Tuesday, February 21, 2012


"It is important to note how dangerous this was"

Pigeon Hunt
Imagine you're out hunting. You are with friends for an organized event you've done before, at Broxton Bridge Plantation. A group of people show up telling you that you're evil and cruel to pigeons (yes New Yorkers, you can start reading again once you stop laughing) and say they're going to send a drone to film you in your evil deeds. You aren't breaking the law, you just are doing something they think is wrong.

You're out with your guns shooting and the drone shows up. You have a rifle in your hand. What do you do?

Yeah, that's exactly what these guys did. The little drone camera was a sort of helicopter and the hunters shot it out of the sky. The Times and Democrat story is plainly on the side of the animal rights folks, and didn't even attempt to contact the shooters, at least from the story we have.

I just thought this was a pretty funny story about a group of animal rights folks all broken up because their harassment ended up getting shot out of the air while trying to save... pigeons.


Eric said...

It's funny now. 10 years from now when it is common for Law Enforcement officials are doing the same thing as these animal rights activists, but backed by legal authority, it won't be so funny. I see this as an important issue, and the only person I hear talking about it much is Ron Paul.

Eric said...

I will say this: if, as reported, the drone was fired at in the air with a small caliber rifle, that's pretty bad form on the shooter's part. Responsible gun owners don't shoot rifles towards the sky, where bullets will quickly travel well beyond your range of sight. A shotgun? You bet, dead drone.

Although they did say the shot came from a stand of trees, so supposedly somebody could have climbed a tree and been up high aiming downward.

Either way, interesting story!

T.K. Tortch said...

I wonder how they know that the shooter used a .22 rifle - I would guess they would have to have either recovered the bullet, or the damage is greater than what birdshot would have caused. Version of the article I saw didn't say. Or they think the drone was out of range of shot. In any case, even if the drone was pretty stationary, it would take better than average marksmanship to hit anything much above treetop level, especially if you were firing from within a stand of trees at something above and outside the trees.

But journalists, usually, don't know squat about firearms so I would not assume any summary statement about firearms coming from a journalist is close to correct. Often they are comically wrong, or based on such ignorance that they don't even make sense. I've seen news stories using "pistol", "revolver", and "automatic" interchangeably so that you don't know what the firearm in question actually was.