12-15-2015, 04:30 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/.../77275676/
This is stupid. Patently ridiculous. Let me explain why:
I am an atmospheric photographer (read: storm chaser) by hobby. I don't personally use a drone, but I know several people who do, and the pictures and video they get are amazing--not to mention the scientific possibilities of flying drones much closer to the base of a storm and at much lower altitudes than any conventional aircraft can go. The mentality behind drone registry seems to be that all drone users are idiots, who point HD cameras inside bedroom windows, buzz into the flight path of 737s and harass firefighters by hovering their drone 50 feet above an actively burning house. It's "to keep us safe", as every government intrusion seems to be.
The problem with that, of course, is that 99+% of drone pilots who will be forced to submit their personal information to the federal government are extremely responsible, already follow the few regulations that exist surrounding operation and, in the interest of not having their $500+ (way, waaaaay +) piece of equipment destroyed, follow basic common-sense rules to avoid damaging or destroying their aircraft. If a terrorist really was going to send a flock of drones into the takeoff path of an A380 in hopes of taking out one or more engines, a registry wouldn't stop them--and they probably wouldn't even register in the first place. All a registry provides is an opportunity for the government to say, "You can't have that. We're taking it from you."
It's a hilarious parallel to the notion of a gun registry, when you think about it. An AR-15 is, let's be honest, far more likely to be used in an act of terror than a 2-lb. quadcopter is. It's designed for killing, but somehow a drone is more dangerous than a high-powered rifle? A flippin' drone needs to be registered and controlled, but a gun used to mow down a McDonald's should never have its serial number linked to a name and address?
And again, there's the usage problem. Like drone operators, 99+% of gun owners harbor no intent to take potshots at 747s flying by, and they're extremely cautious with their weapons. Once again, if a gun registry were mandated, it would not stop a terrorist who's intending to die anyway from using their gun in an attack. They probably wouldn't register in the first place because, again, it's only a mechanism for the government to say, "You're Islamic. We're taking your gun."
Personally, I think a gun registry is far more necessary than a drone registry, given the intended use of each item and its potential to be used to harm others. But it does beg the question: why the hell are Americans forced to register remote controlled airplanes, most of which are toys, and not required to link the serial number on their gun to a name and address so that, should that gun be used to take out a school, authorities know where to start looking for answers?
This is stupid. Patently ridiculous. Let me explain why:
I am an atmospheric photographer (read: storm chaser) by hobby. I don't personally use a drone, but I know several people who do, and the pictures and video they get are amazing--not to mention the scientific possibilities of flying drones much closer to the base of a storm and at much lower altitudes than any conventional aircraft can go. The mentality behind drone registry seems to be that all drone users are idiots, who point HD cameras inside bedroom windows, buzz into the flight path of 737s and harass firefighters by hovering their drone 50 feet above an actively burning house. It's "to keep us safe", as every government intrusion seems to be.
The problem with that, of course, is that 99+% of drone pilots who will be forced to submit their personal information to the federal government are extremely responsible, already follow the few regulations that exist surrounding operation and, in the interest of not having their $500+ (way, waaaaay +) piece of equipment destroyed, follow basic common-sense rules to avoid damaging or destroying their aircraft. If a terrorist really was going to send a flock of drones into the takeoff path of an A380 in hopes of taking out one or more engines, a registry wouldn't stop them--and they probably wouldn't even register in the first place. All a registry provides is an opportunity for the government to say, "You can't have that. We're taking it from you."
It's a hilarious parallel to the notion of a gun registry, when you think about it. An AR-15 is, let's be honest, far more likely to be used in an act of terror than a 2-lb. quadcopter is. It's designed for killing, but somehow a drone is more dangerous than a high-powered rifle? A flippin' drone needs to be registered and controlled, but a gun used to mow down a McDonald's should never have its serial number linked to a name and address?
And again, there's the usage problem. Like drone operators, 99+% of gun owners harbor no intent to take potshots at 747s flying by, and they're extremely cautious with their weapons. Once again, if a gun registry were mandated, it would not stop a terrorist who's intending to die anyway from using their gun in an attack. They probably wouldn't register in the first place because, again, it's only a mechanism for the government to say, "You're Islamic. We're taking your gun."
Personally, I think a gun registry is far more necessary than a drone registry, given the intended use of each item and its potential to be used to harm others. But it does beg the question: why the hell are Americans forced to register remote controlled airplanes, most of which are toys, and not required to link the serial number on their gun to a name and address so that, should that gun be used to take out a school, authorities know where to start looking for answers?
