SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The political and ideological discussion in the USA about gun control laws and the 2nd Amendment has been a hot topic for decades. Usually, the topic remains in a glowing, hot-ember state. The heat and light emanating from this hot-ember pulses and intensifies when fanned by the news of mass murder involving guns. As drones become more prevalent in society, I fear the hot-embers of this age-old debate will fan into flames. While one must have a license to operate either machine, that legal requirement will not deter those with harmful intent.
Putting aside the political and ideological debates, how would soylentils implement a no-fly zone for drones - especially ones with harmful payloads or in areas containing volatile substances?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ask Soylent: Drones and the Right to Bear Arms
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
innovate, v.:
To annoy people.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:47PM
It sounds like the pilot is considered "good" or "advanced" by everyone involved. It also sounds like he was flying over his own property. But the pilot was stupid for flying it where a crash could send it into another person (unless he warns them). If the family forgave the pilot then the pilot should "get off scott free". Because we don't know shit compared to those people directly involved. Let the family decide what is an appropriate response to the accident. Giving out tickets is for breaking the law and it doesn't sound like he did anything illegal. Please correct me if i'm wrong though.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.