Across California, police departments are rapidly expanding "Drone as First Responder" programs, triggering intense public backlash over warrantless surveillance and corporate overreach.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 10 hours ago (19 children)

It doesn’t matter if you are using a fucking 9mm even, what goes up must come down and unless you are capable of firing directly up and in no wind it’s going to come down with a ballistic trajectory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 hours ago* (16 children)

    I would advise you look into terminal velocity and see just how much power you're working with firing 20 guage birdshot. There's a reason you never see anyone getting injured by crossfire when hunting birds or skeet shooting, it simply doesn't have the power.

    You'll definitely get rained on by birdshot though, it just won't hurt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 hours ago (8 children)

    it just won't hurt.

    I very much want you to try that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

    I've been rained on by birdshot, now go look at what I said

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

    You said it won't hurt.

    So like.. I chuck a small pellet into the air and it hits some child in the eye. And your claim is it won't hurt.

    And that sounds right to you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    Oh, you're worried about kids?

    Ok, I'll tell you what - find me a list of kids injured by birdshot in the past 10 years and I'll find you a list of kids killed by cops. We can compare the difference.

    Also yes, outside of a freak accident it'll feel like getting hit by airsoft pellets. Should we ban kids from playing with airsoft guns or paintball guns because they might get hit in the eye?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    Well, they have helmets and eye protection for paintball and airsoft, at least where I live, so I suppose it has already been banned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago

    Maybe in commercial settings, none of the home games I've played ever involved protection. Ultimately there are no laws requiring glasses or helmets to be sold alongside either airsoft or paintball guns, which means it's up to the people who buy them.

    I'm not saying it's right, mind you - airsoft/paintball effectively act as training wheels for gun safety. You should treat them the same way as a real gun, you can genuinely hurt someone if you're not being careful.

    That being said, I stand by my statement - if you're concerned about kids you should 100% be more concerned with the inevitable confrontation with police forces across the U.S. than potentially harming someone while resisting them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 10 hours ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

    Maybe you should have read what you shared.

    The Kim Possible star continued: 'There was another party with us and they unsafely fired in the wrong direction and shot me in the face.'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

    The person I am replying to specifically mentioned crossfire… please read before trying to gotcha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 hours ago* (1 child)

    You are correct and I missed the crossfire bit. Never point a ballistic weapon at anyone you don't want to injure or kill.

    That acknowledgement out of the way, I think you are trying so hard to win an argument, rather than acknowledge that your initial comment was incorrect, that you have drifted into making yourself look foolish (no hostility intended)

    That’s a really good way to kill people.

    I think it has been well established that this was incorrect. Birdshot fired at an airborne drone is extremely unlikely to injure anyone, much less kill them.

    They already make non ballistic ways to take out drones.

    Although technically true, these are not available for civilian purchase and/or are highly illegal to use, so they might as well not exist.

    I get that your original reply was well intentioned, but it was ill informed. Hopefully this discussion has helped.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 hours ago

    As long as we are assuming that “skeet shooting” always means birdshot then sure… but I grew up around enough rednecks to know better than to make that assumption.

    As I said to the other commenter, so is shooting a police drone… the legality of disposing of police equipment isn’t what is up for debate here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

    You're right, now find enough instances of crossfire with birdshot that proves this is a regular occurrence and not a freak accident.

    Edit: also the issue here is more that I said never. I acknowledge that there are freak accidents that prove exception to the rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago*

    Yeah typically speaking what you shoot at will get hit. This is why gun safety is important, the people who unsafely shot directly at her are a hazard and shouldn't have guns. She's especially unlucky in the sense that she was struck in a sensitive area.

    That being said, I've been rained on by birdshot and I've never had something like this happen to me. YMMV, but you couldn't have found a more freak accident scenario to present.

  • source
  • parent