(1) Whose property was it flying over? If anyone had a right to take out the drone, it would be the management of the parking lot.

(2) How about having a loaded gun in the back of the pick up in a "gun rack" - maybe unsecured (unlocked, loaded and ready to fire).

OK

Oh, you smiled. I'm against the abuse of drones, but I'm also glad to live in a place where it is not that easy for every Joe and John, Sally and Mary, to buy weapons as one would buy chewing gum, and to use them so lightly and stupidly in public places, against things, animals, or humans. There seem to be a kind of strong and lively "John Wayne" and "Clint Eastwood" attitude that makes people talk, and too often act, as if they were starring in a Western movie, but with real guns. I understand that one might feel good while posing as the "cool, tough gunman", but that's what it is: posing, bragging (unless one has to hunt for his/her food, but even then one would have to show at least some balance and respect). It is interesting to see how strongly such an attitude is encouraged, especially by the movie industry (just shoot, shoot, shoot, and please don't ask yourself why). So kids, go emulate Clint (after all, «No one is more "American" than him»), even the government does, for real, and that will make you feel so cool and strong and tough.

If there is one thing that is most-often stereotyped, it is "gun owners." Even those who have them (secured ...) in their vehicles. I'm sorry that organizations like the NRA ... which used to promote gun education in schools etc., ... have become obnoxious political blabbermouths who like to hear themselves talk. A gun is a tool.

I'd have called in his plates, probably a mass murdering militia leader with MUCH TO HIDE!!!

I'd have confiscated his so-called "tool" as well, in order to prevent him from acting as a "stereotype" once again.

Let's hope he was not. :)

I probably should not have used probably as chances are?

I say for the sake of everyone, screw privacy (at least in public.)

Woohoo!
Ow yea. Drones are getting common here too, pesky stuff. Imagine that hovering next to your home, spying on you...
Well done! Give the guy a beer next time you see him :)
If drones are used responsibly, good. The thing is...NOW a law/legislation is called for HOW that stuff is used. Here in belgium, any punk can get one and use it. Of course, legislation is under way.
By the way, experiments are under way to deliver goods this way...and to scout an accident scene, those are good uses. But, until then...it remains a funnis Robin Hood story :)
Melissa

Where as guns are only for two things, both with the same outcome!.

Touch!
The ones controllingt he drones do...occasionally...
Come to think of it, perhaps the shooter acted out of frustration too...so, better shoot a drone than enter a high school and cause a mess there...
Melissa

As I said, "a gun is a tool," no matter what else it might be used for as a weapon of violence or war. If you own a farm and you're losing valuable animals to predators, you'd better know how to accurately and humanely shoot-dead those predators, etc. Or, as in this case, if someone's flying a camera-laden spy device over a parking lot and you don't cater to being spied-upon.

We should bear in mind that people are reacting specifically to "drones," not because they actually accept being spied-upon by other means, but because this is the first overt example of spying that literally everyone can see and hear. We are utterly naive in our industry to think that things which "we seem to be getting away with" are, in fact, "acceptable, because they are technically possible." Fact is, we have strayed light-years away from the norms that people are accustomed to ... and that they incorrectly suppose "are still mostly being followed" merely because it has not yet been shoved into their faces. This is a case where the intrusion is being shoved into their faces, and people are (literally ...) "starting to shoot back."

As an industry, we seem to be drunk with "youthful enthusiasm" about whatever is now possible ... whatever might make someone "an insane amount of money" (if only for a little while) ... when we should be the ones who are checking our own progress against the deep social implications of it. We want to be the ones doing this, for fear of what everyone-else will do when it finally dawns upon them what we have done. I'm not saying that they will respond with physical violence, no, but there will "be Hell to pay." Avoidably.

They will put your eye out. They will dent and scratch property. They will hurt a bird.
:p

If you are fed up with drones then vote for politicians that support laws that regulate drones. This is how it is done in civilized countries. And no matter what, shooting a rifle in a public place to damage someone else's property is simply unacceptable. After all, you don't even know why that drone was there, it may be totally possible that the owner of a nearby store wanted to have some nice aerial photos of his store, which is a totally legit use of drones. Dismissing this with a "he didn't cater to being spied upon" just doesn't do it. After all, you don't even know why that drone was there, it may be totally possible that the owner of a nearby store wanted to have some nice aerial photos of his store, which is a totally legit use of drones.

Nevertheless, we are doing a lot of things today, in the computer software (and hardware) industry, "simply because we can do it," and(!) because "we think that we are getting away with it." But "the mass publica" is a very unpredictable beast indeed, and so are politicians who feel cornered or exposed.

We seem to be relying on some notion of "you clicked on 'I Agree,'" conveniently forgetting that real-world courts, and most especially real-world juries, don't see things the same way.