Aw well the govmint will protect us from them and ban them, then all the nice law abiding folk won't have one. Of course the nice govmint man and the terrorists will still have access.
Sound familiar?
Exactly! You just cannot force people to behave in a resposible way without giving the govt oppressive powers that limit personal freedom. And even then, criminal elements will not be deterred. If some idiot is not deterred by the risk of killing a plane full of people (or getting caught), they are not likely to be deterred by some bs law that says you cannot own or fly a "drone".
And.. I also reject some of this common rhetoric around what we are calling "drones". Language is important.
Drone | Define Drone at Dictionary.com
<CITE>
dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone</CITE>
the male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey. 2. an
unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human ...
There is a huge difference between an R/C model being flown inside, or in your back-yard, ..... and a FPV craft capable of flying beyond visual range....... AND and true "drone" capable of flying autonimously without a human pilot controlling it (remotely). To lump these all in together, is just silly, and distorts the real issue.
So, do you really think the authour of this article did not understand the difference between a ~$30 toy, and a 3-$4k FPV / UAV that could pose a potential danger? I suspect, the author was not really that ignorant. So, why would an "intelligant" author lump all these types together as if they were all the same? Hmm....
I suggest you at least consider: The authour is trying to milk the story, and make the issue out to be bigger than it is. Maybe this helps increase his/her stock as a journalist?? This just bugs me, because I hate to see journalist that have become activists for all sorts of issues, and shamelessly conceal their own bias.
Don't forget to keep your brains turned on!!!
