Shoot drone, town has to pay $100 reward and cover $50000+ in collateral damage depending on the size of the drone and how unlucky its final landing was.
Drone Hunting License In the Works In Colorado Town
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I use to work for a company that flew unmanned aircraft with Motion Picture cameras in Colorado for various media organizations(Movies and TV), just because Colorado is one of the more scenic states. Your talking about tens of thousands dollars worth of equipment. It cheaper to use unmanned aircraft than helicopter shots.
Have fun there.Kheapathic said:
"Steel admitted that he's never actually seen a drone flying over the town"
"the licenses, which would sell for $25 for a year, could be a big source of revenue for the town, stating that they'd "sell like hotcakes."
"Even if a tiny percentage of people get online [for a] drone license, that's cool. That's a lot of money to a small town like us"
First of all, shooting up into the sky wildly in populated areas. Nothing bad could EVER come of that. But, mostly, I love how they aren't hiding, at all, that they're preying on people's fears to make money. But morons are still buying it hook, line, and sinker. What a wonderfully fucked up country we live in.
I should run for office. If this is all it takes the manipulate people I'd have the United States wrapped around my finger in a matter of months. I think my election platform will be to blow up the moon in order to keep gay, Muslim, Hispanic, atheist, Hitler from stealing our women and jobs.
Millions would be marching in the streets chanting "Hell no the moon must go!"
I'd be the world's first super villain. My God.... it would be beautiful....
First anyone shooting down a $4 million dollar Predator is not gonna be concerned about a drone hunting license and is not gonna need the $100 bounty. To hit a predator at 10k feet (approx 3km) your gonna need a missile, even a 40mm Bofors or 20mm Phalanx CIWS system would have extreme trouble hitting something at that range. (Though the US Navy's new laser might.) Furthermore, most UCAVs, including the Predator, fly much higher than 10k feet. In the end, anyone throwing around $35 million USD, to shoot down a drone costing 8 times less isn't worried about the money or the law.
On the other hand, hunters probably would like to get that license, since PETA and SHARK, who are actively harassing and illegally targeting hunters, love sending quad-rotors after them. and a single shotgun shell or rifle cartridge is gonna be much cheaper. Heck even if someone only shoot a drone down once every 3-4 years they aren't gonna be losing money. In the end, any private organization that spys on others deserves to lose money.
On the other hand, hunters probably would like to get that license, since PETA and SHARK, who are actively harassing and illegally targeting hunters, love sending quad-rotors after them. and a single shotgun shell or rifle cartridge is gonna be much cheaper. Heck even if someone only shoot a drone down once every 3-4 years they aren't gonna be losing money. In the end, any private organization that spys on others deserves to lose money.
Forget that, what happens when the government comes around asking why drones are getting shot down, and whos going to pay the damages.Vie said:
And why the hell not?DVS BSTrD said:
Are YOU going to send your multi-million dollar bots to a zone where it's legal and encouraged to fill them with buckshot?
Hey, I resent that. That's my job!Rotten_Karma said:
Of course, we're only "spying" on corporate truck activities (because, stunningly, truckers are not trustworthy!), a service that the company we're spying on actively pays for, but still.
First off, a local authority issuing a license doesn't make it legal. Second, buckshot can't reach them at their cruising altitude. Third, the places they're currently deployed to are much more hostile, and probably better armed to boot.lacktheknack said:
So, yeah, sure, no problem.
Pyrian said:
Wait wait wait, I thought it was an observation drone thing.DVS BSTrD said:
You know, the unarmed ones that actually have to get close to be more effective than a satellite.
Most spy drones are civilian owned and are just run as a hobby by people with too much time and money on their hands. There are a few cases where the government have used them in remote areas for police surveillance but those are rare.The Wykydtron said:
But yeah, kill with lasers for the luls.
So next is the law that says that tanks, helicopters and planes are a nuisance, and licences will be issued to shoot down or blow THOSE up.
I mean..seriously? Never mind stupid, I'm pretty sure that you can classify shooting down government owned military machines as an act of terrorism, if not an act of war.
I mean..seriously? Never mind stupid, I'm pretty sure that you can classify shooting down government owned military machines as an act of terrorism, if not an act of war.
I think it's more funny these hicks have the delusion that the government would even consider them worth watching.
We don't care how many times they've inbred with their cousins.
We don't care how many times they've inbred with their cousins.