunbathers, a decent steady cam can zoom in on you from a quarter mile. Some bright lad is going to make a gizmo and app that will Tempest read the cam's signature, attach it to the control signal and give you the coordinates to the operator, whereby you and your mates can jump in the 4X4, arrive with the proper tools of physical mayhem and have the operator and his sex toy waltzing Matilda.

        3. Public Citizen
          Linux

          Re: Bullit County

          In the USA, particularly in states with laws regarding the sanctity of private property, there is a presumption of the right to oppose trespass.

          If the drone was hovering in the low level airspace over the property then the owner was within his rights to take the action he did, particularly if his children were playing in the yard.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Bullit County

            > If the drone was hovering in the low level airspace over the property then the owner was within his rights to take the action he did

            The counter argument is that the FAA considers a drone to be a form of unmanned civil aircraft and it's a federal crime to shoot at an aircraft - punishable by 20 years in the slammer.

    2. Jim 59

      Re: Bullit County

      Good ol' boy!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mr Boggs came across as something of a confrontational creep in the news stories.

    Too bad the judge didn't rule that you can also dispatch jerks like that from your property with a load of buckshot in the rear for encouragement.

    I believe that falls under the "He had it coming" statute.

    1. chivo243 Silver badge

      "He had it coming" statute.

      Sir, I believe you have summed it nicely... Up vote

    2. Mark 85 Silver badge

      I would hope that whatever route he chooses to take will result in the court version of a shotgun blast of rock salt to his butt. What a twit.. demanding payment for his stupidity.

      But then again, stranger things have happened here in the States. Consider that much of the cost of a ladder is for liability insurance for the manufacturer because idiots have done dumb things and sued.... and one. Thus all the warning stickers on them also.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yup... tough luck. Next time, try not hovering within shotgun range over other people's property.

        This guy should just forget about lawsuits and go do something fun and useful with his drones, for example, dropping flaming turds on insurance companies.

  3. emmanuel goldstein

    how did the drone's owner justify having it hover over someone's property?

    I would shoot down a drone spying on my family. Oh. no I wouldn't because we're generally not allowed access to firearms in the u.k.

    1. FIA

      how did the drone's owner justify having it hover over someone's property?

      He claims it never flew below 200ft.

      1. Mage Silver badge

        200ft

        Zoom lens on camera?

        Still, decent cartridges to down a drone at 200ft?

      2. Steve Todd

        Is that 200 feet

        AMSL (which most aircraft fly to) or AGL? 200 feet with bird shot is, to say the least, improbable.

      3. Chris G Silver badge

        40 yards is generally considered maximum effective range for bird shot from a twelve bore and that is usually at a fairly low angle, so definitely anything over 200 ft(67yds ish) is not going to suffer.

        For high flying drones you will need to live in a State where firing a .30 cal from your back garden is legal.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Well, that is one very effective shotgun at 200 feet.

        Almost calls Mr Bogg's credibility in to question.....

        1. SuccessCase

          Not at all. On a clay pigeon shoot a 50 yards (150 feet) is considered a long range shot because it is difficult to hit the clay at that distance, but a top pro will do it easily and consistently. If on target you will consistently brake a clay at much greater distances than that. Taking down a drone at 200 feet would be childs play as even a small drone will be twice the size of a clay pigeon and much slower moving (if not "stationary") so far easier to hit.

          1. Mark 85 Silver badge

            Are they using birdshot when shooting trap? I thought it was a larger size of shot?

            1. Soap Distant

              @Mark 85

              Yes, it's generally limited to size 6 to 9 (2.79mm to 2.03mm diameter shot wikipedia, could be horseshit) it's very small in any case. I'm not sure on the primary uses of shotguns in the US, maybe more hunting which would use much larger shot, maybe 5mm diameter and a count of only 30 or so per cartridge.

              @Successcase

              The spread of the shot at that range is vast. At 40 yards with a full choke fitted only 70% of the shot will be in a 30" circle. With commonly used chokes it drops to 40%. At 67 yards with large shot there would be huge holes in the shot pattern, so it was a very lucky shot. With smaller shot I doubt it would break the drone.

              The best clay shooters (google George Digweed) in the world can break clays at about 400ft range but clays are very fragile and those shots are no easy feat. If this guy hit the drone at a near vertical 200ft he should start competing (and most likely winning!)

              Good outcome from the judge I think though.

              SD

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            And a top pro runner can consistently run a four minute mile.

            But I'll never come close to that time and I don't think I could ever make that shot - I believe it was one shot, and with bird shot?

          3. charles paul

            Finally, someone has an intelligent comment about the range of shot.

          4. Nigel 11

            There's a difference (gravity!) between upwards range and horizontal range. I don't think clay pigeons are ever 50 yards vertical. I don't shoot but watching, they seem to be aiming upwards at something like 30 degrees.

          5. PatientOne

            @SuccessCase

            you're mixing horizontal and vertical.

            The drone was claimed to be 200' + vertically (in the air). I didn't see anything about the horizontal distance from the shooter, but that would just increase the range.

            Clay pigeon shoot: How high are the disks launched? I've seen a few shoots (not participated, just spectated) and they may be 100' horizontal distance, but they're at most 30' vertical.

            Plus don't confuse how far a shot can travel horizontally with how far it can go vertically - again, they're not the same thing. If you're really interested in this, there are ample explinations available online, so happy reading.

      5. Clunking Fist Bronze badge
        WTF?

        200ft? I'm not familiar with a shotgun that can hit a target at a vertical 200ft.

      6. James Micallef Silver badge

        Re: He claims it never flew below 200ft.

        <<But in 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) asserts its right to all airspace.

        "The FAA is responsible for the safety and management of US airspace from the ground up," Les Dorr, an FAA spokesman told Ars in a statement on Friday.

        Peter Sachs, a Connecticut-based attorney, private investigator and drone advocate, concurred.

        "There is no defined aerial trespass law," he told Ars. "You do not own the airspace over your own property.">>

        Interesting part of the above-linked article. If you don't own airspace over your own property "from the ground up", that would technically mean that a hovercraft could pass right through since it is actually 'flying' just above the ground without touching it.

        That is clearly bollocks that the lawyer is talking, since FAA statement says they are responsible for "safety and management " from the ground up. Private property rules still apply.

      7. Tom 13

        @FIA

        And he's full of crap.

        I'm not a regular hunter but I've busted a few clays with some friends. If the drone never flew below 200ft, there's no way anything short of a slug took the drone down.

    2. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      Longbow

      Crossbow

      Sling

      Weighted Net

      Catapult

      Not even near the edge of the box yet.

      1. DougS Silver badge

        How about a simple garden hose with a jet attachment? I have to think that a nice narrow water jet at 100 mph would knock down a drone, though perhaps with less satisfying destruction than a load of birdshot.

      2. Grikath Silver badge

        @trigonoceps

        All the stuff you mentioned *does* have considerable energy and penetrative power when it lands, to the point of easily being able to injure innocent bystanders should you miss....

        Which most people will, since most can't hit dead center at 20 meters, let alone 100+ with this type of weaponry.

    3. SuccessCase

      "Oh. no I wouldn't because we're generally not allowed access to firearms in the u.k."

      I feel a drone Kickstarter project coming on.

      The FU Interceptor with patented tangulation tech. Launching a tangulation strike basically looks akin to spiderman ejuculating his webbing on the "wide" dispersal setting.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ""Oh. no I wouldn't because we're generally not allowed access to firearms in the u.k.""

        Be glad - it's also why we dont have high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders...

        1. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
          Childcatcher

          not allowed access to firearms

          Be glad - it's also why we dont have high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders...

          BS! Anti-gun laws here in the US are successful in depressing levels of gun ownership but not in lowering relative incidence of their use in crime (or violent crime, for that matter). For example, Washington, DC has both some of the toughest gun laws and highest rates of violent crime. Again, there does not seem to be a correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels in the US. There also does not seem to be much correlation between relative levels of prosperity and violent crime. About the only simple correlation I could find among those typically cited by people "debating" this issue is between violent crime (with or without guns involved) and population density, but it is a weak relationship at best.*

          If it is not a factor that fits someone's political agenda, it tends not to be considered in public forums. What actually seems to be going on is something more complex than a simple good/bad dichotomy. It probably has more to do with the cultures within the various jurisdictions. Rather than trying to address the issue as a matter of access because doing so demonstrably doesn't work (e.g. drugs, guns, anything having to do with a teenager), I would think that identifying and addressing the root causes of violent crime might be a little more to the point. So, if we were to borrow something from the UK, perhaps it ought to be having low-level offenders do community service in preference to incarceration.

          Back to you, AC, the reason you don't have "high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders" is most likely not that you aren't allowed access to firearms. It is that you come from a different set of values, attitudes and circumstances.

          * Sources: A quick search through Wikipedia and whatever government stats sites that Google searches returned. Look it up yourself - it might prove educational.

          1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

            @Robert Helpmann??

            Sorry Robert, but you cannot deny that the USA is the only country in the world where so many people die from gunshot wounds every year. And that in a country that is not even at war.

            The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue. Another simple fact is that that is never going to happen.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue.

              Here in the UK it's easy to get a gun, many criminals have them.

              The non criminal element called "PoliceTFU" also have them,

              I think they are about level on number of people shot, mainly by mistake according to the UK courts

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                "Here in the UK it's easy to get a gun,"

                It really isn't.

                "many criminals have them."

                A very few have them. And it's an instant 5 years + prison sentence if you get caught; If you are not shot dead by one of our exceedingly efficient police firearms units first...

              2. dogged

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                > Here in the UK it's easy to get a gun, many criminals have them.

                Yeah, I don't know if you know anything about the black market but you don't just rock up in the East End yelling "WHO WANTS TO SELL ME A GUN!!?!" You could, of course. But you probably wouldn't get a gun. You'd get arrested or stabbed.

                So yes, criminals have them. But socially inadequate school children, as a rule, do not.

            2. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
              Childcatcher

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              "The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue."

              The issue of violent crime, guns or no, will most certainly not be solved simply by removing guns. There is a much higher incidence of violent crimes in this country that does not involve guns than does, though the proportion that does is pretty much the same across the board. You might solve the issue of accidental death or injury caused by guns, but not those issues caused by intentional acts. At least on the face of it, guns seem to be a means to an ends. Getting rid of this particular means will not alter the desire to get to the horrible ends, nor the ability of people to achieve said ends. And yes, I agree with you concerning the likelihood of removing guns from the equation altogether, though I disagree with you concerning the results should that unlikely goal be achieved. Simply put, the current data does not support your statement. The cause of violent crime is not the presence or absence of guns. Failing to identify and address that root cause will see guns banned, politicians claiming victory over gun violence, and the same numbers of people killed or injured in violent crime.

              1. DavCrav Silver badge

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                "The issue of violent crime, guns or no, will most certainly not be solved simply by removing guns."

                No, but it's escalation of risk that's the problem. Guns are powerful and dangerous, and when lots of people have them, a simple pickpocketing or car theft becomes a possible murder scene. That just doesn't happen in the UK, because there's generally little possibility of a serious escalation in violence.

                The UK has a vastly lower level of violent crime, and severity of violent crime, than the US. Consider that, in the UK, a 'violent crime' is considered to be any crime involving violence, e.g., common assault. In the US this is so commonplace that it is a misdemeanour.

                1. ChrisBedford

                  Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                  "That just doesn't happen in the UK, because there's generally little possibility of a serious escalation in violence" - yeah, because the PEOPLE in the UK are different. Not solely because they don't have firearms!

                  When told they couldn't have guns, the English public went, "yeah, ok". When told you MIGHT have to register your guns, the American public raised an outcry. Differenty mentality, mate.

              2. James Micallef Silver badge

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                Firstly, there needs to be a more nuanced discussion than simply using the word 'guns'. There are 2 countries in the 'western' world with comparable* levels of gun ownership as US. These are Canada and Switzerland. However in Canada the majority of guns are hunting weapons, in Switzerland these are military weapons that people have from compulsory military service and have very strict (and very strictly observed) rules around carrying, storage and transport. In the US, the vast majority of guns are handguns that are relatively easy to carry on one's person and/or conceal and/or kept readily accessible as 'self-defence' in homes.

                I think this a major key. Gun advocates say that high gun ownership promotes deterrence, that no-one is willing to commit a gun crime because anyone else might pull a gun on them. But I think in reality, all it promotes is that baddies carry bigger and more guns, and are less inclined to show restraint to bystanders, exactly because the bystanders could be armed.

                The other big key is a deep-rooted social fear. No two ways about it, black people and white people in US are afraid of each other. Not in the xenophobic European 'I'm afraid they will take my jobs' kind of way, but in a paranoid 'they will kill me if they get a chance' kind of way. Not, of course, everyone and everywhere, but enough to make a huge difference in firearm murders.

                *Still less than US, but not order-of-magnitudes less as in all Western Europe

                1. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
                  Childcatcher

                  Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                  @James Micallef, What you seem to be alluding to in your comparisons between countries would still seem to come down to cultural differences in attitudes toward guns, their possession and their uses. I think that this goes to the root of the issue of not just gun violence but violent crime in general. I consider @DavCrav's earlier comment concerning the way the UK counts violent crime in contrast to the US as a reasonable example of cultural differences in this regard.

                  "Gun advocates say that high gun ownership promotes deterrence, that no-one is willing to commit a gun crime because anyone else might pull a gun on them." At least in the US, this does not seem to hold water. Nor does the counter that making access to guns will decrease their use in crime. I realize these statements really upsets a lots of people, but given the available information it is clear that neither approach has proven useful other than for fear mongering among our politicians.

                  Perhaps you are correct concerning a more nuanced approach to what is appropriate in terms of pistols versus hunting weapons. It certainly seems logical that hand guns are more apt to be used in crime than more traditional hunting weapons (long rifles, shotguns) and should be approached differently by legislators, but I would like to see some evidence that such an approach will be effective before having to listen to both sides talk past each other yet again. What does seem clear is that changing people's attitudes concerning gun ownership in the US is both a necessary and extremely difficult task for which there is remarkably little political will given that it is now used by both our major parties to get out the vote.

            3. unimaginative

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              Not true, lots countries have higher murder rates, and anywhere with a war on will have more gunshot deaths! Territories (OK not the same things as countries) with higher murder rates include British and French overseas territories and Greenland. Countries include Russia and Estonia.

              Even if you exclude murders using guns, the US still has a MUCH higher murder rate than other developed countries, so guns are clearly not the underlying problem (although they may make it worse).

            4. Kiwi Silver badge

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue. Another simple fact is that that is never going to happen.

              Yet Canada has much more gun ownership than the US last I looked, IIRC 4x the ownership of guns (although I could be thinking of stuff from some M. Moore "documentary"), yet not even 1/10th of the violent crime.

              I suspect that there have been times where the US has had much higher rates of gun ownership than it does today, but much less crime.

              [Note that I am somewhat neutral on gun ownership. I first fired a .22 rifle at about 3 (prone position at static targets), and later hunting for food - I do not now and never have owned a gun but simply because the supermarket provides my meat.]

            5. ChrisBedford

              Re: @Robert Helpmann??

              "The simple fact is that having less guns lying around would certainly solve the issue"

              Sure. But who says having anti-gun laws means there are less guns lying around? It's an often-quoted maxim, but true for all that, that when you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns. The charmingly quaint but nevertheless naive view that banning firearms leads to lowered firearm violence, assumes that owners of illegal weapons would turn their guns in. It doesn't take much analysis to realise that of course they won't. Which is of course what you said in your second sentence. But the point it too many people think that new laws are the answer to society's ills; they aren't, proper enforcement of existing laws often helps, but more often you have to change society's mindset.

              And that doesn't happen overnight.

              1. x 7 Silver badge

                Re: @Robert Helpmann??

                " when you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns. "

                but the key point - or at least in the USA - is that most illegal guns started out as legal.

                I've forgotten the exact figure, but there are reportedly something like 2.5 million thefts of legal guns in the USA each year. Without the pool of legal guns they wouldn't have been stolen........and if guns really did act as protection they would not have been stolen anyway.

                Face it: in the USA the only role the average gun has is as a penis extension

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            Do you seriously believe this?

            So you saying that ready access to firearms has no connection to firearms related crime.

            and you also think that the low rate of gun crime in the UK is as a result of our use of community service

            in relation to petty offences, and nothing to do with the fact that we don't have any guns?

            1. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              So you saying that ready access to firearms has no connection to firearms related crime.

              What I am saying is that there is no correlation in the US between successfully restricting gun ownership and reducing either violent crime or violent crime involving guns. I am not stating a belief - here is a summary of the relationships between gun ownership, etc, in the US that I referred to previously: link. I am also saying I believe that focusing on violent crime involving guns as opposed to all violent crime will not alter the overall number of deaths by violent means even though the number of people killed by guns may go down.

              My example of community service vs incarceration is just an example of a difference between cultures, not a complete cure to the world's problems. Don't be daft! It may or may not have some bearing on the subject, but I understand there is evidence that imprisoning juveniles leads to much worse outcomes than alternatives such as community service and we have a very high rate of imprisonment in this country. More to the point, the UK's collective approach to a lot of things is different from that of the US and it might be worth drawing from the experiences of those from outside our country in dealing with these issues.

            2. LucreLout Silver badge

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              @AC

              So you saying that ready access to firearms has no connection to firearms related crime.

              I think it does, but not the connection you think it has. America has more guns than people, and has a high firearms related murder rate. Norway has 30 guns per 100 people and a lower firearms related murder rate than the UK.

              in relation to petty offences, and nothing to do with the fact that we don't have any guns?

              The uk has 6.6 guns per 100 people. That isn't "no guns". Whatever Norway is doing around firearms related violence they are doing a lot better than us, given a gun ownership rate about 5 times higher than ours and a lower homicide rate.

              For clarity, I don't want a relaxation of our gun laws. I would however, prefer we learn from other countries like Norway that are doing things so much better than we are. Posts like yours obfuscate that learning opportunity by comparing the "worst case" country with ours as though it means we have it right, when we don't.

          3. James Micallef Silver badge

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            "Anti-gun laws here in the US are successful in depressing levels of gun ownership but not in lowering relative incidence of their use in crime "

            Of course, because if there are strict gun laws in one state you can just go buy them in another.

            " there does not seem to be a correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels in the US"

            Maybe not across the US, but again that is because guns are easily mobile across state borders. Comparing US with non-US it is very clear that gun crime in US is order of magnitude higher than that of other civilised countries.

            " identifying and addressing the root causes of violent crime might be a little more to the point"

            Here I agree with you, however this is only a part of the solution, with limiting access to firearms being the other.

            1. PaulFrederick

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              Limiting access to firearms is unconstitutional. Do not even suggest it. Because when home invaders are breaking into my residence you will not be here to take the rape, and beating they are doling out. The police are under absolutely no legal obligation to protect me either. Warren v. District of Columbia

          4. This post has been deleted by its author

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            "For example, Washington, DC has both some of the toughest gun laws and highest rates of violent crime."

            It would undoubtedly be far worse without those gun laws.

            "Again, there does not seem to be a correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels in the US. "

            Just LOL. You might want to read http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf

            'They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. In fact, firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. Firearm robbery increased with every increase in gun ownership except in the very highest quintile of gun-owning states (the difference in that cluster was not statistically significant). Firearm homicide was 2.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. . . .'

            "It is that you come from a different set of values, attitudes and circumstances."

            Well not only that, it's also that we don't have easy access to weapons. Not having an endemic culture of gung-ho stupidity helps of course.

            1. sisk Silver badge

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              "For example, Washington, DC has both some of the toughest gun laws and highest rates of violent crime."

              It would undoubtedly be far worse without those gun laws.

              A better example, perhaps, is Chicago. Every time they implement stricter gun laws there the murder rate goes up. When they finally relaxed it a little the murder rate dropped.

            2. PaulFrederick

              Re: not allowed access to firearms

              It would be far worse for who? The criminals, or law abiding citizens trying to defend themselves?

          6. Ronnie Gibson

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            Not sure what version of Google you searched...maybe you could post some actual references that back up your conclusions?

            Here's a couple of intersting ones:

            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

          7. Matt Bryant Silver badge

            Re: Robert Helpmann Re: not allowed access to firearms

            It's a statistical fact that guncrime in the UK went up after the handgun ban. This is simply because taking handguns away from law-abiding citizens did not affect the criminals actually using guns for crime. Shootings do happen on a daily basis in London, it's just not getting the same attention as the politicians in the UK have already used banning handguns as a gimmick and don't want to admit it did SFA to stop guncrime, whereas in the US there is still plenty of political mileage out of spreading the lie that banning legal guns stops guncrime. The real cause of school attacks and other mass shootings is mental health issues - when the nutters don't have access to a gun they simply use something else such as knives and petrol (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan_kindergarten_attack).

            A simple answer to the "guns = massacres" bullshit is to simply point out that the places firearms are most common in civillian hands - shooting ranges - are also the places without shooting massacres, because even the nutters realise they would be quickly shot and killed by armed civilians defending themselves, whereas unarmed kids and teachers are easy prey.

          8. WalterAlter
            Happy

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            Boy, lookit how a rational, fact based analysis hits the ideologically sieved robot program downvote factor. Having trouble escaping the sh!t/Shinola paradigm, are we?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTHL0y6xvLE

          9. Anonymous Cow Herder

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            "the reason you don't have "high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders" is most likely not that you aren't allowed access to firearms. It is that you come from a different set of values, attitudes and circumstances." -Now that's real BS!

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Boffin

              Anon Cow Herder Re: not allowed access to firearms

              ".....Now that'''s real BS!" Well, yes and no. The common threads amongst the majority of school shootings Worldwide are male youth as the shooter; with known mental illness and/or "social issues" (i.e., likely undiagnosed mental illness); and choosing a target of their peer group that they know will be unarmed and unlikely to be able to defend themselves. Strangely, there are no outraged shrieks of "racial profiling" when the FBI state the profile for a school shooter is a white male youth..... Deeper investigation has shown they often viewed prior school shootings as acts that should garner "respect" and that performing their own massacre will gain them immortality. This is common to such massacres as the two notorious shootings in Finland (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting) which have striking similarities to those in the US. Indeed, if you just read through the Wiki articles with the names of the people and places removed you would assume they were stories of US massacres. So the problem would seem to be partly one of "youth culture".

              Why don't we have school shootings with female shooters? Well we may soon. The "culture" is spreading to girls as well (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-pennsylvania-girl-wanted-to-be-the-first-female-school-shooter/). Please note the common thread of known mental issues and "respect" for other shooters.

              Why don't we see more shootings of other easy targets? Why do the shooters pick schools over old people's homes? The latter offers plenty of easy targets which are highly unlikely to be armed. Again, it comes back to the thoughts and beliefs or delusions of the attackers - they blame their peer groups for their lack of success.

              The solution would seem to be much greater monitoring of youth social media; more and - yes - intrusive psychiatric help in schools; and have some better form of defence in schools, including armed police. Simply saying "take away all the guns" will not remove the nutters from the schools, and examples around the World show they will resort to other means anyway (knives, explosives, inflammables, etc.).

          10. midcapwarrior

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            DC may have some of the toughest but Virginia has some of the easiest and it's just across the river.

            Virginia is the purchase location of choice for the entire East Coast.

          11. CheesyTheClown

            Re: not allowed access to firearms

            I like your posting... it contacts on what is really the problem (though who am I to suggest I even understand the problem well enough to know what it is)... haha I'm a poster on The Reg... therefore I'm an expert on everything in my own mind... so bare with me.

            Wait... the same thing which makes me feel as if I should post here on this topic... this feeling of expertise of some type... this feeling I have that I should add my two cents and be part of this battle. This is something close to the problem.

            Let's be fair, you said that American's have a different set of values that the British or well anywhere else in the world. I have spent much time in America (as I am from there and have spent time in 42 states) as well as spending a few weeks in England.. London specifically which obviously makes me an expert on everything British... and I live in Norway now for 17 years.

            England and Norway have a single cultural difference which makes a gigantic advantage over America. The mass population of the U.S. (myself included) are descendants of "The crap from the bottom of the barrel" that entered the U.S. through Ellis Island fleeing from bad situations everywhere. Landing in America to feel like they're entitled to something better than before and having been for many years earlier the underdog... the weak... the people unable to accomplish any greatness in their homes, but now have become great by joining a club made up of "The other crap from the bottoms of the barrels in other countries"

            Many many many Americans are descendants of each countries religious outcasts... people who fled their countries because they believed the right way to pray to their god was wearing a hat with a flat top instead of a round one. People who believed their messiah was white instead of brown. People who made religion such an incredibly important part of their lives that they fled their home and ran off somewhere they could build their churches and not be infected or inflicted by the heathens. Did they build schools? Hell no! Who needs a school if we have a church?

            We Americans have this in-built obsessive need to always believe people want to take what we have. We know we wouldn't steal from our neighbor, but we're sure our neighbor would steal from us because they weren't raised as well as we are. We have values and we're right. Oh, those neighbors aren't so bad in a kind of uncivilized way, but you know how it is, not everyone had our benefits growing up. Our entire country is populated by people who think they're special and better than each other. They preach competition in all things... not just when watching uneducated boys in shorts kicking balls around for millions of dollars. They compete on everything and are sure that everyone must want what they have.

            It's amazing how most people I've heard that have a gun in case someone breaks into their house to rape their wife or daughter have the ugliest wives and daughters I've ever seen.

            In the end, the non-American culture regarding gun ownership is much better and much more mature because :

            a) Americans are the only people on earth who are so hell bent on everyone wanting what they have that they feel an irrational need to arm themselves to protected it... eventually extending this desperate fear of "they're coming to take my stuff" to a freakish belief that their most valuable possessions requiring protection are their own guns and rights to hold them.

            b) Americans are the only society on earth where gun owners are strongly opposed to proper training of how to own and manage guns. For example, here in Norway, people with guns in their houses are required to store their ammunition separate from the firearm itself. That means no round in the chamber. The bullets are locked in a safe. Americans all seem to believe that if a highly alert, armed burglar were climbing though their bedroom window, they could wake up, aim, shoot and actually hit something in a few seconds. They need to have a loaded weapon with the safety off one each side of the bed and one under the pillow. These people preach how they have freedom and liberty and yet they live in such utter fear that they will forfeit their own liberties to be armed at all times to feel safe and free.

            American gun owners actively fight any suggestion that people should have to take proper training to learn how be mature responsible gun owners. These courses aren't the ones run by the redneck in the shop selling assault rifles with bayonets for slicing onions while camping. I'm talking about courses run by military professionals or police professionals who focus on how to manage a situation so a gun doesn't need to be fired instead of teaching under what conditions you can legally kill someone.

            It'll be 500 years and many generations before Americans can start to own guns responsibly. To see them more as a tool like a hammer or a screw driver than as a snuggy security blanket. It will take a long time before American's see that a massive chunk of the rest of the world has so much more that they do that while we were busy bickering little little kids thinking someone wants to steal my toy... those other kids got better toys and just stopped looking at us other than to laugh.

            I am extremely happy I left the U.S., there is so much I love about the U.S. but the constant bickering and generally white hat/black hat bullshit is toxic. It's a nice place to visit, but it's so far behind most of the world on most things that it would be like moving from the city to live in a cave to go back there.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Be glad - it's also why we dont have high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other

          you are not a Londoner then?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "you are not a Londoner then?"

            That's still very rare and is for the most part 'Black on Black' crime, so comes under the Darwin Award nominations (desirable gene pool cleaning) for the rest of us...

        3. LucreLout Silver badge

          Be glad - it's also why we dont have high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders...

          No it isn't.

          Shotguns are readily available to anyone with a clean criminal record - just apply for the licence, get the gun safe, and decide which gauge you prefer.

          Secondly, what we have instead is rampant knife crime. Yes, it is hard for an individual to kill a lot of people with a knife than a semi automatic weapon, but what you're doing is limiting the body count rather than addressing the problem. I accept the inevitable repost that on its own that is still a laudable thing.

          Thirdly, there are many countries with more casual gun laws than our own, such as Norway (30+ guns per 100 people), that have neither the knife crime nor the gun crime (Norways rate is below our own). Clearly then, guns aren't the problem (no I don't own one) and whatever the problem is ain't being addressed - and it most certainly would need addressing before we could relax our gun laws without predictable carnage.

          1. sisk Silver badge

            Yes, it is hard for an individual to kill a lot of people with a knife than a semi automatic weapon

            Not really, no. Mass stabbings actually have similar body counts to mass shootings, believe it or not.

            1. dogged

              > Not really, no. Mass stabbings actually have similar body counts to mass shootings, believe it or not.

              [citation needed]

              1. sisk Silver badge

                Not really, no. Mass stabbings actually have similar body counts to mass shootings, believe it or not.

                [citation needed]

                At UCC last month nine were killed and nine more wounded.

                In Aurora, CO 20 were killed.

                In Chattanooga, TN, 5 were killed.

                In Charleston, SC, 9 were killed

                In Marysville, WA, 3 were killed.

                Those are 5 of the most publicized mass shootings in recent years. Now for the stabbings (linked because the mass media doesn't bother whipping folks into a frenzy over knives so they're harder to find):

                China Body count: 33, Injured: 130

                Brooklyn Body count: 5, maybe 6 (one wounded victim was critical and had an uncertain prognosis at the time of the article)

                Jersey body count: 6

                Like I said, pretty similar body counts.

        4. unimaginative

          Rubbish. The US has a much higher murder rate than other developed countries murder rate even if you exclude gun murders. It is a social (Americans are more inclined to use lethal force) or medical (victims of attacks are not receiving as good or as prompt) treatment.

        5. ChrisBedford

          [quot]""Oh. no I wouldn't because we're generally not allowed access to firearms in the u.k.""

          Be glad - it's also why we dont have high levels of gun crime, lots of children shooting each other and daily mass murders...[/quot]

          Do you really believe that? Guns cause crime? Not stupidity, gung-ho frontier mentality, alcohol, and lack of education or awareness?

      2. Your alien overlord - fear me

        Green laser, 5Mw pointed below the drone (to where the camera normally is). Good bye camera, or at least it is if the camera is pointing at you. If drone voyeur complains to the poilce, he's just admitted to invasion of privacy.

        And if you're wondering why green, it's visible in daylight so you can see where you're pointing it. Blue lasers might be better but are way to expensive at the moment.

        1. dan1980

          @Your alien overlord - fear me

          No, high-powered green lasers are a genuine issue for pilots and, certainly in Australia, if you were found to be aiming them upwards, it might not go down overly well.

          I would suggest that some kind of counter-drone would be a fantastic idea. It would 'need' a camera to record the incident, as evidence if needed, a second camera to detect drones and help 'home in' on them and then a mounted laser that disrupts the camera.

          Of course drones come in many configurations so that might be difficult but I'm sure someone clever could figure it out.

          If not that then another option would be for a specially hardened drone that could disable other drones simply by hitting them. It wouldn't need to be overly forceful.

          1. Just Enough

            "No, high-powered green lasers are a genuine issue for pilots and, certainly in Australia, if you were found to be aiming them upwards, it might not go down overly well."

            Let's not get carried away. It is not illegal to aim a laser upwards, it is illegal to aim a laser at an aircraft.

          2. Kiwi Silver badge
            Mushroom

            @ dan1980

            If not that then another option would be for a specially hardened drone that could disable other drones simply by hitting them. It wouldn't need to be overly forceful.

            Probably don't need much hardening.. Some string/netting/streamers dangling below, attached by some means with a weaker breaking strength than would disturb your own drone..

            Hmm... Wonder about those tiny choppers with the little water jet thingy underneath.. Maybe I could take that concept and make one filled with a suitably combustible material..

          3. geoot

            Sounds like an aerial version of "Robot Wars" that I used to watch on cable TV. If you have your own "watch drone" I believe that it would legally bring the whole affair to the level of saying "sic em" to your dog when some else's dog trespasses on your property. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the right of farmers to shoot dogs that are harassing livestock. It is a clear legal right but is exercised cautiously because of the very real human relations issues,

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Where do I get this 5 Mega-watt green laser? Does it come with a generator or power cable?

        3. TheVogon Silver badge

          "Green laser, 5Mw pointed below the drone"

          That size system + targeting system would need a truck, would vaporise the drone, would endanger anything else in the sky, and would cost millions.

          See http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/us-navy-tests-laser-weapons

        4. DaddyHoggy

          I think you may have got the case of your 'm' and 'W' mixed up.

          Unless you have access to Reagan's Star Wars anti-ICBM technology hitting a drone with a 5 Megawatt Green Laser may be considered overkill.

      3. Jimboom

        "I feel a drone Kickstarter project coming on."

        Anti-drone drones. I like it. Take my money good sir and make it so! At the very least you would get a good tv show out of it. Drone wars.

        1. auburnman

          Re: anti-drone drones

          Last time these were discussed I suggested strapping some rotors and an automatic lid closer to a wheelie bin for live drone capture in a low budget homage to You Only live Twice.*

          *IIRC correctly we were discussing nicking stuff around the time amazon declared they wanted to do drone delivery.

        2. 0laf Silver badge

          I think you might be too slow for that. Plenty of anti-drone tech being developed right now. Governments are very keen on it so there is a nice big pork barrel to be opened.

          And you can by anti-drone shotgun shells if you really like your snake oil ammunition

    4. Stevelane

      It is not hard to get a shotgun licence in the UK if you are a country dweller. Air guns are also legal and would probably send an appropriate message to the drone flyer.

      1. 0laf Silver badge

        Doubt the UK judiciary would be quite so tolerant of a shotgun being discharged into the air.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "It is not hard to get a shotgun licence in the UK if you are a country dweller."

        It's not hard for anyone to get one if you can show a valid need, don't have a criminal record, can demonstrate competency, can afford the mandated secure weapons storage and license fees, and can pass the annual police interview and weapons + ammo inspection...

        However all the above means that we don't have a problem with lots of gung-ho idiots owning guns like they do in the USA.

        1. sisk Silver badge

          @SucessCase - Not the best example. Clay pigeons shatter if you sneeze on them. Just because you can break one at 50 yards if you're a crack shot doesn't mean you'd be able to shoot down a drone at that range.

          @Mark 85 - Smaller shot actually. We use 8-shot for trap. I guess it's technically the smallest bird shot you can get, but I don't know anyone who'd actually use it for birds.

    5. Nigel 11

      Oh. no I wouldn't because we're generally not allowed access to firearms in the u.k.

      Not so very hard to get a shotgun license, though I'd much rather you didn't. Using it to down a drone might result in losing that license ... legally uncharted territory, so far.

      Anyone thinking defence drone? A cheap "toy" drone towing a piece of nylon netting ought to be very capable of bringing down an intruder.

      Or a fire-hose?

    6. Anomalous Cowturd
      Stop

      @emmanuel goldstein re:not allowed access to firearms in the UK

      It's not difficult to get a Firearms Certificate here in the UK, as long as you don't have a conviction of >5 years or for serious crimes, or a documented mental illness. Membership of a shooting club is recommended, as it speeds the process.

      Shotgun Certificates are even easier to obtain. Just ask at the Masonic Lodge! ;o)

    7. Andrew Oakley

      Air rifle will easily see off a drone

      A perfectly legal zero-paperwork .22 air rifle will easily see off a drone from 2-300 metres in England and Wales.

      Heck, a decent .177 CO2 air pistol with crappy dome pellets would see off a drone if it got to within 50 metres. Drones are not particularly sturdy nor stable devices. Again, zero paperwork required in England and Wales; just proof of age. Get proper pest control pellets (the pointy ones for killing rats) and you will shatter most plastics.

      Getting a shotgun licence is also easy in England & Wales, unless you have prior convictions or a history of mental problems. However the police would want to inspect your home to see that you have a lockable metal gun cabinet and a sufficiently large outdoor area to use it without endangering anyone else, which pretty much rules out all UK urban & suburban housing as it's too close together. In villages and farms, though, there is basically no reason to stop any sane law-abiding subject from obtaining a shotgun licence.

      What English and Welsh law has very strict control over is automatic, revolving or semi-automatic firearms. Anything that could kill and that you could fire more than twice without pausing to reload. The idea is, given the island is only 700 miles long and an armed police unit is rarely more than a few minutes away, your killing spree will be slowed down enough that people can escape and the police sniper will arrive and kill you before your third victim. (And we mean kill; British police don't do sidearms, we do assault rifles or sniper rifles or nothing. No pansy pistols unless you're a plain clothes detective).

  4. elDog Silver badge

    Wonder how this fits in with the USofArms Castle and Stand-Your-Ground laws

    Surely we (I'm a resident of this insane place) can blast away at anything that threatens us. After all, that drone could have been delivering a package of puerile purple pulchritude to those young ladies. (Eat your hearts out The Register headline writers.)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wonder how this fits in with the USofArms Castle and Stand-Your-Ground laws

      What if it had been an Airliner and he had shot at it with a heat-seeking Guided Missile?

      1. BoldMan

        Re: Wonder how this fits in with the USofArms Castle and Stand-Your-Ground laws

        What if it had been a UFO and he shot at it with a plasma rifle?

        What kid of stupid comment was that? Are you one of those people who take every comment and push the context way beyond anything reasonable?

        1. auburnman

          Re: Wonder how this fits in with the USofArms Castle and Stand-Your-Ground laws

          WHAT IF IT HAD BIN THE PREDISENT AND HE SHOTIT WITH A NUKULAR TERRORIST!!!!!!111!!

      2. TheVogon Silver badge

        Re: Wonder how this fits in with the USofArms Castle and Stand-Your-Ground laws

        "What if it had been an Airliner and he had shot at it with a heat-seeking Guided Missile?"

        Then he was presumably a very good shot to take it out "below tree line level", and to survive to tell the tale!

  5. Ketlan
    Thumb Up

    Finally

    Thank fuck for a bit of common sense.

    1. Little Mouse

      Re: Finally

      ...and in an article concerning gun-toting Americans, no less.

      There's never a that-sound-was-my-jaw-hitting-the-ground icon when you need one.

      1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

        Re: Finally

        It happened in Kentucky parts of which are in Appalachia - think Hatfields and McCoys. Bullitt County is near Louisville so it is not exactly a rural hillbilly venue.

    2. 404 Silver badge

      Re: Finally

      Ain't nuthin' common about sense, ya'll hear?

      'And they're coming to take me away Ha Ha...'

  6. Greg J Preece

    Can't really argue with the judge. I've been considering for a while that trespassing laws may need extending in modern times to include any type of ROV (that isn't a regulated aircraft operating inside a corridor, naturally).

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      They don't need changing, land rights extend up and down subject to a few exceptions. It's just that the courts keep creating so many exceptions that attempting to enforce is too risky.

      That's England and Wales. Your law may vary.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Question: how high does a vehicle need to be to be "not in someone's property"?

    Seems we have to consider vertical height. Without a doubt, that drone was certainly "in" that person's property, and he had a right to have it removed.

    Whether a shotgun was the best approach is another matter, it was certainly effective in disabling the drone.

    I don't think it reasonable that someone should deliberately place their property within the bounds of someone else's residence without the resident owner's permission and expect to have their property returned without some form of damages, either monetary or otherwise.

    If the residence owner gave fair warning to leave (e.g. held up a sign reading "F… OFF") and the operator of the drone did not heed that advice, the operator has himself to blame.

    The problem was that the drone was waay too low, and thus could be considered within the boundary of the residence. I think we need to consider the property in terms of 3D space; not just the 2D boundary on a map, but how far above and below the ground surface is also considered "part of the property". If it were high enough, it would not be close enough to pose a privacy risk, or possibly even be detected. (Too high, and it gets into commercial airspace. Perhaps there's a good privacy reason for the boundaries here to meet.)

    Infinity isn't an option, since commercial aircraft may fly over in some cases, and for the most part they pose no danger or privacy concern. It clearly isn't zero either, as this case demonstrates. I think this question needs a definite answer. I suspect there is one, it just needs to be clearly communicated to the general public.

    1. Citizens untied

      Re: Question: how high does a vehicle need to be to be "not in someone's property"?

      I think a hovering drone gets no consideration. If the drone is on its way somewhere AND at a reasonable height, then maybe. Considering the purpose of a drone is to fly around (who the f**k cares) and possibly take pictures, it seems like a "right" that warrants little forbearance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Question: how high does a vehicle need to be to be "not in someone's property"?

        there is now a minefield to consider....if you live in a trailer or a tower block?

        does the 15th floor resident have the same height as the 40th floor?

        basically don't fly the hell over some ones property AT ALL WITHOUT PERMISSION is the best advice the law should use (emergency services exceptional)

    2. mr.K

      Re: Question: how high does a vehicle need to be to be "not in someone's property"?

      This will be different from country to country I expect, but most likely you cannot set a limit. Unfortunately you can't in many cases have clear cut laws, but rather have to have a little more vague wording. So what your right to privacy comes down to is what you can reasonably expect and what is reasonably is what we have the courts to decide. Over time you will get precedences for most cases and so on. Reasonably is just too hard to define. In my bedroom with the drapes shut I should expect privacy and usually in my living room, but when there is clear sight into my living room from the next building over I should maybe not. However if it is far away and they use a telescope with a camera it is a violation again (see Skyline). And so on.

      If there is a need to regulate this with new laws it will be easier to simply regulate the whole area around residents and up to commercial air space. With a good camera today, and they will just continue to get better, 10m or a few hundred meters does not really matter. Simply ban them from residential areas and throw in a few reasonably exceptions.

  8. Lt.Kije

    Can't wait for someone to take out an FBI or local cop's drone.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sadly, I'll think they'll have "immunity" from any such laws resulting from this case.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If they don't have a search warrant - I hope so too.

      Not that anyone seems to bother with those anymore.

  9. Dan Paul

    There are several court rulings...

    about the space above a property that help define your rights to the airspace. In many cases, buildings cannot be built that overshadow a neighboring property. This happened in NYC several times

    It only makes sense that the space up to 500 feet (the minimum flight level) is yours, not someone elses, since the FAA governs from 500 ft and above.

    Thankfully, this particular Judge seemed to use some common sense in his decision and now established a precedent that if it stands on appeal, will settle the issue in that state for all time.

    I would like the drone owner to provide incontrovertible proof that the "altitude measurement device" was ever calibrated at all. CIVILIAN GPS is not a recognized altitude measurement device.

    Otherwise he hasn't got any case against the shooter.

    If it makes it to a Federal Court it will affect all state law.

    1. DougS Silver badge

      Re: There are several court rulings...

      NYC is a special case where air rights are something you can buy and sell. They're worth many millions in some cases, and are the reason why you see little buildings next to giant skyscrapers.

      In most of the US I'm not sure what the rules are, but while I'm sure I don't own the airspace above my house hopefully they will come up with some rules about what others can do with it. I guess the days of having privacy in your own backyard (if it is otherwise covered from view of your neighbors) are gone, because even if they restricted drones to 300 ft above your property it doesn't take much of a camera for someone to take all the video he wants of teenage girls sunbathing or whatever (which is the claimed reason for the shoot down if this drone)

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: There are several court rulings...

        The fact remains that any case that covers the airspace rights of a property owner becomes a precedent for future cases.

        That INCLUDES the airspace cases in NYC. It is inferred that you own the airspace at least up to 400 ft above your property BECAUSE of those prior cases. Those cases went to the State Supreme Court so they are very important.

        The act of directing a camera on to private property is covered by other laws. In many municipalities, it is a crime to allow a neighbors CCTV security camera to even be aimed your property.

        The very same law could be used against the drone operator as he obviously did not get written permission or direction before pointing his camera.

        If companies wish to provide drone deliveries, then they will need to get your EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION before crossing your property line.

  10. Little Mouse

    Mmmm... Fairy Cake

    David Boggs ... said he will ask the Commonwealth's Attorney's office to take the case to a grand jury

    David Boggs should get a sense of perspective.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good precedent

    This will have Amazon thinking twice about deploying drones over private property.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good precedent

      Think of the product returns...

    2. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      Re: Good precedent

      Not really, I would expect delivery drones to fly over existing right of way or high enough they would not be easily spotted. Also, I would make the delivery drone well marked with the owner's company name.

      1. micheal

        Re: Good precedent

        And why would an automated delivery drone need a high res camera?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not so fast

    The Appeals court could easily rule differently.

    1. GBE

      Re: Not so fast

      "The Appeals court could easily rule differently."

      IFF the prosecutor's office decides to appeal. I rather doubt they will -- their boss is elected by popular vote, and now that the prosecutor's office has gone through the proper motions so that justice has been seen to be done, the boss probably has little appetite for appearing to be the bad guy picking on some average joe who was "just thinking of the kids".

  13. guyelec

    Judge refused to view drone video or drone telemetry

    According to one article (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/drone-slayer-cleared-of-charges-i-wish-this-had-never-happened/) the judge refused to see the drone video or view the telemetry data both proving that the drone was above 200 feet and not below the treeline as the shooter claims.

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: Judge refused to view drone video or drone telemetry

      "the judge refused to see the drone video or view the telemetry data both proving that the drone was above 200 feet" -- guyelec

      If a shooter on the ground hit it with a shotgun round, it was almost certainly below 200 feet. Telemetry data and video, on the other hand, has no provenance - it could easily be from an earlier, higher altitude flypast or even a different drone.

      [Edit: the original case report quotes the judge as saying that at least two witnesses report the drone flying below the tree line]

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Judge refused to view drone video or drone telemetry

        A lot of people put trust in other folks, such as manufacturers. The assumption is that the drone has accurate telemetry data and that the shotgun cannot shoot 217ft. Every item has tolerances to which it should adhere to, however, not always do they complete stay within the limits. Where the drone was at, we will never truly know, but we can always understand which is closer to its tolerances. I personally would lean toward the drone being under the tree line, if the shot size is truly accurate. I would be curious if the telemetry data is wrong, as to why it is wrong.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Judge refused to view drone video or drone telemetry

      It's probably for the better, this way Mr. Boggs doesn't have to contend with a possible perjury conviction (200+ ft and whatever horizontal distance was involved would be a nearly impossible shot with #8 birdshot).

  14. victoryviatruth

    Drone Target Practice For The Gun Class

    There will soon be laws in our gun-plenty nation wherein what this guy did will be ruled to be fully legal. I was buzzed at 50 feet this summer while on a sailboat and the drone nearly hit the mast. Whoever was flying it must have been having a right good time, because the thing came back around. Had I been armed with a shotgun, the thing would have been in the water as it could have hurt somebody on deck if it had crashed in the mast or sails.

    I suspect you'll be hearing a ton of cases like this soon. Here's hoping the gunplay doesn't go astray, as it's certain that some of the drone shooters will take to using semi auto assault rifles for the task. The USA civilian population buys more AK47 style guns than any other country in the world.

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

      Re: Drone Target Practice For The Gun Class

      A warning shot with an emergency flare might have done it.

      1. Richard Taylor 2 Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Drone Target Practice For The Gun Class

        And created all sorts of other problems. Ever wondered why they are called emergency flares?

  15. Grubby

    His property

    The general rule for land ownership (for residential property) is about 400 feet above the land you own so assuming the drone is within this limit, it is technically trespassing and reasonable force can be used to protect yourself, this includes firing at it in the US. The same law applies in the UK only the level of reasonable force is slightly different.

  16. Dave 126 Silver badge
    Terminator

    Aw great, now hobbyists are just going to develop bullet-proof/tolerant drones.... what could possibly go wrong? (only half joking!)

    A compound drone composed of many smaller rotors, batteries and lots of small cameras (liike an insect's 'eye') might toleratre a direct hit if it could detach damaged componts. Like a swarm of bees.

  17. zebm

    An easier alternative to clay pigeon shooting

    And free targets...

    1. Roger Greenwood

      Re: An easier alternative to clay pigeon shooting

      That's what I thought - great new sport for the folks who like to shoot things. Might need plenty of cash depending how good you are, or could you aim at something suspended under the drone? I see a business opportunity. Olympic sport by 2050.

  18. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Bullitt County District Court - how was a gunman not going to be favoured? Now if the Appeals Court is in DroneLover District Court, the verdict could go against him.

  19. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    Where can I buy my "Balls to Boggs" T shirt?

  20. RichardB

    Counter Drone

    How about get your own drone.

    Equip it with a meter wide rail underneath, with 5m long lightweight fishing line at 10cm intervals, gently weighted with shot. Fly it over the opposing drone. Record the hilarity that follows. Post to youtube.

    1. auburnman

      Re: Counter Drone

      Your fishing line comment makes me wonder if a skilled angler could cast at a drone with enough accuracy to tangle a rotor? Small weight in place of a fishhook, less likely to cause trouble than a gun, and incontrovertible evidence that the drone was flying within X feet of you if you did catch it.

  21. Haku

    Time to invest in a net-gun business.

    Those things don't have the same restrictions as firearms.

  22. Dagg
    Mushroom

    What about helicopters.

    If you can do it to drones what about bloody helicopters! I have the bloody sods hovering directly over the house all the bloody time. The response from the media companies is along the line of "It is in the public interest".

    Here in aus we are starting horse racing season and we end up with a local park as a helipad transporting the "well to do" to and from the various race courses, we have bloody take offs and landings every couple of minutes and one of the flight paths is directly over the suburb.

    1. ggray

      Re: What about helicopters.

      I've thought that I would want to get some nice telescope mirrors reflectors) that focus the returning light to a point and direct them up in whatever area the helicopters transited. I don't think it would do any real damage but the sun reflecting on a mirror could certainly make you look away...I'm sure it

      could be assembled and declared a work of art...or several...maybe throw in some wind chimes, couple Tibetan prayer flags....just exercising my religious freedoms...maybe windmills with reflective blades...

      science projects with weather balloons....(with tops of Mylar foil...)

  23. readman

    Resolution is what its about

    Satellites see his yard every day and photograph it. Airliners probably pass over several times each day. News helicopters might overfly once in a while. It is the "Personal Space" that is violated that makes it unsavory and disliked.

  24. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    David Boggs - A name that will live in infamy.

    To think that this guy was hovering his drone over two little girls and has the guts to go public about it.

    In the US, of all places.

    How is it his name hasn't already been put on the paedo register ?

  25. Winkypop Silver badge
    Facepalm

    The USA and guns, eh?

    When you are in a hole, you should stop digging.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  26. clocKwize

    How fun would it be to shoot a drone out of the sky though? I envy him.

  27. lawndart

    says:

    Mini barrage balloons! Get your mini barrage balloons here!

    Comes with 250ft of nylon fishing wire as a tether. Only $15 each!

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    While I certainly *don't* support the chap firing off a gun in a residential area, I completely support his right to have taken down the drone.

    It was an egregious extension of the opt-in nature regarding privacy now - everyone is starting to think it's OK just to put a phone in your face, film you, photograph you or whatever. Very often it's for no other reason than the fact that they can.

    Well, OK - I partially accept that's the way the world is going, that's how our culture is shifting, and how people are relating to each other differently.

    But it's not happening in my house. On my turf, you can bugger right off and I would regard this as the same as getting into my personal space 'bubble' in a physical sense.

    Technology is outpacing not only the law but people's sense of moderacy. We can update and control the former, but I'm not sure we can do anything about the latter.

    1. Silverburn

      Key word here was "on" your turf. That's trespass. "over" your turf is not trespass, as it's technically FAA controlled airspace.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        See my comment earlier. Essentially, "on" for lay people, may as well cover about 10~15m above and below the ground surface of their property.

  29. sisk Silver badge

    The criminal mischief charge never had a chance. The drone was hovering on his property. That's trespass and under those circumstances the precedent is well established that he had the right to destroy it. The endangerment charge makes a bit more sense. Depending upon exactly which jurisdiction this happened in I could see that one being more problematic to him. If he were in a jurisdiction where level heads prevail they'd realize that a shotgun fired into the air doesn't actually endanger anyone. Shot doesn't fall fast enough to be a problem and it sheds it's angular velocity very quickly.

  30. Lyndon Hills 1

    Counter measures

    eagle downs drone

    Are you allowed to own eagles in the UK? might make up for the lack of firearms.

  31. Silverburn

    Some clarifications

    1) The airspace above his property is not his. It "belongs" to the FAA, and as such, does not count at trespass. If it did, BA would be invading my property about 300 times a day. The judge was technically in error to claim trespass.

    2) Pilot has telemetry and witnesses showing he was not 10ft from the daughter. Nearer 200ft. At what height does privacy become a reasonable expectation? Why was the telemetry not considered in the case?

    3) Shotguns at 200ft...It's a phantom, and farting on it the wrong way will inflict a fatal wound. A single pellet would have been enough if it jammed a motor or broke a prop.

    4) Spying with a wide angle lens? Now that's funny...

    5) Taking off and landing from your property means you can plausibly cross over neighbours property. See also: Heathrow. Can I shoot down anything now?

    The fun begins if this phantom has been registered. It then officially becomes an aircraft for the FAA and NTSB. And guess what? shooting down "aircraft" is a federal offence and would have warranted a closed scene investigation by the NTSB (pretty comical). Try shooting down a news helicopter (complete with it's stabilised, massive zoom red epic camera) as it flies overhead and see if the judge thinks your privacy was still worth it.

    1. Public Citizen

      Re: Some clarifications

      You need to actually read the FAA regs as well as the Real Estate Law applicable to the situation.

      The FAA only has control of airspace above a stated altitude, that stated altitude varying with the proximity to airports, and FAA ground installations. The only control the FAA has that goes all the way to the ground is over structures that impinge on FAA regulated airspace, which is the reason for red blinking clearance lights on certain structures and the distinctive orange and white checkerboard paint scheme on structures such as water towers.

      There is a presumption of low level air rights in Real Estate Law. If it were not for this then you would start seeing the red clearance lights being required on very tall trees. Except in limited circumstances involving "hot pursuit" police helicopters, some of the lowest flying aircraft are required to maintain a minimum of 500 feet above ground level at all times. Even air ambulances are closely regulated on how they are permitted to go below the 500 foot limit when making a landing for a pickup.

    2. Doctor Evil

      Re: Some clarifications

      Someone above wrote -- and I'll repeat it here for your edification, Mr. David Boggs:

      "When you are an a-hole, you should stop digging."

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    … and the unmanned aircraft apologists

    drone on and on and on.

  33. rtb61

    Best answer. Should you fly your drone over some one else's property without permission, you should be fined, based upon a complaint from the property owner. Should you discharge a fire arm in any residential area when you life is not threatened, you share be shared and enjoy a short compulsory holiday.

    The drone operator can sue for damages and the home owner can sue for invasion of privacy, both valid.

    1. rhydian

      And how exactly do you identify the owner of a drone? It's not like they carry number plates is it?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        You shoot at it then wait for the owner to come to you.

        1. rhydian

          That would be the way I'd do it.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    coming soon....

    A "drone shooting sport launching soon where you get points for shooting down drones

    shooting down an amazon drone will get you the most points shooting down a "bog standardl" drone the least points

  35. Kiwi Silver badge

    Would be interested in more detail..

    Maybe I should read some other articles on this..

    I've flown some model aircraft in proper areas designated for their flight. At distance I found it fairly hard to be exactly sure of where the craft was in reference to me - I would not have been able to tell if it had crossed the fence line. Most RC planes and gliders are larger than the drones I've seen, so drones could be harder to determine their actual position when you're a bit of a distance away from it.

    Any telemetry and video data from the drone could've been telling.. Was the drone owner intending to film his own house for whatever reason, then whip over to a mate's place a few doors away (much easier and more fun to fly than land, pick the thing up, walk there, take off...)? Had wind shifts caused him to be a bit further from where he was? Was he actually fighting a headwind and not actually meaning to over over the shooter's home but trying to fly into a headwind? Maybe he was so focused on the great shots he was getting of his own yard that he did not realise where he was.

    If he was trying to snoop, he should expect at best to lose his drone. If not, he maybe should've checked with neighbours and let them know what's what.

    Mostly the drone operator is at fault, but maybe the shooter reacted a bit too hotly? The video would tell...

    (BTW, first "drone" I ever saw was a NZ kids TV series back in the early 80's... One kid attached a RF transmitter to an old (new in the day) video camera (VHS type) which he then attached to his RC helicopter (back then they could be quite large - I've seen some with somewhere near a 2m rotor diameter although the one in the series would've been closed to 1m)

  36. Charles Smith

    Rail Gun

    It sounds like an ideal application for a small rail gun with a tungsten dart. Remove the inconsiderate intrusions to our privacy.

  37. Yugguy

    The definition of satisfaction

    I can't help thinking how immensely satisfying it must have been to shoot one of those wretched things out of the sky.

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    See ladies and gentlemen…

    This is why America needs more 'roos.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/24/kangaroo_boxes_drone_out_of_the_sky/

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: See ladies and gentlemen…

      Or soccer balls…

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/schoolboy-takes-out-drone-with-football/6900706

  39. Brentmc

    Kiwi Anti Drone Methods

    A big difference between the U.S. and New Zealand is the number of guns people have. Therefore. Kiwis have to get a bit more creative and that old 'do it yourself' attitude comes to the fore. This young lad is also ensuring the All Blacks selectors keep tabs on him!

    https://youtu.be/4emOInWh2ec

    1. Paul Ryan
      Thumb Up

      Re: Kiwi Anti Drone Methods

      Nice to see the kids at my old school are keeping up with modern issues like privacy.

  40. x 7 Silver badge

    this guy had the same idea about shooting drones, but had something to hide......

    warning content very NSFW https://www.beastforum.com/showtopic-250567.html

    The site name should be a warning.....

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019