I am not a Lawyar but I wouldnât think so given remote control guns arenât legal, or maybe thatâs âgun tied to motion sensorsâ I forget exactly.
Even if gun drones are legal, I think itâs a stupid idea. As the âguys take over a jeepâ thing showed it can be terrifying when technology gets co-opted. While you donât need technology to take a gun from someone, when drone flies through and suddenly ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL that isnât your thing anymore.
Doesnât even have to be malicious intent. Could just be something trips software bug and oops, marv got shot in the face.
Very untrustworthy because itâs not Hand on Trigger.
The most recent step on a path to the inevitable push for the banning of civilian drones.
How about if we just attach bombs to them and use them to kill brown people? Thatâs still ok, right?
Itâs perfectly OK to use a weapons system mounted on a drone to kill people without discriminating friend and foe - as long as you are the military.
So, whatâs the defense against a bad guy with a drone with a gun?
I saw a news story about that yesterday and the âdrone expertâ said something like âthere are lots of uses for drones, but a weapons platform isnât one - drones should be used for good and not evilâ.
Theyâre obviously okay. Obviously. A Supreme Court that affirms that corporations have voting rights canât possibly refrain from extending Second Amendment rights to remotely controlled human body parts like drones.
âObviously,â Scalia would say scathingly if the question were to come before him, âwe do not restrict the right of a man with a mechanical hand to own and fire a gun, no matter how inaccurate he may be, no matter how dangerous he may be to himself and others. A drone under human control is no more than a mechanical hand separated from the owner by some distance, and so far as I recall, no mention of a safe operating distance appears in the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers had meant to restrict such uses they would have done so explicitly.â
Man, watching that video, at one point the gun starts turning just a little too close to the camera operator for my comfort level.
To use the analogy above, I donât see âit is idiotic and likely illegal to equip your drone with a gunâ as inherently anti-drone any more than âit is idiotic and likely illegal to equip your dog with a gunâ is inherently anti-dog.
Part dog, part gunâŚ
Just incorporate the drone so it has more rights than most people.
Birdshot, a net, or maybe a bucket of water?
I think you may be remembering the legal doctrine around âbooby trapsâ which are illegal for a couple of reasons 1) booby traps may harm people lawfully entering the home (police, fire etc) and 2) the âcastle doctrineâ doesnât apply to an unoccupied house because no person is in danger of bodily harm, therefore deadly force is not justified. Also, just generally a really bad idea.
As for this drone bot, clearly that does not fall in the above reasoning, though it may fall within some laws depending on how they are phrased. Iâm reminded of an early case of a gun that was hooked up to the Internet that allowed anyone to fire it at targets with their browser. Subsequent projects have been done to shoot at deer/hogs/etc. In some states I think this is legal (if I remember correctly) under the theory that those who have disabilities that might prevent them from firing a weapon should still be legally allowed to hunt and target shoot. But in many states any remote firing of a weapon is illegal.
Iâm not saying all people are saints. Sorry if that seemed to be the interpretation you took. Iâm more meaning âI want the trigger pulled when, and only when, I want it pulled and not by some outside agency I have no control of.â
My Right Wing Loony brother just shot a load in his pants!
So did I.
Armed drones are a bad idea.
Wasnât there a site way back where you could pay to âremote huntâ and move/fire guns from a webcam?
