Do you think people will start shooting drones in America?

If they do, they will get arrested for destruction of government property, if nothing else.

The problem is, those damned drones have so much surveillance equipment on board they can't get bushwhacked without observing their destroyer. Furthermore those things are tough enough and fast enough that single shots from a deer or varmint rifle, or a shotgun is highly unlikely.

However, it would probably become dangerous for drone operators to make it public knowledge what they do for a living.

In short, there is little or no profit in trying to shoot down drones.

Doc Hudson

I think that is a really interesting question. So the simple answer is - of course they will. Given the opportuniity some people will take a pot shot at anything that moves. Hell, when I was a kid I used to try and hit starlings with my sling shot. I'm pretty sure that if it were a starling size drone hovering above my house I would have tried to hit it too.

But that isn't the interesting part ...

So, currently, if the government flys a predator drone over your property taking pictures, there is probably an invasion of privacy issue, because you own some amount of that air space above your property. However, if you take your shotgun out and try and take out the predator drone that would probably fall under attempt to destroy government property which, I think, is a felony. In a practical sense, you couldn't really shoot one down because they fly higher than you could hit with a shotgun and I believe are armored against most stuff a typical person might have.

Now, lets assume for a moment that it is one of these new micro drone devices. They don't fly all that high as far as I know, so you could typically reach them with a shotgun or if further than that a .22. The ones I've seen could easily be taken out with a .22 or even a high power pellet rifle and certainly a shotgun. So, you could destroy it. Still if it is government property there might be an issue even if it were spying on you - which could probably be argued as being equivalent to an illegal wiretap.

However, let's assume it is a commercial drone. I.e. it is not owned by the government, but by a corporation or even another private entity - like your neighbor. It is still against the law to destroy someone elses property, but they have no right to spy on you. Is it equivalent to celebrities going nuts on a paparazzi and destroying their camera? Or is it akin to your neighbor tossing something into your yard that irritates you and you destroying it? What if it is on their property and just hovering over the fence? I mean you can't shoot your neighbor for setting up a step ladder up on the fence to watch the wife subbathing - but that would be an infringement of her privacy. Can you destroy a camera doing the same thing?

Those things are controlled on wireless signal, generally GPRS from the ones I've seen lately - essentially a phone call. Is it illegal to jam the call and cause the thing to fall to it's destruction somewhere? After all the air waves are free - that is the law as well. Remember the whole issue of whether pulling down signals from unencrypted cell phone signals represented a wiretap back in the 80s? A bunch of drug dealers got busted on that answer being no.

So - as I am wont to do, a long answer to a seemingly simple question - but I think this one is going to be more interesting than it looks.

Thinkingblade

You know, it's a sad state of affairs when you can see almost daily the loss of some of our freedoms. A case in point, is the governments operation of a computer based in Maryland. The purpose of this computer, is to track every communication in the US, phone calls, computer mail, etc, and any conversation, even this one, will be red flagged for an investigation, if certain key words are use. I will not say what they are, for I don't want to be on object of any type of investigation.

To add some more information to those that care about this sort of thing, the government is also interested in tracking programs, much like the ones that are included in every smart phone you buy, and every key stroke is monitored and the information goes to companies that buy that information for marketing purposes.

A benign example is this computer. A case in point, is when I was interested in an old fashioned (draw knife) that early carpenters used and some traditional bowmakers use to shape their staves with. 30 seconds after looking it up on google, I had an e-mail from Amazon.com with an ad and a price for a draw knife.Even though the google search was for information only.

While that example was just good marketing, I am sure you see how it could be misused by the government. Plus all your smart phones are doing the same thing, and most people are not even aware of it.

But with the advances in technology, the genie will never be put back in the bottle. And government monitoring, illegal and otherwise will continually get worse, and will end up with each citizen having a microchip installed in them the size of a grain of sand.

The technology is already there and just waiting for public acceptance. They will start out slowly, with just known sex offenders and who would be willing to fight against that? Then it will slowly be put in effect. It will be touted as a benefit to society, but in reality, it is total government control of it's citizenry in order for the government to stay in power.

Think along these lines- our government (congress) has a 9% approval rating. A government cannot survive with a 9% approval rating. The minute that the citizens start glamoring for change, the crackdown will begin. Just food for thought.

I have a friend that works for one of the state police departments. He's told me before of the routine surveillance work that they do from helicopters. With a modern digital camera that you can buy for $300 from Best Buy, you can get a 50x optical zoom lens and image stabilization. That's pretty much what they use - they just do two flyovers and photograph what they want. It's been going on for years.

On my private property, since it is private, I use modified deer cameras around my house to capture images of people that might wander onto my property. Every car that enters my driveway has the license plate photographed.

as sad as it may seem, probably not. most people are "sheeple" and will not take action, do not care or do not believe what the government is doing. with our government gps all houses last year thru the census(which is what the drones will be used for against those who refuse to cooperate), or obamanation's passage of the ndaa or the increased civilian and military forces being used in "training" exercises. to being labeled a "terrorist" for stockpiling food and weapons (yes its true). a sad state of affairs exist here.

Why would we need drones? You would be amazed at the resolution and detail you can get with a simple satelite flying over head.

They already have.

Some animal rights group used one to harass a pigeon shoot back east somewhere...someone took a pot shot at the drone and winged it.

To add insult to injury, some folks said that it was a clay pigeon shot.

No, Not if they are using them on their own property or job site. No different from them than a static camera. But, if they are using them on your property where you have a right to expect privacy. Then some might go down from buckshot malfunction.

anyone know the going rate for a bofors 40mm? thank you federal govt, I guess you guys have to stimulate the economy somehow. I'm off to the bank to see if they'll approve a personal loan for an AAA battery around my house...

Two thoughts...

First off, the point of these small, unmanned drones, is that they are nearly invisible to forces on the ground. It's not like Jim-Bob can go out back with his goose-gun and knock one of these things out of the sky, I'm not entirely certain a trained marksman with a high powered rifle could knock one down at all, definitely not on the first shot. So I don't envision many people being AWARE they're on "candid camera", and beyond that, being able to go inside, grab a rifle, and come back before it's gone will be challenging, and even further, connecting with a disabling shot will be a feat of marksmanship that few are possible of achieving.

Secondly, it is, and always has been (since the inception of the FAA) a federal offense to fire upon ANY aircraft, regardless of whether they're in the air, or on the ground and unoccupied. Drones will be no different. When some smart *** takes a shot at a drone trying to be cool, then spends 10yrs in the pen and ends up getting sued by the company or agency that OWNS the drone for their damages, and then gets sued by the property owner for wherever the drone CRASHES... Yeah, that'll be the end of all of the other rednecks who think it's a good idea to take shots at Big Brother.

Frankly, taking a shot at an unmanned surveillance drones is, at it's core, according to the legal system, no different than taking a shot at a police officer in the street. It's not some podunk misdemeanor where you'd get off with a slap on the wrist.

Our country is set up with a system of checks and balances to protect the citizenship from the government, always has been. Nobody is getting surveilled unless they NEED to be surveilled, and having access to drones won't change that. What it WILL change is how easy it is to get away with crimes. Vice squads with airplanes and helicopters took down (and continue to take down) TONS of drug rings and even whiskey stills, but the downside is that the perps got wise and could SPOT even a small surveillance plane, and with the price of fuel, lifting just costs too much in a full sized aircraft.