Gun-Firing Drone Raises Some Eyebrows

An anonymous reader writes: A video posted on YouTube showing a drone firing a gun in a wooded area has caused some controversy today. The short video shows a four-rotored custom drone with a special rig containing a handgun. The handgun proceeds to fire four shots, handling the recoil better than might be expected. The user who posted the video also submitted it to Reddit, where a commenter noted that the apparent use of a solenoid trigger would class the device as an automatic weapon under ATF rules.

Comments

Just like defense distributed

[Nidi62]

People like this guy are why we cannot have nice things.

However, this thing could have some potential in the development of an extreme form of skeet shooting....

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have made it shoot a 3d printed gun. Then the media and politicians would REALLY go ballistic.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Countries that ban things are why people can't have nice things. Companies like defense distributed are why people will have nice things whether or not you are scared of them.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[rogoshen1]

well the problem with that is a gun is not a very aerodynamically sound shape. It would probably start tumbling right out of the barrel and lose velocity far too quickly to have any kind of range. Firing bullets was the proper choice here, let's not armchair quarterback their decisions too much, okay?

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig would appear to be at odds with your post.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[garyisabusyguy]

In drone-filled American, skeet shoot YOU!

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Applehu Akbar]

See! I told you someone would think of a military use for drones.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[idlehanz]

I see what you did there.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[suutar]

He's interpreting it as "it should have used 3-d printed guns as projectiles"

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

whoooosh!!!!

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Double whoosh!!!!!

Your reply was actually funny, though. Thanks for that.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[future assassin]

You'd same the same thing if someone else did it. How do you expect to have "nice thing" when you can't do them because you're afraid they might make it illegal.

The only reason you can't have nice thing is the gov doesn’t give as flying fuck about you and you're too scared to take back your country.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[gweihir]

While this demonstration is not surprising in any way at all, stupid and evil politicians will of course jump right on it. The fact of the matter is that neither can drones be suppressed, nor can firearms. In the worst case, you do a front-loader with self-cast lead bullets and powder from firecrackers.

Of course, authoritarians (and basically all politicians with any real power fall into that class these days) are afraid all the time and irrational all the time as a consequence, so no rational arguments will help. If these people ever realize what any good engineer or scientist in the physical sciences can do (but almost universally does not do), they will panic completely. Until the human race learns to keep authoritarians under control, there will be no end to evil.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[PopeRatzo]

The only reason you can't have nice thing is the gov doesn’t give as flying fuck about you and you're too scared to take back your country.

And drones with fricking lasers are the first step to taking back our country.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[PopeRatzo]

In the worst case, you do a front-loader with self-cast lead bullets and powder from firecrackers.

I'm curious. What are you going to do with that muzzle-loader on a drone?

Is it for self-defense or are you planning on taking out some police or marines on a military base? Or maybe you're planning on doing some aerial coon hunting with your drone with a handgun? If you want to "keep authorities under control" wouldn't a truck with a bomb made from fertilizer in front of a Federal building be more of what you're looking for?

Seriously, I want to know how you're going to keep authorities under control with your firearms. Please enlighten us.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

He's going to use it to "keep those damn kids off my lawn" LOL

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's evil little shits like you who get their jollies from shooting other people that make authoritarians necessary. You sick fuck.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[future assassin]

Exactly!!!! Flying drone sharks with lasers.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[redwraith94]

I just heard a damn burst, and the sound of whooshing, and deep rumbling from farther up the valley. This won't be stopped.

Rise of the machines.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[dwillden]

And the Plot and theme for Sharknado 3 has just been written. Hollywood thanks you for the free idea.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Dan541]

The Russians have done it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe you're planning on doing some aerial coon hunting with your drone with a handgun?

No, I'm not that racist.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Sharknado 4

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

>What are you going to do with that muzzle-loader on a drone?

He will amuse himself. 200 years ago someone would have asked "What are you going to do with that electo-shock machine?" The authoritarians thank you for keeping us behind and preventing anyone from amusing themselves or others.

>Is it for self-defense or are you planning on taking out some police or marines on a military base? Or maybe you're planning on doing some aerial coon hunting with your drone with a handgun? If you want to "keep authorities under control" wouldn't a truck with a bomb made from fertilizer in front of a Federal building be more of what you're looking for?

Did he say any of those?

>Seriously, I want to know how you're going to keep authorities under control with your firearms. Please enlighten us.

Leaping to conclusions seems to be the mantra of a fascist. Very good job sir.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascist countries where you cannot own things because there is the possibility you might choose to hurt someone with them is why we can't have nice things. ie: You are why we can't have nice things.

Fortunately, companies like defense distributed will fix this for us, even if it means giving all the guns to crack dealers in the streets first before you give up and give us back the right every person deserves: To do whatever the fuck they please so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is a nice thing.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[stooo]

>>People like this guy are why we cannot have nice things.

People like this guy are why we cannot have nice weapons to play with.
Yeah, well. We don't need weapons to play with.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[PopeRatzo]

He will amuse himself.

I enjoy reading about people who amuse themselves with firearms.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess since I haven't seen anybody say it yet, I will.

The big difference here is defense distributed actually took reasonable measures to stay within the law, they just did something that made people uneasy which earned them bad press. (Although you could argue that's EXACTLY what the found wanted).

In this case, though, there are already regulations prohibiting a civilian from mounting a weapon to an aircraft.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Marxist Hacker 42]

From the "Second Amendment" point of view- if the government has drones that can fire missiles, why shouldn't we have drones that can fire handguns?

Still, I dislike the engineering method of this. I think there's a far better way to do it, there is no need for a grip or trigger on a mounted gun, that's just extra weight.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

If the existence of this device is at all a surprise to anyone, then they are a tard and what's wrong with the world.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean skeet that shoot back?

Re:Just like defense distributed

[david_thornley]

For the same reason (which I can't figure out) that I can't just buy a military-grade rifle, like a US rifleman would carry, even though I'd pass any reasonable background check.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I'm not surprised it exists, I'm just surprised that someone can simultaneous have the means to make/acquire it *and* the stupidity to post a video of it functioning on YouTube.

As someone else already mentioned, the recoil looks *very* controlled... To the point were I kinda wonder if the video was faked.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ballistic lol

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya skeets that shoot back

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Feral Nerd]

People like this guy are why we cannot have nice things.

However, this thing could have some potential in the development of an extreme form of skeet shooting....

Tired of normal skeet shooting? Craving some excitement? Well come over to Jim Bob's EXTREME skeet range, on our range the clay pigeons SHOOT BACK!!!

Re:Just like defense distributed

[crackspackle]

>However, this thing could have some potential in the development of an extreme form of skeet shooting.

Combined with delivery, it could also be useful for curbing package theft.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

keep up! Sharknado 3 is already out, due to be broadcast any moment. :-)

Re: Just like defense distributed

[hucker75]

Which was absolutely stupid. Why would anyone think you'd fire a gun out of a gun?

Re:Just like defense distributed

[hucker75]

What does a burst sound like and why are you damning it?

Re:Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean pirated 3d printed sharks with lasers bought with bitcoins.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[suutar]

That would be the joke. Lots of humor is based on intentional absurd misunderstanding.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[ffsnjb]

You certainly can, if you have the money. An M16 can be legally acquired in most states, it'll just cost you 10x or more than an AR15, and a lot more paperwork.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[hucker75]

Never seen a joke like that before.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[ganjadude]

who knows, maybe he will bring it to a marine recruiter's office. but then again, those are gun free zones so nothing bad can ever happen there

Re:Just like defense distributed

[ganjadude]

authoritarians are NEVER necessary

Re:Just like defense distributed

[ganjadude]

thats like, just your opinion man

Re:Just like defense distributed

[PopeRatzo]

I've yet to hear about how you're going to keep the government under control with your firearms. Apparently no one has an answer to that one yet. They must not have thought this thing through.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[gweihir]

Can you read? Apparently not. I never said _I_ wanted a gun on a drone at all, just that it is not possible to prevent people from doing it.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[gweihir]

And another one that cannot read. Where did I say _I_ wanted such a thing? Care to enlighten me? Because I am pretty sure I did not say that _at_ _all_. I merely pointed out that it is not possible to prevent people from putting guns on drones. That does not at all mean (unless you are really stupid, and I am not ruling that out) that _I_ want to do that.

As a side note, the only people that think they need authoritarian leader scum are authoritarian follower scum.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[ganjadude]

which answer would you like me provide to you?

the one where i say it doesnt matter what the plan is?? or that there doesnt need to be a plan???

or would you prefer the federal response of "we have to pass it before you can read it"

Or the other federal response of "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??!!?!"

Re:Just like defense distributed

[PopeRatzo]

which answer would you like me provide to you?

the one where i say it doesnt matter what the plan is?? or that there doesnt need to be a plan???

So, you're going to keep the government under control using firearms, but you have absolutely no idea how to go about that besides "have firearms"?

You simply refuse to admit the obvious: that the people who believe the Second Amendment is some guarantee against tyranny just have not thought it through. Or, they refuse to admit that it always ends up with killing members of the US military or civilian police. But since they're all good patriotic paramilitary groupies, they won't admit it to themselves. Yourselves.

Me, I tend to think you're in the "haven't thought it through" camp.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[ganjadude]

i admit 100% i havent thought it through. because I hope it never comes to that.

but the 2nd amendment clearly allows it to happen, so by that right, thats all the reason we need

Re:Just like defense distributed

[PopeRatzo]

i admit 100% i havent thought it through. because I hope it never comes to that.

but the 2nd amendment clearly allows it to happen, so by that right, thats all the reason we need

Allows what to happen? Where in the Second Amendment is "keeping government accountable" allowed? You're still not thinking anything through.

"The Second Amendment...IT'S A COOKBOOK!"

Your preparation for this "keeping government accountable" part includes owning a firearm, but not giving any thought to how to use it to accomplish your goal? This is fascinating. I would have thought you'd at least have given it a little thought.

Re:Just like defense distributed

[stooo]

No, that's the opinion of at least 95% of humanity.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Dashiva Dan]

Sorry, moderated you overrated instead of underrated :/ fixed.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Dashiva Dan]

Welcome to the internets.

Re: Just like defense distributed

[hucker75]

Your grammar is terrible. It's "Welcomes to the internets".

Re: Just like defense distributed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, puzzy, we see u on frontlines! You are so brave!! EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE SITTING ON YOUR AZZ COMMENTING ON THIS POST. So stfu, acting like u r doing something, dumb azz!

Re:Just like defense distributed

[BetterThanCaesar]

The Russians have done it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Nyet. He's American. FPS Russia is filmed in Georgia – the one with the swamps and the Coca-Cola.

Yep

[Nethead]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

You never could have them in the first place. Asking your benevolent overlords to be nice is how humans racked up their body counts.

Re: Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, build whatever you want. Just stop posting video of obviously illegal stuff on YouTube.

Of course the guy might be plant by some 3 letter agency to put pressure on lawmakers for more restrictions or harsher penalties. /checks the fit of his tinfoil hat before posting/

Re:Yep

[TWX]

Human nature is how humans racked up their body counts. I expect that even when we were operating as very small tribes scattered over large areas and with leaders whose positions were tenuous at best we still made war.

Re: Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously illegal?

Really, now. Can you please tell me what law was broken in that video?

Re: Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody in the YouTube comments mentioned that in the United States the gun would considered a fully automatic weapon because of the attached solenoid.

However, another commenter astutely questioned whether the video was taken in the United States. From the looks of the trees it must have been in a country in a temperate zone. The only countries I could imagine where this might be legal (legally or de facto) would be in the tropics, but maybe I'm wrong.

I think it's cool. Some people might think it's scary. But nothing is stopping some wacko from walking up behind you and putting a bullet in the back of your head. It happens. And you can kill people remotely and, theoretically at least, without a trace by many means, including bombs, etc. That happens, too, unfortunately. A drone flying around with a gun? At least I'd almost certainly see it coming. In any event, as a white male I'm basically infinitely more likely to be run over by a car or randomly develop clinical depression and kill myself before anything else gets me.

Re: Yep

[sir1real]

It's funny to see people get their panties in a twist over this. Especially since this video is pretty tame compared to what's already been done. Now watch the REAL video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Yep

[BlueStrat]

Somebody in the YouTube comments mentioned that in the United States the gun would considered a fully automatic weapon because of the attached solenoid.

Ridiculously-broad laws & regulations are ridiculous.

BATFE considers a shoestring a machine gun.

Seriously, no kidding.

The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination. But those judgments are private and, it turns out, sometimes contradictory. Critics say nearly identical prototypes can be approved for one manufacturer but denied for another.

That process, known as âoeletter rulings,â results in various findings about what makes a weapon. Program critics, including the ATF's former assistant director of criminal investigations, said one determination contended that a shoestring was a machine gun.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

So basically, an individual can not know precisely what is legal or illegal ahead of time until/unless they are prosecuted, that is, unless they become a licensed firearm maker and submit a prototype for a determination.

But, that does not inform anyone else, as those letters are sent to the specific business involved and are often secret. Letter determinations are not made public.

As far as a solenoid or similar type actuating mechanism that is not a traditional mechanical type, isn't that at the core of so-called "smart gun" designs?

Wouldn't a law that made this armed quad-copter illegal by making the non-manual trigger mechanism illegal run the risk of simultaneously making "smart gun" technology illegal?

It's another of those attempts to make a technology or object illegal instead of making harmful/dangerous acts performed by any means illegal.

I'm certain that, given the amount of laws & regulations concerning firearms already on the books, that there are already laws that would cover any illegal/dangerous acts performed with this technology.

Besides, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, a law won't stop lawbreakers.

Strat

Re: Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody in the YouTube comments mentioned that in the United States the gun would considered a fully automatic weapon because of the attached solenoid.

Don't believe everything you read in the YouTube comments (or anywhere else on the internet).

A solenoid in and of itself doesn't make it fully automatic. If the solenoid is wired up to allow firing more than one bullet per press of the "fire" button, that makes it fully automatic. Ditto for any other mechanism that allows for firing more than one shot per trigger pull (or button press).

On the other hand, some mechanism that just makes it easy to pull the trigger really fast does not make it fully automatic.

Re:Yep

[rtb61]

The film was a bit of a con. That rig was properly engineering to fire that weapon, that recoil was really well balanced and amateurs would struggle with the cost of a trial and error method. Also the heavier the drone rig, the more controlled the recoil but a substantially reduced flight time with the motors require to run a full power. New far more restrictive drone laws are coming.

Re: Yep

[chuckugly]

Somebody in the YouTube comments mentioned that in the United States the gun would considered a fully automatic weapon because of the attached solenoid.

Well, fully automatic guns are not illegal, they are restricted and require a tax stamp, and have some manufacturing restrictions. Also, it's not clear that merely having an electrically actuated trigger makes it a machine gun at all. The Tracking Point rifles seem to have a computer controlled ignition system and they are not classified as automatic weapons. The rule is highly dependent upon interpretation AFAICT but basically it seems the key is whether the ignition system fires more than once with a single actuation of the trigger.

I don't see anything clearly illegal here, but there might be local regulations or laws I'm not aware of.

Re:Yep

[PopeRatzo]

I expect that even when we were operating as very small tribes scattered over large areas and with leaders whose positions were tenuous at best we still made war.

Yes, but back then it wasn't practical to attach a bow and arrow to a drone.

Re:Yep

[PopeRatzo]

The film was a bit of a con. That rig was properly engineering to fire that weapon, that recoil was really well balanced and amateurs would struggle with the cost of a trial and error method.

Shh. Don't tell people that. You don't want to be discouraging people from attaching handguns to drones and depriving us of all the humorous Darwin Awards nominees.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

You are thinking too small.
A Trebuchet mounted on a Drone would be awesome.

Re: Yep

[redwraith94]

...before anything else gets me.

For now.

Re: Yep

[redwraith94]

Well our gracious Sabbatean Franko Nazi overlords realized that in Rome it angered people when they were charged with a law that they weren't allowed to read. They saw that bureaucracy, and capriciousness were more likely to succeed in the long run. Since the people would be fighting the bureaucracy, and its 'inefficiency'. In this way they could avoid the overt trappings of totalitarianism, all the while cramming 'freedom' down everyone's throats for so long that they actually believed that they were.

Re: Yep

[redwraith94]

I dunno, did the FCC classify your device as having to accept interference? Your weapon might fire accidentally, committing a felony for every additional shot. What about a de-bounce switch? How can you be sure you will stay jail free, and not commit multiple, accidental felonies? I am not willing to risk my freedoms on it, not me, no sirree, bob. I'll stay safe in my box over here, don't mind me. Just shivering alone in my box, waiting for the authorities.

Alone...shivering...

in my box, where it's safe.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't kill off a disease by slowly ramping up the antibiotics at a rate the disease can adapt at. You slam it hard with everything at once so that it can't adapt, otherwise you will eventually kill off the host.

Retards stacking up guns and showing off small technological advances at a time gives the government time to adapt to the situation and set up laws and find methods to deal with it.
Back when the second amendment was written building guns required a lot of skill and took a lot of time. You needed preparation time.
These days when CNC machinery is something you can find practically anywhere there isn't much need for people to own guns. Fully automatic assault rifles can be manufactured at a rate that wasn't possible back then. The problem is ammunition I guess.
But since people have guns the government needs to be prepared to handle them at all times. They are able to deal with that.
Something else has to be figured out if the need to topple over the government arises, because anything that is obvious will be prepared for.

Re:Yep

[x0ra]

Manufacturing a safe full-auto is harder than you think...

Re: Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

The FPSRussia video has been outed as a CGI endeavor over a year ago.

Re: Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anything clearly illegal here, but there might be local regulations or laws I'm not aware of.

The FAA would like a word with you. Armed civilian aircraft are a no-no.

Re: Yep

[dinfinity]

Fake.

Both the 'Russian' (his name is Kyle Myers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and the quadcopter ( http://www.military.com/video/... ).

Not saying it will never be done (the opposite, in fact), just that it hasn't been done just yet.

Re: Yep

[RobinH]

It seems unlikely to me that you would (a) aim the gun at yourself while flying like he does at the beginning and (b) test it out so close to yourself without being behind some kind of a safety shield. I'd bet it's bogus.

Re: Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Tracking Point, indeed, does *NOT* have a "computer controlled ignition system". In fact, the computer-controlled part simply prevents or allows the trigger from being pulled by the user.

Re:Yep

[spiritgreywolf]

Oh I am so going to do this and post a vid. This is a must do...

Re: Yep

[LessThanObvious]

When they did this on Discovery's "Sons of Guns", it was clear this was going to be attempted by someone at home. They mounted a large 9mm semi-auto handgun on a drone for mine and IED removal. It worked quite well. A drone is just a platform, people are going to use them for all sorts of things whether for good or evil and there is almost nothing that can be done to stop that. At this point I still don't view it as a serious threat.

Heny Penny time!

[Anonymous Coward]

The sky is falling, the sky..........I mean, the drone is shooting, the drone is shooting!!!!!!!

Re:Heny Penny time!

[redwraith94]

The skynet is falling, the skynet..........I mean, the drone is shooting, the drone is shooting!!!!!!!

FTFY

Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

This has two components, the handgun and the drone. I suspect the push will be for greater legislation of drones rather than handguns.

Re:Priorities

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Seems reasonable. I don't doubt that if the National Rotorcraft Association were a political force to be reckoned with they'd go after the handgun instead.

Re:Priorities

[deKernel]

No, we don't need any more legislation period. If you wish to live in a nanny state, by all means move to one because there are many to choose from.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post implies that you dislike the second amendment and wish it circumvented. In which case I must ask, why do you hate free speech? I'm not talking about the whole "I need meh guns to protect meh rights!". I'm talking about whatever loophole you allow to be used to bypass the built-in process for changing the constitution regarding the 2nd amendment, can and will be used against you to circumvent the 1st amendment.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

You can have my drone, when you pry it from my cold dead hands!!

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

This is badass bro, DO WANT, woot !!!

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see, the device is already illegal (due to the electronic trigger).

So tell me, why should we need "greater legislation"?

Re:Priorities

[Barsteward]

that might happen if your own drone shoots you....

Re:Priorities

[redwraith94]

You can have my gun, when you pry it from my cold, dead, drone.

Re:Priorities

[redwraith94]

Like Cali, or NY? Oh you meant nation. Sorry, I have to disagree with you; I think most states are fairly 'nanny' over here.

Quick, quick, save me from myself! I don't want the responsibility of making decisions for me! It could lead to me being wrong about something, and then loosing my leverage in a future argument with every person in the world about how great I am! Save MEeeee!

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

2nd amendment has nothing to do with the first. Absolutely nothing.

Your 2nd amendment, which were perhaps useful more than a hundred years ago, are now just a placebo.

You have your Texas trinity: god, guns, and football. But you aren't smart enough to realize how hard your getting fucked by the oligarchy that the Reaganists and Randians have been put into power. Thanks to their economic policies, you aren't middle class unless you're part of the 1%. Really.

The 1%ers are now the middle class living the american dream. The rest of us are just wage slaves proping up their stock valuations with our 401K plans.

The Tax deductions we get for investing in 401k is converted to capitail gains by people who are given stock as part of their compensation.

When they want to boost the economy who gets the tax deductions? The upper class. The upper class who makes money when unemployment is high.

What drives the economy? The people who spend most of their money just trying to get by and make the time they aren't working just a little more pleasant.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people, drones do.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not scared of myself.. I'm scared of all the other idiots with guns.

Re:Priorities

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You might want to check your truth tables. The only belief my post 'implies' is the theory that people who are going to jump on the "Something must be done!" bandwagon prefer soft targets over hard ones when they have a choice.

'Kids these days with their scary internet helicopters' are a much softer target than guns, and I would expect them to act accordingly.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Becareful what you wish for, if you wish for intelligent people to leave they'll do that, and then they wont be there to prop you up, and you'll be poor.

You're not smart enough to help keep a country wealthy by itself, you need those people that you're wishing away.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to their economic policies, you aren't middle class unless you're part of the 1%. Really.

While I don't disagree with your rant against the plutocrats, the above is a stupid statement.

I'm from the US, and I've lived both in first world Europe and the third world Middle East. You don't know what poverty is.

Re:Priorities

[KGIII]

You are mistaken. The second amendment is there to provide protections for the first amendment.

Re:Priorities

[david_thornley]

The first and second amendments don't have to be connected in any way for this to be a concern. If one amendment isn't taken seriously, why would another one be?

Let me put it this way. I like defending constitutional freedoms, at least to the point of donating money to organizations that will do that. I get really nervous when one of those rights is gutted, because that means any other one could be gutted at any time.

I don't own a firearm, and don't currently want to. I really don't like the fact that I can't legally acquire the weapons a standard infantryman would carry.

Re:Priorities

[david_thornley]

The problem I have with that is that we're not going to eliminate guns in this country, not for a long time, and gun control laws tend to remove guns from the gun owners I worry least about.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

The middle and lower classes were the ones that received the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts, not the upper class. You really need to pull your head out of your ass and stop reading the OWS nonsense.

People don't kill people

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminators do!

Drone with a handgun...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool.

Drone Assassins.

[blueshift_1]

Imagine this on a Lily Cam or AirDog where it would aim for you - and at you. I, for one, welcome our new Drone Assassin overlords.

Obligitory

[Anonymous Coward]

https://xkcd.com/1523/

Surprised it took this long

[Anonymous Coward]

Build armed drone, stash it somewhere on a rooftop with a solar trickle charger, fly it via cell phone network...

What part is difficult? Wonder why the FAA and other government agencies have freaked out over drones?

Re:Surprised it took this long

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If your plan involves getting away with it; Don't Touch The Cell Network. You might as well use the fed's wifi, except that that would be less expensive.

Re:Surprised it took this long

[TWX]

...fly it via cell phone network...

What part is difficult?

Damn lag...

You'll also generate logs through your network traffic. Even if you use a burner laptop at a coffee shop and a burner 3G or 4G device there's a chance that they'll get enough information to figure out where you were when you were controlling it to eventually figure out who you are. You're probably better off using actual radio as there won't be logs with mac addresses and fingerprints related to the network stacks on the devices and such.

Drones don't kill...

[Anonymous Coward]

people do.

Nothing new here

[Anonymous Coward]

A number of years ago before Quad Copters ( They are not Drones !!!!) were available a guy put a .45 1911 on a large glow powered helicopter. Absolutely no difference other than the number of spinning blades. Not a word was spoken.

I have no issue with this other than this person is violating already existing laws and guidelines put in place but by the government and organizations that promote model aircraft.

Re:Nothing new here

[TWX]

There is a difference. Before the advent of the modern quadcopter the barrier to entry was much higher (mainly due to cost) and the ability to control the RC device was much worse; simply losing control and crashing was a fact of life in the hobby of RC flying things.

If we want to make a firearms analogy for the RC flyers, the old-school RC planes and helicopters with no self-stabilization and short-life batteries were like muzzle-load pistols, or perhaps early cap-and-ball single-action revolvers. Modern quadcopters with electronic stabilization and other modes that are still mostly flown from handheld remote controls are your semi-automatic pistols. Completely computer-controllable quadcopters that can be programmed to autonomously navigate flightplans or can do object detection and avoidance are your small automatic weapons.

Re:Nothing new here

[redwraith94]

I have no issue with this

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Re:Nothing new here

[dave420]

No difference? This drone can be piloted without being able to see it, the RC helicopter you mention couldn't, hence the difference.

Re:Nothing new here

[BubbaDave]

Quad copters are the 'slob enabled technology' (SET) version of model aircraft.
No skill barrier to entry, and a skill-barrier to entry does a lot to preclude reckless acts which can endanger the ability to carry out the activity.

Example: It takes skill to ride a dirt-bike, quads are the slob-enabled technology version of the activity.

Re:Nothing new here

[Anonymous Coward]

Helicopters can be flown with flight controllers and cameras. People do it.

Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who doesn't like this - go live in North Korea.

Re:Freedom!

[TWX]

Sorry, I'm not a member of congress, not an option.

Re:Freedom!

[roc97007]

(Or a former basketball player...)

Re:Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong with not liking this. The problem comes when you decide to circumvent the built-in process of amending the constitution in order to ban it.

Cheap Predator Drone

[gurps_npc]

Also, I definitely agree that this should be considered a fully automatic weapon.

Re:Cheap Predator Drone

[TWX]

I admit that I don't know the formal definition of what constitutes an automatic weapon, but if avoiding being called an automatic weapon requires that a human being manually pull a mechanical trigger on the firearm to be discharged, then having a remote control to fire the weapon would not be adequate to avoid it.

Re: Cheap Predator Drone

[nehumanuscrede]

I gotta interject here.

It is not considered an automatic weapon as long as the weapon fires one round per actuation. Press button once and it fires once, then it's fine.

Similar to hand crank device you can put on trigger to fire as you crank it. It actuates the trigger once and the weapon fires once. Not an automatic weapon. You can crank it fast or get creative and put a motor on it, but still not considered an automatic weapon.

As a final example, a Slide Fire stock will shoot at high rates of fire, but is still one shot per trigger actuation so is perfectly legal.

Bottom line, as long as it fires one round per trigger actuation, it's legal. Only multiple shots per actuation is where the BATF starts to care.

Re: Cheap Predator Drone

[gurps_npc]

That is true, but they don't care about the trigger vs. another button. That is, it's a matter of programming then.

If the finger can hold down the remote control firing button, and the actuator will automatically pull the mechanical trigger multiple times, then it will still count as an automatic weapon, but only when it is in the drone.

Re: Cheap Predator Drone

[TWX]

That's what I was thinking. The problem of not being a handheld mechanical linkage from the operator's finger to the firing pin, and having some remote form, is that I don't see how it couldn't be instructed through programming to be an automatic weapon, so long as the act of firing the weapon cycles it to be ready to fire again. Obviously this wouldn't apply to a single-shot pistol or a single-action revolver if it lacks a means to cock the hammer after firing, or required triggering an entirely different, unrelated mechanism to cock the hammer.

Amazon

[NEDHead]

Bill collectors?

Re:Amazon

[roc97007]

I was thinking more Robot Wars, only the robots fly.

Re:Amazon

[dcollins117]

I've only watched the first couple of Battlebots this season but already there was one bot with a freaking flame thrower. I expect there are some sort of rules as to what you can attach to your bot in that competition, but was pleasantly surprised to see flame throwers aren't excluded. Explosives, I imagine, are :)

Waaaaay Late to the party

[NetNinja]

Welcome to several years ago.
This guy has a channel that shows lots of the latest weapons, has a funny Russian accent but he is not Russian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Waaaaay Late to the party

[ArylAkamov]

People still think that was real? It was a promotional video for CoD.

I applaud this

[Balial]

I'm glad someone is exercising their 2nd amendment rights this way. This is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

Re:I applaud this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad someone is exercising their 2nd amendment rights this way. This is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

I could see Ben Franklin flying an armed drone if he were alive today.

Re:I applaud this

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see Ben Franklin flying an armed drone if he were alive today.

In a lightning storm, of course.

Re:I applaud this

[Barsteward]

a question.. if its an "amendment" would it have been made when the founding fathers drew up the constitution or after and if after while they were still alive?

Re:I applaud this

[Anonymous Coward]

The first 10 amendments were added simultaneously with the adoption of the Constitution. As a whole, they tend to call out and prohibit things that the British did to them to keep the colonies in line--suppressing ownership of weapons was one of those things. Between that and the founders' own writings, the people who say that the Second Amendment isn't about overthrowing an oppressive government are utterly wrong. It is exactly about that, just as the specific exact definition of the term "treason" (the only crime mentioned in the Constitution) is there because that was also used to oppress the Colonies.

Some of the founders were concerned about having such things in the Constitution. They believed it would cause problems. The concern was along the lines of that if they started listing certain rights specifically then people would start to get the idea that rights had to be listed in the Constitution. History has, in my opinion, proven them right. How many times do you hear "The Constitution doesn't give you the right to X" therefore we can make X illegal even if it harms nobody. It is beyond wrong to say things like that, both literally and in spiritual the context of being an American.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, but it does specifically point some out that are historically a problem with authoritarian regimes like the demopublican one that's been in power in the US for a few decades now. The Constitution is a description of the proper functioning of and specifically the limitations on government. It does not grant rights to people. People have rights--period. Believing that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of rights is a line of thought that needs to go away with a quickness because that line of thinking leads to oppression.

Re:I applaud this

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sarcasm is dreary. I'm sure all the people who would love to censor the Internet can also jibber jabber some bullshit about "this isn't what the first amendment was for".

Fuck off, cunt.

Re:I applaud this

[AmiMoJo]

Peo's Law in effect, but I think the second sentence suggests you are joking. Currently modded 50/50 insightful and funny.

Re:I applaud this

[Anonymous Coward]

From List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789

And amendment #1-10 are listed as submitted September 25, 1789.

From First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Background

In the 1st United States Congress, following the state legislatures' request, James Madison proposed twenty constitutional amendments, which were then condensed to twelve and forwarded to the states. Ten of these were ratified and became the Bill of Rights.

So to answer your question, that set of amendments where made by the founding fathers, after they drew up the constitution, presumably while they were still alive.

Unlike what some religious fundamentalists thinks there is no such thing as too holy to be questioned. The founding fathers knew well that both them and the constitution had flaws. (And thus the need for amendments.)
That doesn't mean that the constitution isn't well written, but it would be foolish to think that it took everything into consideration.
The founding fathers were smart men, they weren't infallible.

Re:I applaud this

[Anonymous Coward]

You are trying to be funny but actually it is. It all boils down to the general idea of "fuck the government". A free human does not have to justify WHY I want a weapon to you or anyone else and it matters not if YOU see benefit in what I am doing. As long as I'm not putting bullet holes in someone then fuck the government, its none of their damn business, nor anyone elses.

Re:I applaud this

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution, were not part of the original constitution. They spell out many of the express rights of the states and individuals in the US. The Bill is probably one of the most commonly referenced legal document in modern popular culture, and championed by many of the largest personal freedoms lobbing groups (ACLU, NRA, EFF, etc). The promise that such an amendment would be made was the contingency on which many signed the original constitution, which was needed quickly so the government could begin basic operations. It took almost 4 years to come up with agreeable terms, but they became law well within the term of the first president, George Washington. The biggest name founding father who was not alive when they were ratified was probably Benjamin Franklin, who died only the year before.

Re:I applaud this

[Anonymous Coward]

It was after. Barely. within a few years, mostly by the same people and newly formed state
s.

wait a minute

[roc97007]

Wasn't this the plot of iZombie, like, three weeks ago? At very least, this is old news.

Neat

[ArylAkamov]

Cool project, and it doesn't appear to be illegal (Yet). The definition of a machine gun by the ATF is a gun that fires multiple rounds per trigger pull. There are several companies that manufacture guns with electronic triggers.

Depending on how it is set up, they could nail him for "constructive possession". But assuming this is just a servo and the gun has not been modified, it appears to meet their rules. Then again, the way the ATF is known for having vague definitions and making examples out of people. There was a short period of time where they considered a shoelace to be a machine gun.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.c...

If they want, they can call constructive possession on just about anyone. Not the people you want to piss off.

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

While I think this is truly moronic, it probably is in-fact illegal. The linux powered smart rifle has a special trigger that the computer controls the weighting of, rather than triggering directly to work around rules prohibiting automatic triggers. In other words the computer can't fire the gun itself, it can only enable you to fire the gun at the precise time by relaxing the trigger weighting.

Screw the ATF

[mi]

use of a solenoid trigger would class the device as an automatic weapon under ATF rules

What's ATF? A bunch of busybodies seeking to control our use of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms — all perfectly legal things. Dissolution of that agency is long overdue — it should never have been created in the first place...

Re:Screw the ATF

[pslytely psycho]

"What's ATF?"

The greatest potential convenience store name on the planet?

Re:Screw the ATF

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the name, they are the bureau of no fun.

Re:Screw the ATF

[sound vision]

They're not perfectly legal, they have all kinds of laws restricting the where and the who and the when and the why. Not that what's legal and what's right are the same thing, in the first place.

Re:Screw the ATF

[mi]

In that sense, nothing is "perfectly legal" in the Statist nightmare we deteriorated to over 200 years.

Re:Screw the ATF

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah so the Mi sockpuppet is back up in the rotation now.

Say, did that they ever accept that submission of yours about how Muslims are destroying the world?

Re:Screw the ATF

[Anonymous Coward]

"Raaaawr! Regulation BAD!!"

Good Use

[JimSadler]

Drones can interrupt crime in progress and in many cases I see nothing at all wrong with shooting the criminals. Imagine a ranch or large farm with crime issues or wild hogs ripping up crops at night. What better use for a drone than to exterminate wold hogs or people trying to steal live stock or farm equipment in the wee hours of night?

This is only a start

[heretic108]

(Apart from any observations about how technological advances are largely driven by porn and guns)...

I can see some people mounting camera-sighted scope rifles on their drones. Protecting the lives of controversial public figures has suddenly become a whole lot more difficult. Expect an arms-war of RF jamming and anti-drone drones, and countermeasures to these, in endless iterations.

Re:This is only a start

[BitZtream]

RF jamming is worthless since there is OSS hardware and software for full autonomy and I know of at least one that will run OpenCV natively so they have facial recognition on top of it.

Easier, for now at least, would be listening devices to pick up the distinct patterns of sound generated by a multi rotor. This too has already been done with commodity hardware and OSS software. The sound is distinct enough that it can be picked up pretty far away even in noisy conditions. Certainly from the distance your homemade drone has any sort of usefulness

Re:This is only a start

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see some people mounting camera-sighted scope rifles on their drones. Protecting the lives of controversial public figures has suddenly become a whole lot more difficult

No, it hasn't. If you want to assassinate a public figure with a drone there are much more effective and reliable ways than taping a gun to the front of it (such as taping explosives to it).

Re:This is only a start

[MiSaunaSnob]

Helium balloon sniper drone... no distinct sound

Have you seen FPS Russia video in youtube?

[Trachman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Check out FPS Russia video made three years ago with 27Million views. Handgun yielding quadcopter is a bit amateurish compared to the automatic weapon merged with the quadcopter.

Imagine what a quadcopter upgraded with high speed internet, nightvision optics and with the extended range (made possible with advanced batteries) could do.

Heck, drones are already used for smuggling operations.

Re:Have you seen FPS Russia video in youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know this is fake right?

Re:Have you seen FPS Russia video in youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was fake, you moron.

Re:Have you seen FPS Russia video in youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

No I did not. Please explain.

Blank

[Anonymous Coward]

Good chance this drone is firing blank. The recoil associated with a medium calibre hanging would knock something as light as this drone back metres.

Drone-haters.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

You got problems. If you are going to shoot at drones, they can now shoot back!

PS What happened this afternoon? This would not be so low but I couldn't post before!

Question

[digsbo]

What is the concern with "drone" about this? Am I nuts for thinking this had to be done in the past with a traditional helicopter or RC airplane? Is it just the "drone" is more of a consumer good/easy to fly compared to traditional old-school R/C stuff?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading an article around 20-30 years ago in an RC magizine about a guy who had rigged his RC plane with a couple of those full auto BB guns. It could, and did, blast other RC planes out of the air when they were flown over his land and got too close to his home.
 
  And as someone else commented, this is just a smaller version of what the military already do with larger drones.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the concern with "drone" about this? Am I nuts for thinking this had to be done in the past with a traditional helicopter or RC airplane? Is it just the "drone" is more of a consumer good/easy to fly compared to traditional old-school R/C stuff?

The concern is mostly ignorance. All (or near enough all) actual military "drones" are actually fixed wing planes... as I'm betting you already knew. If one can equip a military drone with a missile, it's not unexpected that one could be equipped with a firearm. The only question would be what use the military would have for a gun-armed drone.

That said, quads and variants can be somewhat easier to fly than any other R/C aircraft. One wouldn't be forced to strafe as with a plane or have the control coordination issues of a heli. Also, we've entered a phase where not only the platform but also wireless cameras are affordable enough to make it a viable hobbyist level project, except for the recoil issue.

Me, I think the video gun was firing blanks. But I think we're not too far away from seeing the first fly-by shootings.

Re:Question

[digsbo]

If it stays still (instead of strafing runs), and is close enough to be accurate with a firearm, it's close enough to be taken down with a shotgun. Now granted, I don't think lugging a shotgun around 24/7 is practical, but if I'm home and I see a drone hanging around my property, I'll certainly take a look, and if it shoots, I'm shooting back. And at that point I'm well justified in most places in the USA to do so (except maybe CA, NJ, and the cities DC and NYC).

Why stop there

[Anonymous Coward]

I've thought about the potential for people to use model helis for assassinations for years. Why stop there- would be a perfect way to deliver a hand grenade or other compact high explosive device and get away scott free.

I never would have thought of that!

[jasno]

9 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Probably done a lot earlier than that.

Why is it that R/C helicopter with 2 blades == good, but 4 blades on a "drone" == scary evil skynet?

Re:I never would have thought of that!

[locopuyo]

Why is it that a rifle with a wood stock == good, but a fold out black stock on an "assault rifle" == scary evil murder weapon?

Re:I never would have thought of that!

[myowntrueself]

Why is it that a rifle with a wood stock == good, but a fold out black stock on an "assault rifle" == scary evil murder weapon?

If you have a rifle with a wood stock you can knock someones brains out with it. Hit them with the plastic folding stock and you'll just piss them off.

So the wooden stock weapon is obviously way more dangerous.

Re:I never would have thought of that!

[Alioth]

I would have thought the answer to that is obvious: most guns with folding stocks are a lot easier to conceal, and someone wanting to do something bad with a rifle would want to take one that they can conceal en-route. An old Lee-Enfield 303 with a wooden stock isn't so easy for the school shooter to conceal on his way to committing the crime.

Re:I never would have thought of that!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My Finnish M39 must be one of the most dangerous weapons ever then. It has a metal butt plate on the wooden stock for extra head cracking fun.

Re:I never would have thought of that!

[SuiteSisterMary]

An old Lee-Enfield 303 with a wooden stock isn't so easy for the school shooter to conceal on his way to committing the crime.

Because it's impossible to remove either part of the wooden stock, making it a 'sporterized' model, or most of the wooden stock, making it harder to aim, but more concealable.

And it's sure as fuck impossible to replace the stock, or even chop most of it off, drill some holes for large dowels in one end, some holes in the other end, conceal them, and mate them together when you're ready to shoot.

Drone Assassination!

[taskiss]

I was on the verge of getting concerned about someone possibly using drones to perform illegal assassinations but I realized that a RC quadcopter with a pistol attached isn't anywhere near the threat of the use of government drones in the killing of american citizens without due process.

Possibly any machine can be used to kill or destroy. The real trick is using them to create. Post more videos of that!

I am surprised it took this long

[Psychofreak]

I am surprised it took this long for a video that looks like it is not CGI, showing reasonable mostly off-the-shelf hardware demonstrating a firearm.

I am not surprised by anything in the video.

Re:I am surprised it took this long

[Cederic]

I don't get why you'd even try.

Surely strip the firearm down to the essentials - barrel, chamber, pin, trigger mechanism and the magazine/reload bits. No, I can't remember the proper names, and no, I don't care.

My point is that you don't need the sights, the grip, the safety catch.. the tripod mount, the carry handle, the sling hooks, the stock, the under barrel grenade launcher..

Ok, I changed my mind. Ditch everything else, keep the grenade launcher.

But cut the weight! It's not that hard to dismantle a firearm and keep it functional!

Re:I am surprised it took this long

[Psychofreak]

Well, yes that is an option. Problem with reducing the mass of semi-automatic handguns is many of the parts that are held are doing double duty for the user interface (grip, magazine holder). By the time you strip it down much of it needs to be custom fabricated. Suddenly it is no longer an off-the-shelf build. Sights are very little weight. Maybe stripping a rifle would get the results you are indicating.

The point is have you looked at quadcopter control boards recently? Every control board has active stabilization, and can be set to a mode that is very stable. This will hold level fairly well. Add GPS and it will hold position in all axis. Add a FPV camera and use a bore laser to aim, simply put a mark on the monitor on the pilot/shooter's end and it will be good for 25 feet range without second thought, probably much longer range but that would require test firing. Add a tilt servo if desired otherwise the firing line is locked in, and 5 or 10 degrees of up/down adjustment would make aiming potentially easier.

All the electronics are off the shelf to do this There is nothing special needed, no special programming skills. No electronic wizardry other than using a soldering iron, and that can be avoided even by choosing components with connectors already installed. _ALL_ the fabrication can be done with a saw and drill, even the gun rest and (optional) tilt mechanism. More robust material than hardware store square dowel would be needed, so aluminum, fiberglass, or carbon fiber square tubing with PCB, fiberglass, or CF sheet, and a couple boxes of nuts and bolts. These are all easy to get materials.

The hardest thing with I see with this build is keeping the machine close to balanced AND having the thrust line of recoil pass through the center of gravity. Both are trivial design problems.

I would not try this myself, well, maybe for paintball but that seems silly.

As a proof of concept, someone building this kind of machine, I am still surprised this was not seen a few years ago.

Why does a drone need eyebrows?

[I don't want to spen]

I mean, you have to admire the technology, but eyebrows? On a drone?

Re:Why does a drone need eyebrows?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're trying a bit too hard to crack a joke.

Rockets...

[dlingman]

Wouldn't it be easier to mount, say, 4 model rockets on wires under it? Electronic ignition and off you go. If you want them to make holes in things, well, put a nail sticking out of the nose. Pick your engine size based on your required damage.

Woosh. The first flying Gyrojet...

prior art

[PopeRatzo]

This guy did it last week, except using his head instead of a drone:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Of course, Texas, not to be outdone by some goddamn yankee, had to try to outdo him in the "where can I attach something that explodes" department:

http://www.syracuse.com/us-new...

I have high hopes for the "let's attach a gun to a drone" idea. It could get very entertaining.

2nd Amendment

[Charcharodon]

Why put a gun on a drone, because fuck you that's why.

Looks like the NRA has some more work to do, since someone will try to ban this too.

Re:2nd Amendment

[dywolf]

Amen, brother. I don't go anywhere without my mutated anthrax. For duck huntin'.

Was this In Texas...

[Anonymous Coward]

because that might explain why they were marked as hostile territory on the military training exercise maps.

For real damage, why just a gun?

[MrDoh!]

Someone/somewhere will put a large firework on a drone and fly it around. Then someone will put firecrackers. Then someone will put a grenade/IED. Kinda inevitable, bad guys will put bad things to kill people. A drone can get further range than throwing. Rockets work but can you get them into the spot you'd want to take someone out? Only surprise to me is if Hollywood hasn't done it yet. They've shown it a few times with a radio controlled toy car (Dead Pool I think).

Re:For real damage, why just a gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like this?

been there done that a long time ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

this was already done on a tv show..jeez. by red jacket firearms on a show call sons of guns... I probably still have the show on my DVR...
nothing new here... please move along...

Over engineering weapons.

[bronney]

Why gun? Why not a servo releasing anthrax?

How about a machine gun drone?

[Notabadguy]

FPS Russia already demo-ed a machine gun firing drone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Why is the single shot pistol making waves?

Re:How about a machine gun drone?

[jklovanc]

Because the PFS video is a hoax.

Not only

[Anonymous Coward]

If he can stabilize targeting enough, this guy got the perfect murder weapon : you are far away enough that you an have witness telling you were just taking a coffee a mile away while browsing the web, innocuously, and if you withdraw the drone, nobody whatsoever can link you to the crime.

Re:Not only

[Anonymous Coward]

OR, you could just anonymously mail a bomb with the same sophistication or less. This story is no big deal and bleeding heart liberal would use anything to take away all our nice things over irrational fear. Fucking cowards.

Bad news

[Chrisq]

I know what Muslims will be thinking as soon as they read ths

Re:Bad news

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me boy, is that the Chattanooga shooter?
Yes it's Ramadan time, and he's an Islamist swine.

Lexx made fun of it nicely

[dbIII]

The Canadian-German scifi series "Lexx" had the ATF in complete control of the USA, and effectively the world, in the final season (2002). Nigel Bennett plays the head of the ATF like Lucifer as a being of temptation, and having control of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms gives him a lot to tempt with. Way ever the top, but the power of that agency is worth questioning in such a way since the three things don't really go together.
"Lexx" is generally so way out there that watching a single season is not going to be a lot more confusing than watching the lot, but any episode of season 3 will give some background on the "Prince" running the ATF in season 4.


Meanwhile back in reality the ATF is so stupid that it's worth laughing about it in fiction.
It's like connecting horse racing and road building in one department (done in my state), just a concentration of power for it's own sake instead of them being related things.

a PISTOL? what a piker.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try a 50 caliber machine gun back in 2012:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU

Hunter-Seeker

[cstacy]

Hunter Seeker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Hunter-Seeker

[phorm]

Looks a bit phallic...

World Health Organization Traffic Accidents Data

[Max_W]

About 1.24 million people die each year on the world's roads and between 20 and 50 million sustain non-fatal injuries.
http://www.who.int/features/fa...

If we compare injuries from consumer recreational drones with cars' accidents, tens of millions of them each year, the figure would be miniscule, almost nonexistent.

Does this apply to the Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

"solenoid trigger would class the device as an automatic weapon under ATF rules"

Big deal.....

[bev_tech_rob]

A drone that fires a pistol (yawn). Several months ago, FPSRussia posted a video about a drone that is armed with a MACHINE GUN and I don't remember anyone having a fit about it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Big deal.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that that's fake.... right?

self-actualization

[NewYork]

goo.gl/JOc9oW to resist oppression and for self-defense;

goo.gl/NFK0A to prevent oppression and for self-actualization goo.gl/Cqp0x2

Breast Massaging Robots raise many more eyebrows.

[TheRealHocusLocus]

I can see Beavis and Butthead saying "Dude! Let's strap a PISTOL to this DRONE and make it SHOOT. Heh heh heh." That shit is so obvious as to be scarcely newsworthy, let alone eyebrow-raising. To make it shoot they use... a solenoid, right? Well Gosh Lolly Good Golly!

If it's man-threatening eyebrow raisin' tech yer interested in, analyze the motion on multiple axes of this Breast Massaging Robot and also Patent CN102058466A for a similar device that has more useful functions and methods than the Mozilla Web API:

The invention discloses a Chinese massage robot, relating to the field of Chinese massage mechanical and automatic devices. The Chinese massage robot is characterized by comprising a bed body (16), a spatial six degrees of freedom main body mechanism and a massage hand (15) and can realize a palm-rubbing technique, a scrubbing method, a pushing manipulation, a wiping manipulation, a pressing manipulation, a pointing method, a finger-nail pressing method, a clapping method, a striking method, a rebounding method, a rolling method, a palm-kneading method, a finger-kneading method, a tremble manipulation, a shaking manipulation, a holding method, a kneading method, a plucking method, a pushing method, a twisting method, a pulling and turning method, a stretching method and other general single-hand and dual-hand massage methods. The invention has the advantages of simple structure, high rigidity, small size, light weight, low cost, large motion space, sensitive and quick action, favorable decoupling, real-time and dynamic response characteristics of system control, and the like.

Let goofballs who are easily amused play with guns and drones. We cannot afford to lose our lead on this technology front.

One more reason...

[MoarSauce123]

....why guns has no reason to be in private households.

ED209

[Anonymous Coward]

Send them to Detroit! MHuaHuahuahua!

This Just Made CNN...

[Anonymous Coward]

This just made it to CNN. "No laws broken" say police.