you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Real question for the USA people, will shooting them be anymore of a crime? Just sounds like a faster and more fun way of doing this.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Actually yes, it massively increases the number of potential charges. Also way more likely to get excited police officers turning up quickly and knowing you have a gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    They don't put these cameras up in neighbourhoods where gunshots are expected

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    Canadian here. Way too dangerous!

    1. Shooting upwards at the cameras puts innocent people in danger. I know gun cultures love to sky fire but in Canada we don't do that dumb shit. Especially out west where the mountains obscure who lives a mile away. Could easily kill some rancher with no hospital for 100 miles. (or a cow!)

    2. Ricochet. If the bullet goes through the camera and hits the pole it could deflect and injure a bystander.

    3. Shrapnel. Hit the wrong spot and the camera might eject sharp pieces that could hurt someone.

    4. People suck at aiming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    A shotgun with bird shot eliminates most of those problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    eliminates

    You spelt exasperate wrong.

    Birdshot can absolutely ricochet off steel (especially at the range we're applying it)

    I don't know why you think it would produce less shrapnel.

    And birdshot almost guarantees at least 1 projectile will miss the target given there's no backdrop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Birdshot has a lot less mess per projectile though, so less energy in each one, and also more friction by mass, so the energy is lost a lot faster. I'm not saying it's safe, but it is less likely to be lethal at least.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    In most skeet/clay shooting ranges, there is no backstop and the shooters are aiming into the air. With the tiny pellet sizes, they lose energy quickly and drop to the ground at terminal velocity, which is much slower than the speed they were fired. That's why I specifically named bird shot rather than buckshot which has larger heavier pellets. It would still maybe be fine but bird shot definitely would.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    skeet/clay shooting ranges

    "RANGE" Its it the name dumbass. A shooting range is specifically designed/located/oriented to accomodate for bullet dropoff.

    But sure falsely equate that with shooting a shotgun off in the middle of town.

    You are a fucking idiot. I wouldn't normally jump to this but what you're suggesting could kill someone.

    I will be blocking you now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    Discharging a firearm in a city or near a highway is a crime, as well as being unsafe and irresponsible. Shooting from a vehicle is also usually illegal and there may be other laws specifically for firearms that they be charged with too such as possession of a firearm when committing a crime.

    For example robbing a bank is a crime but robbing a bank which a firearm is two different crimes and if you show the gun that can be brandishing which is a third. For this reason, and because bank tellers are told to just hand over the money which is all government insured, most people rob banks by only passing a note to the cashier and not having any weapons at all.

  • source
  • parent