Slashdot Mirror


Internet Hunting

cybergrunt69 writes "An enterprising Texan, John Underwood currently has a website that lets you target-practice online with a .22 caliber rifle, but will soon start offering "hunting" abilities. He recently built a platform for about $10,000USD to house this new system on his 300 acre properly, but the Parks and Wildlife department is now scrambling to find ways to try and stop him. While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities."

892 comments

  1. This is interesting... by Erect+Horsecock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the concept (firing a weapon from your home computer) is interesting, I think it removes some of the challenge and "sportsmanship" of hunting. Hunting is already lopsided in favor of humans anyway (Scents designed to draw the animal closer, clothing to mask or remove human odors, calls, etc) the idea of making it almost effortless is disturbing. If you want to kill an animal do it with your own hands on a weapon, not on a mouse button.

    Oh and as far as disabled hunters go Here is a rather general article about disabled hunters and the "sport" they love.

    --
    I hope you die painfully and alone.
    1. Re:This is interesting... by Monkelectric · · Score: 2, Funny

      yep. My great grandfather hunted his own food with a BOW AND ARROW well into his 60's because "guns didn't give the animal a chance." Oddly enough, this was in the California desert.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    2. Re:This is interesting... by kaiser423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Matters what animal you hunt, and with what. With just about any weapon (exceot the mouse button), there is stalking and tracking required. You can hike around for a week in elk country and hardly see a single one if you don't know what you're doing. Personally, I like bow hunting just because of the sportsmanship. Gun hunting is a lot easier, but with certain animals it's still hard.

    3. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sportsmanship only counts if you are a sport hunter. I personally disagree with sport/trophy hunting. Hunting strictly for pleasure is a waste and I belive borders on immoral. If you are hunting for food, then hunt however you see fit. If you derive pleasure as a side effect, so be it, but eat what you take, and only take what you can eat.

    4. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rednecks of the world unite!!!

    5. Re:This is interesting... by 955301 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I call crapola on your post. An elk will come your way when you bugle them in during rut.

      And leveling the playing field by bow hunting prior to the mating season doesn't leave you wanting for elk sightings. They are the size of horses, make enough noise to put a 4 year old to shame, crap enough to, again, put a 4 year old to shame, and can be shot with a bow by a first year inexperienced bow hunter such as myself, if you stretch and call me that. I didn't know what I was doing and ended up with a herd bedded down 100 meters from my campsite.

      Hunting ain't hard. Time consuming, sure. Hard? Perhaps during Lewis' and Clark's expedition, but certainly not now!

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    6. Re:This is interesting... by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      Very true about what you hunt.

      I grew up in a hunting family, mostly deer in northern California. Pretty tough to sneak up on them and get a clean shot, even with a rifle. Much tougher with a bow.

      However, I sometimes catch a bit of a hunting show on one of the sports channels late night. I'm appalled by the fact that the animals that they are 'hunting' appear to me to be mostly domesticated. The come comfortably up to the stand and eat calmly a 2 dozen yards from a stand with people sitting it whispering loudly for the camera. Then they get shot. I'm positive that these animals are bred, and fed near the stand.

      That sounds to me like about as much fun as shooting a domestic cow from outside the fence. Pretty weak.

    7. Re:This is interesting... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hunting is already lopsided in favor of humans anyway
      Eh, so? How often does the worm get to eat the bird instead of the other way round?
    8. Re:This is interesting... by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 0

      ... and he liked it!

    9. Re:This is interesting... by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 1

      The bird doesnt eat the worm for sport.

    10. Re:This is interesting... by mordors9 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is another side effect of the PC movement. For some reason the differently challenged can not be told there are some things they can not do. I read an article earlier in the year where some of their advocacy groups were suing the Federal government to provide access to more wilderness areas. Now I'm sorry but as soon as you pave a roadway for access, the wilderness is gone. Now the idea that they should be able to hunt without having to leave their home is just going to far yet again. Hopefully the State can put a stop to this before it gets started.

    11. Re:This is interesting... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Fine then, cats and mice.

    12. Re:This is interesting... by Prophetic_Truth · · Score: 1

      Judging by your name I can see you're an animal lover.

      --
      time is a perception of a being's consciousness
      time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
    13. Re:This is interesting... by fred911 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Hunting is already lopsided in favor of humans anyway"

      Oh yea? When the worlds largest militia hits the woods in PA for deer season they've been playing cards, telling dirty jokes and drinking like it's the last drink forever till 3:00am. Then they get up at 5:00am and hit the woods in 20deg cold hanging from a tree.

      Deer are safe in most the hunting camps I've been at:-) Your beer isn't.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    14. Re:This is interesting... by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      In northern Iowa, deer are not that hard to see. I was out at my parent's place (acreage just outside of a small town) a coule of weeks ago near dusk and saw 6 of them in the back yard. I got out of my vehicle and yelled at them and they just sort of looked at me. My 6 year old son got out and yelled - and they ran :) (He now likes to remind me that he's more fearsome than I am).

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    15. Re:This is interesting... by iocat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It may have been a lot easier in Lewis & Clark's time, and before, as there were a lot more animals in the woods, and they may have had less fear of humans. Fishing certainly was easier 100 or 200 years ago. Also, your average person who hunted probably had a lot more experience than modern hunters.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    16. Re:This is interesting... by iocat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're going to eat it anyway, does it matter if you've half-way domesticated it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything -- I have a lot of respect for hunting, but I wouldn't have compunctions about shooting a cow if I was planning to eat it (and knew how to dress it and had someplace to put all the meat).

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    17. Re:This is interesting... by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Unless this system has some kind of visual identification system that is far superior than what is in the public sector, I don't see any reason why a person connected to the system couldn't shoot a real "hunter" who strays into the hunting grounds. One less redneck.

      --
      stuff
    18. Re:This is interesting... by alvania · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what I was thinking earlier. I think the whole thing is a bad idea. You just don't hunt from the f*cking computer! If you're going to hunt, get up in the morning, go out in the woods, and be patient, kill your animal, clean it, and eat. Computer hunting... pah!

    19. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like to justify hunting in many different ways, but the fact is that killing an animal is killing an animal. You don't need to shoot an animal in the head, gut it, make sausage out of it with a grinder in your garage and strip its hide anymore. You can buy food from a store like a civil person. Yes, an animal still dies, but the difference between hunting for food and buying it at the store is the difference between lethal injection as a criminal punishment and letting someone torture a man to death as his criminal punishment.

      Both accomplish the same things, but one offers an avenue to exercise grotesque, inhumane, unethical, cruel, sociopathic tendancies while the other is simply a means to an end.

      The hunter is simply satisfying his need to kill something and justifying it by romanticizing it. The fact is, you have a big thing that goes boom and it puts a little thing that goes splat into an animal's head. There's nothing heroic, earthy or beautiful about that.

    20. Re:This is interesting... by hari · · Score: 1

      The concept sure is interesting. Couple it with a DARPA challenge HumVee and soon it would be like playing real life Counter Strike. Patrol and shoot from your computer..NICE !

    21. Re:This is interesting... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the end the worm always eats the bird.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    22. Re:This is interesting... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, an animal still dies, but the difference between hunting for food and buying it at the store is the difference between lethal injection as a criminal punishment and letting someone torture a man to death as his criminal punishment.

      I was looking around for stuff to mod, but this I have to reply to.

      The life of some of the animals you eventually buy in the stores is horiffic. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't think farming animals is inherently wrong, but we have pigs living their entire lives in cages they can't even turn around in.

      I'd rather have the animals have five years of freedom and a painful death any day over five years of hell and a peaceful death.

    23. Re:This is interesting... by Pad-Lok · · Score: 1

      Cats dont eat mice for sport either.

      --

      -- Sauer
    24. Re:This is interesting... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      From the article: "They could also have the meat processed and shipped home, or donated to animal orphanages" (Emphasis added). What the hell?!?! Donate the meat of the mother deer so that her orphaned babies have something to eat? I hunt btw but what does this last sentance from the article mean?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    25. Re:This is interesting... by DigitumDei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose thats true in one way, they do not EAT mice for sport. Being a cat owner, I can tell you, THEY DO play with mice for fun(aka sport). When my cats are not hungry they catch and play with a mouse for hours, sometimes after it dies it doesn't even get eaten.

      If I forget to feed them, the thing is dead and eaten within 30 minutes.

      Now the question I got to ask, is what happens when some human wanders in front of the camera one day with this system, and the person on the other side figures, hey this is just on a computer, lets takea pot shot?

    26. Re:This is interesting... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Obviously they will design it so people are not where the cameras are when the cameras are being used (i.e. from 1:30 to 5:00 the cameras are being used so no people are where the cameras are).

    27. Re:This is interesting... by Pad-Lok · · Score: 1

      Your cat doesnt play or have fun with its pray. Its just the way cats hunt. We have the tendecy to project HUMAN behavior on animals.

      --

      -- Sauer
    28. Re:This is interesting... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      What's so wrong? People hunt for sport. If you dislike that then do something about that, not this. This is merely a symptom of it. Humans will always have an edge over animals. If you don't like this then I hope if you ever hunt you use you go naked with your bare hands. I see no difference between using a gun in person to a gun remotely. If you think people are going to get hurt from this, let's compare how many people are hurt by this to how many people are hurt by people hunting in person.

      I dislike hunting for sport. But I don't see this as my enemy. I see hunting for sport as my enemy.

    29. Re:This is interesting... by dkalley · · Score: 1

      As far as being lopsided, that is a result of thousands of years of humans developing killer tools. So why not use your hands? Well we haven't really done that, on this continent at least, since the middle archaic. We have globally progressed from darts, arrows, to powder charges. Is a mouse-click absured? Isn't it a logical development for efficient kills? Effortlessness is ultimately human. Which is why we are having a discourse on this topic in a linguistically effortless environment.

    30. Re:This is interesting... by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      I'd probably join the large majority in laughing at the first "remote hunting platform" guy that gets plugged by a cracker(either kind).

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    31. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait how people will be complaining about sportsmanship when someone develops an aimbot for this.

    32. Re:This is interesting... by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      I don't think that it matters at all. If you are going to eat it, I don't care how you kill it.

      A friend told me a trick for catching a pig that he learned in fiji. You dig a big old pit, fill it with rotting fruit, which with attract the pig. The pig will gorge itself on the fermenting fruit, and pass out in the pit. Then you shoot it, clean it, and roast it in the pit.

      I dunno if it works.

    33. Re:This is interesting... by adamruck · · Score: 1

      Either your retarted or you replied to the wrong post.

      The grandparent is talking about some people wanting highways for easy access to the "wilderness", and response is...

      "If you think people are going to get hurt from this, let's compare how many people are hurt by this to how many people are hurt by people hunting in person"

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    34. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like bow hunting just because of the sportsmanship

      Bullshit on the "sportsmanship".
      It's not a sport unless 1) both sides are willing participants and 2) each side has a somewhat equal chance of winning once skill is factored out. In most cases, neither of these are true with either hunting or fishing. 1) may be true when hunting large animals like lions and tigers and bears, who view humans as food, but I've never heard a case where half of the time, the non-human animal dies, and the other half of the time, the human animal dies.

      Unless the human and non-human animals have an equal chance of dying, and both are willing participants, it's not a "sport".

    35. Re:This is interesting... by laron · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that animals need to be terribly different from humans?
      Why should a cat feel different while playfully kicking stuff around than a human?

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    36. Re:This is interesting... by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It depends on who, where, and what you're after if you consider if hunting is lopsided towards humans or not. We have bag limits and tags on anything worth eating, hunting seasons, and limitations on what you can use. Sure now we've got camoflage and scents and calls, but they aren't all that great and require skill to use. For whatever dumbass reason many hunters prefer the much less effective camo that has leaves and berries and crap printed on it than stuff that actually works. Scents? Helps for hunting some species but then at least in Oregon you can't use them for black bear unless you apply it to your own clothing! Then there's the decline in hunter skill and experience. I'm a total novice and manage to get out only maybe every other weekend at best during hunting season, but lots of people don't even do that.

      Finally, some hunts are just brutal. Two years ago, my roomate lucked out and after four years unsuccessfully going after bull elk in Oregon, he got an antlerless elk tag. Elk are amazing animals, can weigh well over a half ton but take two steps into heavy brush and be gone without a trace or hardly a sound. Anyway, he spent five days in Oregon's coast range before he shot a ~900 pound cow elk. So that's December in a rain forest in Oregon. Lows below freezing, highs around 50, near-constant rain so hard that if you want a shower just stick a bar of soap on your head and stand outside for five minutes. The day he got her there were 100 mph wind gusts recorded at Bandon, just to the south. He didn't use any calls or scents, but that day got within 50 feet of her wearing a bright yellow rainsuit. Someone always visits him at elk camp to make sure he's alright, and that year it was me. He had somehow gutted, skinned, quartered, and hung her by himself and carried out about 2/3 of the meat over two miles of steep, abandoned logging roads to his truck on the "main" logging road by the time I finally found him around dusk. The next day we drove back and got the remainder and I found out what it was like to carry an elk quarter on my back for a couple miles. Or at least a big chunk of it, anyway. I had about 80 pounds of elk leg on my back, and whenever I leaned over I'd "accidentally" bonk him in the head with her hoof, which stuck out over my head by about a foot and a half. From just two trips I got some of the worst muscle pulls I've ever had, I can't imagine doing it for over a day like he did. Elk hunters are full-bore batshit insane. Tasty animal, though. Beef sucks.

      But this so-called hunting from the safety and comfort of your own computer is just plain wrong, I agree.

    37. Re:This is interesting... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was a vegetarian for years. Now I eat meat, because it's really tasty. I don't see a moral argument purely against the eating of meat by Homo Sapiens.

      I fish, and my freezer has some venision my neigbour bagged last week. I live in a rural setting in BC, and many out here only eat meat they or their friends catch. It's not that we're romanticizing killing, but refusing to divorce ourselves from the killing.

      I know there are many hunters out there that don't frame it the same way, but it's still better than buying a plastic wrapped chunk of flesh and pretending it's not.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    38. Re:This is interesting... by DigitumDei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, well I lived on a farm where there were a number of feral cats. These were cats that hunted to survive, rats and birds and whatever else they could catch were their food. They DID NOT TOY WITH THEIR PREY, they killed it and ate it. That was hunting!

      My cats (ex feral cats from my parents farm) no longer need to hunt for food and as of such the way they hunt changes dramatically. Now they toy with their prey, they play games, they specifically let it go so they can catch it again and again and again...

      So please don't give me that they're not human so it is different crap. I don't hunt (anymore), I don't believe hunting is right, but when I was a kid I used to hunt (with an air rifle) and it is exilerating. That doesn't make it right or wrong, you can argue the morality of it all you want, the exileration is something inherent in our makeup, and its the same with you little cat. It (the cat) may not be able to think about the morality of it, and thus you can argue what it does is less wrong than us hunting, but it is the same genetic predisposition (our ancesters were HUNTER/gatherers after all).

    39. Re:This is interesting... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      But there's many disadvantages to this as well. There's a "feel" to holding a gun that a mouse simply cannot replicate. There is also the smell and sound of the animals which wouldn't translate very well over the net.

      Personally though, this seems like the first step between bridging the gap between CS and the movie Toys.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    40. Re:This is interesting... by Pad-Lok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm... Humans have developed morale codes. Cant remember when animals did that. Animals dont separate things as right or wrong and thats the greatest difference. So when cats hunt (in the way they do) its YOU moralising thier NATURAL behavior.

      --

      -- Sauer
    41. Re:This is interesting... by citog · · Score: 1

      I would have modded you interesting for raising the issue of projecting human qualities onto animals. However, not being able to spell 'prey' correctly makes me inclined to think you don't know what you're talking about and just want to have a dig at someone. You've supplied no evidence to back up your assertion while there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence, at least, to the contrary.

    42. Re:This is interesting... by qurk · · Score: 2, Informative

      In support of your claims, I heard on the radio that bagpipe "music" will draw mooses out. The radio guy called the guy making the claims a "master-hunter". My personal Theory is that the moose hear bagpipes and are like "Scottish people! I may get lucky!" and come out. But still, unless you are hunting for food you need for substinance and are too inept to work at McDonalds....in this day and age... what is the point? Sure you have an excuse to have guns and shoot them at living creatures but is it needed, or recreational. "Oh I don't mind spitting out shotgun pellots from this pig I shot!"

    43. Re:This is interesting... by AndyL · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll bet cats and dogs would enjoy some good venison from time to time.

    44. Re:This is interesting... by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Cats don't play with mice for no reason. They do it to prepare their stomachs for digestion of food. Humans don't need that, as we're not carnivores only (like pigs, we eat what we get).

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    45. Re:This is interesting... by arivanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you hunt just because of the sportsmanship, have you ever considered trying to hunt with a camera? Getting a clean professional quality shot of a deer is thousands times more difficult compared to shooting it. A rifle will shoot through branches and leaves. A camera does not.

      Take a camera next time and see what a lame shot you actually are.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    46. Re:This is interesting... by cloudmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funny, the cats on our farm still play with their prey a little before eating it, as does most any cat that I've ever seen hunting. http://www.thecatsite.com/content/view/13/26/1/1/ agrees (just the first site on a google search)

    47. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who takes the flak, when some anonymous coward/psycho hacker/halfblind hunter pops a cap into something thats not licensed.

    48. Re:This is interesting... by MandoSKippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, we have land in central wisconsin and will be hunting this Saturday. The life pigs, chickens, cows, etc is awful! Plus after all the hormones and antibiotics (so they get big and don't die of diseases when being so crammed) is it still meat? One of the problems we have in WI with the whitetail herd is its growing WAY to large. Yes we have gun they don't, but A. You get fresh, non chemical laced meat that had a free life. B. As I liek to say, better on your Grill (weber) then in your Grill (Ford F150).

    49. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ignorance is bliss.

      For you as well as the pigs.

      I spent every summer between 12 and 19 working on my father's large hog farm. 99% of the time pigs have lots of room to turn around. Their pens aren't spacious, but they have enough room to run in a circle. Just try to get them out of the pen, and you'll know what I mean.

      The time a pig doesn't is pre-birth through weaning. Why? To minimize mom laying down or stepping on the baby pigs.

      It wouldn't hurt anyone to actually work at a farm or hunt before they start making criticisms.

    50. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply to add that I've worked in a "slaughterhouse" as a summer job... And I can tell you that while it's true that those pigs have an hell of a life, their deaths are not peaceful... We get them to walk in a fenced corridor and a guy standing above an opening smashes a club on their skulls. Then, even if they're not really unconscious, we slash their throats open...
      Not what I call a peaceful death, IMHO.

    51. Re:This is interesting... by schizacopf · · Score: 3, Funny

      We should take this idea to Iraq, and mount it on some sort of mobile platform. I'll pay $1,000 an hour, to shoot at insurgents from the comfort of my own home!

    52. Re:This is interesting... by Digz · · Score: 1

      Any hunter worth his weight will tell you in a second that you don't take a shot until you have a good, clean shot which will kill the animal quickly - thus giving them a relatively less painful death. Which do you think is more painful for a deer - 30 seconds of struggling and then dropping dead from a heart or lung shot, or months of slowly starving to death because their environment no longer contains natural predators and they are overpopulated?

      Not to mention a quick kill is much more practical for a hunter - you don't have to search for the animal because it ran too far and meat tastes MUCH better when a clean shot puts the animal down quick.

      Divisions of Wildlife would not EXIST if it were not for hunters. In Ohio at least, the Divison of Wildlife receives no money through taxation - all their funds come from hunting licenses and tariffs on ammunition and guns.

      --
      SYS 64738
    53. Re:This is interesting... by Pad-Lok · · Score: 1

      True, our ancestors were hunters and even today some people hunt for food. Nothing wrong with that. The question here was about cats (or predators general) hunting for fun and toying with their pray. Animals dont do that. They have pretty good reasons to do the things they do. Like when a cat looks like its toying with its pray, its actually training its hunting skills at the same time. Too bad for the mouse, as its not pretty to look at. If we were to be dependant on hunting our own food, I bet we would need to keep our hunting skills sharp. And how to do that? By practicing, either by hunting more or on inanimate targets. Cats dont always have the pleasure to practice on nonliving targets, but if you toy your cat with strings or your hand, its going to jump for it as its good practice. Now, about morale. It has noting to do with our inbuilt reactions to some genetic propery we dont need anymore. Its about distinguishing between right or wrong. I cant say for sure if cats moralise, but I presume you need some advanced logical thinking capability to do that.

      --

      -- Sauer
    54. Re:This is interesting... by brainburger · · Score: 1

      I read a suggestion once that cats play with their prey for a while before attempting to eat it to make sure it is dead and wont injure the cat.
      Predators have a lot to lose if they are injured.

      Either way, the cat has no moral framework to judge its own behaviour in - an animal (or indeed, a human child) may do something nasty just because it likes it without being culpable...

    55. Re:This is interesting... by Pad-Lok · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know I shouldve paid more attention when learning english as my 3rd language, stupid me. You really cant expect everyone to type/speak fluent english on the internet, do you?

      ;) :) :P o_O and some other meaningless pointers that this comment shouldnt be taken too seriously.

      --

      -- Sauer
    56. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uummmm, humans ARE animals too.

    57. Re:This is interesting... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      While not sporting, every new type of hunters is looked down upon by previous ones.

      Hunting from a PC isn't sport! -- Gun hunters
      Using a gun isn't fair at all. -- Bow hunters
      It's not hunting unless you chase it. -- Spear hunters
      I wish I had a gun & a PC with good aim. -- Hungry mammoth stranglers

    58. Re:This is interesting... by LordBodak · · Score: 1
      So everyone who hunts is by definition a redneck?

      Not to mention that you have to assume there will be logging of who controls the gun at a given time, and being that it has a camera attached, it would basically be committing murder on camera, which would be pretty darn stupid.

      --
      LordBodak's journal.
    59. Re:This is interesting... by LordBodak · · Score: 1
      Very true. And in most states it's illegal to use certain calibers because they simply won't kill the animal, only cause it pain.

      Of course, .223 is one of those calibers usually banned for hunting, and it's what we're issuing our soldiers to defend our country with... but that's a different argument.

      --
      LordBodak's journal.
    60. Re:This is interesting... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > . There's nothing heroic, earthy or beautiful about that.

      There's nothing heroic, earthy or beautiful about telling them they are wrong, either.

      Many of the animal lovers who oppose hunting also complain about how our force-fed, abused farm animals are treated -- with good reason, sometimes. If by chance they actually eat meat, they also complain about chemicals that are fed to the animals. If I want to eat meat and be sure there are no chemicals, steroids in the meat, I have to go & get it myself. If you are a good-enough shot, you'll take it down in one hit. That's not inhumane.

      Actually, hunting IS earthy. We hunted before "civilization," so it's more "earthy" than having a slaughtered pig's ass delivered ho you at the supermarket. That's as disconnected from the reality of Earth as you can get!

      As for beauty, well no, it ain't pretty. Life isn't pretty, whether you work in the woods or in the deli section.

      There's nothing heroic about killing captive animals either. I'm not trying to be a hero, I'm trying to eat natural food.

      I've never hunted, BTW, but I will stand up for those who support reasonable hunting practices. Automatic weapons? No, there's no reason for that unless you're hunting something that weighs two tons & you are near starving.

    61. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your cat doesnt play or have fun with its pray. Its just the way cats hunt.

      So that means when the prey is mortally maimed or dead and my cat is flipping it into the air and repeatedly batting it across the kitchen floor he's still "hunting?"

      Yeaaaaaaah... riiiiiight.

    62. Re:This is interesting... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > There's a "feel" to holding a gun that a mouse simply cannot replicate.

      We'll have to send the guy instructions on gunverting an NES lightgun to USB, then!

      ("gunverting" was a typo, but I liked it.)

    63. Re:This is interesting... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Who takes the flak, when [...] something thats not licensed [is shot].

      That's a very good point, and is probably an argument raised by the Fish & Wildlife Agency, although admittedly I didn't RTFA. I imagine that the guy who set it up would be responsible for it.

      This guy is a lawyer's worst nightmare. Hopefully we can get some lawyers herded into view...

    64. Re:This is interesting... by nospmiS+remoH · · Score: 1

      This eerily reminds me of a popular moral question:

      For a million dollars would you push a button and a kill person on the other side of the world whom you have never met if you knew you could never get caught?

      --
      !hoD
    65. Re:This is interesting... by IamNotAgeek · · Score: 1

      I dunno about that. I have pictures of my kids petting the deer in my yard. And I've had to push the deer out of the garden when they start eating the roses. Also I've had to stop in my own driveway and wait for the deer to get out of the way. Now getting a picture of an elk might be a bit trickier.

      --
      All generalities are dangerous except ones that start with "All /.ers"
    66. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One less redneck.


      Well, at least you're forthcoming about being a psychopathic bigot.
    67. Re:This is interesting... by stev3 · · Score: 1

      Either your retarted or you replied to the wrong post.

      Oh the irony...

    68. Re:This is interesting... by jocknerd · · Score: 1

      Tracking today involves sitting in your truck and letting your dogs with their wireless collars track an animal like a bear or cougar up a tree and then when you notice that there is no more movement of the prey, you drive your pickup up to the tree, step out and shoot the bear or cougar.

      Yes, hunting is a great sport. On the other hand, I have a lot more respect for bow hunters although I, myself would rather shoot at targets than live prey.

    69. Re:This is interesting... by DigitumDei · · Score: 1

      Putting that way I am more inclined to agree with you. I still call it play when a cat toys with a mouse. All animals practice through play, if it wasn't fun they probably wouldn't do it unless they absolutely had to, at which point they'd be very bad at it due to lack of practice. ;)

      The hungry cat will toy with its play for a very short time because its caught it for a very specific purpose, the well fed cat will toy with the mouse until it dies, or until the cat gets bored (most times both). If you want to claim a cats "fun" and a humans "fun" are not comparable, then we can't really argue this. But I think you'd have to admit that both enjoy the hunt? And if both enjoy the hunt, is it not fun?

      In the end, its not that we're the only ones who hunt for sport, I say most preditors hunt for "sport/play/practice" at some point. The difference is we have the intellect to say to ourselves we don't need to do this anymore. Despite the fact that it may be fun...

    70. Re:This is interesting... by 955301 · · Score: 1


      Try reading their journals some time. Pay particularly close attention to there encounters with grizzly bears, where one or more of their party were almost killed by bears with more than 10 shots in them already.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    71. Re:This is interesting... by jebell · · Score: 1
      Hunting is already lopsided in favor of humans anyway (Scents designed to draw the animal closer, clothing to mask or remove human odors, calls, etc) the idea of making it almost effortless is disturbing. If you want to kill an animal do it with your own hands on a weapon, not on a mouse button.

      I don't hunt; I've never hunted. I disagree with this line of thinking, however. An animal already has the advantage of claws, teeth, a thick hide, speed, camouflage (did I spell that right? Probably not), strength, heightened senses of smell, hearing and sight, etc. Therefore, I see the use of guns, scents, and other tools as making up for our lack of natural abilities.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    72. Re:This is interesting... by operagost · · Score: 1

      They definitely could have used a few rifles in .30-06 or a .50 Desert Eagle on that expedition.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    73. Re:This is interesting... by operagost · · Score: 1

      You don't shoot an animal through cover. That's a good way of either wounding the animal or missing entirely and hitting a human.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    74. Re:This is interesting... by operagost · · Score: 1

      You're 100% wrong. Cats kill when they are not hungry. They also catch and release the mice when they could easily dispatch them in seconds. Besides entertaining themselves, they also deliver the prey to humans as a sort of gesture of friendship. Unfortunately, many humans aren't so keen on having dead critters delivered on their doorstep or the living room floor.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    75. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously not a hunter. It's not as lopsided in favor of the humans as you may think. The technical means measures that you mention are far from perfect. Scent masking is difficult to pull off correctly (after all, it's whether the game in question can smell you, not whether you can smell yourself - you just can't be sure). Camouflage depends on the hunter employing it properly (right type for the environment and the game being hunted). Being sufficiently stealthy for hours on end (sneezing, coughing, "nature calling", flatulence, etc.) is very disciplined and tiring. The weapon of choice requires significant skill and training, not to mention maintenance and preparation. Scouting likely hunting locations takes time and effort well before hunting season begins. There is significant study required of the game to discover its habits and preferences. Couple this with the luck factor in being in the right place at the right time and you'll find that this is far from a guaranteed situation.

    76. Re:This is interesting... by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      If you would have read your own posted article you would have learned this:

      What seem like a mean sport are actually basic safety measures, necessary for the cat's survival.

      Consider this from the cat's point of view. That small, or not so small, rodent can and will bite back if given the chance. A mouse's bite may be small but it can easily become infected and cause disease and even death. No cats in the wild would want to take that chance.

      As cats are far-sighted, it is difficult for them to safely launch a death bite on live prey. The solution is to thoroughly exhaust and weaken the prey to the point where it is too dazed to defend itself. Only then will the cat actually kill its prey.

    77. Re:This is interesting... by BigTunaCan · · Score: 0

      My father also raised pigs; they too had plenty of room. All in all I would say they were pretty content to lay around eating, sleeping, being fatted for the kill. However, the meat in stores often comes from much larger farms with enormous herds that do not have enough space. One of the local corporate outfits that raises cattle has thier cows packed together in areas that very literally has shit as deep as your knees. These cattle live a horrible life and some get really sick because of the living conditions. When one gets really ill they inject it with drain cleaner to "put it out of it's misery". I've seen them put down that way and it is anything but humane.

    78. Re:This is interesting... by mjake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always wonder about people who think hunting is too cruel to the animal. I wonder "how do they think animals die in the wild, if they aren't killed by a hunter?"

      I can only think of so many possibilities: starvation - very slow and painful, disease - very likely slow and painful, freeze to death - slow and painful, killed by non-human predators - on par with being killed by a human hunter in speed and pain (ever see those nature specials with large herbivores being killed by a pack of predators?) I don't think animals that get hunted die of old age very often, and those deaths would be similar to death by disease.

      So while I have never hunted, and think being cruel to animals (like beating a dog) is terrible and wrong, I don't see hunting as being wrong (at least not in the "cruelty" sense). Pretty much all wild animals die in a painful/unpleasant way. Being killed by a hunter is the next best thing to instant death from being hit by a car if I had to guess.

    79. Re:This is interesting... by Eklypz · · Score: 1

      How about you level the play field using your bare hands? Then you could show what a red-blooded animal slayer you are on equal terms.

      --
      Life is everything but nothing.
    80. Re:This is interesting... by Mojojojo+Monkey+Inc. · · Score: 1

      Your first example says that the State should not spend taxpayer dollars to provide something for disabled people that isn't really necessary, just because it's the "PC" thing to do. That's valid. Now in this case, you'd prefer that the government step in and stop a privately-owned business from providing a "service" to disabled (or lazy) people that may or may not violate any hunting laws? Why should the State care if people want to blow their money on something stupid, simply because you consider it PC and therefore bad? Should the State stop disabled rich people from getting gold-plated wheelchairs just because it's a waste of money?

      If it's illegal for a person without a hunting license to use this service or if there's other legal issues with it, then the government should stop it. But if it is legal, how would this be (at its roots) different from telling a waiter at a restaurant which lobster you want or ordering a turkey or steak out of a mail-order catalog, except this has a middle step with the customer choosing what animal they want to eat?

      Personally I think this is an a clever idea and a very novel use of the internet -- I'd love to see more concepts like this pop up than Yet-Another-eStore. But the logistical problems within the business like camera/gun control, safety issues, etc, should be what would cause it to fail, not Governmental Regulations. We need less crap like this holding back clever small businesses, regardless of whether people like you consider it "PC" or a waste of money.

    81. Re:This is interesting... by Suidae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why people are against this. They guy is/will_be running a business on his own land, with his own equipment, killing commonly hunted species (iirc the non-native Axis deer is a very common game animal there, and they tend to become a problem if not hunted (most of the large preditors, mountain lions or whatever, have already been killed off)).

      I personally don't like to hunt, but I don't see why we should prohibit others from doing it, even in novel ways. As long as the hunters aren't causing serious shifts in the natural ecological landscape, destroying biodiversity of natural species, I dont' really have a problem with it.

    82. Re:This is interesting... by fitten · · Score: 1

      or donated to animal orphanages

      Two things here I guess. The first is that animal carcasses (road kills even) can be used by animal shelters to defray the costs of feeding dogs and cats.

      The other thing practiced in a number of states are programs where hunters can donate the carcasses of animals they've killed (particularly deer) to soup kitchens and/or orphanages to help feed the homeless and orphans to help with food costs.

    83. Re:This is interesting... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I've never hunted, BTW, but I will stand up for those who support reasonable hunting practices. Automatic weapons? No, there's no reason for that unless you're hunting something that weighs two tons & you are near starving.

      So you'd be really upset at this guy, who went whitetail hunting with a seven pound mountain howitzer?

      I agree. Full auto weapons are fun at the range, but they aren't really hunting weapons. Though I might go deer hunting with a full-auto AK-47, given:
      A:Careful ammo selection (NOT FMJ Milsurp)
      B:Fairly close range (under 200 yards)
      C:Good quality AK-47(There's a large variance)
      D:The selector switch remains in the Safe/Single region.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    84. Re:This is interesting... by fitten · · Score: 1

      They also "play" with their prey (as other animals do as well, especially young ones) to practice/hone hunting skills.

    85. Re:This is interesting... by Alarion · · Score: 1

      Yes, and not hunting your own food and instead buying meat from the supermarket that came from companies that mass execute the animals and waste tons of meat/animal lives when some of the meat sits on the store shelf too long is somehow more civil?

      And no, it's more akin to killing a neighborhood of black people because Jakwon robbed and murdered the local 7-11 clerk.

      What a fucked up view on reality you have.

    86. Re:This is interesting... by Alarion · · Score: 1

      Actually, I meant your "civilness" is more akin to that, not the act of hunting.

    87. Re:This is interesting... by Alarion · · Score: 1

      This brings up a good point I believe. Actually going out and killing what you eat reminds you that your are eating another (previously) living, breathing creature. I guess in a way, for me at least, it helps me to appreciate the animals a little more. I am not really a hunter, but my dad is/was and I have been a few times. Looking to go back and start doing it more. I much prefer to kill what I eat, and venison tastes so much better than cow, IMO. Plus, I know the meat isn't going to be wasted or thrown out because it sat around too long without being bought.

      Most people just go to the grocery store and pick up a pound or two of hamburger, or a few steaks. Most have never probably even seen a cow except on television. I am not saying you should worship cows, but just a little smidgen of respect for the life it gave so you could eat isn't too much to ask.

    88. Re:This is interesting... by Carnivore · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine grew up on Guam, and he has interesting pig-catching stories. Apparently pigs like to eat pot out in the jungle, which makes them easy to catch.

      They would keep the pigs in pens on the beach until they wanted to eat one. If the pigs got rowdy, they would put Frankie, a 2m monitor lizard in the pen to scare the shit out of the pigs.

    89. Re:This is interesting... by wmaker · · Score: 1

      deer don't eat meat.

    90. Re:This is interesting... by acsinc · · Score: 1

      You are confusing sport with game. Sport doesn't nessisarily pit two sides against each other, see gymnatsics, skiing, etc. Many sports are games (Football, baseball) and some games may be sports. But there are some activities that are one and not the other.

      Refer to Merriam-Webster if you doubt me.

    91. Re:This is interesting... by wmaker · · Score: 1

      sport, n.
      1.Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. A particular form of this activity.
      2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
      3.An active pastime; recreation.

      Nowhere in that definition of "sport", from dictionary.com, do i see what the fuck you are talking about.
      Hunting is by definition a sport. Dictionary.Com again.

      hunt, v.
      1. To pursue (game) for food or sport.

      Now, go cry.

    92. Re:This is interesting... by wmaker · · Score: 1

      Solitare is a game. Is it not? I don't recall ever having an opponent during solitare.

    93. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You apparently have not seen the heavily armed deer here in California.

    94. Re:This is interesting... by umshaggy · · Score: 1
      Worst nightmare? If the issues are ambiguous (I won't judge, I am neither a lawyer nor a hunter and am not qualified to talk about hunting laws) then involvement in such groundbreaking law could make a lawyer's career. Even if it doesn't, it is sure to keep him/her employed for a goodly amount of time.

      If I were a lawyer (especially one specializing in the environment and DNR issues) I would be chewing at the bit to represent this guy. It is a lawyer's dream.

      Of course, I could be wrong:) Any actual lawyers out there want to venture an opinion?

      --
      Did you buy a Neuros today?
    95. Re:This is interesting... by KUHurdler · · Score: 1

      "deer don't eat meat."

      They will if you have a gun.

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    96. Re:This is interesting... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      How to catch a goose: First, catch a little fish. Get a little dowel or stick, and tie a string around the middle. Stick the dowel into the fish and leave it where the goose will eat it. After the goose eats the fish, the dowel will turn sideways in the goose's stomach, and you have a goose on a string.

      How to catch a polar bear: First, you catch a seal. Remove the breastbone from the carcass, sharpen the ends, compress it like a leaf spring, and secure it with sinews wrapped around it. Stuff the compressed breastbone back into the seal carcass, and leave it where a polar bear can eat it. In the bear's stomach, the sinews holding the breastbone in compression will dissolve, and the pointed ends of the breatbone will puncture the stomach. Now, catching the polar bear is a simple matter* of tracking the wounded bear over miles of ice pack until it dies.

      *What is simple to some might be pretty hard for the rest of us.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    97. Re:This is interesting... by Analog+Anomaly · · Score: 0

      Friendship? I'm sorry but you're sorely mistaken. I have a cat. I've had a couple cats over my lifetime. I really do feel as if they're the closest animal I can relate to, including humans, as of course, we're animals as well. People commonly misconcive a dog's sumbission as loyalty. Cats generally hang around with other cats for the food. just the same as if you have an outdoor cat that doesn't like you he'll likely run away. The act of a cat leaving you a mouse or bird or whatever is not because he or she wants to be 'friends' or express his or her friendship, rather that it's they're way of contributing to the food supply.

    98. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > How about you level the play field using your bare hands? Then you could show what a red-blooded animal slayer you are on equal terms.

      I evolved a big brain. When that happened, big claws and teeth, and sensitive noses, ceased to be a survival advantage among my species.

      The deer can kick my ass if we fight unarmed. The deer can smell me further away than I can hear or smell or see it.

      When I use my brain to make a spear, a bow-and-arrow, a blow gun, or to put a chunk of metal into a tube with some flammable stuff at one end of the tube, the deer and I ARE fighting on equal terms.

    99. Re:This is interesting... by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      Scents and camoflauge for hunting is as old as time itself. What did the original poster think our ancestors did 200 years ago? Go running into a fields on foot with a spear while screaming and hollering and trying to pick off a large wild animal as it runs past them? While Hollywood may depict those people like that sometimes it certainly isn't the truth. They were masters of their craft. They could stalk an animal like their life depended on it because, well, it did. Usuing urine from the females of a species as an attractant has been used longer than recorded history.

      I think most handicapped folks wouldn't want to hunt via computer. Although I suppose I can't say that about a quadriplegic because I've never personally known any. They might want to do it that way because that can't find any other way to do it. Still other folks with less inhibiting handicaps will venture more for a traditional hunt but with the aides of mechanical transportation. That's quite common actually.

      We've actually seen some elk here in Kansas. The fish and game folks won't acknowledge it. They still haven't acknowledged that we have mountain lions and water moccasins either and they've been here for decades, if not longer. My mother saw an elk many years ago when I was a kid. Another more notable sighting was only a few weeks ago. I'l love to hunt for one someday. It would be worth it I think. I'd hate to hit one in a car though. Whitetail deer are bad enough. Hitting and elk would be like hitting a moose!

    100. Re:This is interesting... by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he's referring not to the small ma and pa farms out there but the hog equivalent of Tyson. I'm sure the big hog lots pack them in like chickens. It certainly wouldn't suprise me. I'm a country boy too and I get annoyed when people level accusations at farmers and ranchers in general when it's really the Tysons of this country that they have a beef with (pun intended).

    101. Re:This is interesting... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that cats "practice" hunting. I don't think they have a "whoops, my appointment calendar says it's time to practice!" viewpoint, so I'm pretty sure they practice because they find it "fun" (even if they can't verbalize the concept of fun).

    102. Re:This is interesting... by You+Been+Rob-ed! · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ...there were a lot more animals in the woods...

      Au contraire! For instance, there are more whitetail deer in America today than ever before. Humans have created a far more favorable habitat for them. They like boundries -- woods/field edges -- and less mature forests.

      Now there are fewer species but there are more individual animals.

      --
      For fun, calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you!
    103. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay class, multiple choice question here and I expect you to all get it right:

      Humans are:

      a) Animals
      b) Vegetables
      c) Minerals

    104. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, quit your whining, self-hating hoplophobe.

    105. Re:This is interesting... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Not the bird that's been sunbathing on my roof for the last 7 years.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    106. Re:This is interesting... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I agree completely, and have seen this sort of thing first hand. Most of the anti-hunting people I know think animals are those talking cartoons they see in Disney films. Tragically wolves and other large predators are very rare these days, and completely gone in some regions. As a result, most of the animals I see dying, die either from hunting or from disease. As someone who has had to throw away several game animals because large portions of their flesh had rotted off, or because they had pus-dripping wounds and parasites all over them, I can tell you that hunting is probably the most humane way animals die in the wild. Personally I think everyone should be required to personally kill an animal, gut it, clean it, and butcher it before they are allowed to buy meat in the store. Anyone who objects to hunting on moral grounds is either a hypocrite or a vegetarian.

    107. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see no difference between using a gun in person to a gun remotely.

      Then you're willfully blind.

    108. Re:This is interesting... by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 1
      I got another one for you... not everyone who hunts is as economically endowed as the average computer geek. Most of the guys I know who hunt, save massive amounts on their grocery bills. You say "buy it at the store!"... you know what venison (or any other meat) goes for by the pound? You know how many pounds of meat can be had for the price of a bullet and a hunting tag?

      Repeat after me: In many (but not all) cases, hunting is an economic affair.

      --

      Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

    109. Re:This is interesting... by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      As what, clubs?

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    110. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tasty animal, though. Beef sucks."

      If you get the chance, try kangaroo. They taste great and they don't cause erosion like cows or sheep.

    111. Re:This is interesting... by BlackTyranny · · Score: 1

      Has anyone ever tried both? I have. I think 'hunting' with a camera is fun, and allows me to share my love of the wild with many people. However, hunting with a gun or a bow is, by far, much more difficult than hunting with a camera.

      I know the poster above meant well, but clearly has no understanding of the limitations of weapons and the realities of hunting. Let me give you some specifics:

      In the woods, hunters look for clear shots. Even a twig, or a leaf, can seriously deflect the trajectory of the missile (bullet / shot / arrow / et al). I wish I had some links to point you to a more scientific description of why these seemingly light massed obstructions are so detrimental to the trajectory. Suffice it to say shooting through obstructions is a primary "Don't do this" in any hunters safety course. Besides, wounding an animal in the woods is a guarantee of it's slow death, and I assure you that type of cruelty is not the goal of a hunter.

      As far as getting the shot during hunting season? Well, take it from someone who just walked out of the woods after 7 days without seeing a single deer in the daylight: it is not easy to get a shot. All animals are instinctively self-preserving, and despite all the technologies mentioned above (scents, high powered weapons, blinds, et al..), the odds of finding the right location during the open season is a rare chance indeed, at least on public land. I will readily admit that private hunt clubs and lands are a far different picture, but the sheer number of animals found on those locations is a clear sign of reproductive rates and survivability of most wild animals.

      Unfortunately, that high productive rate has very serious consequences in a country building up new subdivisions everywhere, and selling of state land to private owners. Perhaps I can find some pictures of the herds of frozen deer in Michigan's Upper Penninsula after a slightly worse than average winter: you'd think twice about whether the hunters are as efficient as the original poster seemed to imply in his post. In the lower Michigan Penninsula, articles such as this one indicate that same high breeding rate has other consequences when combined with humans and shrinking wild forest lands.

    112. Re:This is interesting... by iocat · · Score: 1

      I was going to mention deer as species that have benefitted in numbers from humanity, but, well, I was in a hurry...

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    113. Re:This is interesting... by rev_sanchez · · Score: 1

      I smell a hoax or maybe that's just the doe in estrus urine I put on my computer/rifle to attract bucks.

      --
      If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
    114. Re:This is interesting... by passion · · Score: 1

      If you want to kill an animal do it with your own hands on a weapon, not on a mouse button.

      I agree with you, but you added 3 words too many: "on a weapon". Seriously, if you're going to kill something - end it's life, for fun... you should give your opponent as much of a chance as you have.

      Fight it bare-handed. Now that's a real sport. Shooting an animal that we've left behind in evolution is simply exploitative. Otherwise, why not send a UAV armed with a laser-guided smart bomb to wipe out Bambi?

      --
      - passion
    115. Re:This is interesting... by ampathee · · Score: 1

      What's the difference to the animal?

      It still gets shot.

      Hunting can never be "fair" to the animals, since you can't get them to agree to play.

      I can see how this would make hunting less "fun", but I do not see a valid argument from the animal-welfare POV - they're just as dead either way. In fact possibly they would die less stressed out this way.

    116. Re:This is interesting... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > So you'd be really upset at this guy

      Well, not exactly. I think it's funny, but it's not in "good taste." I don't know the exact word I'm looking for... maybe it just makes me uncomfortable to think that people do that sort of thing.

    117. Re:This is interesting... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I would be chewing at the bit to represent this guy. It is a lawyer's dream.

      Okay, maybe it's the jury's nightmare. But really, he would have to stretch the law pretty thin (that's their job, though) to not find this guy guilty of negligence or something like it, if something is shot that isn't "supposed to be shot."

      AFAIK, IANAL, IHA (I Hate Acronyms)

    118. Re:This is interesting... by umshaggy · · Score: 1

      Good point. I expect that he would have to follow the same rules as a shooting range, as this sounds essentially like what he has set up. The only nasty part is that the gunner could be in another state, or country, which would complicate the issue, I am sure.

      --
      Did you buy a Neuros today?
    119. Re:This is interesting... by zobier · · Score: 1

      Except that I am a vegetarian and I don't object to hunting. I think that hunting is the best way to procure animal products - don't know how economically viable it would be on a large scale but as DABANSHEE says above our stations here in .au are prolly the next best thing. I also believe that Homo sapiens omnivori should learn to hunt and butcher - like if I got stuck out in the bush with a lot of the people I know I would probably end up doing a lot of the `dirty' work. Anyway, some insightful omnivores here in this thread. Cheers.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    120. Re:This is interesting... by acsinc · · Score: 1

      Sorry I didn't make my self clear.. Games and sports are not mutally exclusive items, and neither requieres an opponent.

    121. Re:This is interesting... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      I know. I was joking about the absurdity of blasting a deer and orphaning its children and then turning around and donating to an animal orphanage. (Yes, I know hunting seasons are arrange in such a way that this shouldn't happen. It still just seemed a little crazy.)

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    122. Re:This is interesting... by Honest+Tony · · Score: 1

      Cool Now I'm going to set up shot in back yard, mount a camera to my air rifle and sell shots over the internet to hunt... I mean exterminate vermin and birds from my property. I'm going to make a fortune...yeah kill all the pest!

      --
      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" - Emiliano Zapata
    123. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'd rather have the animals have five years of freedom and a painful death any day"

      how would YOU LIKE A PAINFUL DEATH you moron. you people are SICK. it is just plain INHUMANE to hunt animals for sport full f*ing stop.

    124. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To all hunters: Please go and get a penile implant to compensate for your teeny tiny penises and leave our animals alone.

    125. Re:This is interesting... by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1

      And cats also "play" with the prey to make sure it really is stunned (or dead)...because of the position of their eyes, they cannot see something directly below and in front of their mouth, so a grabbed--but alert/awake--prey can bite the cat as the cat prepared to eat it. This is especially common with cats catching and eating voles. It also explains why cats shake their prey (or first morsel of cat food) to break their necks. [this came from a reference book on cat behavior]

    126. Re:This is interesting... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't understand your post. The post to which I replied said that wild cats don't play with their prey. I countered by first briefly describing my experience with cats that consistently play with their prey, and then by linking to an article that explains not only that most cats do play with their prey, but also gives a plausible explanation as to why they'd do that. That's the part you quoted.

      So, I'm a bit curious as to why you'd reply with emphasis places so as to suggest that the article contradicts what I said. Did you perhaps reply to the wrong post or fail to read the whole thread before posting?

    127. Re:This is interesting... by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      Simple. You read the article wrong (you said the article agrees that cats play with their pray) , in fact the article explains what people think it's a play behavior, rather, it's a method to exhaust the pray in order to eat it.

      Not only does cat play resemble hunting, but also hunting routines can seem surprisingly like play.

      It is only saying that it is similar, but says it isn't, and explains why.

    128. Re:This is interesting... by AndyL · · Score: 1

      Whenever I see a dead deer being brought home it's always strapped to a vehicle more expensive than what I drive.
      I probably get better millage too.

      At least in this area (New England), I have a hard time believing that "many" hunters are doing it out of economic necessity.

      The (admittedly) few I've talked to are apparently taking paid vacations from good jobs.

    129. Re:This is interesting... by JAFSlashdotter · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that some of this can be easily explained by the fact that the people who the parent is talking about (who hunt for economic reasons) can't afford to travel far to hunt, hunt near their homes, and therefore aren't driving it strapped to their vehicles very far. You therefore don't see them, unless you live in one of those areas. You are more likely to see those who travel greater distances, and those people are less likely to be hunting for economic reasons. Your anecdotal evidence is a poor sample biased heavily by collection method.

      --
      We apologize for the preceding message. All those responsible have been sacked.
    130. Re:This is interesting... by AndyL · · Score: 1

      True enough, but the parent posting offered no evidence at all. Only a statement that seems to go counter to my own personal observations.

      If the poster had given us a reasonable reason to believe what he had said, I wouldn't have bothered to offer my observations.

      Until I see different, I don't see why I shouldn't assume that his unevidenced assertion was merely a manufactured truth to give his argument a convenient moral high ground.

      He didn't even mention how he knew this. Do surveys say this? Does the Census? Does God? Do his own personal observations? Do his buddies' personal observations? Do the stars? Do his own logical deductions? Or did he just hear it somewhere and has been repeating it ever since? He doesn't say at all.

    131. Re:This is interesting... by JAFSlashdotter · · Score: 1
      Well, I just went and reread the grandparent, and I think he at least warned us that this was his own personal experience. Since neither one of us included it in our posts, I'll do so now:
      I got another one for you... not everyone who hunts is as economically endowed as the average computer geek. Most of the guys I know who hunt, save massive amounts on their grocery bills. You say "buy it at the store!"... you know what venison (or any other meat) goes for by the pound? You know how many pounds of meat can be had for the price of a bullet and a hunting tag?

      Repeat after me: In many (but not all) cases, hunting is an economic affair.

      (the bold was mine)

      You'd said you had a hard time believing the "many" part, based upon your "on the road" observations, so I just thought I might be able to offer an explanation of why the two might not match.

      I guess the sticking point would be what the original poster meant by "many". I'm not sure it implies a majority, but I'd guess it means at least it's not the least likely reason that people hunt.

      It's funny, apparently neither the original poster, you, nor I actually hunt and none of us bothered to go and try to find some hunting demographics studies! Gotta love /.

      Here's a survey (granted, at the grounds of a US military base, so possibly biased) that would suggest "meat" hunting is behind recreational, but sizable.

      The US Fish and Wildlife Service (you think they might know something about this!) does lots of hunting and fishing surveys, there's an index here. There are some interesting things in there, but after plowing through some of it, I doubt it comes out and give any clear answers on this. We can tell that "avid hunters" are most likely rural, and most likely "below median" income, but it'd be a stretch to draw "they hunt for economic reasons" from that. I'd wager that the "casual hunter" category that is split between urban and rural and is more frequently "above median" income is where you see your mega-SUV drivers. Maybe you can wade through the study if you're curious.

      --
      We apologize for the preceding message. All those responsible have been sacked.
    132. Re:This is interesting... by AndyL · · Score: 1

      Bah. You're right. The original post did not say exactly what I remembered it said. I suppose with the word "many" in there we could both be right about "many" hunters. And he does sort of qualify his statement as being based on personal experience.

      "Maybe you can wade through the study if you're curious."
      Heh. This is far more information than I'm interested in, but you're probably right about the demographic split.
      Some interesting statistics in here though. My favorite is : 24% of hunters used a Bow and Arrow and 16% used a "Muzzleloader or other primitive firearm". That's pretty neat.

    133. Re:This is interesting... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I see. You misunderstood "play".

      The poster said that cats don't do anything that looks like playing - wheras the article says that the cats do something that looks like playing. I don't care if the cat's enjoying the game or being a super-special hunter - the point was that the cat bats the prey around. The original poster said they don't, when, in fact, most cats do bat their prey around. I call that playing. I also play with my food sometimes, but it's not a game, it has a real purpose - to make it look like I'm eating. I still call it play, though I don't enjoy it at all.

      Read the original post yet again. He said that the cats catch their prey and go straight to killing and eating, no messing around waiting for the prey to exhaust itself before the death blow. Fun or not, most cats do "play" with their prey.

  2. Do they send you the meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the best part!

    1. Re:Do they send you the meat? by sxtxixtxcxh · · Score: 1
      RTFA:

      He said an attendant would retrieve shot animals for the shooters, who could have the heads preserved by a taxidermist. They could also have the meat processed and shipped home, or donated to animal orphanages.

      think of it as amazon.com for ted nugent. :P

      --
      for a minute there, i lost myself...
    2. Re:Do they send you the meat? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      What if someone shoots at the attendant ?!

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    3. Re:Do they send you the meat? by sxtxixtxcxh · · Score: 1

      then think of it as amazon.com for cannibals. :p

      --
      for a minute there, i lost myself...
    4. Re:Do they send you the meat? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      If the attendant is not clueful enough to disable the firing mechanism before moving into range of the camera, then he wins a Darwin.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  3. well... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    it'd beat the crap out of those stupid webgames I see everyone play at work. Or the low capatability NESCafe

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  4. Hunters with disabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the days of true hunting, hunters with disabilities became the prey.

    1. Re:Hunters with disabilities by MoggyMania · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not the case. Hunter-gatherer societies were small enough that they could manage to be fairly protective of the rare people that were disabled, whether they were born that way (rare) or injured. Just because somebody becomes disabled doesn't mean their family or friends stop caring about them.

    2. Re:Hunters with disabilities by iocat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It also doesn't mean they stop being valuable to the group -- they may not be able to walk well (say), but they could still know the best way to bring down some large animal, or where the best trap-lines were, etc. It may be very much in the self-interest of the group to carry a "disabled" person.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    3. Re:Hunters with disabilities by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      If they're being protected, they're not much of a hunter.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    4. Re:Hunters with disabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not the case. Hunter-gatherer societies were small enough that they could manage to be fairly protective of the rare people that were disabled, whether they were born that way (rare) or injured. Just because somebody becomes disabled doesn't mean their family or friends stop caring about them.

      Do you have a source on that?

    5. Re:Hunters with disabilities by GlasWolf · · Score: 1

      So they've shot themselves in the foot? Possibly literally.

    6. Re:Hunters with disabilities by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to hijack this title to say:

      Hunters with disabilities just need to get to the island.

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:Hunters with disabilities by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Do you have a source on that?

      Liberal BS artists. In other words, no.

    8. Re:Hunters with disabilities by murreyaw · · Score: 0

      Woohoo! Big Game hunter on Steroids...

      --
      God, Root, Whats the difference?
    9. Re:Hunters with disabilities by Wybaar · · Score: 1

      Indeed. A good example of this is in the novel The Clan of the Cave Bear. The shaman in the group detailed in this novel was born with a deformed arm and leg, I believe, and lost an eye to a cave bear attack. (I don't have my copy of the book here at work, but I believe those were all of Creb's physical differences from the rest of the Clan members.) Yet he still managed to contribute to the Clan society as their shaman.

      In addition, I seem to remember that some of the older males in the Clan, those who were too old to hunt with the rest of the Clan, taught the boys who were too young to hunt the skills that the boys would need when they became old enough to hunt. One specific example I can remember was the sling training that Ayla spied upon. I imagine it would be the same if someone were to be disabled but had a useful skill.

      --
      Y|
    10. Re:Hunters with disabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suicide hunter: disabled hunter smeared with peanut butter holding a handgrenade sitting in forest.

    11. Re:Hunters with disabilities by hocrap · · Score: 1

      hunters with disabilities.

      What a joke. Hunting used to be to feed your family. What are they going to do, ship the deer overnight?

      The concept of killing an animal just for the thrill and fun of it it totally foreign to me. How can someone look at a deer and kill it for the "sport" ? Population control is something but the sport of killing animals is very barbaric. And if you take into account the "techonology" of attracting animal and kill them half a mile away is ever more ludicrous.

      Online gun triggered... a new meaning to "a hacker on a killing spree".

      All so called sport hunters should become preys.

    12. Re:Hunters with disabilities by benpope00 · · Score: 1

      It should be Gatherer-Hunter Societies; something like 90% of the !Kung people's diet comes from gathering roots and berries. Hunting is less efficient than gathering roots, berries, etc... Plants don't run off when you get close to them.

      We put a lot of emphasis on the idea of "man the hunter," but originally we were more "man the scavenger."

    13. Re:Hunters with disabilities by desertfish · · Score: 1

      No, I think most obviously disabled infants were probably killed. When you're part of a small group of people busting their asses 24/7 to simply survive, the value of your life is measured by a far more practical scale.

    14. Re:Hunters with disabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunting used to be to feed your family

      So what do you think a hunter does with his/her catch ? To alleviate any disturbing concepts that you may be harboring, yes, they eat them.

    15. Re:Hunters with disabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because somebody becomes disabled doesn't mean their family or friends stop caring about them.

      Ofcourse not, they could become a prime source of protein in those cold winter months :)

    16. Re:Hunters with disabilities by Tassach · · Score: 1

      The !Kung live in an area which is only marginally capable of supporting human life -- the Kalahari desert. Their lifestyle and diet cannot be realistically compared to hunter-gatherer societies living in more hospitable environments with plentiful game, like neolithic Europe or pre-Columbian America.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    17. Re:Hunters with disabilities by benpope00 · · Score: 1

      "Hayden (3) stated that hunter-gatherers such as the !Kung might live in conditions close to the "ideal" hunting and gathering environment. What do the !Kung eat? Animal foods are estimated to contribute 33% and plant foods 67% of their daily energy intakes" Hunter-gatherer Dites--A Different Perspective

  5. hunters with disabilities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i thought the point of hunting was to get food ... or something to that extent. Why not get virtual deer hunter or something ?

    1. Re:hunters with disabilities? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Why not run a simulation and let the clod think it's real?

      rj

    2. Re:hunters with disabilities? by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Shhhh!

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  6. I dunno by copperheadclgp · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I guess I can understand the thinking... but I'm not sure I agree with it.

    Now what would be really cool is if you did this at a paintball range and had these things in trees firing at players (with paint of course.

    1. Re:I dunno by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      Make it camouflaged so the players can't see it, as well.

      Hold your fire until they take cover in FRONT of the gun, then cover their whole body in paint :)

    2. Re:I dunno by Fireflymantis · · Score: 0

      I personally think that that would be a great idea. Screw 'hunting' animals, I want some people to shoot at! Imo, it would be an excellent challange to add to the poeple playing paintball, and a great form of stress relief for the rest of us!

    3. Re:I dunno by eric76 · · Score: 1

      What they really need, for safety purposes, is some way to make sure that any humans in the area are aware that someone is getting ready to shoot so they can duck for cover.

      How about a 150 db siren that must go off for one minute within two minutes prior to the shot?

    4. Re:I dunno by Glendale2x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now what would be really cool is if you did this at a paintball range and had these things in trees firing at players (with paint of course.

      While we're at it, how about a random paintball-webcam just set up somewhere? People come online, see someone walk by on the cam, and fire the paintball gun at whatever poor soul happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or make a game of it: people try to run across a range of these things to win a t-shirt.

      --
      this is my sig
    5. Re:I dunno by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      well, from the site, there is a person attending the rifle at all times. They have a view of what the operator is seeing, and aiming at, so that he can not fire at random birds and such. As it is now, they are not hunting, they are mearly firing 10 shots at a target. You pay $15/month for a membership, and $6 for a 20 minute session of 10 rounds. You then can have the guy mail you a copy of the target, a DVD recording of the sesion, and some other stuff I may regret this but here is a pic of the setup incase his server gets smoked. Setup

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    6. Re:I dunno by DZign · · Score: 1

      The concept of a remote controlled rifle is dangerous.. I was thinking about this earlier.. got the idea from an Isaac Asimov novel.
      (and instead of posting it I should patent this and become very rich :-)

      With current technology, what stops someone from constructing a totally remote controled sniper rifle ?

      When JFK was shot they found a rifle and a suspect..
      In the near future the only thing left could be a rifle, somewhere set up in a building; or maybe intergrated in a secret corner when a building was constructed, many years before, waiting for the right time to be activated..

    7. Re:I dunno by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > In the near future the only thing left could be a rifle,

      You still need a triggering mechanism. Like a servo that spins to pull the trigger. Then a wireless receiver, but most of this could be stored inside a hollowed-out stock & the trigger pulled by wire... It would still be obvious how it worked. Then, if you wanted any kind of accuracy, you'd need a remote camera. In general, the more complex your setup, the easier it is to catch you. More places to slip up, like fingerprints on the battery you put in that camera three months ago. Or a receipt from the trip to Radio Shack to buy all the stuff you needed.

  7. Not sport by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hunting is a sport if you go in the wild, hiding for a long time, tracking your prey (and drinking beer, too). If it's just point and click at a screen to kill a REAL animal, it's not a sport, it's cruelty. I hope he burns in Hell. Or better, that a 'customer' shoots him accidentally!

    1. Re:Not sport by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yeah.. and why the hell NOT just simulate this? with simulation you get all kinds of benefits.. like fighting against real people or wtf gives you the kicks.

      help hunters with disabilities? sorry but if you can't get out into the forest with your hunting group.. well, you're already missing out on the whole point of hunting then and would be better off buying a copy of deer hunter.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Not sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so its cruelty if it takes no effort?

      sorry but if you are killing animals (in a relatively humane way, thats debateable) then it is either cruelty. or it isnt.
      pick one. who and how they are doing it is irrelevant.

      drinking beer and firearms, always a good combo.

    3. Re:Not sport by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1
      • I hope he burns in Hell. Or better, that a 'customer' shoots him accidentally!

      While I hope that no one gets shot from this hare-brained :) scheme, I do suspect his eternal seat is in the smoking section.

      Disclaimer: I'm a member of the Religious Right, lover of geeky technology, of guns, and especially of red meat cooked over an open fire.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    4. Re:Not sport by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1


      >>better, that a 'customer' shoots him accidentally!

      from the article:

      He said an attendant would retrieve shot animals for

      hmmm... who the hell will take that job?

    5. Re:Not sport by kfg · · Score: 1

      As it happens I agree with you (if you look over my posting history you'll find many references to my vegetarianism), but, as it happens I also agree with the essential point of the parent poster.

      A sport may be cruel, and yet still be a sport, with all the admirable things that are attendant upon sport. Bullfighting is barbarism, and yet it is, like it or not, a sport.

      The problem with hunting over the internet is that it is just cruelty.

      (Although I would posit that legimately hunting for food is another matter. I won't do it, but I don't fall into the trap of thinking of lions as "cruel" animals for seeking to continue living, and I respect people like Nugent far more than I do people who buy their meat but would blanche at killing an animal).

      KFG

  8. What's the point? by Epistax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.

    1. Re:What's the point? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Excuse? Gee, your agenda's showing.

      I too don't like this. I hope he loses a bundle on it and has to stop, but I won't support any law to ban the practice. No matter how stupid it is.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:What's the point? by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 1
      but I won't support any law to ban the practice. No matter how stupid it is.

      I would think that there would be very good reasons to prohibit the remote operation of deadly weapons via the Internet... There are many stupid things that are illegal, and with good cause. It seems to me that serious potential exists for some sort of unfortunate mishap, and securing accountability in such an event might be difficult.

      But then again, some people are careless with their guns even without the benefit of remote operation, so maybe this isn't anything that new at all. :-/

    3. Re:What's the point? by jd · · Score: 1, Interesting
      It depends. If they also fit high-velocity rifles to the hunters' monitors, and allow the animals to shoot back, I guess it could be OK.


      It's interesting that in the UK, they're looking at an outright ban on all "blood sports" such as fox-hunting. True, there have been reports that UK fox-hunters may start shooting at politicians, but that's unlikely to pan out. That's just not the way it's done there.


      What's interesting about it is that it undermines the whole "tradition" thing, in that it shows a society can dump a tradition it no longer believes in. Just because that's the way it was done does not mean it's the way it's got to be done now. Things can move forward and people can move on.


      Sometimes traditions are there for a reason. You should never just change something for the sake of change. That's not smart. That's not even Maxwell Smart. Hunting doesn't fall into that category. Sometimes you get the rationale that it's useful to control populations. Aside from the fact that there are better methods, it throws the ecosystem into imbalance. Unless you plan on hunting a few thousand species, and have the necessary charts and tables to calculate exactly what number of each you need to zap to keep things in check.


      Overhunting one species will cause an increase in those things that species consumed, which will then cause an increase in anything else which consumes those same things. The time delays in the system are such, though, that it's hard to track cause and effect.


      If you've ever played the computer game "rabbits and foxes", where you give the initial number of each and see how the populations change, you know how hard it is to get a stable system. Now, imagine a system that is 5-6 species deep and perhaps a few hundred across. Factor in hunting, the changing ecosystem, etc, and you get something so staggeringly unstable it's a wonder the US has any wildlife left.


      Australia wasn't so lucky. Recent studies have all but proven that human hunters obliterated something like 90% of all species in Australia. Partly through over-hunting, but also because of the indirect impact. No food for predators means no predators.


      That's probably been the largest mass extinction that humans have been responsible for, but all the evidence suggests that that's only because everyone else has been unbelievably lucky, not because the system can handle such destabilization.


      There is the ethical aspect, too. Studies have shown many species of animal to have higher levels of intelligence than they are usually credited with. Even without that, though, it is ethically dubious for people to go around killing something largely for the entertainment value. If they just wanted the meat, I'm sure the local abatoir could provide something superior in quality with a lower risk of a wide range of human-contractable diseases.


      I accept that mine is very much a minority view in the US, though, and that hunting will not only continue for a long time but will adopt new forms of technology. Hobbyist UAVs have been around for a while. If somebody hasn't figured out how to build one large enough to carry a rifle, they will do. Then you can not only hunt online, but you get to have the "full experience".


      This will happen. It's inevitable. Well, inevitable unless America has the same sort of change of heart that England has had. It may happen, but if it happens within 100-150 years, I'd be amazed. The notion that tradition is unchanging and unyielding is just too firmly fixed in American minds.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:What's the point? by dasunt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.

      Is it?

      In our society, animals are considered materials for our use, as we see fit, with a few rare exceptions[1].

      In the US, most hunters are those who hunt for entertainment.

      Free market forces seem to indicate that there is a large enough group of people who consider this entertainment enough to exchange money for the privledge. While you or I may not consider it "fun", others do.

      That being the case, I ask you:

      What is the difference between shooting an animal for your personal enjoyment, and having a nice tasty turkey for Thanksgiving?

      Both results in the death of an animal. Both are done for personal enjoyment (thrill of the hunt/liking the taste of turkey). Both aren't necessary.

      The only difference that I see is that the wild animal has a much nicer life then the caged turkey up until the moment of death.

      Yet there are many more people opposed to hunting then there are to Thanksgiving.

      Disclaimer: Yep, I'm a vegan. I don't hunt or eat turkey.[2]

      [1] Mostly animal cruelty laws towards "cute" animals. Animal cruelty laws do not apply towards factory farming, if they did, I would be surprised if one factory farm remained open.
      [2] To recap the past /. discussions I've had: Nope, I'm not going to die of some unknown vitamin deficiency. Yes, I do get enough protein. Yes, I do know that animal-derived materials are used in many common materials, such as plastic.

    5. Re:What's the point? by Gudlyf · · Score: 1
      I could also easily see someone staging such a thing. Create a program that displays stock footage to the viewer and if they aim just right and fire just right, the program shows the animal dead. Rancher gets an email that he now has to send a stuffed animal head or meat to the shooter. Repeat footage for next viewer and randomize it a bit.

      Sort-of like those OLD arcade games where you'd use a light gun to shoot bottles or draw against a cowboy, only they don't give you a stuffed dead cowboy when you win that game...

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    6. Re:What's the point? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship.

      No.

      That's what city people who never actually hunted think.

      Hunting is NOT a game.

      Hunting is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.

      Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.

      Hunting is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal.

      Hunting is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also animals, that every day you live because something else - plant or animal - died to feed you.

      Hunting is about the lengths you will go to keep your family fed and healthy.

      Hunting is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the animal you hunt will hurt and die. And hunting (for humans) is about honoring that animal, by making its death for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier death than it would suffer from the teeth and claws of some other peredator, from disease, from accident, or from starvation.

      Hunting is about understanding your place in nature:

      You are a predator.

      You are at the top of the food chain

      You are SO effective at what you do that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own life.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:What's the point? by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The only difference that I see is that the wild animal has a much nicer life then the caged turkey up until the moment of death.
      That's actually rather implausible. The wild animal is likely to suffer from parasitic infections in its vital organs, which would cause chronic discomfort. It is likely to die slowly and painfully of the complications caused by an infection if it isn't lucky enough to be torn apart bit by bit -- while still alive, mind you -- by a predator.

      As is the case with humans, wild animals are capable of surviving the extremes of their nominal climates with only available shelter, but exhibit stress responses characteristic of discomfort when placed outside of a small band of temperatures and humidities. Domesticated food animals do not exhibit those stress responses when raised under nominal feedlot conditions. Domestic turkeys, for instance, do not secrete stress hormones when crowded. (Why do we know that? Those hormones slow growth, so agribusiness types have measured exactly the point at which they start showing up in the animals' brains. Farmers under contract to the businesses follow the buidelines they set down.)

      Bottom line: well, surprising as it may sound, no, you're wrong. There are a great many good reasons to be vegan, or at least purely vegetarian, but the welfare of animals doesn't actually qualify.
    8. Re:What's the point? by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      How about being honest with yourself? Being your own abatoir? Hunting up until you shoot the animal is fun, but I don't do it for entertainment value. I could get the same fun out of photographing them. I do it because then, at least, I know that I'm willing to kill the animal, gut it and prepare it in order to feed my carnivore side. There's no one that can tell me that I, as a meat-eater, am being hipocritical because I wouldn't be able to kill the animal myself. I now know that I would, and that I will continue to do so. I put a lot of value in knowing my limits with regards to my quality of life. Would I personally kill and gut my own animals to have a good steak or Thanksgiving dinner? Yes, and I'm happy that I can be honest with myself about that. Also, wild meat is about 1,000 times healthier than pretty much any other way of upbringing -- look the numbers up, they're staggering.

    9. Re:What's the point? by Kesh · · Score: 1

      Animal cruelty laws do not apply towards factory farming, if they did, I would be surprised if one factory farm remained open.

      Incorrect. There are different laws regulating the treatment of animals in factory farms, including how they are raised and even how they are killed. That does not mean there are no cruelty laws for such.

      Now, most areas just plain ignore those laws. However, they are on the books and they are enforced (admittedly not to the extent they would be for cute & fuzzy animals).

    10. Re:What's the point? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.

      Why do you need an excuse for hunting?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to see this cockhead cleaning the camera after forgetting to unplug the web/gun interface.

      Wonder how many closet serial killers would plug his sorry ass in the first 5 seconds? If you kill things for enjoyment, you've got a screw loose and the world would be better off without you.

    12. Re:What's the point? by iocat · · Score: 1

      You forgot [3], the refutation of the statement "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?"

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    13. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Hmm, since all of the points mentioned above could easily be extended to "rationalize" hunting and killing/eliminating humans, why should we stop at animals then? Granted, we already do this among nations (some people call it "wars") but, AFAIK, the general concensus is that it's not a very positive thing.

    14. Re:What's the point? by adamdeprince · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then why does every good hunting story start with "after the first six pack?"

    15. Re:What's the point? by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship.

      Different people have different reasons, but some of the common ones are:

      • The joy of being outdoors and close to nature. Hunting gets you closer to and more involved with nature than just about any activity other than maybe wildlife research.
      • The adrenaline rush of the stalk.
      • The pleasure of eating the game.
      • Camaraderie with other hunters (often family).

      The main reason I enjoy hunting is that it motivates me to get closer to nature than I ever do otherwise. That's a really odd fact, one I don't understand. I'm not necessarily anxious to kill anything, though I like the meat, and the thrill of the stalk is fantastic (I most often hunt with a bow). What I enjoy most is being out there. So why don't I go out there just to go, rather than to hunt?

      I do, actually. I like to hike and camp, and I spend lots of time in the mountains just because I enjoy being there. I take hikes involving one or two thousand feet of elevation gain and three or four miles horizontal distance. I take lots of pictures and occasionally "stalk" with my camera.

      But when I'm hunting it's not unusual to climb three thousand feet or more and hike 5-10 miles in the morning and then do the same again in the evening. And although I always pay attention to my surroundings (that being the point of going there), I pay much *more* attention when hunting, and I therefore get a lot more out of it. For example, when hunting I can often smell the animals and even identify them by their scent. When I'm just hiking I don't seem to notice their scents at all. Hunting motivates me to do things like dressing from head to toe in camouflage and then sitting completely motionless for hours, until the animals have completely forgotten I'm not just an oddly-shaped bush. A fawn bounced into me and knocked me off the log I was sitting on, once.

      I enjoy hunting because I like the cool experiences I have as a result of doing somewhat extreme things to get very close to nature. I could do *exactly* the same things without spending $60 on a hunting license, plus more than I want to think about on all of the gear, but I don't, and when I try it's not the same.

      Anyway, the point of this wildly off-topic rumination is to say:

      Shooting animals via remote control over the Internet isn't "hunting" for people who for whatever reason can't do it in person. It's just a weird, hi-tech way of slaughtering animals. Killing is actually the smallest and least important part of sport hunting.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:What's the point? by Mance+Rayder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, no. Hunting, in a nutshell, is taking pleasure in killing something else. I eat steak and chicken and enjoy both, but let's not pretend hunting's anything noble or magnificent. Or anything more than overweight white people in camaflouge and masked odors, killing from several football fields away with a high-powered rifle. If you can't get to a supermarket, okay, I can understand why you'd need to hunt. And if you chase down your prey bare-footed and cut its throat with a knife, okay, I might even find respect for hunters. As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a rifle and a corpse to feel like men.

    17. Re:What's the point? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Man you are making it sound like Hunting is some elite activity with a meaning. Hunting is a psychological activity that makes people feel superior about themselves while shooting animals with half their IQ. Only time I agree with the practice is... if you are starving to death, and need food NOW.

    18. Re:What's the point? by Fortun+L'Escrot · · Score: 1

      that was beautiful. did you come up with that on the spot? reminds me of north american aboriginal religious ways and in particular expressions of their cosmology and specifically concerning nature and place and spirit.

    19. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a load of crap. Most of the time it is about dumb hicks going to slaughter something and get their hands bloody. Yeah, you are a real "sportsman" in a camouflage suit with high-powered gun and a scope, ambushing an unsuspecting animal with a brain zillion times smaller than yours, walking around and minding its own business. Most of the hunters I know are dumb as bricks and there is no mention of "history" or "tradition" or any of the other bullshit you babbled about in their vocabulary. Mostly it is about slaughtering something for fun and because they can. And probably about trying to look manly because their brains are as big as a walnut. The only hunting I can understand is if someone is starving and they got no other resort (I have heard of people in the midwest doing this when they can't make ends meet). However, by now Walmart should have solved this problem for most of us, there are heaps of beef rotting on the shelves waiting to be eaten and they are cheap too...

    20. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a sociopath and shouldn't be allowed around children.

    21. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you feel when a wolf kills a rabbit and eats it even though he's not hungry? By your rationale, we must morally judge him and actively try to stop him. Also, unless you are vegan, you are severely hypocritical. Do you have any idea the how much more humane hunting is than meat-packing plants?

    22. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where exactly clicking on a mouse button fit in your description?

    23. Re:What's the point? by ptudor · · Score: 1
      The notion that tradition is unchanging and unyielding is just too firmly fixed in American minds.

      At least we got rid of the silly Tradition that had us as Subjects to Royalty.

    24. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You had me at hello...

      That's what civilians who never actually been a marine think.

      Being a Marine is NOT a game.

      Being a Marine is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.

      Being a Marine is about handling deadly tools safely.

      Being a Marine is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal.

      Being a Marine is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also people, that every day you live because something else - a person with darker skin - suffered to feed you.

      Being a Marine is about the lengths you will go to keep your family fed and healthy.

      Being a Marine is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the a person with darker skin you hunt will hurt and die. And being a Marine (for 'Mericans) is about honoring that a person with darker skin, by making its death for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier death than it would suffer from the teeth and claws of some other peredator, from disease, from accident, or from starvation.

      Being a Marine is about understanding your place in nature:

      You are a predator.

      You are the most powerful nation on earth

      You are SO effective at what you do that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own life.

    25. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, but humans are made of meat too!

    26. Re:What's the point? by binkzz · · Score: 1
      Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.

      I think it's a feat to shoot yourself with a shotgun or a rifle, much more so than with a handgun, but it happens a lot apparently.

      Hunting is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal.

      What difficult goal is that?

      Hunting is about the lengths you will go to keep your family fed and healthy.

      That's ridicilous. I bet your wife has to ask you twice before you take the trash out and has to nag you to go to the supermarket (if at all you go).

      Hunting is about understanding your place in nature:

      Loaded with high powered guns, GPS systems, decoys, game feeders, camouflage, treestands, gamebirds, game calls and what not?

      If you really want to put any truth into what you said, you should really (as someone else pointed out) hunt with just a knife or a spear.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    27. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunting? I thought you said masturbation!

    28. Re:What's the point? by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Australia wasn't so lucky. Recent studies have all but proven that human hunters obliterated something like 90% of all species in Australia. Partly through over-hunting, but also because of the indirect impact. No food for predators means no predators.

      This I'd like to see a reference for. And is it referring to the aboriginals (believed to be responsible for the extinction of the 5" tall wombat), or more recent settlers?

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    29. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because animals aren't as smart as humans doesn't mean that they can't outsmart you on a consistent basis, which they will do when they are being hunted by a human.

    30. Re:What's the point? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      if you are starving to death, and need food NOW

      If there are two people starving to death: one who has a rifle and has hunted for years, and you with a stick, who do you think is going to survive?

    31. Re:What's the point? by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      True. These days, you're just subjects of multi-billionaire businessmen. Instead of having one problem at the top, you've now got a few hundred. And unlike the British monarchy, US businesses are largely unencumbered by the US Government. (In Microsoft's case, almost totally.)


      I quite agree, King George was a lunatic and you kicking his forces out of America was an excellent idea. A work of sheer brilliance! But then you went and handed the bulk of the power to people you could trust even less. "No taxation without representation" makes a gret slogan, but it's never been applied to the moguls actually running the show. Only Really Big Shareholders get representation, whether they pay the company tax on the product or not.


      The phrase "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" springs oddly to mind.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    32. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great post. Too bad that the majority of Slashbots have never hunted, and have no idea what it's about. To them, hunters are drunken, slovenly hicks that can't shoot anything that they can't see from their truck. Granted, there are a lot of these types out in the woods during season, but they are not to be considered hunters.

      Real hunters are out before dawn climbing hills to get where the [insert animal here] are at, and don't necessarily care whether or not they come home with anything. Don't confuse real hunters with road-hunters.

      Sorry that so many of you folks never had the opportunity to hunt. Even stalking animals for the sole purpose of getting a good close-up photo is a great experience.

    33. Re:What's the point? by jd · · Score: 1
      Aboriginals. It's piece-meal, but here are some references.


      Worldwide study that indicts Australia more by saying that climate was a factor elsewhere. Even so, 121 genera of megafauna extict out of 150 is a pretty sizable chunk. (That's 80% of the megafauna alone. Smaller species also went extinct.)


      Science Daily has a report from a while back that goes into depth in the specific case of Australia.


      Australian Museum factsheet on this subject.


      Hope this helps

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    34. Re:What's the point? by hari · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the concept has some potential. How about some thing other than hunting. How about patrolling the streets of Fallujah with a rigged unmanned HumVee from your home ? Real life Counter Strike anyone ?

    35. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Disclaimer: Yep, I'm a vegan. I don't hunt or eat turkey.[2]"

      Then go back to Vega, and leavce Earth to us Terrans.

    36. Re:What's the point? by killjoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Hunting is about the lengths you will go to keep your family fed and healthy."

      I'd believe this if you ate what you hunted. But you don't so it has nothing to do with that.

      Hunting is about killing and proving your manhood. Every hunter went through that ritual with their dad or whatever. They killed, they got to like that feeling. Like you said we are animals and predetors. Killing is fun.

      If killing wasn't fun you wouldn't do it.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    37. Re:What's the point? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      The one who knows how to make chemical weapons or poisons. Guns are overrated. Go ask the palestenians if you don't believe me.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    38. Re:What's the point? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      And you would eat those animals after killing them with chemical weapons?

    39. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Hunting is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also animals, that every day you live because something else - >plant or animal - died to feed you.

      So does water die for my survival too?

    40. Re:What's the point? by bheer · · Score: 1

      You know, you can take your whole moral superiority complex and your delusional socialist attitude and shove it up your arse.

      subjects of multi-billionaire businessmen

      No we're not. Rhetoric is one thing, cold facts another. Gates, despite the fashionable Borg icon here, is subject to the same laws as anyone else.

      But then you went and handed the bulk of the power to people you could trust even less.

      Ask the folk who ran Enron where the power really is. What was it about the wheels of justice grind slow but exceedingly small again?

      Yeah, a lot of big corps pay less than full rate on tax. But if you reflexive anti-business types ever paid attention to detail, you'd see they play the same rules as everyone else. They take advantage of every tax break in the book, just as you could if you had a good accountant.

      The phrase "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" springs oddly to mind.

      Actually it springs to my mind too, but for certain European countries which think banning fox hunting is more important than fixing the NHS (if you think your free healthcare will last, I pity you).

      Capitalism is not perfect, certainly, but it's a whole lot better than the nanny-state some would substitute it with.

    41. Re:What's the point? by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      And then the Terrans will eat... earth?

      Have fun!

    42. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are a predator.

      So I guess you're killing those animals bare-handed? Or are you just using tools to do it for you? I bet I'd be a better predator than you if I had a napalm bomb.
    43. Re:What's the point? by amacedo · · Score: 1

      Hunting is about understanding your place in nature

      Right ...

      http://www.progressiveboink.com/jon/images/calvinh obbes/jon5.GIF

    44. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joy of being outdoors and close to nature. Hunting gets you closer to and more involved with nature than just about any activity other than maybe wildlife research.


      You can enjoy the same experience with wildlife photography.


      The adrenaline rush of the stalk.


      You can enjoy the same experience with wildlife photography.


      The pleasure of eating the game.


      There are thousands of other alternatives.


      Camaraderie with other hunters (often family).


      You could do the same with wildlife photography.

      It seems rather sad that the only way for some families to connect to each other is by killing innocent animals.

    45. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you're a fucking liberal moron.

    46. Re:What's the point? by Dusabre · · Score: 1

      Yeah and paintball is REAL warfare.

      Admit it, you just love running around with a gun in your hand and being able to kill something.

      Makes you feel like a real man.

      If you really wanted to honor the animal (pause for laugher MAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA), you should run naked after it with your bare hands - a match of equals. Instead you have your 10x telescopic sight on your sniper quality hunting rifle, synthetic camo clothing and a SUV.

      Go play with your 1:25 scale authentic Gettysburg replica hand-crafted soldiers. They're not toys, so its okay.

    47. Re:What's the point? by Dusabre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know what - all the pleasures you have described can be felt by going for a bicycle ride through the countryside, snowboarding or if you really feel like spend thousands of bucks on equipment AND want to stalk something, by playing paintball.

      Admit it, you like to kill.

    48. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but what's this "at the top of the food-chain" all about ? Have you looked at your teeth lately ? And your eyes (field-of-vision) ?

      We are build to be somewhere in the middle of that food-chain, eating some prey, and in turn be eaten by others.

      Only because of our brains and agility with our extremities have we become, with aid of a plethora of assisting tools, so powerfull that we can kill anything & everything.

      Even worse : that "sportmanship" you're talking about is using ranged weapons (guns) on prey that only has close-combat weapons (claws, teeth). Does your prey have any chance ? Are you really in any danger (as your prey certainly is) ? Pthoey !

      If you want to talk about "survivial" and "sportmanship", leave your guns at home, and go one-on-one at them whith some tools that balances your, and your prey's weapons. Whith your hunting-knife perhaps agains a mountain-lion perhaps ?

      I think you will come to the realisation that all that "predator" stuff and "not a game" boils down to you being ueber-powerfull, and only to be touched if you make a very stupid mistake.

      It makes your "sport" much alike be able to safely handling some powertools (cicular saw, etc.) while building a house.

      But I can understand the need to be able to exercise your need to kill something, so you can feel powerfull. A possibility that most of us have lost when we embraced "civilisation".

    49. Re:What's the point? by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I eat steak and chicken and enjoy both, but let's not pretend hunting's anything noble or magnificent"

      It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives it far more dignity relative to livestock raised solely for slaughter. Personally, I'd say the ones who take "pleasure in killing something else" aren't out hunting, they're at the slaughterhouse cracking open the skulls of cattle with a hammer. I mean, with hunting you maybe kill one large mammal a day if you're good and if you're lucky, but you get to see bits of cow brains fly all day, every day at the meat plant. Of course, even that gets boring after a while, but there's always opportunities to get... shall we say "creative?"

      "If you can't get to a supermarket, okay, I can understand why you'd need to hunt."

      Yes, because you can get venison so cheap at the supermarket...

      "As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a rifle and a corpse to feel like men."

      They're not the ones ignoring where the food on their plate came from. What they think about it and how it effects them is debatable, but it certainly isn't blithe ignorance.

    50. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you have an statistics to back you up that "Most of the time it is about dumb hicks going to slaughter something and get their hands bloody."

      No? Then shut the fuck up you pussy ass stupid fucking liberal asshat. All you are doing is (1) getting modded up on a FAR left leaning website and (2) looking like a fucking biased moron who has no argument other than writing his PUSSY ass feelings down.

      Well played. If your argument was poker, you'd have hit high card 3.

    51. Re:What's the point? by kahei · · Score: 1


      Hunting is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the animal you hunt will hurt and die. And hunting (for humans) is about honoring that animal, by making its death for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier death than it would suffer from the teeth and claws of some other peredator, from disease, from accident, or from starvation.

      Hunting is about understanding your place in nature:

      You are a predator.

      You are at the top of the food chain


      Time for your medication now, Mr. Smith.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    52. Re:What's the point? by hikerhat · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ...Hunting is ...

      -- snip --

      I grew up in rural Wisconsin in a hunting family, and a hunting town (the place shuts down during deer hunting season). So I know what hunting is.

      What you described was hunting 2 or 3 hundred years ago. If you understood our place in nature _today_ you would know that we can produce enough crops to live entirely on non-animal sources of food.

      Back when it was kill or be killed there was honor in hunting for survival. Today the choice is kill, or hit the produce section of your super market. There's no honor in gratuitous killing.

      You can get all that mystical hunter crap you were talking about on the way to the grocery store anyway - check it:

      • Going to the grocery store is NOT a game. It really isn't any fun at all.
      • Going to the store is about skill, patience, and responsability, and consequences. Cooking skill so you know what to get, patience because the store is always crowded, and you should be responsable and select organic produce.
      • If you drive to the store you have to handle your deadly tool (your car) safely. Be especially careful in the parking lot - there are kids running around. And be double plus careful on icy winter roads.
      • Walking around the produce section is about coming to the understanding that you are an animal that's learned to grow all the food it needs for you and your family. And only plants need to die to feed you, not animals.
      • Going vegetarian is about the lengths you'll go to keep yourself and your family fed while honoring animals with their lives. Sure, it isn't easy at first. You have to learn all new recipes. Your hunting buddies will make fun of you. You have to question some of the core beliefs you were raised on. But remember, you're going to great lengths here.
      • Going vegetarian is about knowing, deep in your gut, that you can live without killing animals. It is about honoring animals not by killing them but by not killing them. Sure, they may be killed more painfully by a predator than by your gun (ignoring the tremendous number of animals that are only wounded by the hunter, that limp off and slowly and painfully die. You guys ain't all dead eye shots you know.) But that _is_ a kill or be killed kind of situation, and there _is_ honor in that. Not that animals really care much about honor.
      • Eating fruits and vegetables is about understanding your place in nature in 2004. You don't need to be a predator anymore. You can choose which part of the food chain you want to be connected to.
      • You are SO effective at growing food that you don't need to eat animals anymore.
      I agree with you that hunting isn't about "tradition" and "sportsmanship". But that isn't what "city people" think hunting is about. That's the standard propaganda that the NRA and outdoor sports magazines try and feed to "city people" to make them think hunting is about "tradition" and "sportsmanship". They even call hunters "sportsmen".
    53. Re:What's the point? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      If there are two people starving to death: one who has a rifle and has hunted for years, and you with a stick, who do you think is going to survive?


      The one who beats the guy to death with a stick?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    54. Re:What's the point? by dipipanone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hunt, don't hunt -- personally, I couldn't give a shit either way, but this statement is just so spurious...

      > It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but
      > I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives
      > it far more dignity relative to livestock raised
      > solely for slaughter.

      To that statement reads as equivalent to this:

      "It may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally think that stalking and raping a woman gives her more dignity relative to women who are raised solely for arranged marriages."

      Why can't you just be honest? You don't give a shit about the animals. Animals are dumb inferior beasts, you enjoy blowing them away with from a distance with a firearm, and you're going to continue to do so.

    55. Re:What's the point? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Going vegetarian is about knowing, deep in your gut, that you can live without killing animals. It is about honoring animals not by killing them but by not killing them. Sure, they may be killed more painfully by a predator than by your gun (ignoring the tremendous number of animals that are only wounded by the hunter, that limp off and slowly and painfully die. You guys ain't all dead eye shots you know.) But that _is_ a kill or be killed kind of situation, and there _is_ honor in that. Not that animals really care much about honor.


      But unless vegetarions limit themseleves to fruits and nuts they are killing too - surely the carrot dies to feed you just as a chicken does. Going vegetarian is about knowing, deep in your gut, that you can live without killing animals. It is about honoring animals not by killing them but by not killing them. Sure, they may be killed more painfully by a predator than by your gun (ignoring the tremendous number of animals that are only wounded by the hunter, that limp off and slowly and painfully die. You guys ain't all dead eye shots you know.) But that _is_ a kill or be killed kind of situation, and there _is_ honor in that. Not that animals really care much about honor.
      Vegetarians have made a decision about what level of life is worth killing so they can live - so what it comes down to is what an individual finds morally acceptable to kill.

      If you don't want to kill animals, don't eat most vegetables either - because without pesticides and traps or farmers oicking bugs off their organic crops, there's be a lot less to go around - and all you've done is removed yourself one step from the killing, but it's still being done to feed you.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    56. Re:What's the point? by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

      Epistrax sez, "I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic."

      The dood with the web site sez, "First it was rocks and clubs, then we sharpened it and put it on a stick. Then there was the bow and arrow, black powder, smokeless power and optics," Berger said. "Maybe this is the next technological step out there."

      There is no excuse necessary for hunting. It's fun and wild animals are tasty. IMO, the morality of paying someone else to kill your meat (buying it at the grocery store), is well below that of killing ones own meat. When you kill your own meat, you're in touch with the spirit of the animal. You see his eyes, you watch him die, and THEN YOU COOK AND EAT HIM!. When you drive through the 'Burger Potentate'(TM) you don't even acknowledge the animals existance.

      So, for all those who do eat meat but argue against hunting, I say that YOU are dishonoring the animals you eat by failing to notice that they ever existed as animals.

      Now, where' my club, I've got a hankering for some groundhog BBQ. For those ignorant of hunting, it is quite the challange to dispatch a groundhog with a club. Opossum, well he's pretty primitive and slow. A one legged man can easily run down Mr Possum and snatch him by the tail.

      FOr me, hunting is not about 'sport'. Sport is snagging Mr. Riches trophy wife for a nooner. Hunting is about the meat and being in touch with nature and ones own being.

    57. Re:What's the point? by binkzz · · Score: 1

      Wolves don't kill and eat rabbits when they're not hungry. That's the whole point. It would be very interesting if it did, however, but it wouldn't happen.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    58. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you complacent idiot. The wheels of justice grind slow, exceedingly small, and only reluctantly grind the ruling class when they so blatantly abuse the system that public outcry is deafening - most of the time the President can make that kind of problem go away. That why you help buy the presidency for your party in the first place.

    59. Re:What's the point? by Bishop · · Score: 1

      You can enjoy the same experience with wildlife photography.

      But you can't eat photographs.

      There are thousands of other alternatives [to eating game].

      Hunting deer and other game is more humane that eating cows or chickens. Compared to deer, cattle live a short and miserable life. Wild animals atleast get a chance to live wild and free.

    60. Re:What's the point? by Sanity · · Score: 1
      The joy of being outdoors and close to nature. Hunting gets you closer to and more involved with nature than just about any activity other than maybe wildlife research.
      Yeah, get close to nature, then kill it!

      Seems to defeat the point, doesn't it?

    61. Re:What's the point? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "It may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally think that stalking and raping a woman gives her more dignity relative to women who are raised solely for arranged marriages."

      Lack of sex won't kill you (or there'd be no Slashdotters). Lack of food will.

      One way or another either you or the other animal will die. You can either let yourself starve to death or Babmi will die to feed you. Most people, for various reasons, would rather have somebody else kill Bambi on their behalf, while some would rather be directly involved in the process. But simply because neither you nor I could stomach the process doesn't mean that all those who do take part in it automatically enjoy the killing, any more than wanting to move out of your parents' house means you enjoy paying rent or taking out a mortgage.

    62. Re:What's the point? by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Though I no longer hunt, I find myself in complete agreement with the parent. My dad took us deer hunting when I was a teen. We went four years in a row, and even though the only deer I saw were on the roofs of other folks vehicles, we had a great time. It was a fantastic bonding experience. One of the best classes I've ever had was the Michigan DNR hunter safety school...it was required for minors (and should have been for adults too).

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    63. Re:What's the point? by DjReagan · · Score: 1

      One way or another either you or the other animal will die. You can either let yourself starve to death or Babmi will die to feed you.


      There's quite a large number of us who manage to live quite happily in today's modern society without any animals having to die in order to feed us.

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    64. Re:What's the point? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Hunting is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal.

      Difficult goal, my ass! What is so difficult about:
      1) Once a week for a month before hunting season, pour a bag of carrots or corn on the ground (and maybe a block of salt).
      2) When hunting season begins, go back to that spot.
      3) When animal returns to feed, blow it's brains out....wait, if you do that you can't throw your trophy up on the wall....shoot it through the heart.

      If anything, the goal is tedious and boring, not difficult (though maybe difficult staying awake).

      I will grant you that there are the occasional hunters that go out and track the animal without baiting them, but the above 1..2..3 is what at least 95% of hunters do. There are also bow hunters, which require a bit more skill than gun hunting, but still they usually play the same bating game.

    65. Re:What's the point? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Except that we didn't screw things up right away, and that if you look closely, when the billionaire businessmen did start corrupting things they were all financed by the bank of london. Strange that. Let me go out on a limb here, and speculate that even though they do tend to screw things up a bit, they're not responsible for the worst of things, but pawns themselves. Well, rooks maybe, but they're sure as hell not in charge of this game of chess.

    66. Re:What's the point? by digitalgiblet · · Score: 1
      [From Parent Post]"And hunting (for humans) is about honoring that animal,"

      [From original article]"He said an attendant would retrieve shot animals for the shooters,"

      See Dick. See Jane. See Jane see Dick on the internet.

      "Look Jane! A deer! Look, look!"

      See Jane see Dick click the mouse. See Dick see the gun go BANG!

      "Look Jane! A dead deer! Look, look!"

      "Look Jane! An attendant! Look, look!"

      See Jane see Dick click the mouse. See Dick see the gun go BANG!

      "Look Jane! A dead attendant! Look, look!"

      "Dick you disgust me." See Jane revile Dick. Jane is a vegan.

      "But Jane, hunting (for humans) is about honoring that animal (or person)."

      Run, Jane! Run!

    67. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunting is about understanding your place in nature:
      You are a predator.
      You are at the top of the food chain


      The top of the food chain, riiiiight...

    68. Re:What's the point? by Epistax · · Score: 1

      That's what city people who never actually hunted think.
      Hunting is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.
      Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.
      Hunting is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal.
      Hunting is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also animals, that every day you live because something else - plant or animal - died to feed you.
      Hunting is about the lengths you will go to keep your family fed and healthy.
      Hunting is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the animal you hunt will hurt and die. And hunting (for humans) is about honoring that animal, by making its death for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier death than it would suffer from the teeth and claws of some other peredator, from disease, from accident, or from starvation.
      Hunting is about understanding your place in nature:
      You are a predator.
      You are at the top of the food chain
      You are SO effective at what you do that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own life.


      So you're saying hunting is about creating a happy illusion for yourself? I'm sorry but you're making hunting look extremely childish. Going into a largely controlled area (such as an American forest), knowing what animals exist there, and using technology (such as a gun) to destroy the native life hardly fits the description you put. You write it as a symbolic act, when in fact you are still killing, so that point is still unexcused.

      You suggest you are doing the animal a favor by killing it? We're at the top of the food chain? You might want to double-check that. Hunting is about patience? So then what's with all the traps?

      No, sorry I've got to call BS. I think you might believe what you write, but that's not enough. As a kid I used to torture ants. I grew out of it. I don't see why we can't all. At least take your aggression out on other people through means of (real) sport. And of course-- sport is a game.

    69. Re:What's the point? by Bastian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hunting is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.

      Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.


      Would someone please explain that to all the hunters we caught rifle hunting within a couple hundred yards of my house when I was a kid, despite fine mist of NO HUNTING signs that we sprayed across our property?

      Or the guy who set up the salt lick on our property?

      I'd especially like to have that explained to the guy who came out of the forest (and into our backyard) screaming some gibberish about how dangerous it is to be outside (in my backyard, playing on a swingset) during deer season, all because he had seen some movement and had the gun lined up and ready to fire, his finger only checked because he heard me say something?

      There are a lot of guys who romanticize hunting. Which is great, there is truth to the "hunting shows you your place in nature" story. But in my experience, you guys are totally outnumbered. For most folks, hunting seems to simply be about finding things and shooting them. Any food you might get is just a bonus.

      That's the only way I can understand why we had so many encounters with hunters firing rifles more or less in our backyard when I was a kid, or when we had so many problems with hunters hunting on my school's wildlife preserve when I was in college, or why I am seeing this story about a remote-control rifle that you can control from the Internet right now.

    70. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing is actually the smallest and least important part of sport hunting

      Absolutely.

      My dad used to take us deer hunting when we were younger. Young enough to make enough noise to scare away every deer within about a 2 mile radius. We never got anything on those deer hunts, but my brothers and I cherish them to this day.

      It was only later that my dad told us "I'd hate to ruin a good deer hunt by having to clean a deer."

      Most of my brothers are now only occasional hunters, but I'm an avid hunter. I very rarely get anything, but I've gotten pictures of some amazing bucks. Usually the week before or after the season. They seem to disappear during the season. Oh well. Such is life.

      mc

    71. Re:What's the point? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of that, but all that seems to do is discriminate by making sure you only eat food you can't easily anthropomorphize. At most, you're minimizing your impact but you can never really eliminate it unless you start to photosynthesize.

    72. Re:What's the point? by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      You forgot [3], the refutation of the statement "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?"

      That's because it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has a grounding in empirical science. No proof can be found that a god exists, therefore one probably doesn't.

    73. Re:What's the point? by hedleyroos · · Score: 1

      If killing is the smallest part then why not skip it altogether?

    74. Re:What's the point? by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'm not a hunter myself, but I used to be. I just hope this guy doesn't also let people hunt live on his land, or go out there himself. Even if he doesn't, there could be problems if someone trespasses on his land during a hunt. Since the user is operating a live firearm through a network connection, I can see problems happening if there is any lag in the connection. How can you be sure that the video you are watching is really real-time?

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    75. Re:What's the point? by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      Hunting is about... bull sh*t.

      It's about men drinking beer with there mates.

    76. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You are at the top of the food chain


      Imagine, if you will, a day in the future when an advanced alien species arrives on earth. Unfortunately for us, the aliens are carnivorous predators and conveniently for them, we're edible. Now, we try all the usual stuff: nukes, mac viruses, the governor of california but it just works out that they can kick our ass's regardless.

      So, on your way to the alien food processing plant, would you find any solace in the fact that given that they're now the top of the food chain they have some innate right to respectfully fry up your gonads?
    77. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great in theory... but that's not why most people hunt (and especially not why this guy will make tons of cash, from the very "city folk" you're complaining about). Most people hunt because they like to kill things. They drive their SUV out of the city and go check into B&B, then go out to shoot at things. That's all they care about. Most don't know the first thing about cleaning an animal they've shot... nor do they really care (unless they want a trophy). They just enjoy the thrill of killing something without any consequences. They're really shooting at their bosses, their employees, the guy that cut them off at that light, and them damn homo liberals that make them pay money to educate other people's children.

    78. Re:What's the point? by swillden · · Score: 1

      You can enjoy the same experience with wildlife photography.

      Did you not read my post?

      I said: I do both. And I do *not* get the same experience with photography.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    79. Re:What's the point? by swillden · · Score: 1

      You know what - all the pleasures you have described can be felt by going for a bicycle ride through the countryside, snowboarding or if you really feel like spend thousands of bucks on equipment AND want to stalk something, by playing paintball.

      I do all of the above (ride bikes, snowboard and play paintball).

      It's not the same.

      Admit it, you like to kill.

      Not particularly, although it certainly doesn't bother me, and I do like the meat.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    80. Re:What's the point? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.

      You apparently have some other "hobby" to get you out of the house. I'll say it is safe to say that most of /.'s hobby is computer's and what you can do with them. Which I hate to say it is about the dumbest hobby we could pick to get us out of the house for a few mornings and/or evenings a week.

      From what I've found here in AR, the most common reason any guy fishes, hunts, or plays golf is to get them away from either the wife or mom. The social aspect of male bonding comes in second.

      Unless you are war driving, most computer hobbies have you trapped at home within easy reach of the wife and / or parents. I've found this makes us more likely to get assigned to do household chores than those with the traditional hunting/fishing/sports hobbies. Laptops don't help in this respect either.

    81. Re:What's the point? by quisph · · Score: 1
      To them, hunters are drunken, slovenly hicks that can't shoot anything that they can't see from their truck. Granted, there are a lot of these types out in the woods during season, but they are not to be considered hunters.
      The No True Scotsman fallacy? Is that really the best you can do?
    82. Re:What's the point? by quisph · · Score: 1
      A fawn bounced into me and knocked me off the log I was sitting on, once.
      ObSouthPark: "It's coming right for us!"
    83. Re:What's the point? by swillden · · Score: 1

      If killing is the smallest part then why not skip it altogether?

      Well, the meat is one good reason. Although, frankly, I largely agree with one of the other responses: I hate to ruin a good hunt by having to clean something. I actually thought quite a bit about that a couple of weeks ago when I was hunting elk... killing an 800-lb animal means a *lot* of work. Their tissues are so thick and strong that cleaning them is difficult and then you have to figure out how to get the carcass out of the hills, and then you have to butcher it. The result is around 300 lbs of excellent meat and, IMO, worth the effort, but it's a *lot* of very hard, dirty, tedious work.

      Anyway, most of my post was specifically about the fact that I can't answer your question satisfactorily. It would seem that the experience would be the same without that, but knowing that you're only going to take a picture somehow reduces the intensity of the experience, and the motivation to do the kind of extreme things that really make it worthwhile.

      Why? Dunno. It's probably just our predator instinct.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    84. Re:What's the point? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yeah, get close to nature, then kill it! Seems to defeat the point, doesn't it?

      You didn't read my post, apparently.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    85. Re:What's the point? by orbit0r · · Score: 1

      Your an idiot.

      I eat steak and chicken and enjoy both, but let's not pretend hunting's anything noble or magnificent

      Did you ever think you might learn something by hunting that 'steak or chicken' that YOU eat? Or you just take for granted that it's there at the supermarket. Did you ever wonder how that 'steak or chicken' that you buy is prepared? Do you know where it came from and what kind of chemicals it may have been treated with?

      I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a rifle and a corpse to feel like men.

      Nice stereotype. People who throw stereotypes into comments, and then get modded 'insightful' or 'interesting' make me sick. As I said earlier in the post, your an idiot.

    86. Re:What's the point? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Sometimes you get the rationale that it's useful to control populations. Aside from the fact that there are better methods, it throws the ecosystem into imbalance."


      We have displaced the major predators and need to fill the void. Missouri culls between 1/8-1/4 million white-tails per year. That's required unless you want them stripping the forest clean and killing the entire ecosystem. You might look into this as Missouri has the most healthy white-tail population in the entire U.S. That, and you might read a bit and come to an understanding of how an ecosystem works.

    87. Re:What's the point? by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Commercial harvesting kills thousands of animals just in the act of harvesting. So many animals died just so you can eat that loaf of bread.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    88. Re:What's the point? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "if it isn't lucky enough to be torn apart bit by bit -- while still alive, mind you -- by a predator."

      Bullshit. Predators try to kill their prey (sans insects). This is because prey is not bambi, prey can fight back. This can be substantiated by watching any documentary. The predators are sitting around munching an already-dead carcass

      Just where do you get your misinformation?

    89. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunting is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also animals

      And hunting (for humans) is about honoring that animal

      Oh... so we're supposed to shoot at the verterans when they come home? I knew I was doing something wrong.

    90. Re:What's the point? by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Hunting is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.

      Letme tell you a good story about hunting. My brother-in-law is a hunter and goes out with his father-in-law, regularly. On one trip, they went out "squirrel" hunting. He found a clearing, laid down in some brush and waited. A squirrel came along, so he shot it. Before he could get up and retrieve his "prized" kill, another squirrel came along and was investigating the dead squirrel. So my brother-in-law, shot it. After about 6 other squirrels that met a similar fate, he gave up and had to start showing them away from the clearing, so he could collect the ones that he had shot.

      An avid hunter, my brother-in-law, even said that it required no skill whatsoever. Crow hunting was very similar.

      --
      Sig it.
    91. Re:What's the point? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Thereby confirming his opinion of city-dwellers. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

      Bare-footed and a knife. What a moron.

    92. Re:What's the point? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      If your sole opposition to eating meat is the cruel agribusiness conditions as opposed to the whole concept of killing animals for eating, then all you have to do (like I try to) is only eat verifiably cruelty-free animal products. Its easier than you think, except when you go out to eat.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    93. Re:What's the point? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Ah, that would explain your comment. You're only twice as smart as a deer.

    94. Re:What's the point? by micromoog · · Score: 1

      So hunting = practice for when the revolution comes? Now THAT's creative.

    95. Re:What's the point? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "But you don't so it has nothing to do with that."

      How in holy hell would you know? A direct lie there.

      "If killing wasn't fun you wouldn't do it."

      That may be your reason to hunt (or not), but other people have different reasons. Again, how the hell do you know?

      Flammer.

    96. Re:What's the point? by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Ok, and what's wrong with that? What's wrong with wanting to avoid eating food that's close to humanity in any way, especially in its level of intelligence? I could say you're drawing an arbitrary line too by deciding that you don't want to eat dogs or cats or even other humans for that matter, and you only want to eat the less intelligent animals and plants. That's not an arbitrary line, though, and neither is the line between things with brains and things without.

      Regardless, it is about minimizing your impact. Before we began breeding animals for our food, the impact was largely regulated by nature. Now that we're advanced enough to farm our own plants and animals, we as a society need to start taking the responsibility that comes with that, and choose a compromise between how much we need, and how much we impact the environment as a result.

      Disclaimer: I am not a vegan, but I understand why someone would want to be. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing, in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with simply reducing your reliance on animal products.

    97. Re:What's the point? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "...but the above 1..2..3 is what at least 95% of hunters do."

      Ah, more personal opinion stated as if it were fact. You know this how?

    98. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey let me tell you about vegetarians-
      I grew up with a whole community of Hindu/Krishna
      vegetarian types and by no means were they any more
      healthy than the rest of the meat eating population.
      Many were skinny to the point of looking unhealthy
      and a few even passed away from cancer.

      We are carnivores by nature and vegetarianism
      is a religion masquarading as truth.

      More details at www.paleodiet.com
      and www.beyondveg.com

      which explode the myth that vegetarianism
      is "healthier" than an omnivorous diet

    99. Re:What's the point? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      That story reeks of bullshit. Squirrels flee from the smell of blood. Also from the sounds of gunfire. Not to mention that squirrels run around in the tree tops, not on the ground (except to get from tree to tree).

    100. Re:What's the point? by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      [i]I enjoy hunting because I like the cool experiences I have as a result of doing somewhat extreme things to get very close to nature. I could do *exactly* the same things without spending $60 on a hunting license, plus more than I want to think about on all of the gear, but I don't, and when I try it's not the same.[/i]

      Have you tried hunting with a camera? A friend of mine recently discovered it was equally challenging and required similar tactics to get a good photo as it did a good shot.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    101. Re:What's the point? by muckdog · · Score: 1

      look at the monkey... look at the silly monkey... watch as it uses a stick (a.k.a tool) to extract termites from a branch and then visiously feeds on them.

    102. Re:What's the point? by jd · · Score: 1

      I honestly can't think of a single major predator that solely hunted white-tails. With the exception of humans. Sure, you displaced the predators, but you fix that by reintroducng them. By selecting which of the predators' prey you go after, you alter the balance of the system unpredictably.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    103. Re:What's the point? by muckdog · · Score: 1

      Well, no. vegetable farming, in a nutshell, is taking pleasure in killing something else. I eat tomatoes and corn and enjoy both, but let's not pretend farming's anything noble or magnificent. Or anything more than overweight white people in boots and covered in fertilizer, havesting several football fields aday with a high-powered tractors. If you can't get to a supermarket, okay, I can understand why you'd need to farm. And if you walked up to your prey bare-footed and cut its roots with a knife, okay, I might even find respect for farms. As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a hoe and a vege plater to feel like man.

    104. Re:What's the point? by Jason+Ford · · Score: 1

      There are a great many good reasons to be vegan, or at least purely vegetarian, but the welfare of animals doesn't actually qualify

      Except that the domesticated food animals would not exist, and hence, not suffer at all, if we did not eat them. (I understand that this was not the grandparent's point. I just thought I'd add my two cents.)

      I appreciate that you recognize that there are good reasons to be vegan or vegetarian. Thank you!

      --
      I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
    105. Re:What's the point? by Jason+Ford · · Score: 1

      Ah, a fellow Slashdot vegan. Do you visit veganporn, by any chance? I read about this at veganporn earlier this morning.

      --
      I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
    106. Re:What's the point? by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 1

      [snip]
      Hunting is about understanding your place in nature:
      You are a predator.
      You are at the top of the food chain
      [snip]
      Top of the food chain? Come hunt in Colorado, where that title is contested between bears, mountain lions (cougars) and man.
      Usually we end up on top, but not always.

      --

    107. Re:What's the point? by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Err -- you go back and watch those documentaries again, OK? Watch a pack of dogs, wolves, or hyenas hamstring and dismember an elk so that it can not fight back. Watch a cat kill a mouse.

      Then remember that most predators are only marginally larger than their prey. They disable it, then kill it. Guess what -- if you have claws and teeth, you disable something your own weight by tearing its muscles and ripping its tendons. That is, you rip it apart alive.

      "Nature red in tooth and claw" is not just a beautifully peotic turn of phrase. It's the way things really are.

    108. Re:What's the point? by Firethorn · · Score: 1
      And remember, animals are different from people. Especially the herbivore types. Totally different mindsets.

      Some real reasons why the cattle industry wouldn't treat animals "cruely"

      Cruelty causes stress
      Stress leads to:
      1. less weight gain (less money per animal)
      2. "gamey" meat that doesn't taste as good
      3. less resistance to disease (might loose ability to sell meat)
      4. panicky animals (more likely to injure workers, which again, costs money)


      Note, I tied it all to the money, which is what they really care about.
      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    109. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love people like you. You eat meat. You find killing animals wrong. See the problem? You are happy to pass off the "unsavoury", and the difficult parts of eating meat, to some mechanical production line of death and dismemberment, and to chastize those who have the skills to do it for themselves. You make me sick.

      Did you think that the chicken on your salad last night walked into the supermarket, skinned itself, cut itself up into marketable pieces, and wrapped itself in plastic without any help? Do you think that the chicken EVER had a chance in hell of NOT being forcefed, locked in a cage, and then killed and cut up on an assembly line? And now you have nothing but contempt for me? Hey, at least my meal last night had a better than average chance of escape, yours never had a chance, from the moment of conception. I know that my meal last night was not filled with hormones, and preservatives, how about yours? At least my meal was the result of my SKILL and knowledge, what was the skill you needed for your meal? I bet you would not have the stomach to actually kill, and process your own meals, would you?

      Some day, I really hope that the food distribution network falls apart, then people like you can all go out and try to figure out some way to eat anything other than carrots. I bet the method would be asking me if I could do it for you, since you have neither the skills, the tools, or the knowledge to provide for yourself. I eat meat. I take am willing and able to take part in eating meat, from stalking, to shooting, to processing, all by myself. You need a factory to produce your game, another factory to process your game, and a third factory to get it into your hands.

      BTW, since you have never hunted, please do not pretend that you have any idea what hunting is, or who does it. It would be equally ignorant for you to be giving sex tips to the /. readers.

      It is funny, I take flak for hunting from asshats like you all the time. I don't have your respect? Oh no. The guy who CAN'T do it for himself, even though he LOVES the end result, doesn't respect me. Would you respect me if when I went into the woods, some guy in a white coat offered to kill something for me? That is somehow more respectable? Thats what you do. I suggest you either
      a) stop eating meat if you can't handle the process
      b) learn to track, kill, and butcher it for yourself
      c) keep your ignorant opinions to yourself

      You can't have it all ways. I don't care if you don't have the stomach for hunting, most of you limp-wristed ass masters can't, even though your sitting in your leather chair, eating a burger for lunch. I don't care if you still choose to eat meat. I do care that you dare to have a negative opinion of me, just because I can face that part of being a predator, and you can't.

      I would have also commented on your stereotyping of me as an "overweight redneck", which is in no way true. However, I can not, as I have already stereotyped you as a sexless, spineless, cowardly, ignorant, yuppie, metrosexual prick with more opinions than balls. Kind of ironic being called a coward, by an AC, don't you think? I will think of you, the next time I kill something to eat, and I will pray that you get BSE and samonella from your next meal of steak and chicken from your "sanitized" surrogate hunters.

    110. Re:What's the point? by fitten · · Score: 1

      Yes, the mauling is to kill it. Remember that one of the biggest enemies of any wild animal is injury (and infection). If you don't disable/kill your prey fast, you can be injured which may lead to infection which will likely end up with your starving to death or dying from the infection.

      It is always in the predator's best interest to disable/kill prey as quickly as possible (and efficiently because wasted energy is a bad thing as well) in order to avoid injury to itself.

    111. Re:What's the point? by Kehvarl · · Score: 0

      I am not a vegan, but I understand why someone would want to be

      Could you explain it to me? I've never heard a single, rational argument for vegetarianism that made me even consider wanting to give up meat. Most of them seem to be argued from some emotional standpoint that may ignore the law of unintended consequences (eg Saying things such as: "Animals don't have to die for me to eat" when vast amounts of animals die during our harvesting processes for various grains.).

    112. Re:What's the point? by fitten · · Score: 1

      Well... I hunt as does almost all the male members of my family. Yes, we enjoy the hunt but we also enjoy the 'bonding' that goes on. We enjoy hunting even if we come back empty handed for the day. We enjoy the time spent in the woods, observing nature, and telling each other what we saw or heard or whatever. It's great to be in the woods and watch different animals in their environment. I've watched all sorts of things in the woods that many people have to rely on the TV to see.

      We do eat everything we kill unless we kill it and found out that it was diseased or something. (This happened once when one of us killed a deer and found out it was gut-shot sometime in the past and was suffering from gaingrene.) We also do not kill an animal unless we intend to eat it unless it is considered a pest and is legal by the hunting laws to kill it.

      In fact, between my dad, me, my uncle, and a couple of family friends, we usually kill enough deer during the season each year to cut into steaks, have hamburger and sausage made by a local meat processor (who processes cattle, pigs, and the like normally but also deer and game during the appropriate seasons), stew meat, roast and the like to last most of the rest of the year without having to buy meat from a butcher or supermarket.

      We also try our best to keep our sights/scopes on our rifles accurrate to try to insure a one-shot, clean kill. None of us like or want to see the animal suffer. A one-shot drop is the best result for us. Most times, if your first shot isn't on, any followup shots are next to worthless as the animal is going to be speeding away at top speed to get away. Hitting a moving target is a lot tougher than taking a good clean shot at a motionless one.

      Do we like the kill? Sure. There is an adrenalin rush that goes with it plus the story of everything that happened is sure to be told many times over the next day or so to family and friends. Although typically each person hunts solo, there is quite a bit of socializing that goes on before and after the hunt that revolves around the hunt itself - where to go, how to get there, what you saw, what you heard, etc.

      Since I've "grown up" and moved away, my hunting trips with my family are far less frequent now, usually ending up with only a couple days a year, and I do miss them a lot. There's a lot more to hunting than just "shooting up the woods" as some people think "hunters" do. We try to distance ourselves from those road-hunters as much as possible because they actually poison the whole experience for us. People who "hunt" like that really detract from the experience for me.

    113. Re:What's the point? by Mance+Rayder · · Score: 1
      It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives it far more dignity relative to livestock raised solely for slaughter. Personally, I'd say the ones who take "pleasure in killing something else" aren't out hunting, they're at the slaughterhouse cracking open the skulls of cattle with a hammer.
      A point, but at least those employed at slaughterhouses don't pretend it's a noble sport or take pleasure in killing their cattle.
      This isn't an issue of the dignity of an animal's death, it's an issue of the pride and pleasure taken in killing. Employees of slaughterhouses, to the best of my knowledge, aren't proud of killing cattle on conveyer belts. Hunting centers around taking pride in the size of the elk shot, or whether it was moving at the time, or the size of its antlers -- that is, hunting takes pride and pleasure in killing animals incapable of fighting back, whereas slaughterhouses are at least grounded enough in reality to accept the killing of cattle as a grim necessity of production.
      I'm aware of where meat in my store comes from, and I know the animals there had as little chance of survival as those in the sights of a high-powered rifle. And as I said before, I have no problem with the idea of killing animals for food. What I DO have a problem with is taking pleasure in shooting deer from hundreds of yards away, of pretending merit and taking pride in such kills -- if you're going to be proud of your ability to hunt, as I said before, hunt with a knife and kill with your hands. THEN I'll be impressed, when you chase down a deer and slit its throat. But shooting it unawares from far away (much less online?)? How is that any more noble than a slaughterhouse? And more to the point, employees of slaughterhouses at least have the excuse of being paid to kill -- what excuse do hunters armed with rifles (or mouse buttons, now) have for hunting, beyond that they take pleasure in killing animals incapable of fighting back?
      I don't ask that hunters stop hunting, but at least stop pretending it's freaking noble or easily mistaken for achievement. And don't expect me to pretend respect for killing done at hundreds of yards away on animals unaware of your presence or capabilities. If hunters are intent on pretending pride in killing, have the spine to fight your prey on equal terms. If you want to kill with guns, go to Iraq and hunt with guns those who can hunt back. If you want to kill deer, that fearsome predator, at least use a knife and run it down. Or if you're unwilling to do either, at least stop pretending shooting animals from football fields away is anything worth taking pride in, or anything more "noble" than a slaughterhouse.
    114. Re:What's the point? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Hunting doesn't fall into that category. Sometimes you get the rationale that it's useful to control populations. Aside from the fact that there are better methods,

      Better methods? How do you define better? Cheaper? More control? More "humane"? With hunting, you issue tags that people will pay money for. With, say, birth-control laced feed, you have an annual cost, but no income. With releasing natural predators, they've found that the predators will often migrate elsewhere, or target animals that you don't want them too.

      it throws the ecosystem into imbalance. Unless you plan on hunting a few thousand species, and have the necessary charts and tables to calculate exactly what number of each you need to zap to keep things in check.

      Exactly? You don't need to hunt a few thousand species, you need to hunt those species that we've destroyed/reduced the presence of natural predators. There are buffer areas. If you "overhunt", factors like disease, starvation, and accidents tend to take fewer animals. If you "underhunt", these very same factors tend to take more. Underhunting can actually be worse than overhunting. The extinctions and near extinctions of many species was/is a waste that doesn't need to happen any more. Wildlife management might argue quite a bit, but it seems to work out. There are areas where they want more hunting.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    115. Re:What's the point? by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course -- but the usual death stroke takes a long time to be delivered, precisely because injury is so dangerous. There are three basic predation stategies: lethal surprise attack by the very largest predators (tigers, for instance), exhaustion through herding (dogs and wolves in tundra environments), and incremental disabling of a cornered target (most predators).

      The first only works for very large animals and birds -- smaller predators experience too much air resistance when falling to be able to aquire enough kinetic energy to snap a spine. Notice that even the smallest raptors (merlins) are quite large as birds go. The second strategy, exhaustion, requires a predator which is capable of running for a very long time. Very few predators can actually employ that strategy: the only ones are wild dogs, wolves, hyenas, and humans. Once tired, all except humans surround their prey and take turns attacking it from the flanks and rear, gradually disabling it. The third strategy is the most common -- a single predator corners a single prey animal, and wears it down over time. It's a pretty nasty way to die.

      My point was that predatory attacks aren't quick deaths. Yes, they're as quick as the predator can safely make them, but they are still quite slow and horrible by the standards of how food animals die.

    116. Re:What's the point? by api · · Score: 1

      Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.

      Dude, take away his driver's license.

      MD

    117. Re:What's the point? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      There's quite a large number of us who manage to live quite happily in today's modern society without any animals having to die in order to feed us.

      So you prefer to kill living things that can't run away? I take it you are a strict vegan and grow all your own food, without the use of pesticides? And I suppose you don't swat mosquitos, and take drugs to suppress your immune system so that it does not kill all those microorganisms automatically everyday? And you carefully inspect the ground before you walk, to avoid stepping on any insects or worms?

      Some of us prefer to live the way we have evolved, and not deny ourselves all of our natural instincts. Most animals, including humans, are born with some sort of predatory instinct. If you think that humans killing animals for food is more wrong than lions or chimpanzees doing so, you are just being elitist. We're all animals and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing other animals. If you choose to kill as few as possible, well hey that is your choice. Just cut the "holier than thou" BS you're a killer, we all are.

    118. Re:What's the point? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Hm... well, maybe to you. To a lot of people, hunting is about getting away from the wife.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    119. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go on, say some more and confirm the theory to which you replied, idiot. Just because someone has more liberal views doesn't mean they are scared of dumbass hick morons like you.

    120. Re:What's the point? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > can be felt by going for a bicycle ride through the countryside

      you do realize in most of the country, that Deer, and many other forms of hunted wildlife are overpopulated, and cause millions of dollars of damage, and if you did not have hunters paying for the privilige of culling these heards those damages would be much greater, and you would instead be paying parkrangers and the like to kill the animals, without doing a good job of keeping the animals weary of human contact, and thus human disease, etc.

      granted if you didn't hunt anything, you would go through a cycle of excesive numbers of Wild cats, bears, etc. that introduce their own problems, and are in short supply because they were killed to protect this or that over hundreds of years.

    121. Re:What's the point? by Tassach · · Score: 1

      You are confusing the act of hunting an animal with the social event called a "hunting trip". Hunting trips are less about the actual hunting than they are about the social experience. IME, serious hunters usually either hunt alone or with a single partner.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    122. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admit it, you like to kill.

      Have you ever eaten a steak? Or chicken? Or any meat for that matter?

      Someone had to kill an animal so you could eat it. Does that mean you like to kill?

      It's a spiritual thing when you kill your own food. It's not like a pre-packaged hamburger where you are totally removed from the killing. You actually find (or wait for) the animal, kill it, drag it back to camp, gut it. It makes you appreciate that mean much more than someone who orders steak at a restaurant.

    123. Re:What's the point? by Tassach · · Score: 1
      What difficult goal is that?
      Hunting an animal, doofus. You've never actually hunted anything, have you? If you don't know what you're talking about, STFU.

      Hunting is not easy, even with all the advantages modern technology gives you. Even with the best technology available a hunt is still by no means a sure thing, nor does technology remove all skill from the hunt. It does make it a lot easier, which is why modern firearms hunting season is typically only a fraction of the length of bow and blackpowder seasons.

      Hunting with a rifle is a good way to gain the skills and confidence you need to be an effective bowhunter, kind of like the way training wheels are a good way to get the skills and confidence you need to ride a bike. A lot of hunters I know started out with a gun and then "graduated" to more primitive tools once they wanted more challenge.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    124. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking bigot.

      And before you conclude that I'm just a redneck you've pissed off: I'm a northeastern urbanite who does not hunt.

    125. Re:What's the point? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Have you tried hunting with a camera?

      Have you tried reading the posts you respond to?

      :-)

      Yes, I do it occasionally, as I mentioned. And the tactics are similar, but it's not the same.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    126. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'd rather hunt for my food, which lets the animal live it's life naturally. Instead of going to the supermarket and keeping some big corporation making money while leaving the animals trapped in cages full of feces. Not to mention those corporate meat farms that are pushing all the small guys out of the market.

    127. Re:What's the point? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Bottom line: well, surprising as it may sound, no, you're wrong. There are a great many good reasons to be vegan, or at least purely vegetarian, but the welfare of animals doesn't actually qualify.

      I'm not naive enough to think that the wilds are a Disneyish paradise. Animals suffer from parasites, diseases, starvation, and not-the-most painless deaths.

      However, in factory farms, animals suffer from systematic mutilation (for poultry, consider debeaking) so that they can't effectively attack each other (yes, Virginia, cannibalism (!) is a problem in caged poultry), which often leads to sinus infections (especially in turkeys). Cage sizes tend to be small, with, in 1999, the industry standard being less then half a square foot per cage for egg-laying hens. Speaking of egg-laying hens, the methods of disposal for male chicks include crushing or grinding alive for animal feed. For egg-laying hens, osteoporsis is common, due to the lack of exercise and the insane demands made for egg laying.

      For meat poultry, leg problems are common, due to the weight of the bird. In addition, human slaughter rules do not apply to poultry (although many slaughterhouses do try to electrocute the birds first -- just enough to stun, not enough to kill, since that damages the meat). Birds are later killed by throat slitting -- often by a machine, which ends up missing some birds. The birds that aren't killed are scalded alive. The industry term for these birds are "redskins".

      This happens to larger animals as well. On the slaughterhouse assembly lines, its not uncommon for animals to be slaughtered alive, cut apart peice by peice until they finally die.

      Due to the crowded, dirty conditions of factory farms, poultry and pigs tend towards respiratory diseases.

      So lets review the factory farm animal conditions:

      • Crowded, dusty environment
      • Repiratory diseases common
      • Bone disorders common due to lack of exercise/size
      • Skin conditions common due to pen sizes and materials.
      • Mutilations common to prevent self-injury/injury to others
      • Chance of a being scalded, ground up, or cut apart while still alive.

      For poultry and pork, I think the lives of wild animals are much better. For beef cattle, you /may/ be right, but that would be an entirely different discussion, and one I that I would have to research more closely (for example, comparing the number of downed and improperly slaughtered cattle to the number of large wild herbovoirs that starve to death in the wild and how quickly preditors kill them).

      Although this is anecdotal, I've observed many animals, both farm and wild. Descartes be damned, they do appear to be more then a collection of unthinking, unfeeling mechanisms. And while some wild animals do seem to live a rather paranoid life, they also seem to receive joy and pleasure from their existance.

      You assume that since some factory farm animals don't measure high stress hormones, the animal is not in a stressful environment. However, in continued stressful environments, research has shown that creatures tend towards depression and apathy. Ne'ermind that we tend to breed animals to be apathetic in the first place.

      As for the "free-range" (which another poster suggested), the regulations surrounding that are about as weak as the "organic" label, something that I'm rather pissed about. When consumers buy "organic, free range" meat, they are assuming that animals have access to sunlight and the open air, organic feed, and are willing to pay a premium for it. Most would probably be surprised to find that they are paying for animals eating regular feed with a door to a tiny pen outside.

      You are right, there are plenty of other valid reasons for veganism. But animal cruelty is valid as well.

    128. Re:What's the point? by bheer · · Score: 1

      And this is different from Europe exactly how? In fact, in Europe it's worse, Chirac sits in power, virtually unaccountable for years on end -- and his party got 16% of the vote last year. Where was the accountability when he bribed Saddam? Where was the accountability when Ivory Coast goes up in flames? Where is the accountability when thousands are slaughtered in Darfur and the EU debates ponderously on whether it can be called genocide or not?

      Please. Europeans lecturing others on democracy is a joke.

    129. Re:What's the point? by Kenneth · · Score: 1

      Well, no. Hunting, in a nutshell, is taking pleasure in killing something else.
      Kind of bigoted aren't you? Just how in the hell do you know what is going on in someone else's mind? Sure SOME hunters are exactly what you think. Others want the meat. Others like the social aspects. Some just like the challenge.You have no idea what others are thinking and feeling.

      But let's not pretend hunting's anything noble or magnificent. Or anything more than overweight white people in camaflouge and masked odors,
      Still more bigotry. Most hunters I know are in excellent shape, and of course we all know from school and TV that being white means you are responsible for ALL The evil that was ever done by anyone else white.

      killing from several football fields away with a high-powered rifle.

      Have you ever actually fired a gun? It isn't something magical. Most people can not hit an average sized animal at "several football fields". Most killing shots take place well within 100 yards and often within 50.

      If you can't get to a supermarket, okay, I can understand why you'd need to hunt.

      1. If you don't go out and keep your skills up, you won't be able to do it when you NEED to.

      2. For those skilled hunting is extremely cheap. I know people who haven't bought meat for more than a decade, eat meat every day, and spend less than $100 dollars a year on the meat. For poor families this IS how they get the meat they eat.

      3. Maybe they like vennison or elk. You can't get that in the supermarket.

      As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a rifle and a corpse to feel like men.

      Boy, we're not giving into stereotyping a bit are we? Have you ever thought that you are simply viewing things through the skewed anti-hunter viewpoint of much of the media?

      You really need to move out of the big city, and see what life is really like outside the artifical reality such places are.

      --
      There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
    130. Re:What's the point? by Dusabre · · Score: 1

      I wander what all the 'hunters' that like to be in 'contact with their environment', 'hone' the skills necessary to keep their families fed (?) and keep animal populations 'viable' , will say about the honter who decided to FPS with real people and bullets just the other day.

    131. Re:What's the point? by dwillden · · Score: 1
      I wander what all the 'hunters' that like to be in 'contact with their environment', 'hone' the skills necessary to keep their families fed (?) and keep animal populations 'viable' , will say about the honter who decided to FPS with real people and bullets just the other day.
      That the person who did that is no Hunter, rather he is a murder who should be at least locked away for a long time. Just because someone picks up a rifle and dresses in orange, does not make him/her a hunter.
      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  9. Guilty or not by ThinkPad760 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if you kill someone while on-line are you guilty? And how are they going to get you if you're in some far off country. This is a dangerous idea that could (most likely will) get way out of hand.

    1. Re:Guilty or not by Apiakun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course you are guilty. I was wondering the same thing myself when I read about this earlier this morning. If some random person were walking along, and you clicked to shoot and killed them, then what? What if you're accessing the site through an anonymous proxy? How would that be dealt with? I see they are attempting to rule on whether or not you must be on site in order to make a kill, but in the meantime, what happens?

    2. Re:Guilty or not by AhabTheArab · · Score: 1

      M-M-M-M-MONSTER Kill Kill Kill!!!!!!

    3. Re:Guilty or not by BJH · · Score: 1

      Hahaha ;) Thanks for the laugh.

      I can just see the mounds of gibs piled up around a single dead deer...

    4. Re:Guilty or not by kegwell · · Score: 1

      I agree with your concerns in regards to killing unqualified game. Although, to give live-shoot.com credit they did mention the following in their FAQ: "...The on site personnel have the same view as you and have the ability to override the firing signal if the firearm is aimed at something not supposed to be shot. A bird flying into the area for example." My following concerns would be the following. First, overhunting the area could have serious effects on the environment. Will users be required to have deer tags or go through the turkey lottery as they do in my area? Second, hacking the system could have serious consequences..I wont even begin to speculate at the range of possiblilities. Personally, until proper legislation, studies on environmental impacts, and security measures have been evaluated, they should stick to the shooting range. As an avid hunter I do not condone this activity and never will. On a side note using the handicapped accessible "benefit" to help sugar-coat this idea is a cheap shot, but is an entirely different story all together. I hope this becomes an instant failure for live-shoot.com. Long live the TRUE hunter.

    5. Re:Guilty or not by bishop32x · · Score: 1
      As the article talks about only shooting "unregulated" animals, such as imported deer and pigs I would assume there would be a negligible enviromental impact. It exactlty the same of those hunting ranches which import their game for hunter to blow away(and no you dont really have to stalk it, their in a reasonably small enclosed area).

      As for secerity concern i would think it would be fairly simple, you limit the platform's range of motion, and put up fencing and singage around the fire zone, anyone you goes in might as well expect to be shot. If worst comes to worst the owner can always just disconnect the platform from the internet.

      I really don't have much of a problem with this proposal, if you want to pay to do stupid things on private property without harming anyone, go right ahead.

    6. Re:Guilty or not by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      The on site personnel have the same view as you and have the ability to override the firing signal if the firearm is aimed at something not supposed to be shot.

      The trouble will come when this said on site personnel happens to go out to take a leak under some tree, and 600 miles away a finger goes *click*

      Who's going to override the command now? Muauhahaha!

    7. Re:Guilty or not by Trackster · · Score: 1

      Yes you are guilty and the'd very likely have your personal info and data about which gun you were assigned. A hack would be a whole other issue though.

      The article said workers would retrieve the animals people shot and the first thing I thought was that it was just an accident waiting to happen.

      My next thought was having remote controlled guns (at least airguns) in the house. When someone breaks in the system links to your PHS or cell phone and you can send the burgler running with pellets and your voice saying "get out!".

    8. Re:Guilty or not by DoorFrame · · Score: 1

      It will only get out of hand if someone mounts a gun on a robot that roams the streets and can be controlled from a webpage. A stationary gun on what is essentially a shooting range that can be fired by a webpage user is not going to endanger anyone's life. (Unless, of course, the idiot who built the damn thing wanders in front of it while it's still on).

      And yes, you'd still be guilty. Just because you cannot be tracked, doesn't mean you're not responsible.

    9. Re:Guilty or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I feel like I'm previewing a CSI: Miami script?

    10. Re:Guilty or not by Rii · · Score: 0

      Kill? It's just a wee .22, so you'd have to try rather hard to kill someone.

    11. Re:Guilty or not by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what modern (Western at least) concept of warfare looks like? A soldier now does not have to kill anyone! Machines will. One man designed the said machine, others built it, then some "operator" let it on a rage. No one feels morally or otherwise guilty. "Enemy" guys are gettting dead though. If you think that's not the case, well, there are pilot-less planes already and if you track the history of warcraft that's clearly the general tendency. First - you had to use your sword and kill the people in your immediate vicinity, then gunfire - you may be a mile away and you won't hear him screaming, agonizing, whatever. Then aviation came - you push a button and bombs away! You can't control really how much of population dies, not your fault then. And the whole idea of nukes is just that - kill everyone. Now we are close to robotic warfare where you won't even feel guilty of "poluting the environment", wonderful! If you want to get all morally and politic this should be your bigger concern then "Internet controlled rifle" (where the rifle physical owner can be easily held responsible for safety).

    12. Re:Guilty or not by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Next time you feel like killing someone:

      "Hey mate, here's a free trip to a texas ranch, though you'll have to walk along a medium length path to get there I've heard..."

    13. Re:Guilty or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not just poison darts that knocks them unconcience and then calls the police and shows them the video footage? lol. all in one.

    14. Re:Guilty or not by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

      From the site (www.live-shot.com)

      "Why is there someone on site during a session?
      Several reasons. Foremost is safety. The on site personnel have the same view as you and have the ability to override the firing signal if the firearm is aimed at something not supposed to be shot. A bird flying into the area for example. They are there to answer questions via e-mail, instant messaging, or web cams. They reset the system after each session and will be the primary scorer in competitions."

    15. Re:Guilty or not by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      Yes you would be guilty. If it was done anonymously you may well get away with it, but those who set up the system in the first place will not be anonymous. They'd be charged with accessory to murder, reckless endagerment, etc and the system would be shut down.

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    16. Re:Guilty or not by Kombat · · Score: 1

      If you think that's not the case, well, there are pilot-less planes already

      Small nit-pick, but those "pilot-less planes" are do not carry any weapons. They're prohibited from doing so, under the Geneva Convention. Actually, all "remote killing" machines are illegal under the Geneva Conventions, and the use of such machines would constitute a war crime. Killing must be done person-to-person. It's in the rules.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    17. Re:Guilty or not by espo812 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Small nit-pick, but those "pilot-less planes" are do not carry any weapons.
      The MQ-1B Armed Predator is a variant of the RQ-1 Predator modified to be able to accomplish a ground attack role as well as reconnaissance.
      Actually, all "remote killing" machines are illegal under the Geneva Conventions, and the use of such machines would constitute a war crime.
      On 04 November 2002 six al-Qaida members traveling in a vehicle in Yemen were killed by a Hellfire missile fired by a CIA controlled Predator unmanned drone aircraft.

      Which Geneva Convention? Is the US signatory to that part? The US didn't agree to all of them, and there are multiple Geneva Conventions over the years, not just one (for anyone that wasn't aware of this.)
      --

      espo
    18. Re:Guilty or not by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      I guarentee that we'll find out fairly soon on "Law and Order"...

      The technology is a little scary as well. What if these was miniturized?

      --
      Sig it.
    19. Re:Guilty or not by Sagarian · · Score: 1

      I'd bet what happens is the guy running that site would be an accessory to murder if it happened.

      and the perpetrator if caught in addition to a ride in old sparky would probably be cited for having an unlicensed firearm.

  10. Hard Target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities.

    Actually, I saw a documentary about ten years ago that dealt with hunting people with disabilities. You know, like Vietnam vets and stuff. I think the lead actor was nominated for an Oscar. Best splits or something like that.

  11. Lag? by sp00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Underwood, 39, said he will offer animal hunting as soon as he gets a fast Internet connection to his remote ranch that will enable hunters to aim the rifle quickly at passing animals. I can imagine it now... accounting for tirgger lag when you're hunting online. This would probably just plain suck on 56K.

    1. Re:Lag? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Well, that'd actually be quite an interesting challenge, and maybe make up a bit for the "makes it too easy" crowd. And if you miss, deer be outta there. Don't blow your shot.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Lag? by ShecoDu · · Score: 1

      Underwood, 39, said he will offer animal hunting as soon as he gets a fast Internet connection to his remote ranch that will enable hunters to aim the rifle quickly at passing animals.

      I can imagine it now... accounting for tirgger lag when you're hunting online. This would probably just plain suck on 56K.

      You posted the same thing twice, i think slashdotters need a third one.

  12. If that don't beat all. by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1
    • Underwood, an estimator for a San Antonio, Texas auto body shop, has invested $10,000 to build a platform for a rifle and camera that can be remotely aimed on his 330-acre (133-hectare) southwest Texas ranch by anyone on the Internet anywhere in the world.

    First robots with shotguns, now cyberednecks!

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  13. real FPS by LaPistola · · Score: 1

    Sweet.. I want to be the first to get a kiltacular!!
    This will never work.. the tree huggers will never allow it.. plus the whole idea is kinda stupid..

  14. Are you required... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to have taken hunters education classes? Do you need a hunter's license?

  15. The world scares me a little more each day... by mlk · · Score: 1

    And today has been worse then most days.

    On eBay a slice of cheese on toast. And now Internet Hunting? What next?

    --
    Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    1. Re:The world scares me a little more each day... by k4_pacific · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, you can now long onto the internets and take out your frustration by remotely shooting at live animals. As for the virgin Mary grilled cheese, it's sacrilicious!!

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    2. Re:The world scares me a little more each day... by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

      As is the waffle on the ceiling the Homer thinks is God.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
  16. How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Underwood is taken to the undertaker?...Accidentally shot by someone.

  17. Abuse? by dshaw858 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first thing that I thought when I read this was that 8 year old kids are going to use their parents credit cards and kill hundreds of deer just like a video game. This has the potential to run unchecked, due to the anonymity of the internet... I don't like it.

    -dshaw

    1. Re:Abuse? by skraps · · Score: 1

      Unless the guns become self-aware and decide to become mobile and walk the streets.. I don't see how this can go unchecked. Some dude set it up in his yard. I imagine that he will keep it in check.

      --
      Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
    2. Re:Abuse? by metlin · · Score: 1

      And I cannot understand why hunting is still legal - it's quite barbaric and uncivilized.

      Hunting for food is one thing, hunting for pleasure is quite another. But ofcourse, when we're still showing malevolence to our fellow human beings, it's asking too much to show the same thing to animals I suppose.

      But still -- I wish hunting were formally banned, guys like this make me wonder if we can dare to call ourselves civilized. Atleast our ancestors had an excuse -- the need for food.

    3. Re:Abuse? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I went back and read the article.

      Currently, shooters will be able to fire 10 (ten) .22 caliber rounds at paper and silhouette targets.

      Hmm, what exactly does that mean? Are they shooting game or dummy targets?

      And then, they go onto say -

      If exotic big game hunting is of interest to you, contact us at...

      I'm hoping it's not real animals, but I think I'm probably wrong.

    4. Re:Abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're probably imagining pre-historic people hunting for food when you think of this. But you're overlooking the fact that hungry people in the US still hunt for food. I'd rather someone shoot and eat their own food than buy pseudo-food from McD.

    5. Re:Abuse? by metlin · · Score: 1


      Like I said, hunting for food is one thing (survival) and hunting for pleasure is another. This guy's site seems to capitalize on the latter -- I find that quite barbaric.

    6. Re:Abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we do not hunt the animals they will grow out of control and a lot of them will die slow and painful deaths due to dieases brought on my over population.

      Do a google search on the topic and you will see what will happen.

    7. Re:Abuse? by dshaw858 · · Score: 1

      Unchecked in the sense that the maintainer of the site doesn't know who is shooting the gun. Yeah, it's not gonna go crazy and on a rampage, but some kid could go crazy and shoot everything in site (lots and lots of animals), etc. Pretty cruel.

      - dshaw

    8. Re:Abuse? by boinger · · Score: 1

      In this country, laws [of physics] dictate that guns make a loud noise when fired.

      Once one animal is annihilated by the "Boom Stick", the lots and lots of other animals wlil generally mosey on out of the area with haste.

      So, yes, over the course of years, say, the number of slaughtered beings might reach the "lots and lots" level. But unless they're staking the animals to the ground within range of the cameragun like a goat on Komodo, there's not going to be some bloody pile of animal carcases laid out on camera by some kid with a valid Visa number.

      --
      Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
    9. Re:Abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is barbaric illegal? Who is this hurting? Don't say the animals - last I checked animals had no 'rights' thanks very much.

      FWIW I've never hunted in my life ... and the only guns I've ever shot were .22s at paper targets in boy scout camp.

    10. Re:Abuse? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Because when something happens which wipes out most of the human race - don't pretend it won't happen, because it will - the survivors will need those skills. Even though I may not like something, doesn't mean that I want it to fall out of memory and become unused if it is of practical use.

    11. Re:Abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we do not hunt the animals they will grow out of control and a lot of them will die slow and painful deaths due to dieases brought on my over population.

      That's because you hunted all their natural predators to extinction, dumbass.

    12. Re:Abuse? by metlin · · Score: 1

      >last I checked animals had no 'rights' thanks very much.

      Yes, that's exactly what I'm complaining about.

    13. Re:Abuse? by Suidae · · Score: 1


      If exotic big game hunting is of interest to you, contact us at...

      I'm hoping it's not real animals, but I think I'm probably wrong.


      Yup, you are wrong. Exotic game is a thriving business in Texas. Large ranches raise private exotic stock specificly for hunting. They are generally well cared-for and live in open range conditions. Hunters pay to hunt the exotic species.

      I have fewer ethical concerns with this than with commercial livestock practices. The animals live well and die quickly in their natural (if non-native) environment.

      My brother is a vegan and animal rights activist, and has a philosophy degree, so needless to say I've heard most of the arguments for and against hunting and animals for food. I'd have to say taking up a battle against recreational hunting is like fighting to save the rainforests by picking up litter by your doorstep. At least hunters are aware of what they are doing. Sometimes I think that Soccer Mom thinks hamburger grows on trees.

      If you want to have an impact, don't worry about the hunters, become a researcher and figure out how to grow healthy, organic meat in a factory without the rest of an animal attached to it. No brain, no suffering, no ethical issues.

    14. Re:Abuse? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm quite aware of the ethical issues -- and I'm a strict vegetarian. I really wish we were at a stage of advancement where we could synthesize every kinda food -- sometimes I feel guilty about eating plants too :-)

  18. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems like a bad idea that will only have bad consequences. Shooting animals over the internet... How are you going to stop that sicko who will start to shoot people if they so much as venture onto the hunting field? You know humans will make for a better hunt.

    Perhaps they'll have a whistling dog pop out of the bushes when you miss 3x and the animal runs away.

  19. Who wants a job? by Kotukunui · · Score: 5, Funny

    An attendant will pick up the shot animals!!!

    WTF?
    Who wants that job?

    At the golf driving range we all target the ball-retriever machines/attendants when they go to get the balls... and , hey this is Texas we are talking about!

    1. Re:Who wants a job? by boinger · · Score: 1

      because I'm sure there's no way to, you know, disconnect the gun for retrieval times.

      --
      Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
    2. Re:Who wants a job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      At the golf driving range we all target the ball-retriever machines/attendants when they go to get the balls

      Where's the outrage? A lot of posters are saying it's bad to hunt via the Internet (or even in person). Yet it's OK to target the attendants?
      Why is there even an attendant out there anyway? Why not a Roomba for driving ranges?

    3. Re:Who wants a job? by MikeHunt69 · · Score: 3, Funny
      And today in the Monster Garage, we have Jesse James (distant relative to the famous outlaw) and his hand selected team. They have 5 days to rip, grind and burn and turn a 1988 Dodge pickup into the worlds fastest supercharged roadkill collector.


      Jesse: "I want it to have guns. That would be cool."

    4. Re:Who wants a job? by glass_window · · Score: 1

      I pitty the fool that forgets to do this.

    5. Re:Who wants a job? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      OMG.. I just found the ??? step!

      1. Open an internet hunting site.

      2. Get shut down by the Parks and Game Commission, but that doesn't matter because you can't find anyone willing to pick up your dead animals for minimum wage.

      3. Realize that an "internet" hunting site can actually be based anywhere in the world.

      4. OUTSOURCE TO INDIA (the ???? step!)

      5. Profit!

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  20. Oooh I see even more marketing opportunities here! by Xpilot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shoot the rabbit and WIN AN IPOD!!!

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
  21. Mouse aiming? Forget that, I need WASD too~! by MukiMuki · · Score: 5, Funny

    What we NEED is a robot on a Segway (for terrain adaptation and minimal field footprint) that's noise-dampened, carrying a shotgun, with a sensor that won't allow it to shoot outside a given radius.

    Why all this, you ask? So we can CIRCLE STRAFE those freaking animals over the internet~!

    (Deer proceeds to knock over robot mid-hunt, rendering it useless)
    Walkie Talkie Voice : ::Shht:: Counterhunters Win.

    1. Re:Mouse aiming? Forget that, I need WASD too~! by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Till of course the robot animals rebel against their remotely-controlled-by-a-drunk-hick-shotgun-wieldi ng-robot-overlords. Then where will humanity be?

    2. Re:Mouse aiming? Forget that, I need WASD too~! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what we need is two robots on Segways with shotguns, so we can circle strafe each other over the internet. Hang on....

    3. Re:Mouse aiming? Forget that, I need WASD too~! by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      I thought that Segways running over innocent Roombas was bad enough--now you want to give them guns?!

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    4. Re:Mouse aiming? Forget that, I need WASD too~! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the next step was to wire in a Roomba to the shotgun-segway. Talk about "street cleaner".

  22. Lag? by sp00 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Underwood, 39, said he will offer animal hunting as soon as he gets a fast Internet connection to his remote ranch that will enable hunters to aim the rifle quickly at passing animals.
    I can imagine it now... accounting for tirgger lag when you're hunting online. This would probably just plain suck on 56K.
  23. Possible Mishaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if some dude walks across the camera and gets shot?

  24. Uh oh by suwain_2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We've Slashdotted even the strangest of hardware, but I think a gun will be a new challenge for us.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  25. Shopping Mall+ This + Tranq Darts = GREAT FUN by dj42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd like to see one of these in the food court of a mall, with a zoom feature and tanquilizer darts. I'd pay well over $20 if they mailed me a DVD compiling the video of me aiming, zooming, firing, and the associated reactions.

    --
    We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
  26. Re:Gmail invites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're genuine, dipshit

  27. I'd use the lag defense by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't think the "he was a camper" defense would stand up in court.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:I'd use the lag defense by suwain_2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, lag might be a good defense.

      "There was a DEER on the screen when I shot. Only afterwards did it refresh and show a person."

      I think both the guy running the site and the users who cause injury to people are going to end up in a heap of trouble over this.

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    2. Re:I'd use the lag defense by coopaq · · Score: 0
      Actually, lag might be a good defense.

      Yeah... they should be forced to email their shots in ala Battleship!

    3. Re:I'd use the lag defense by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      I think both the guy running the site and the users who cause injury to people are going to end up in a heap of trouble over this.

      I don't know what they're planning for safety, but I don't think it would be hard for the attendants to wear radio tags that cause an invisible perimeter (just outside of range from the gun platform) to deactivate the firing control from the web interface. As soon as the attendant (presumably in a golf cart or something) is out of range and cannot be shot (intentionally or otherwise), the system is 'armed' again and the user can now fire.

      It's still stupid and senseless, it isn't hunting, it's just lame.

    4. Re:I'd use the lag defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would make a good FPS though.

  28. Great Idea by WhatsAProGingrass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds like a pretty good idea, But what is the difference between hunting real deer and fake deer at this point?

    Unless you are actually going to use what you shoot for a purpose, it has no real value to me. I think this is a great idea though, Next thing we can do is put these things in Iraq and shoot enemies this way...Oh wait, that would be to complicated for the governement to handle, we will just stick with deer.

    --
    Mark
  29. A Link by suwain_2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yahoo has the story, too. They include a link to the website: live-shot.com.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    1. Re:A Link by Bonus+Onus · · Score: 0

      hey, thanks for finding that link. If you go to the site, you can see that this is actually very well thought out and organized (an attendant is there at all times and he can override the firing mechanism, etc.). this is certainly a very interesting experiment with cyber-physical integration, though it seems a bit sick, but then again, its about the same as hunting in general.

    2. Re:A Link by alexandre · · Score: 1

      http://www.live-shot.com/RockspringsDemo.wmv

      anyone has this in backup?

    3. Re:A Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you just got shot by a Dell!

  30. disabled hunters.. survival of the fittest ? by vluther · · Score: 1

    In a real world situation where we would still need to hunt.. wouldn't a disabled hunter.. be helped by other able hunters, if he/she is alone.. then they umm just die ? survival of the fittest and all ?

    Or is hunting today still being done for survival of the village/town ?

    1. Re:disabled hunters.. survival of the fittest ? by MoggyMania · · Score: 1

      In a real-world situation, somebody with a disability that would impair hunting would be busy earning his/her keep doing tasks not affected by the disability. It's not significantly different from a disabled person in a city holding a job that the impairment doesn't directly interfere with... Not every single person has to handle exactly the same tasks, you know. :-)

  31. Very scary no tresspassing signs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beware! Remote control gunplay.
    Or
    Blue screen of death can be your own!
    Tele-gunning in use!

  32. Gun rights primer by argoff · · Score: 0, Troll


    OK, before the flame wars start - I just want to say that when the US declared independence and the British attacked - they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens.

    That's way today, the 2nd amendment clearly says the right to bear arms should not be adbridged and not "the government gives you the right to bear arms". Because it is implicitly understood that the right to secure your rights is a right that exists above government, not because of it.

    1. Re:Gun rights primer by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I just want to say that when the US declared independence and the British attacked - they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens.
      I think the modern term is "insurgents".
      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    2. Re:Gun rights primer by PhiRatE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, because an armed populace would prevent a major world power from invading your land today.

      Like Iraq for example.

      --
      You can't win a fight.
    3. Re:Gun rights primer by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A couple points:

      The constitution mentions the importance of a well regulated militia. This leaves open the possiblity of regulation, which could go as far as banning certain types of weapons in certain cases. It has been clear for some time that not every type of armament is illegal. Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.

      US vs. Miller set a precedent that not all weapons can be considered necessary for the existence of a well-regulated militia. "[I]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." I would contend that the same remark could be made about a remote-controlled internet weapon.

      This, of course, assumes that militias are still relevant in the modern US, something about which I am not convinced.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    4. Re:Gun rights primer by gloth · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah, unfortunately, most people fail to understand that the constitution and its amendments was written with the late 1700s in mind. Need examples:
      • It has no sane rules to elect the president. Something like the electorial college made sense 200 years ago, but not now!
      • It permitted slavery. Later on, it get "re-interpreted". Duh, what does that tell you!?
      • With no proper institutions to safe you from the evil empire (the UK) or evil neighbors, handguns made sense. Things have changed...
      • ...
      So, looking at the constitution as a source of truth and wisdom is, frankly, bullshit.

      Apart from that: What sportsmanship (or honor) is there if a disabled person shoots animals like this? It's pathetic, and people engaging in this sort of activity for fun are just disgusting bastards.

    5. Re:Gun rights primer by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bad example, that one's not over yet.

    6. Re:Gun rights primer by ErikZ · · Score: 1


      It would.

      However, the vast majority of Iraq's army was conscripts and ran away when given the chance. The vast majority of Iraq's citizens actually like the idea of becoming a democracy.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    7. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you been watching too much of the FOX fairyland....

    8. Re:Gun rights primer by argoff · · Score: 0

      Yeah, unfortunately, most people fail to understand that the constitution and its amendments was written with the late 1700s in mind.

      Yeah, and other people fail to understand that certain simple truths don't change even when time does.

      1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.

      2) In the 1980's the USSR had extreme difficulties considering any military strategy against the United States, because they had absolutely no idea about how to deal with over 100 million private gun owners.

    9. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you been watching too much of the FOX fairyland....

      Funny thing is, many of my friends and inlaws have sons in Iraq, and they say the same thing. The insurgency does not represent the vast majority of Iraq citizens.

    10. Re:Gun rights primer by nomadic · · Score: 1

      1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.

      See? Gun control is a good thing.

    11. Re:Gun rights primer by finkployd · · Score: 1

      And gee, there are no counter examples *caugh*vietnam.

      Besides, I wouldn't call the Iraq situation exactly over. A few more soldiers put bullets into the heads of wounded Iraqi soldiers and the population might just rise up en mass against the US.

      On the flip side, if they keep abducting innocent people (like that poor woman who dedicated her life to helping Iraq) and killing them, then their cause gets little sympathy (rightfully so).

      Finkployd

    12. Re:Gun rights primer by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I just want to say that when the US declared independence and the British attacked - they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens

      That wasn't unique. It wasn't even uncommon. Throughout most of human history for the vast majority of cultures "war" meant your citizens leaving their farms, picking up spears, and fighting the citizens from the next town over.

    13. Re:Gun rights primer by gloth · · Score: 1
      Ok, I'll bite on this one...

      Yeah, and other people fail to understand that certain simple truths don't change even when time does.

      The earth is a plane and all that, right? It's always a good idea to use your own brain instead of sheepishly following some old writings.

      1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.

      First of all, make that late 1800s. Also: what occupation are you talking about? If you talk say continue, the south apparently was occupied after the war?

      2) In the 1980's the USSR had extreme difficulties considering any military strategy against the United States, because they had absolutely no idea about how to deal with over 100 million private gun owners.

      Why would they bother to keep 100 million private gun owners down? If the soviets would have won an (obviously nuclear) war against the US, the major cities would have been nuked, and the rest could have been left to rot.

      Seriously: do you have any references for those odd claims that you're making here, or are you just pulling them out of thin air?

    14. Re:Gun rights primer by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because an armed populace would prevent a major world power from invading your land today.

      Like Iraq for example.


      An armed populace isn't there to stop an invasion. It's there to discourage one, by making occupation fiendishly expensive, and breaking the invader's will (and bankbook). The colonials were vastly outgunned by the British, and yet we won. Why? Because at a certain point, it wasn't worth it to the British to continue operations over such a long distance at that time. In Vietnam, the US was forced to pull out because the war had dragged on too long in the eyes of the US public, despite the fact that we had crushed a huge portion of the NVA. In Afghanistan, the Soviets conceded defeat at the hands of farmers and sheep/goat herders.

      In each of these situations, the "insurgents" had outside aid - the colonials relied on the French, the Vietcong relied on the Chinese, the Afghanis relied on the US. However, the irregulars had to make up the core of the fighting force, and for that, you have to have individuals with arms, and the experience to use them.

      The United States is in an interesting state. We have an all-volunteer military (Coast Guard, Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force), as opposed to some nations in Europe and Asia, that have conscript armies with required military service. The idea behind subjecting every male to compulsory military service is to create a pool of able-bodied cannon fodder that you can equip and arm in the event of war, with a minimum of training (since, theoretically, they've all gone through basic.) In many other countries, the United States included, we rely on volunteers to make up our military forces (including the Reserves and the National Guard), and subsequent to regular service, the Individual Ready Reserves (made up of veterans) to call up in time of need.

      You notice that in either case, the government needs to expend taxpayer money to train and equip its soldiers. If you acknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual, rather than a collective right, you can allow individual citizens to train and equip themselves, in the comfort of their own communities, without having to spend a single dime of taxpayer money (although government sponsored programs such as the Civilian Marksmanship Program sure do help to encourage individual firearms ownership.)

    15. Re:Gun rights primer by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

      Ummmm, the Iraqis are still fighting. This war ain't over yet man. What do you want? Full on battles with troops in columns? Look at chechnya, proof that effective insurgent warfare takes many forms.

      --
      Photos.
    16. Re:Gun rights primer by argoff · · Score: 1

      Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.

      Well, to take that to an extreme - if everyone had a nuclear weapon, I wonder how many politicians would play black against white, young against old, man against women, and rich against poor for political gain.

      Hmm, perhaps gun controll is not about regulating or public good, but rather about not wanting to reap the hatred that you sew.

    17. Re:Gun rights primer by $ASANY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's hard to believe that Miller has become some sort of precedent when one party wasn't able to present arguments to the court. One side argued, and the case was decided -- predictably -- based on the arguments of that one side. It's weak.

      The "absence of any evidence" wasn't because the opposition could not bring arguments to bear, but because there was no opposition to point out that in fact shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches were in fact employed as military arms in both WWI and WWII. Clearing fortifications with a shortened shotgun is far easier than using a longer arm. Unfortunately, no one was present to provide this insight. So while the opinion of the court may be factually accurate, it only relates to evidence presented by the parties present (one side), not the evidence that could be presented. That's the way court procedure works, and while the decision is correct in terms of the evidence at trial, it's a really bad precedent to cite since the court never considered competing arguments from both sides beyond the initial briefs.

      Another point is that "well regulated" (as in 'a well regulated militia') had a different meaning in the time the amendment was drafted than we might understand it to be now. In those days, "well regulated" was a reference to how proficient the unit was and what level of discipline was evident in the military formation. Even today, giving a firearm to a gunsmith "for regulation" refers to ensuring that the firearm operates correctly and that the parts conform to the mechanical specifications of the firearm's design. To assign "well regulated" a meaning that involves the application of laws and executive policy is to entirely misunderstand the intent and in fact the actual word of the amendment as it was understood at the time of it's drafting.

      Having said all that, this idea of remotely shooting game via the internet is ludicrous.

    18. Re:Gun rights primer by metalhed77 · · Score: 1
      I'm replying to this troll only because so many others have taken it seriously.


      I just want to say that when the US declared independence and the British attacked - they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens.


      What in the hell are you talking about? Ever heard of Sparta or a billion other civilizations with armed citizens?
      --
      Photos.
    19. Re:Gun rights primer by I+am+the+Bullgod · · Score: 1

      "Later on, it get "re-interpreted".

      Actually, it got amended (Amendment XIII). The framers of the Constitution realized that social mores would change over time and provided a means to change it. If, as you believe, the second amendment is outdated, work to change it.

      "So, looking at the constitution as a source of truth and wisdom is, frankly, bullshit. "

      Be as it may, it's the law of the land.

      (By the way, I think that Internet hunting is asinine)

    20. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It IS making their invasion costly.

    21. Re:Gun rights primer by silentbozo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The constitution mentions the importance of a well regulated militia. This leaves open the possiblity of regulation, which could go as far as banning certain types of weapons in certain cases.

      From Dictionary.com:
      regulate
      1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
      2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
      3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
      4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
      As with many things in a document more than 200 years old, the language and choice of vocabulary is subject to interpretation, and those interpretations subject to debate.

      Some claim that "well-regulated" refers to the maintaince of a organized milita, subject to government purview, in absence of a standing army (ie, regulated by the government.) Others put forward the interpretation that "well-regulated" refers to a militia that just well trained, as to obviate the need for a standing army and the power that it would confer (in terms of the power of force, and the power of taxation to support such a standing army) to any municipal, state, or (this would be in the future) federal government.

      Obviously, in today's America, with its all-volunteer standing military, and the federal income tax (which has only been in effect for about 91 years out of the 228 years that this republic has been in existence, and was originally levied only on the very richest of rich), the power has most definitely shifted to a federal government that did not exist at the time that this country was founded.

      I think many people are waking up to the fact that entrusting any one centralized entity with so much power is a very, very, very bad idea - precisely the lesson that the founders of the United States attempted to lay down in the way that they wrote our constitution, and structured our government. That this much power attracts those who would seek to bend that power to their ends, as we can see from all of the special interests who shop their bills around Congress, and the politicking from both parties to maintain the power they have (by gerrymandering their congressional districts to create "safe seats", for example.)

      It has been clear for some time that not every type of armament is illegal. Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.

      I think you meant the following:

      It has been clear for some time that not every type of armament is legal. Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.
    22. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A few more soldiers put bullets into the heads of wounded Iraqi soldiers

      You know what? It really, really sucks to be a US Marine pacifying Fallujah. You get shot at. Your buddy gets shot and killed. You get shot in the face, and because you are lucky it's a graze, but you know you are mortal. And you have to go in anyway.

      And these insurgents. They attach bombs to their dead, sometimes, just to blow up one more American. For all I know they attach bombs to their *wounded*.

      So, this Marine decides that the insurgent is playing dead, and he decides that he doesn't really want to find out just what exactly the insurgent's plan is. So he shoots him.

      You know, the Geneva convention protects this Marine. There are rules for when you are allowed to shoot and rules for when you aren't, and he is in the clear on this one. Playing dead does not count as surrendering.

      All the people in that room were people who had been trying to kill Marines no more than a day earlier. I might feel a bit differently about this if they were just random people, but these were all combatants.

      Are there any recorded instances of insurgents surrendering, hands up, no weapons, just being shot? No, I didn't think so.

      Summary: shit happens, war sucks. I think the original quote is "War is Hell."

      So, should we take this Marine and nail his ass to the wall? I say no. Anyone who says "yes" should volunteer to lead the next raid on an insurgent stronghold.

      All soldiers can do is kill people and break things. (Sometimes this is necessary, however. 5,000 Iraqi kids were starving to death per *month* while Saddam was in power.)

      if they keep abducting innocent people (like that poor woman who dedicated her life to helping Iraq) and killing them, then their cause gets little sympathy (rightfully so).

      From what I can figure out, interviews with actual soldiers actually in Iraq, and third-hand reports from people who know people in Iraq, the average guys in Iraq are very happy to have the Hussein regime overthrown. They aren't stupid, and they can see for themselves that the soldiers are not after all raping all the women, eating the children, razing the mosques, etc. They see these guys fixing the power plants, fixing the water plants, giving candy to kids, and being blown up by the same guys who kidnap aid workers.

      One thing, though, is that the average Iraqi doesn't really want to die, and the insurgents can kill them. So the average guys there might not tip off the soldiers even if they see some guys burying a bomb right there in daylight.

      The soldiers can try to find and kill insurgents, but they cannot impose order; the insurgents can still decide where and how to cause mayhem. The average Iraqi is caught in the middle. But they don't wish for the days of Saddam, they look ahead to the days when this crazy shit is over and things settle down.

      Iraq didn't welcome the US with open arms when they invaded, but they didn't rise up in armed opposition either. The insurgents are a tiny minority of Iraqis and they aren't even all Iraqis.

    23. Re:Gun rights primer by tehdaemon · · Score: 2, Informative
      What occupation?


      Most of the southern states were not readmitted into the union for 3-5 years after the war. During this timeperiod they were under martial law. Even then it took another 5 years or so for the states to resume local control of their own government. So, yes, there was an occupation.

      See wikipedia for dates, look at the table near the bottom.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    24. Re:Gun rights primer by Rocco+Bambieze · · Score: 1
      "So, looking at the constitution as a source of truth and wisdom is, frankly, bullshit."

      Where did you study law bro?
      The Constitution is the supreme law of the land!
      Defend it or take a hike, Mike....

    25. Re:Gun rights primer by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      I think the real purpose of the all-volunteer army is to make it very clear that if you can't find enough people willing to lay down their lives for the war of the moment, maybe it's not something that's worth fighting for.

    26. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're clearly about as thick as pig shit.
      Do you actually have such an Americanised view of the world that you think your country was the first to stand up for itself.

      You are what's wrong with the world we live in...

    27. Re:Gun rights primer by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The constitution mentions the importance of a well regulated militia.

      Well regulated, in the context of the Second Amendment, has nothing to do with limiting weapons or circumscribing the conditions of their posession. Well regulated means "practiced and ready for action". You see, in the 18th century soldiers could be generally classified into two categories: regulars, and irregulars. Regulars were the trained soldiers. The guys who knew how to march in formation, load under fire, and have a fair chance of hitting their targets. Irregulars were generally volunteers and/or conscripts with little training and haphazard equipment. The fact that the word "regulated" is no longer used in exactly the same sense as it was 200-odd years ago doesn't change the basis of the right to bear arms. Semantic drift does not modify the rights of man. If, 200 years from now, the word "peaceably" is predominantly used to mean "naked, bent over a chair", does that mean that the People only have the right to assemble if they're naked and speading their cheeks? Besides, interpreting "well regulated" to mean "limited by rules" throws the first part of the amendment into logical conflict with the second part. This should indicate to any reasonable person that this interpretation is wrong.

      US vs. Miller set a precedent that not all weapons can be considered necessary for the existence of a well-regulated militia. "[I]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." I would contend that the same remark could be made about a remote-controlled internet weapon.

      So a remote controlled rifle, not being a useful militia weapon, should be banned based on US v. Miller? How do you feel about semi-auto military rifles, then? They are provably the most militia-appropriate weapons of all, but their manufacture was banned. Interesting how certain groups cite US v. Miller when they want to limit posession of a hunting arm based on its non-militia status, but then turn and steadfastly assert that military-pattern rifles should be banned because they serve no "legitimate sporting purpose" (note: I know you didn't take the latter position in your post; I am referencing others I have seen in the past taking both sides based on convenience).

      At any rate, I submit that US v. Miller (while admittedly being precedent) was a bad decision. Being that there is no hard authority on what constitutes an appropriate militia weapon, the law limiting long arms to 18 inch barrels should have been thrown out. Saying that a militia is limited to certain arms requires a willful disregard for history-- militias have traditionally armed themselved with whatever they could get!

      This, of course, assumes that militias are still relevant in the modern US, something about which I am not convinced.

      And that is the root of the problem. Through all these endless weasel-word lawyer games people have completely lost sight of the basic philosophical principal upon which the right to bear arms is based: the people are the ultimate powerholders. You must ask yourself, should the police be the only ones with guns? Do I want cops to have no fears about kicking in doors because they know that you (at most) have a kitchen knife while they have a Mossberg 500 shotgun? The fact that 20 policemen will certainly win a gunfight against you is largely irrelevant. The fact that we are an armed population should cause each and every government agent to hesitate before acting in the name of the state; to stop and think, "hey, I could get shot; are my orders worth getting shot over?" An armed populace keeps each individual-- government agent and private citizen alike-- on an equal footing. When the population is disarmed, they become the

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    28. Re:Gun rights primer by argoff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your right, I should have said continued....

      OK here,
      this document makes it very clear that the threat of gurilla warfare forced a policy of reconcilation instead of occupation .... part 3 and part 4

      www.gsb.georgetown.edu/faculty/sweeneyr/ wp/Chapter%208_Civil%20War%20Reconciliation.doc

      and heres one about why the Japaneese decided not to invade the wide and unprotected american coast line
      http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob 0109.h tml

    29. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the modern term is "insurgents".

      Yes, because as we all know, US militias during the American Revolution used such useful and noble tactics as kidnapping aid workers, storming hospitals, and detonating bombs to kill their FELLOW citizens.

    30. Re:Gun rights primer by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [Iraq] Bad example, that one's not over yet.

      That fact that it is not over yet is one of the reasons it is a good example.

    31. Re:Gun rights primer by ErikZ · · Score: 1
      "I think you been watching too much of the FOX fairyland...."

      "Funny thing is, many of my friends and inlaws have sons in Iraq, and they say the same thing. The insurgency does not represent the vast majority of Iraq citizens."


      I read the blogs from the people who are over there. I don't like mainstream media, they're always trying to push their opinion down my throat.
      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    32. Re:Gun rights primer by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1

      So a remote controlled rifle, not being a useful militia weapon, should be banned based on US v. Miller?

      Not necessarily. However, US v. Miller makes it clear that the Constitution doesn't prevent the banning of remote controlled rifles. I would argue that the remote controlled rifle has no purpose except to slaughter animals for fun. You don't get to take the animal home and eat it, it can't be good weapons training to shoot an animal over the internet, it's useless for self-defense and you don't even get any fresh air and exercise. As such, I wouldn't have a problem if this weapon were banned.

      I'm not necessarily arguing that it should be banned, I was merely responding to GGP's assertion that the second amendment guarantees that this device will (and should) always be legal. On to more general issues:

      And that is the root of the problem. Through all these endless weasel-word lawyer games people have completely lost sight of the basic philosophical principal upon which the right to bear arms is based: the people are the ultimate powerholders....An armed populace keeps each individual-- government agent and private citizen alike-- on an equal footing.

      Ok, so we've established that guns shouldn't be banned. On the other hand, just because the government has access to a weapon doesn't mean it should be available to citizens. Powerful explosives and nuclear weapons are two examples. The problem here is that powerful weapons can be devastating in the wrong hands. Even if we were all armed and had the proper training, a nutcase could pull out an automatic assault weapon in a crowded place and kill many people before anyone could respond. In another example, although the wide availability of guns can prevent police from abusing their power, it can also prevent them from effectively doing their job. For these reasons, I think that some restrictions on guns are valid. Not that powerful guns should necessarily be banned, but that there should be should be appropriate restrictions on their availablility and use. The scope of these restrictions is, in my mind, up for debate.

      To summarise: guns should not be banned because their legality curbs government power. Guns should not be completely unrestricted because the potential for abuse is too great. The question (for me, at least) is where the line should be drawn.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    33. Re:Gun rights primer by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      *they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens.*

      you fail history.

      you think they were the first? you think that brits hadn't bumped into "armed citizens" before? ARE YOU NUTS???

      so before flame wars start.. YOU START ONE.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    34. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so instead, you get to decide who's opinion goes down your throat.

    35. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      either way you look at it, you're still taking it in the throat.

    36. Re:Gun rights primer by Jafar00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Yes, because as we all know, US militias during the American Revolution used such useful and noble tactics as kidnapping aid workers,

      It has been established that this is done by outsiders eg. the mythical "Al-Zarqawi" group and not by the general poplace.

      > storming hospitals,

      Didn't the US storm one hospital and flatten the other in Fallujah recently? They have also bombed other hospitals throughout Iraq.

      >and detonating bombs to kill their FELLOW citizens.

      Again, this is outsider terrorists. Think about who actually benefits from it? The only legitimate militia are the Iraqis themselves attacking the invader soldiers.

      --
      RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
    37. Re:Gun rights primer by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Where did you study law bro?
      The Constitution is the supreme law of the land!
      Defend it or take a hike, Mike....


      The constitution was designed to be challenged and changedas social values changed. It requires a large majority (of the democratic representatives) to make a change, but it certainly can and will happen - most of the the points you discuss are amendments to the constitution - that is changes. Sure, many of them happened almost mmediately, but the point is that the document was designed to be a living one, and hence to be challenged.

      To defend everything in the sonstitution somply because it is the constitution is at least as stupid as challenging ideas that someone thinks have become outdated and worthy of alteration or new amendments.

      Jedidiah.

    38. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Didn't the US storm one hospital and flatten the other in Fallujah recently? They have also bombed other hospitals throughout Iraq

      When a hospital become a base of operations for an insurgent force it ceases to be a hospital and becomes a target.

    39. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh thats why Americans are obsessed with guns! They are shit scared the British might come back.

      Makes sense. I guess we are the original bogey men. However I thought we had been replaced by the Communists and later Muslims. Good to know that we still keep an entire nation living in such a state of constant fear that they feel the need to keep guns to protect themselves from us.

      Rule Britannia! :)

    40. Re:Gun rights primer by kahei · · Score: 1


      The degree of ignorance required to assert that there were no armed citizens until 1776 is absolutely flabbergasting. Seriously, I take my hat off to you.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    41. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandatory service can also have an effect:
      It's no longer necessarily "someone else" (usually of a different socioeconomic class) doing the fighting-- it might be you or a family member.

    42. Re:Gun rights primer by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      Why Senator Rangel! I had no idea such distinguished types posted on /.

    43. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is EXACTLY why the right to own Surface to Air Missile launchers should be covered under the constitution!

    44. Re:Gun rights primer by cenonce · · Score: 1

      But, like many pro-gun activists, you seem to indicate that the Second Amendment is an absolute right. Clearly, it is not, nor should it be. That is why felons cannot own firearms. That is why you cannot just go to the local gun store and buy a howitzer or a fully automatic firearm. That is why you cannot carry a gun whenever and wherever you want. That is why some states require you to complete a gun safety course before you get a permit. And that is why some states don't let you carry guns at all.

      Do I believe that some of these "abridgements" of our freedom are unnecessary and have nothing to do with "fighting crime" or "public safety"? Yes, I do. But I also believe that with the freedom (and power) of owning a gun comes the responsibility of knowing what you are doing. We do not have some unfettered right to own a gun in the U.S., no more than we have some unfettered right to say whatever we want (even though the First Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law".)

      To actually be on topic, however, a remote-control firearm is really not about "guns" or the "Second Amendment", contrary to what a lot of posts are trying to say about it. This guy owns private property. You are free to do whatever you want on your property providing you are breaking no laws or causing no harm. Freedom is the essence of the U.S. Constitution, not whether one Amendment is more important than another. The law already has methods to handle this internet hunting idea. Both criminal and personal injury law apply if the operator is negligent, reckless or shows a callous disregard. And they also apply to the owner if sets-up this contraption to be able to aim it 45 degrees in the air and fire (though even at 45 degrees, not a whole lot of firearms will make it past 300 acres). What I find offensive is that the Texas Bureau of Parks is trying to find a way to stop him from doing it completely, simply because they just don't like it.

      Freedom is about being able to live your life the way you want. Others may not like it. They may "anguish" over it. But that is different from being "injured" by it. If this guy wants to operate a remote-controlled rifle/hunting range, I support that notion providing it is done safely. Do I agree with it? No, I think it is pretty stupid and intuitively, contrary to what hunting is all about. But I agree that if he can find a way to set it up responsibly and have it be used safely, then he should be free to do it.

    45. Re:Gun rights primer by gcatullus · · Score: 1

      Umm... I just had to reply. An armed populace sure has made it damn difficult to take over Iraq.

    46. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not an armed populace fighting. Hell, most of them aren't even Iraqi. That's a different colonial power invading.

    47. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not to prevent the invasion, it's to make it too expesive to stay. That said, it worked for the Swiss. In both world wars, the Germans wanted to go through Switzerland to get to France. Both times, the swiss took the german generals on a little tour. They showed them the pervasive fortifications. They pointed out that every adult male was a member of the citizen militia, trained two weeks a year, and was required to keep a military rifle at home. They toured the numerous rifle ranges, and discussed how marksmanship was the national sport, sorta like golf in America these days.

      The germans went around, of course. Now, this is not quite the same thing as just a bunch of people with rifles who aren't so organized and fortified. But otoh, America is a much bigger country. Imagine an Iraq the size of America, and you'll have some idea of what hell this country could be for an invading force, even without a standing army.

    48. Re:Gun rights primer by gloth · · Score: 1
      To quote from your first link: Reconstruction is often thought of as harsh, but compared to the standards of history Confederates were by and large treated well after the Civil War. I also think of the reconciliation as a restoration of federal law, and not as an oppression. Sure, illegal, and often racist tendencies were oppressed; I don't have a problem with that Do you? When this period ended in the 1870s, racism got the upper hand again in the South. Great.

      Don't switch subjects: You claimed that the Soviets were scared to invade the US in the 1990s; providing a link on why the Japanese didn't want to do this in the 1940s does not support that claim.

    49. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, before the flame wars start - I just want to say that when the US declared independence and the British attacked - they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens.

      Never before? Never? NEVER?

      May I ask you what did you do during history classes? Sleep? Tried to pick up chicks? Did you even have classes? Have you ever read a book on, for example, Ancient Greece?

      You know, the time period when citizens of the worlds first democracies HAD TO bear arms. It was a requirement, you see, for every free man to own the full hoplite battle gear (breastplate, helm, shield, spear, and sword) or at least the gear for light-armed soldiers (shield, javelins). If they didn't have either, they were not citizens. Simple, eh?

    50. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, unfortunately, most people fail to understand that the constitution and its amendments was written with the late 1700s in mind. .. snippage ..

      With no proper institutions to safe you from the evil empire (the UK) or evil neighbors, handguns made sense. Things have changed...


      Indeed.. and is open for massive interpretation to boot. Its relevance in a modern context in cases like this is questionable.

      This is coming from a center-left democrat: gun ownership is here to stay, so get used to it. I see no reason to defang the population. If you don't like it, move. No, people do not need assault weapons. Yes, it is okay to have a piece in the house to go Dirty Harry on somebody's ass should the need arise. Do it to the wrong person (i.e. not an intruder) and you go to jail.
    51. Re:Gun rights primer by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Wah wah wah socioeconomics wah wah wah I don't want people to be able to serve their country to pay for college wah wah wah.

      I have very real problems with forced service. I have no problem with paying a fair wage for a dirty and sometimes dangerous job. Are upper-class kids going to go into the military? No, not very often. But it provides a pretty decent way for lower class kids with no opportunities to get training and an education if they want it.

      As opposed to mandatory service, where there's zero societal benefit (other than easing a few people's minds because "Poor people aren't being forced by socioeconomics to fight anymore!" - yeah, now they, along with everyone else, are being forced by force of law to fight, for zero benefit. Nicely done.)

      Yes, let's have a draft! Because I swear to you, and I will swear to the draft board, that if you force me to join and then give me a gun, my conscientious objection will consist of taking said gun and emptying its rounds into the nearest unoccupied (hey, I don't want to hurt anyone) non-explosive (see previous) armed forces property. I have no issue with the military; I have major issues with other people trying to force me to do something.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    52. Re:Gun rights primer by stanmann · · Score: 1

      A peasant with a pitchfork != warrior with a sword.

      Please feel free to provide an example of a nation with an armed capable populace that was not part of the general armed force.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    53. Re:Gun rights primer by stanmann · · Score: 1

      I will grant that the OP spoke poorly. but so did you, in the exact same way, you conflated freeman and citizen. which are two completely different groups. Historically there have been at least 3, sometimes more groups.

      citizens, usually armed, particpating in governance, later called nobles
      Professional warriors, sometimes freemen sometimes slaves armed and trained
      Common freemen, never armed not really free and typically unable to participate in the common defence or governance later called peasants
      Slaves, never armed never free never trained later called serfs
      I have not covered all distinctions or subgroups, but the mistake you and the OP made is the same ... conflating citizens, freemen, and soldiers.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    54. Re:Gun rights primer by trongey · · Score: 1

      More importantly - an armed populace makes it much harder for a government to take it's natural course toward totalitarianism.
      Consider the context of the US constitution. Those people had successfully revolted against what they considered an oppressive government because the populace was well armed.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    55. Re:Gun rights primer by fitten · · Score: 1

      Something like the electorial college made sense 200 years ago, but not now!

      Why? There are reasons for a representative body to make decisions (see: Legislative Branch of the USA Government).

    56. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also think of the reconciliation as a restoration of federal law


      Actually, it was a violation of federal law. Up until the civil war states were explicitly granded the right to seceed.

    57. Re:Gun rights primer by fitten · · Score: 1

      (though even at 45 degrees, not a whole lot of firearms will make it past 300 acres).

      There are 640 acres in a square mile (1 mile on a side). Most states have laws requiring the minimum calibre rifle for hunting deer being .223 or larger. Other than .30-30, .35 Remington, and some of the slower rounds, most rifles that are considered to be "high powered hunting rifles" used for hunting medium sized game (.30-06 being very popular, .270, .300, 7mm, .243, .308 etc. regardless of the 'species' such as Winchester, Remington, or Weatherby) are quite capable of maximum distances over a mile when fired in such a way.

    58. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also think of the reconciliation as a restoration of federal law, and not as an oppression.

      Nice way to think about it, but the southern states were exploited and oppressed during "Reconstruction" by various persons/groups from the Union. This is how terms such as carpetbagger came about.

    59. Re:Gun rights primer by You+Been+Rob-ed! · · Score: 1
      "I]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

      The point to really make regarding this quote from Miller is that it explitly recognizes that there is a class of weapons that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear, and that classes of weapons is those in current use by our armed forces, ie the fully automatic M-16. Another point is that the ruling really doesn't say that the government can regulate sawed-off shotguns, it says that the case has not been proven that the government cannot regulate them.

      Read the full text of the decision here: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardw el/public/nfalist/miller.txt

      --
      For fun, calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you!
    60. Re:Gun rights primer by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm pretty sure the term you're looking for is "Torrie" (with a y, maybe?), not fellow citizen. They were on the side of might and right, aligned with the King. And they weren't popular.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    61. Re:Gun rights primer by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      For one thing, the Soviet Union only had two years they could have invaded the US in the 1990s, since they expire in 1991. And, of course, the reasons for the Japanese and Soviets not invading are the exact same. If you were a general, how would you deal with 100 or 200 MILLION armed citizens during an invasion?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    62. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in 1776, "aid workers" hadn't been invented yet, there were maybe five hospitals on the entire continent (first one founded in 1751), and the rebels did in fact attack their fellow colonists who were siding with the british. they were guerilla insurgents. "terrorist" hadn't been invented yet. history sides with the winner.

    63. Re:Gun rights primer by Rocco+Bambieze · · Score: 1

      "The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington

    64. Re:Gun rights primer by Rocco+Bambieze · · Score: 1
      In the unlikely event anyone here is actually interested in understanding the 2nd Ammendment...

      Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998.

      http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon .htm

      Eight years ago, I got into an argument with a nonlawyer acquaintance about the Second Amendment. The Amendment, this person fervently announced, clearly protects an individual right. Not so, I argued to him, thinking him to be something of a blowhard and even a bit of a kook.

      Three years ago, I discovered, to my surprise and mild chagrin, that this supposed kook was entirely right. In preparing to teach a law school seminar on firearms regulation (one of the only about half a dozen such classes that I know of at U.S. law schools), I found that the historical evidence -- much of which I set forth verbatim in the Appendix -- overwhelmingly points to one and only one conclusion: The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    65. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this on: They didn't invade because they didn't want to. The Japanese wanted to dominate the pacific, and attacking Pearl Harbor was an attempt to stop the US from "interfering". Japan was never interested in conquering the US mainland. If the Soviets had defeated the US military, they could have simply nuked the citizens into oblivion. Why fight town-to-town, if neutron bombs will do the trick?

      In short: neither the Japanese or Soviets were ever concerned about gun wielding rednecks.

    66. Re:Gun rights primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't claim they'd be afraid of rednecks. I claimed armed citizens. Are all armed citizens rednecks? Of course not.

      You're just a gun grabber, plain and simple. You have also violated my NH constitutional rights. Nice work earning that felony, tiger.

    67. Re:Gun rights primer by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      before those days.. general armed force generally was the populace. any 'uncivilised' country. how about vikings? sparta? hell, any african country before modern times(every male being a warrior!), how about that? the even gave sometimes a run for the brits.

      what exactly is the difference between a sword and a pitchfork anyways, as both can be used to kill and have been used as tools in an uprising? is a hunter with a rifle then a soldier in an organized army automatically?

      usa was not the first, get over it. it was not even the first to seperate from a bigger empire by means of war.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    68. Re:Gun rights primer by sjalex · · Score: 1

      this shouldn't be modded troll... He's absolutely right. For another angle on this refer to the New Hampshire state constitution, where it's encoded right there with all the other rights as "Right to Revolution" (Article 10). http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/constitution.h tml

  33. Hmm by trendescape · · Score: 0

    We really are the dumbest creatures..

    --
    irc.enterthegame.com #linux
  34. Re:Where is the website? by insensitive+claude · · Score: 1

    Here.

  35. Disabilities by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, now people with disabilities can shoot at animals and thereby give them disabilities?

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    1. Re:Disabilities by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      They did say it was Texas.

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    2. Re:Disabilities by MoggyMania · · Score: 1

      Given how upset disabled people are right now as we watch many of the support services being cut that others need to survive, if we could set the game up to hunt politicians and charge even a mere $5/month it'd make a *lot* more than targeting animals. :-)

      (Unfortunately, we'd also be thrown in jail before the first check reached the bank, but still it's a nice thought.)

  36. Do we need any more proof? by sokoban · · Score: 1

    I think this really makes one thing clear, Texans like guns a whole lot.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
  37. So many problems. by Siul1979 · · Score: 1

    What if the platform that the camera is on tips over? Won't this large moving apparatus scare away any game? An automated rifle could shoot any animals, but whats to stop it from shooting the rancher? There will be so many carcasses, lol.

  38. Novelty by dingDaShan · · Score: 1

    Though this is an interesting idea, there are many obstacles. The camera would have to have extremely good resolution in order to see an animal that is more than a few feet away. The camera and gun would have to be sighted quite well. Also, who would track the animal down, and do the dirty work? Who would reload the gun? This simply has too many problems to be effective. Also, part of hunting is being outside in the fresh air. Staring at a computer screen would not give nearly the same effect, especially if the camera is low resolution. If you want to kill animals from a computer, play a deer hunting computer game.

  39. Link by mfdii · · Score: 1

    http://www.live-shot.com/

    good job researching the story

  40. My Favorite Quote by dretay · · Score: 1

    I liked the part in the essay when they say:
    "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head"
    Who says that? I'm no tree hugger, but I have never in my life seen a deer on a webcam, turned to my friend, and commented on how much I'd like to kill it. BTW, before you start screaming at me, realize that I am a due paying member of the NRA.

    1. Re:My Favorite Quote by eggsome · · Score: 1

      So is Michael Moore.


      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
  41. A .22, in Texas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Gimma a real gun on a roving vehicle, in a real desert where there are lots of more interesting targets.

    Damn, the US could fund the war by selling chances to fire preditor missles on eBay!

    1. Re:A .22, in Texas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real gun? I'll take it that you've never seen a fully "Texas decked" Ruger 10/22 :)

  42. Duck Hunt by dedeman · · Score: 1

    So does a St. Bernard pop his head out of the bush and giggle at you when you miss three shots?

  43. Assassins by Rekrapt · · Score: 1
    What a great toy for a secret agent. I wonder how small you make one. :-D

    Far out...

    1. Re:Assassins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Far out..." What are you some kind of retard!? Well, looking at your posting history, I guess you are!

    2. Re:Assassins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, reKRAPt is a bit of a retard. He spends most of his free time sucking his hermaphrodite French wive's dick.

    3. Re:Assassins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, don't be mean to REKRAPT. He is "special." His mommy told him so when she was measuring his 3cm penis, right before she gave him his first blow job.

  44. I'm huntin wabbits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another use for the phrase "Only in America!" isn't it? He'd make more money getting a patent for it and licensing the technology.

  45. let's computerize this! by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm interested in the possibility of a competition writing programs that would do the hunting for you.

    Think of it - who can do the best open source cybernetic sniper program? Remember those neat antipersonnel guns in Aliens?

  46. Great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another place on the internet where people can scream "WALLHACK!" and "AIMBOT!"

    On the serious side, though: Claiming that this is for the hunters with disabilities is a pity excuse. Why not just play games like Deer Hunter or Wall Hanger?

    This is just another excuse not to go outside and get some fresh air.

  47. link to site by zerdood · · Score: 0
    --
    My sig would have been a lot cooler if /. didn't filter out HTML tags 0.o
  48. Shoot terrorists in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would gladly pay $20 to kill a terrorist from my computer!

    1. Re:Shoot terrorists in Iraq by electronkz · · Score: 1

      Define "terrorists" . The way I see it, both the Coalition Army, and the barbarian are terrorists.

  49. Linkage by s0l0m0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    Live Shot

    Here's a link to the site. This is probably a bad idea, but I want gun toting robots for myself, so who am I to judge.

  50. BSOD by K1-V116 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let the Blue Screen of Death jokes begin!

    --

    Got mead?

  51. Does it happen? by juuri · · Score: 1

    Did it happen?

    You clicked the button, you saw the shot, the deer appeared to fall, but did anything really happen. Does it even matter if it did? You can't use the kill for anything, there's no touch, no true surge of adrenaline from satisfying some primal urge.

    I've been waiting for this (specifically a gun controlled from the net) because it won't be long before anything else that can be conveyed via telepresence will fall into place. This is going to lead to a huge bevy of essays on reality and the human experience, kick ass.

    --
    --- I do not moderate.
  52. Link anyone? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    Can someone provide a link to his target practice page?

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    1. Re:Link anyone? by zerdood · · Score: 0
      --
      My sig would have been a lot cooler if /. didn't filter out HTML tags 0.o
  53. New DOmain ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we need a new Red Neck Domain. Are they going to introduce e-Kidnapping for the lazy criminals as well ?

  54. Re:Gmail invites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont fucking need to log in. Why don't you stop falsely accusing people of things that are not true?

  55. 180 degrees by subStance · · Score: 1

    I can't wait till some hacker manages first to bypass whatever safety mechanisms he includes and then to point the gun at his house, cronning a random couple of shots in the vicinity each minute. He'll never be able to leave the house again. Heheh

    --
    Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
    1. Re:180 degrees by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      He'd have to go out and reload it eventually, and it'd be pretty stupid not to have mechanical stops on the tripod.

  56. Internet wars! by ancyent_marinere · · Score: 1

    Next up, the US Army will create a website that will let people control mobile gun platforms on the battlefield, except no one will realize the truth and we'll all think that it's just a free computer game. oh wait...

    1. Re:Internet wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember a Star Trek episode where war was waged via computers. Victims reported to disintegration machines. Mt. Spock said "there is a certain logic to it", although he didn't approve.

  57. Hey now... by raehl · · Score: 1

    Next you'll be telling us that sex isn't as much fun if you pay for it.

    1. Re:Hey now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, It's not

      You have to wear a rubber (lame), there are rules (WTF), and you've just spent money that could have been better spent on drugs.

      The cock has spoken

    2. Re:Hey now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that just depends on how much you're willing to pay.

      Of course, in that case, it's money that could have been better spent building a nightclub to supply you with drugged up "friends".

    3. Re:Hey now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is less like going to a prostitute and more like masturbating to internet porn. The end result is the same (orgasm), but the process is not nearly as enjoyable.

      I eat whatever I kill, but most of the joy in hunting, for me anyway, comes from getting out there in the woods, tracking the animal, and setting up for a well-placed shot without alerting the animal to my presence. Logging on to a computer, panning a gun on a remote turret and clicking the mouse to kill a living thing feels wrong in just about every way.

    4. Re:Hey now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drone operators are doing this in war zones about every day.

  58. Hunters with Disabilities? by Icarus1919 · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who is disabled and wheelchair bound. He took me out to a gun range for my first time last Saturday.

    This is so patronizing to people who have disabilities that I cannot imagine how much this would piss him off. People with disabilities don't need this kind of help to go hunting; they can do just fine on their own.

    Any REAL hunter, too, would be pissed off by this. This isn't hunting, this is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. All you're doing is waiting for an animal to pass in front of the camera. Christ, I am so disgusted by this.

  59. animal orphanages? by DrJimbo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    They could also have the meat processed and shipped home, or donated to animal orphanages.

    Say what!? Is this so the animal orphans can eat their own parents?

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:animal orphanages? by tazanator · · Score: 1

      no but a zoo tiger MIGHT enjoy it.

      --
      I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
  60. Re:Gmail invites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know putting your mouse over the link and reading the url is very difficult, its ok.

  61. Hunting and stupidy people by agoliveira · · Score: 1

    I know I'll be bashed like hell for this but I can't help refrain myself.
    Hunting, unless for food (and I mean survival here), is coward and stupid. The hunter must feels very macho shooting a deer with a rifle. What about go hunt a grizly bear bare handed?
    Using the web to "hunt" is a even lower blow. You can be not only a coward but an anonymous one.

    --
    Scientia est Potentia
    1. Re:Hunting and stupidy people by Mskpath3 · · Score: 1
      Have you ever eaten a hamburger, pork chops, or a chicken breast?

      If so, you don't have a leg to stand on. Hunting has preciously little to do with 'macho'.

    2. Re:Hunting and stupidy people by electronkz · · Score: 1

      If you go out fishing/hunting then the last thing you can do to respect the animal is eat it, seriously, killing for no reason is just plain stupid, unless you hunt bugs. ;)

    3. Re:Hunting and stupidy people by agoliveira · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about wild animals not farm animals which are created and correctly put down for food only.

      --
      Scientia est Potentia
    4. Re:Hunting and stupidy people by stanmann · · Score: 1

      PETA doesn't care. Why do you? We are the most dangerous predator on the planet.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  62. Now THIS is an idea... by darnok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...that can only end in tears.

    Possible scenarios that occured to me within first 30 seconds:
    - Internet hunter shoots animal, some human goes out to retrieve it. Oooh, what will the next hunter that gets online fire a shot at?
    - "something goes wrong" and the system becomes unreliable. Who's going to onsite to fix the thing, while it's playing up?
    - it's all a big con, and when you think you're "hunting" you're actually watching a carefully prepared film
    - parachute one of these things into Fallujah, then auction off rights to "The Real Deathmarch 2004, with added reality"

    Anyone care to round out a top 10 list? I would, but I'm at work, about to walk into a meeting and wishing I had one of these with me right about now...

    1. Re:Now THIS is an idea... by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      From site:

      "A paid membership will allow for access to the range viewing camera(s) at any time. Members can then schedule a reserved session time which allows exclusive control of the shooting system to fire at a choice of various reactive targets."

      "At all times during a shooting session, someone is at the shooting station and is available to answer questions (e-mail, instant messaging), provide assistance, and ensure a quality experience. This person has the ability to override the firing mechanism of the system to minimize the chance of a dangerous or illegal discharge from occurring."

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  63. An advanced society.... by raehl · · Score: 4, Funny

    An advanced society makes accomodations for its disabled members, which is why prostitution should be legalized immediately.

    1. Re:An advanced society.... by MoggyMania · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the disabled guys I know have very little problem getting laid (or finding long-term mates); I'm a disabled woman and I certainly haven't found it a problem... Considering this is a site full of *non-disabled* guys that can't manage to get laid, I rather think legalizing prositution would be far more to your advantage than theirs.

    2. Re:An advanced society.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a larger sense, I see this as one of the flaws of advanced society. It may seem harsh, but making accomodations for those with disabilities allows them to procreate, thus limiting evolution. Genetic material is meant to be destroyed/curtailed.

      Posting anonymously so as to not be noted as the one advocating the death of the disabled.

    3. Re:An advanced society.... by mog007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To quote Dictionary.com:

      Disabled (Adjective).

      Second definition:

      Impaired, as in physical functioning: a disabled veteran; disabled children.

      I'd call sex a physical function, and I'd call geeks impaired in their ability to get some sex. Due to means that are usually beyond the control of said geeks.

    4. Re:An advanced society.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a disabled woman and I certainly haven't found it a problem...

      Uh, duh, you're a woman. Disabled, retarded, infected, stolen, whatever. Men don't care.

    5. Re:An advanced society.... by EvilStein · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hate to tell you, but I don't know one single woman that has EVER had ANY problem getting laid.

      Getting laid by Mr. Hottie, maybe... but never any problem getting laid. :P

    6. Re:An advanced society.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh, we're disabled all right. Just not in the classical way you see.

    7. Re:An advanced society.... by marvinalone · · Score: 2, Funny
      I hate to tell you, but I don't know one single woman that has EVER had ANY problem getting laid.


      You know, if you want to say something, just say it ;-)
    8. Re:An advanced society.... by skinfitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I concur. In my experience I've spoken to women about this and their biggest complaint? Getting too much attention from men they don't like.

      All the time in my head I'm thinking... "But... you just have to not say 'no' and you get laid..."

      They just don't understand our pain.

    9. Re:An advanced society.... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      We all know who you are. Your IP is 127.0.0.1 Don't think we don't have our eye on you.

    10. Re:An advanced society.... by djupedal · · Score: 2, Funny

      So is it that you don't know any married women, or you just decided to exclude them from your test samples?

    11. Re:An advanced society.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most of the disabled guys I know have very little problem getting laid

      We know, I think we've all seen that South Park episode.

    12. Re:An advanced society.... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      I agree.....even the teenage ones don't understand....even though they would have the same level of hormones as me I would have thought.

      They don't understand why we have a problem with being hit in the balls, too.

      To sum it all up: we don't understand them, and they don't understand us. They are ahead though, because they always know what we are aiming to do ;)

    13. Re:An advanced society.... by hashwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Disability comes as a result of being impaired. Whilst it is true that when speaking of disabled persons most people think about physical/mental impairments these are not the only kinds of impairments that can exist.

      I for one am socially impaired.

      I do go to a shrink and do all effort to get better and I can assure you it is a 'painful' and difficult process. The real problem with my life as a socially impaired person is that people fail to recognize my abilities and capabilties... they only see my DISABILITY.

      So, even though I don't move around in a wheelchair and talk through a voice sythesizer I am still disabled in today's society. As a rule of thumb, if you're not considered normal you're disabled in one way or another.

      [And yes, I have mucho problems getting close to anybody and never managed to find a long term mate because of my strange character. Please note that I did not choose my character by any deliberate decision; it's a result of a lot of factors that are/were beyond of my control]

      --
      - "They misunderestimated me."
    14. Re:An advanced society.... by Sabriel · · Score: 1
      In a larger sense, I see this as one of the flaws of advanced society. It may seem harsh, but making accomodations for those with disabilities allows them to procreate, thus limiting evolution.

      We have reached the point where we can (acquire the ability to) direct our future evolution.

      Some disabilities have advantageous consequences, and this occurs on a scale both small and large in various species including our own.

      A disability in one society/environment can be an advantage in another (and vice versa).

      Gandalf knew what he was talking about.

    15. Re:An advanced society.... by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      Never mind advanced societies; humans have never behaved in the manner implied by the grandparent post. Care for injured group members goes back to before we were recognizably human. Of course, we can be quite vicious when dealing with humans outside the group.

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    16. Re:An advanced society.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > So is it that you don't know any married women

      He didn't say anything that would exclude adultery.

    17. Re:An advanced society.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Posting anonymously so as to not be noted as the one advocating the death of the disabled.

      Free speech, brother! Don't hide the opinion it is your right to hold!

      Kill 'em all! Clean up the gene pool. Step two involves "Ark B."

    18. Re:An advanced society.... by tepples · · Score: 1

      I for one am socially impaired. I do go to a shrink and do all effort to get better

      Are you officially diagnosed? It could be Asperger Syndrome.

    19. Re:An advanced society.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I concur. In my experience I've spoken to women about this and their biggest complaint? Getting too much attention from men they don't like.


      Well, after getting divorced (married for fourteen years, no kids), I have to say for me at least it got much easier. It's actually pretty hilarious when women turn 30 and don't have a mate. You have a small percentage who really don't care, and the majority who go into crisis mode. Suddenly they are "attainable." Then you get to factor in that while your hormone levels are levelling off and then dropping (thus giving you the ability to think with the proper head), theirs are skyrocketing. The cold analytic shoe is on the other foot now.

      Couple that with the fact that most of your 30 to 40 something male competition does NOTHING to keep themselves in shape, and things are looking good. Throw in a college education and a decent income and you're home free, even for an average looking guy. You can even get picky! I do not date anybody with less than a bachelor's who makes less than I do.

    20. Re:An advanced society.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, you totally missed the point. It's not about degrees or salary. It's about tits and ass. Try looking for a hot looking girl with nice tits and a nice ass.

    21. Re:An advanced society.... by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1
      I'd call sex a physical function, and I'd call geeks impaired in their ability to get some sex. Due to means that are usually beyond the control of said geeks.


      Bathing regularly, brushing your teeth regularly, emerging from the parent's basement only once a month, and not eating 10 twinkies in one sitting is far from what can be considered a physical disability.

    22. Re:An advanced society.... by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      Considering this is a site full of *non-disabled* guys that can't manage to get laid,

      I think that was the point... Their disability is a social one, and partly self-inflicted.

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
    23. Re:An advanced society.... by ffub · · Score: 1

      Well, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own premises is up to them. Hence why prostitution is legal in most of Europe, where Librarlism still carries it's original meaning, not the one America seems to attribute it (which is, economically the complete opposite.

    24. Re:An advanced society.... by alnjmshntr · · Score: 1

      Oh, I thought the grandparent was referring to /.ers social disability.

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
  64. Internet Drive-By by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

    Building on this idea, I hereby patent the remote control internet drive-by.

  65. It's a little weird by insensitive+claude · · Score: 1

    But I wouldn't call it cruelty. It's still shooting wild animals, which is a damn sight better for the animal than living in a factory farm and being "harvested" with a hammer.

    I'm certain that the carcass will not be tossed out either. So why is this so bad?

    1. Re:It's a little weird by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the 'hunter' with disabilities will shoot the beast in the leg, then in the stomach (barely) and with a little luck, will kill it within an hour or two of intense shooting (exagerating here, but you get the point).

    2. Re:It's a little weird by insensitive+claude · · Score: 1

      Possible, I guess, but according to the live-shot.com website, the place is manned during operating hours. There are targets (or dead game), ammo, misfires and other issues to be dealt with.

  66. Disabled by dedeman · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I hate to be in the crosshairs (no pun intended) of disabled friendly computer usage advocates, but does this really qualify? I like to play guitar, but I realize that if I had both my hands blown off (like some guys in Iraq have had), this would probably render a "hobby" of mine impossible. If the "disabled" really want to hunt, buy a motorized wheel chair with mags, drape it with camo, and go to town. You could even install drink holders and a wifi connection.

    While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities.

    I don't agree with this statement at all. Just because the "disabled" want to do something, doesn't mean that it has to be made able for the disabled to do. I would love to be the target of attraction for many chicks on campus (like your average slashdotter), but for some reasons (like your average slashdotter), I won't be. C'est la vie, that is my lot in life. Also, just because it would give the disabled some sort of perceived benefit, does not necessarily gives it merit. It's sort of like saying "It's for the children", when trying to argue the inherent good of something.
    1. Re:Disabled by magefile · · Score: 1

      It is stupid, and actually, there is a relatively large disabled population that hunts. I'm not part of it, but I've met some folks who are.

  67. The site is www.live-shot.com by insane66 · · Score: 4, Informative

    the website www.live-shot.com

    From the "how it works" page:

    LIVE-SHOT is similar to a trip to the rifle range with one very notable exception. Everything is done through a computer and the internet. A paid membership will allow for access to the range viewing camera(s) at any time.

    interesting...

    looks like when hunting goes live you can hunt
    Aoudad (Barbary Sheep), Blackbuck Antelope, A wide variety of sheep, Wild Hog, and Other antlered species like axis, fallow, and red stag will be available on a limited basis.

    --
    DOH! We shouldn't have patched the reactor with duct tape!!
  68. There's just something wrong with these people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.'

    What kind of sick bastard says "Oh, look how beautiful that living creature is. Let's kill it!!"? I can understand killing an animal for food, but just for the pleasure of killing it?

  69. Only $5.95!!! by zerdood · · Score: 0

    This costs $5.95 for a round of shooting! That's about an hour's pay for burger flippers. I figured it would cost an exorbitant amount, and I really wish it did. Any sick 8-year-old can lie their parents into thinking this is a cool online game, bum $5.95 off them, and shoot deer from the safety and comfort of their own living room. WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?

    --
    My sig would have been a lot cooler if /. didn't filter out HTML tags 0.o
    1. Re:Only $5.95!!! by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      thats for 10 rounds, in 20 minutes, on top of the $15/month membership fee.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
  70. Excellent by Sinner · · Score: 1

    Finally, hunters can masturbate over their kills without the risk of children seeing! Score one for family values!

    --
    fish and pipes
  71. ISMT.... by ZiakII · · Score: 1

    In the USMC we have a the ISMT... which stnads for Indoor Simulated Marksmenship Training, its actually very close to the real thing, they have it for all the weapons m16,m203,50 cal, saw, etc. the weapons give real recoil to an extent and it definally helps you improve your skill without the cost of amunation or the dangers of it, I think anything like that is really a good idea because you can used to firing a weapon without ever firing a real one, which is alot safer.

  72. Rip off of Futurama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember one episode where Bender jacks on and appears inside the golf game. It feels like this guy got the idea from this ep!

  73. Wrong link! by DeVilla · · Score: 1

    You have the link to CNN. Where's the link to this guys site? That's darn irritating. CNN didn't link to the site either! It's that sort of thing that makes my trigg^H^H^H^H^Hmouse finger itch.

    1. Re:Wrong link! by darnok · · Score: 1

      www.live-shot.com

      Note: you get to shoot at real live SHEEP!!!

      Anyone who's a subscriber and has actual pics of this thing in action, HAS to post some pic links

  74. Hoax? by waldoj · · Score: 1

    This has "HOAX" written all over it. It's classic culture jamming.

    It's just like the stories about hunting nude women with paintball markers, Arm the Homeless, and Stu Magazine. I'd say odds are excellent that this is somebody pulling one over, quite cleverly and effectively, on the media.

    See Sniggle.Net's News Trolls page for more information about the long, hilarious history of news trolling in the United States.

    -Waldo Jaquith

  75. How long before the Hoax sites appear ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the power of modern-day computers with rendering lifelike images, how long before have sites with virtual landscapes using virtual weapons to shoot virtual animals ?

    After all, how can you tell if it is real if you aren't there ?

    Of course the dent in your mastercard would be real ;-)

  76. Re:Gmail invites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Naa... he just thinks that the first AC is using an exploit to make it look like a gmail invite link.

  77. What happens when a human gets shot by syousef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's going to be possible for off site hunting accidents and off site manslaughter.

    How about making it illegal to operate a weapon remotely for anything but military purposes? The further you remove a person from the carnage the more it seems like a game, and the less thought and respect for life you're likely to see.

    There are real consequences to this hunting. Animals die. You wouldn't pilot an aircraft with real people in it by remote control via a flight sim or camera setup.

    Sorry if my thoughts are a little scattered.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dude. All I have to say is that we do pilot aircraft remotely. Fly-by wire bypasses.

      Making it illegal to operate a weapon remotely for anything but military purposes might be a good idea in theory, but you'll have the same trouble that we did with the assult weapon ban. It's absolutely uselss. I say, embrace this next step and deal with it. Banning it will only make it more popular.

    2. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by syousef · · Score: 1

      Dude. All I have to say is that we do pilot aircraft remotely. Fly-by wire bypasses.

      And do you let anyone do this over the net for a couple of hundred bucks?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by rkuris · · Score: 1
      Come on, this runs on Windows... nothing can go wrong!

      Blue screen of WHAT?

      --
      Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
    4. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I could rent my plane to Internet piolts for $200/hour I'd sure as hell let them fly it. I'd also limit their flight vector, just as the hunting site limits your shot vector. I don't know why you think this is more dangerous than letting any bozo with $49.99 take a flying lesson, where it would be much, much easier to override the control structure (unsuspecting human as opposed to computer system designed for flight security and physically secured) and do whatever they want with the plane.

    5. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What makes this any different than someone performing open-heart surgery over the Internet?

      Other than the fact that nobody is going to be intentionally in front of the gun, whereas people will be intentionally under the scalpel, that is. Don't tell me liability - people's records will be on file, so if someone gets shot, the culprit will be known.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by morie · · Score: 1

      People performing open heart surgery are less likely to treat is as a game than internethunters?

      How many First Person Open Heart surgery games have you seen? How likely is it that anyone else then a certified surgeon would have acces tot remote surgery?

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    7. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by kabocox · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't pilot an aircraft with real people in it by remote control via a flight sim or camera setup.

      Why not? I think it would make more sense. The home life of those pilots more regular. All they'd have to do is drive to the control center and then do their thing. Actually, if you combine this with in flight auto pilot you really just need a pilot for take offs and landings. (I know you really don't need pilots for that, but I'm thinking of the cost. I don't know how much those systems cost, I know it would be practical for them to fly remotely via cameras.

    8. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by narl · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't pilot an aircraft with real people in it by remote control via a flight sim or camera setup.

      As a matter of fact, I believe people are already talking about taking the pilots out of both cargo and passenger jets.

    9. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Does that mean we can pay them less. It sure would help the industry out.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    10. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by syousef · · Score: 1

      Put it this way. Would you trust the same people who drive you around to be as careful if their own lives weren't on the line? Would you trust the technology and the driver if your mate offered to drive you home by remote?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    11. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your relationships have been on ICQ haven't they? You don't understand the importance of physical presence, and couldn't get laid to save your life.

    12. Re:What happens when a human gets shot by Kenneth · · Score: 1
      It's going to be possible for off site hunting accidents and off site manslaughter.

      Go to
      www.live-shot.com to see how it actually works.

      1. It isn't a case of whoever clicks in can shoot. You must register and pay, then schedule a time.
      2. During any scheduled shooting a human is present to answer questions, maintain the firearm, and assure safety


      It is pretty safe. Kind of dumb but rather safe.

      There are real consequences to this hunting. Animals die.

      Well, it isn't hunting yet, and I seriously doubt that it will be. From the sample video, it will be far too difficult to aim quickly given the motorized setup. Add that to serious network lag, no matter how fast the connection, and actually killing an animal becomes infeasable. Brutally murdering a paper target on the other hand...

      You wouldn't pilot an aircraft with real people in it by remote control via a flight sim or camera setup.
      If there were a real pilot in the seat to take over should something go wrong it wouldn't be so bad. Right now most commercial airliners are 'flown' by computer with the pilot only taking over for some takeoffs and landings, and when something goes wrong, and I trust a remote control system far more than I trust a computer, and should something go wrong, and there is no pilot (say he dies for example), a remote control system is infinitly superior to NO autopilot and NO pilot.
      --
      There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
  78. Is anyone else thinking... by agendi · · Score: 1
    squads of kids playing harmless online flash games like the "shoot the target" only to discover an Ender-esque ending?

    --
    I just can't be bothered.
    1. Re:Is anyone else thinking... by magefile · · Score: 1

      This happened in modified form in an episode of DS9.

  79. STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cripples should have the same right to hunt for food as the rest of us do.

    1. Re:STFU by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      So I assume they will have the deer carcass sent to them?

    2. Re:STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're willing to pay the $10 minimum for delivery I don't see any problem with that.

  80. Can you say "aimbot"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait until someone writes an UNREAL style aimbot for this!

  81. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because how could they live a full life with out hunting. Damb there are more important problems. You Americans love your killing.

  82. Oregon Trail by compwiz3688 · · Score: 1

    Naa... you just can't transfer more than 100 pounds of deer meat over the Internet.

  83. Worst summary ever... by dpdawson · · Score: 1

    His site is here in case anyone was wondering.

  84. Redneck philosophy in a nutshell. by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 5, Funny
    "If you just had a gun for that."

    A more concise summary of the essence of redneckhood may never have been spoken. Truly a quote for the ages.

    --

    Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
    1. Re:Redneck philosophy in a nutshell. by bgeer · · Score: 0, Troll
      "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.
      I think that's what most people call "having a stroke". I'm just glad the dems didn't take over the senate, or DiFi would be holding hearings on deadly assault webcams by friday.
  85. If you don't think THIS is a sport... by raehl · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just wait until someone writes an aimbot.

    1. Re:If you don't think THIS is a sport... by nuclear305 · · Score: 1

      "Just wait until someone writes an aimbot."

      Next thing you know the guy will put the platform on tracks/wheels for mobility, and slap a TX-01 (*cough* TeXas *cough*) label on it :)

    2. Re:If you don't think THIS is a sport... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..I just hope it doesn't run windows. It could bring a whole new meaning to MS blaster.

      NextGen Malware. I can see it now....

  86. New INS System? by Doomsdaisy · · Score: 1

    How long before someone in the US gov't proposes this kind of system to help control the southern border? :)

    --
    These are breasts; this is source code.
    Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?
    1. Re:New INS System? by cranos · · Score: 1

      These are breasts; this is source code. Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?

      I have no problem so long as both are freely available for community inspection

    2. Re:New INS System? by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      About time something was done. George W.'s
      "war on terror" is a TOTAL JOKE, considering
      the USA's unsecured borders and seaports. I
      came to the conclusion long ago that Bush's
      "war on terror" was little more than a pretext
      for the invasion of Iraq (long term OIL
      CONTRACTS for USA energy companies) instead of
      a battle against the bad guys who brought us
      9-11-2001. More illegal aliens cross the USA's
      borders today than before 9-11 (, often with
      the following refrain when caught "I'm here for
      my amnesty."). Recently, a Pakistani woman with
      links to al-Qaeda was caught at the Midlands, TX,
      airport with wet clothing and traveling on a
      South African passport. She had swam across the
      USA's southern border, and got caught only
      because she decided to fly to NYC from there
      instead of taking a Greyhound bus (or arranging
      private transportation).

  87. Murder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if the guy goes out to get the deer and forgets to turn off the Internet rifle, and you find yourself at the site with an opportunity to shoot him in the ass, would that be murder?

    1. Re:Murder? by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      You HAVE to ASK?

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    2. Re:Murder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You HAVE to ASK?

      So the answer is no, then? :-)

    3. Re:Murder? by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      Look I know you get a craving for the hitting Ctrl and Shift+Direction every once in a while but please keep it to the games.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  88. Wake me up when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the crippled hunter shooting game is online.

  89. Nobody's going to hit anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the video camera isn't even looking thru the gun's scope.

  90. Re:Oooh I see even more marketing opportunities he by krumms · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shoot the rabbit and WIN AN IPOD!!!

    For some reason I read that as "Shoot the rabbit and WIN POO".

    I'm glad I was wrong.

  91. Re:Gmail invites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what exploit? mousing over the link always shows if its fake or not.

  92. Evil plan... by alexandre · · Score: 1

    i think the plan is to have some kid hack the site, kill someone because of that, and then arrest all hacker as being internet-warfare-terrorist-WMD-buzzword-compliant!

  93. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike real life, in this scenario the rabbit doesn't have the opportunity to fire back. Even if it did, it wouldn't harm the person firing the weapon. Just something to think about.

  94. The lure of hunting? by Ghostgate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not intending to troll, but I don't get the lure of hunting at all. The animals stand no chance. The hardest part is finding something - after that, if you have reasonable aim, you will surely kill it. I think all hunters should have to fight the animals with hand-to-hand combat. Give the animal a chance to do some damage in return.

    Oh, and hunters should have to always make use of the meat/hides/fur/whatever in some way. I mean if you're going to run around in the woods and pick off mostly defenseless animals with rifles, at least make some use of them, eh? Otherwise it's just a waste.

    With this new system though, you don't even have to go out in the woods and find an animal. You just wait for one to appear on your monitor. And you don't have to have great aim, really... you just click. That's not hunting, it's pointless slaughter.

    1. Re:The lure of hunting? by ComputerSherpa · · Score: 1

      Ever try fighting a deer hand-to-hand? Never in a million years will you make a kill, because deer are very fast and they have very good ears. Same goes for most of the other stuff you'll be hunting.

      --
      Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
    2. Re:The lure of hunting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, isn't it obvious?

      Dinner.

    3. Re:The lure of hunting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's not hunting, it's pointless slaughter. "
      No... it's point and slaughter!

    4. Re:The lure of hunting? by tazanator · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well I don't care for the Webcam rifle, but having shot my first deer Tue. I can say it took 3 days to find one to shoot, and out of a herd of 7 I only hit 1, they run fast and move quick (My shot was while the deer was at a full run so about 15-20 MPH and they bound so about 4 feet up and down movement at the sametime) so a sure shot is never garented. I can also answer yes all the meat is going in my freezer (100 lbs and it cost $100 after lic. ($24) ammo ($5) and butcher($70). Grain feed beef is going for $2 a pound so I saved some money there. The hide is being taned for a new chair cover for my desk and yes the meat tastes good. Many butchers in the area have deals made with tanners to supply the hides for use in leather wallets, watch bands etc... besides there have been attacks where the deer wins... http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2004/11/12 /local.20041112-sbt-MARS-B6-Bowhunter_reports_at.s to "NORTH VERNON, Ind. (AP) -- A 69-year-old bowhunter was treated for injuries he said he suffered during a wrestling match with an angry deer."

      --
      I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
    5. Re:The lure of hunting? by alSeen · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not intending to troll, but I don't get the lure of hunting at all. The animals stand no chance.

      Part of it is cheaper meat.

      Hunters also serve the purpose of keeping the populations under control.

      In South Dakota for the past three years, there has been lower than average rainfall resulting in less food for the wildlife. The deer population was also expanding too fast. If hunters weren't around to thin out the populations, then wasting disease would have spread through the deer herds.

      The money from hunting licenses goes directly to environmental programs that keep the hunting land in good shape.

      Most hunters care more for the environment than any non-hunter you will meet, including PETA and Earth First members.

    6. Re:The lure of hunting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think all hunters should have to fight the animals with hand-to-hand combat.


      I think all dumbasses commenting on something which they obviously know nothing about should have to fight the hunters hand to hand before running their mouths. At least in my neck of the country most of you idiots would be toast.

      So, you kick the hunter's ass, and then (s)he has to hunt using hand-to-hand techniques.

      What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

  95. Shoot rednecks in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would gladly pay $200 to kill a redneck from my computer!

  96. No brainer by rikomatic · · Score: 1

    Live Ammo + Internet = Recipe for disaster. Yet another case where the law has to catch up to the cutting edge technology combined with stupid ideas that people come up with.

  97. Slashdotting a rifle.... by NerveGas · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see it now. Site gets mentioned on slashdot. Within a half of an hour,all ammo stores are completely spent, with the rifle barrels glowing red-hot and sagging toward the ground. The entire area is covered in a light grey smoke, and police are showing up after receiving reports of automatic weapon fire.

    It gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a slashdotting "melting down" the victim.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  98. wondering by tofupup · · Score: 1

    i saw this and thought:
    1. how are they going to pick up the dead animals. because if they don't it would be a waste.
    2. animals aren't dumb after a while wouldn't they
    just avoid said area?
    3. how is different from say a video game and how would you know you are not getting scammed with niffy computer editing?

  99. Ping! by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    Ping!
    I mean, pling!

  100. The first reality FPS!!!! by LOTHAR,+of+the+Hill · · Score: 1

    Need I say more?

  101. This is discusting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're going to do it on the computer, why not just play a hunting game instead of shooting actual animals? It realy sickens me that there are people who can't enjoy themselves without hurting an animal.

  102. Christmas Lights/Webcam still gun-free by xmas2003 · · Score: 1

    I don't want to takes side in the gun-debate, but will point out there are no plans to add "shooting" (except for pictures) to the Christmas Lights Webcam

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:Christmas Lights/Webcam still gun-free by keeleysam · · Score: 1

      Awwww man.... I wanted to shoot paitballs at your house! that would be cool lol

      --
      Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
  103. Re:Oooh I see even more marketing opportunities he by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

    Hey, I just got here. Did someone say something about winning poo? If so, I'm in like Flynn.

    --
    My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
  104. audio? by arbi · · Score: 1

    Wonder if it comes with audio so you can hear the gun fire and the deer mumble "you fucking lagger!".

  105. Attendants by Decimal · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    He said an attendant would retrieve shot animals for the shooters, who could have the heads preserved by a taxidermist.

    I'd hate to be an attendant when some net hunter wanders away from the computer, and his young son, thinking it just a video game, takes a second shot.

    --

    Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  106. Hunters with disabilities ? by Magickcat · · Score: 1

    If they're so disabled that they can't shoot a wild pig or a deer themselves, maybe they need to get themselves in front of the cross hairs too. Either that, or just forget it. Fucking pathetic.

    --

    Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

  107. .22 Caliber, huh? by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the article:
    he Web site already offers target practice with a .22 caliber rifle and could soon let hunters shoot at deer, antelope and wild pigs.

    Do they realistically expect people to be able to kill a deer with a .22? You'd need to hit it at least half a dozen times and hope it bleeds to death before it runs out of the camera's view.

    ...That is, if you're the kind of person who likes watching deer bleed to death. ;-O

    1. Re:.22 Caliber, huh? by eric_brissette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Luckily it takes a lot less to make a paper target bleed to death.

      But even if they used a much larger rifle for hunting actual animals, I still don't see this doing well.

      It's common that you actually have to track the deer after you shoot it, even with a good hunting rifle like a 7mm magnum and getting it straight through the chest, the deer can get up and hop away. Then you have to follow blood splotches and bone chunks until you find your deer.

      Besides, this doesn't sound very sportsman-like. Might as well go play duck-hunt and buy yourself some meat at the butcher.

    2. Re:.22 Caliber, huh? by Tyndmyr · · Score: 1

      Actually, at one time it was quite common to hunt deer with a .22, which is highly effective. However, if, like some people, you have difficulty hitting the deer, let alone placing a shot, you'll end up with the colander scenario... Not like its not possible to cripple an animal using a large weapon, either...and Im sure they can swap out weaponry attached to the cam. Rednecks like guns, but they do like big guns more.

      --
      Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
    3. Re:.22 Caliber, huh? by BeEfHokie · · Score: 1

      If you have halfway decent aim, a .22 is fine for deer. I kill them all the time with a .22 on my grandfather's farm. The deer population in WV has gotten so out of control they run amok everywhere eating farmer's crops up. They also just hang along roadsides eating the various plants growing along the roadway, instant car collision waiting to happen that's possibly fatal for the drivers/passengers.

      I'm a hunter and outdoors-ie type of person, but I don't agree with mindless slaughter. However, I agree even less with letting a consumer organism grow out of control until they consume their entire food supply in the region (which is currently happening). So, shoot them (responsibly , not to extinction) and get it over with, or let them breed themselves out of a food supply and starve to death, destroying crops and becoming a very costly nuiscence?

      7mm magnum is what my father and I have both used to kill deer with while hunting. With a hollow point and a magnum load of gunpowder, all you pretty much need to do is hit the front half of the deer ;) It might not kill it instantly but it's not going anywhere.

    4. Re:.22 Caliber, huh? by trongey · · Score: 1

      >...I agree even less with letting a consumer organism grow out of control until they consume their entire food supply in the region (which is currently happening). So, shoot them (responsibly , not to extinction) and get it over with...

      You are referring to humans there aren't you? I have to disagree with the part about not driving them to extinction though.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    5. Re:.22 Caliber, huh? by BeEfHokie · · Score: 1

      Actually I was referring to deer, thanks for sarcasm though. Farm areas in places with high deer population see them as nothing more than another destructive organism like a they would a weed or disease in their crop. So instead of having more deer than what there are acorns, clover, fungus, etc. and having them starve and/or eating farmers' crops, control the population with hunting. And while humans are consumers like everything else, I think the difference is we aren't going to run out of food anytime soon, at least not in NA. See Africa, specifically Somalia in the 90's for reference to starvation.

    6. Re:.22 Caliber, huh? by trongey · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I've seen the same problems near my in-laws' home in central Texas. We saw one old tick-covered deer lying beside the road dying in a high-end neighborhood where several herds of 15-20 deer lie around on people's lawns. Very disturbing conditions.

      I still think human extinction is a great plan though.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  108. Re: Lazy Shooting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am all for proposing that anyone caught executing animals with a remote control device be placed in protective custody pending psychiatric treatment. It's one thing to go out into the wilderness and track and hunt, but to execute animals in cold-blood via remote control requires a psychopath that should be removed from society.

  109. Stamp of Approval by eomnimedia · · Score: 1

    Merge this concept with a virtual Post Office and you'll have a winner!

  110. Someone remind him.... by renjipanicker · · Score: 1

    The dotcom boom went down 3+ years ago.

  111. Obviously biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope I'm not being presumptuous in pointing out that your name indicates your bias towards things bestial. But honestly, you're exploit animals too.

  112. god bless America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you bunch of crazy fucks

  113. marketing ideas... by geovangelist · · Score: 1

    I'm going to market a gunrack that can accomodate a laptop. Then I'll sell bumper stickers that read,

    "They'll have to pry the keyboard from my cold, dead hands!"

  114. I forsee . . . by kai.chan · · Score: 1

    Slashdot + Remote Deer Hunting = Deer Extinction

    1. Re:I forsee . . . by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      Slashdot + Remote Deer Hunting = Deer Extinction

      If this were even close to being true. In Iowa, they can't even make a dent in the deer population with hunting.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  115. sound interesting by torrents · · Score: 1

    until someone who was recovering an animal (and forgets to disable the gun) gets shot by a hacker half way across the world

    --
    Get your torrents...
  116. Kill the wabbit! by MexicanMenace · · Score: 1

    Elmer: Be vewy quiet. I'm trying to win an iPod.

    WABBIT TWACKS!! WABBIT HOLE!!

    (aims rifle over the internet and fires) KILL THE WABBIT! KILL THE WABBIT! KILL THE WABBIT!

    Bugs (via IM): Kill the wabbit?

    Elmer: YO HO HO! YO HO HO! YO HO...

    Bugs (IM'ing): Oh mighty warrior of great fighting stock
    Might I inquire to ask eh... what's up doc?

    Elmer (IM's back): I'm going to kill the wabbit!

    Bugs: O mighty warrior, 'twill be quite a task
    How will you do it, might I inquire to ask?

    E: I will do it with my browser and remote rifle.

    B: Browser and remote rifle?

    E: Browser and remote rifle?

    B: Remote rifle?

    E: Remote rifle!

    B: Remote rifle.

    E: Yes, remote rifle, and I give you a sample!
    (exit Bugs at 168kb/sec)

    E: (spoken) There goes my iPod.

    1. Re:Kill the wabbit! by Soporific · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough this:

      "He don't know me vewy well, DO he?" -- Bugs Bunny

      Is the Slashquote at the bottom of my page.

      ~S

    2. Re:Kill the wabbit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +6, Funny. Where the hell are my mod points?

  117. Re:Gmail invites by Zen+Punk · · Score: 1

    No, I used to think that too. Trolls are always trying new and clever ways to disguise the true nature of the link with mirrors, redirects, and other trickery.

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  118. Think of the possibilities? by eric76 · · Score: 2, Funny

    How many of you city fellas ever get a chance to milk a cow? Or a goat?

    Why not an on-line cow/goat milker?

    And an attendant could collect the milk and send it to you?

    Maybe I'd better be quiet. Microsoft might patent the idea and create a Milk The Cow xbox game. Would it be called Grand Milk Cow?

  119. or as Jeff Foxworthy would say . . . by MexicanMenace · · Score: 1

    If you ever look at a picture of an animal

    and then imagine what it would look like through the scope on your rifle

    you might be a redneck.

  120. Re:Gmail invites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The link is not a redirect. Look at the fucking link yourself before spouting off shit.

  121. I'm wondering... by wessto · · Score: 1

    Who cleans up after you shoot something? Is there a timeout for someone to go bag your deer? Can you have it shipped home or even better, stuffed?

    This also kind of reminds me of a short story I read in high school called the most dangerous game" by Richard Connell. One of my favorites.

  122. A Very interesting (but bad) idea by lydic · · Score: 2, Informative
    "Internet hunting could be popular with disabled hunters unable to get out in the woods or distant hunters who cannot afford a trip to Texas, Underwood said."

    As a 2nd amendment supporter, a NRA life member, an NRA Certified Instructor and Training Counselor, and a Certified Hunter Education Instructor I am neither shy about nor at all against firearms ownership and use. This application of technology however; although enterprising (for someone trying to make a buck) is IMHO just stupid. Remotely firing a real gun (or is it just really good CG) is the ultimate for couch potatoes. Pointing a gun and squeezing the trigger isn't the hard work. Learningto do it with a real gun takes real skill and practice. Clicking a mouse contains none of those skills or challenges.

    As for the quote above - A google search on "disabled hunting resources" yields over 200,000 hits. As a disabled (visually impaired) hunter myself, I can assure Mr. Underwood that most if not every state has resources to help disabled hunters. As an instructor I was given some training on this subject.

    As for hunting in Texas, there are plenty of White Tailed Deer in many states (Here in Ohio the herd estimate is 650,000) and most of the folks I know who spend the money to hunt out of state would much rather opt for an Elk or Moose in one of the western states. It's not about killing something, it's about the total experience, and I don't think a video game cuts it.

    Here's one more dot-com I hope goes bust.


  123. eh... by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 1

    I've always viewed hunting as stupid. I'm not against killing animals or whatever... but getting up at 5AM and setting in a deer stand when its 25 degrees outside, freezing your ass off and not even seeing a deer is a waste of time.

    I'd rather just go buy a burger or something.

    1. Re:eh... by (C)0N0(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's nice that you can just go and 'buy aburger or something.' In some areas (yes in the US) you hunt to eat. I don't, have never hunted, though I fish (usually catch-and-release, but I will eat some of the fish that I catch) and know how to use a bow or firearm if necessary. I live 20 miles from Manhattan, but even fewer miles from the Highlands of New Jersey. I feel that it is a good idea to be able to surivive in the woods.

      --
      The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
  124. Imagine if all 40 million Iraqis were fighting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    From the numbers of fighters claimed to be killed in Fallujah, I'd guess there are at most 10-20,000 anti-American fighters in Iraq.

    And look at all the trouble that small number is causing.

    If all 40 million or so Iraqis (IIRC about the population) took up arms, there'd be no country in the world that could control them.

    Heck, if even 1 in 10 of the males aged 18-40 or so took up arms against the US, it would be impossible to control.

  125. It's What America Needs.. by nate+nice · · Score: 1

    .. More guns and more Jesus.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  126. Remote Hunting....People?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, about the first thing I thought about after I read this is how long is it going to take before there are rifles mounted from windows just outside of public gathering areas connected to private servers. This opens a whole new can of worms if the ability to hunt over the internet is proven effective.

    Quite a scary thought as far as I'm concerned.

  127. Texas? by affliction · · Score: 1

    An enterprising Texan, John Underwood

    Why doesn't it suprise me that this story takes place in Texas.

    But it's ok. Soon all Texan schoolchildren will have RFID tags implanted so there is no chance a crazy redneck will accidently shoot them instead of a ninja deer.

    1. Re:Texas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't it suprise me that this story takes place in Texas.

      Why doesn't it surprise me that you don't have a clue about Texas?

      Most here, like myself, long for a similiar system looking out over our urban highways, so we can shoot these damn transplant yankees before we hit the roads on our way to work.

  128. Guns don't kill people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Armed internet-connection equipped computers kill people!

  129. killing animals is wrong by dj_virto · · Score: 0

    I just want to cast my vote on the side that argues that killing animals and depriving of their lives is wrong, as wrong as it is to kill a person, with all the same complexities as that assertion implies.

    I'm not trying ot get into a fruitless argument on the subject (I won't even be checking for replies) but I couldn't help but say something.

    Though it will be interesting when machine consciousness arrives to see how that shakes up the 'smart enough to matter' debate. Then, hunting robots will perhaps be seen as a surprising irony.

  130. FPS by pagal_paanda · · Score: 0

    aaaahh.... I think this guy needs to screen his customers to make sure that they don't love playing Quake ;-)

  131. if you are opposed to the idea... by howhardcanitbetocrea · · Score: 1

    find the URL of the actual website and post it here. /.ing it should save a couple of days worth of animals.

    --

    President ISES
    (International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
    1. Re:if you are opposed to the idea... by mlk · · Score: 1
      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
  132. Jesusland expartriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woohoo,

    Y'all mean I ain't gotta even done been in Jesusland to done fired a gun?

    Does possum delivery service come wit that?

  133. Re:Gmail invites by Zen+Punk · · Score: 1
    I was merely pointing out that trolls often use this tactic and obfuscate the URLs in ways that are non-obvious.

    I indeed looked at the link after you (I'm assuming you're the one who posted the links) insisted they were genuine. After I found out they were not shock sites, I even posted an apology adn explained myself. Yet you continue to lash out with profanity at anyone who dare suggest that the links were not genuine g-mail invites.

    Given the circumstances, anyone could, and likely would, mistake this for a troll. What is the big deal about?

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  134. A modest proposal by Scurrilous+Knave · · Score: 0

    Let's turn this on its head.

    Combine the Internet hunting stand idea with National Geographic's "CritterCam": Allow only live hunters into the area. Trap deer, fit them with something like a steadicam rig that includes a camera and a wifi-controlled gun, release them into the hunting area, and let them shoot back.

    Now that would be sporting!

  135. Ob Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cattle Hunter

    Now that really is retarded.

  136. DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we please DDOS this clown permanently? What sort of sick piece of crap looks at a "beautiful" animal and goes "man, i wish i could kill that"...

    Take note. THIS is why the world hates you, America.

  137. Re:Gmail invites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big deal is that you are going on a witchhunt against anyone who posts gmail invites without proper evidence that something bad is being posted.

    Now look at the thread you started. Its all becuase of you.

  138. So boring! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole point of hunting is that you track and follow the animal. Hence the term to "hunt down". Here you are aiming a robotic gun at a bunch of poor animals in an enclosure. It's like those stupid games where you have to bring something over something else and click (think http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graph ic1.swf without Bushisms).

  139. Reconstruction. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    The military occupation of the former Confederacy was called "Reconstruction". After the Union's victory, the South was, in fact, divvied up into five military districts, and some of the Confederate states were not readmitted into the USA until 1870.

    See Reconstruction on Wikipedia for more information.

    I have no idea what the heck the original poster was talking about with the other half of his argument, however.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  140. I feel I must say somethign! by joeaggie · · Score: 1

    I'm a hunter in Texas, and I feel incredibly angry that this guy is doing this! Its obviously a highly unethical publicity stunt, in Texas it is a illegal to hunt from automobile much less a computer on the internet, please don't think that we are all nuts like this guy! I also question the article, as it mentions that state wildlilfe officials are "up in arms". I honestly don't think its that big of a deal to them, this guy is a nut-job, there should be no problems whatsoever for accomodating new regulations against taking a shot from a computer. You're also legally required to tag your deer as soon as you can, which means as soon as you find it, I don't see how this could ever be legal. I also don't even see how this has relevance to target practice, there are so many factors when you actually shoot that aren't there if a machine is doing the shooting for your. The only thing I can think is that it might help with learning to cope with wind, but if its only shooting .22LR you are learning the characteristics of a round that its only good for hunting squirrels and rabbit. I'd be interested to see how this guy thinks he's going to make money, there is simply no replacement for time at the gun range, although, I suppose the novelty of it might be enough for him to bring in some revenue.

  141. And taken in context even worse by spoco2 · · Score: 1

    I think it's even worse as it was said:
    "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.

    For crying out loud, who the f*ck looks at something that's beautiful like that and all they want to do is shoot it.

    That's just wrong.

    1. Re:And taken in context even worse by the+way,+what're+you · · Score: 3, Funny

      "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.

      Rarely is the question asked, were the light bulb ever on?

      --
      example.org - powered by Linux!
    2. Re:And taken in context even worse by redhookgroup · · Score: 1

      Usually it is either 'Were the light bulbs ever on?' or 'Was the light bulb ever on?'...

    3. Re:And taken in context even worse by tepples · · Score: 1

      Except in The Crucible.

  142. It is not being used for hunting as of yet by kd5ujz · · Score: 1
    The guy is just allowing people to shoot at paper targets, and there is a control operator there any time the gun is "live".
    here are the guys prices from his site.
    Individual, Membership (30 days) $14.95

    Shooting Session (each) 10 shots - Max 20 minutes $5.95

    DVD recording of session $ 9.95 plus shipping

    Paper target from session $ 2.95 plus shipping

    Here is a mirrored picture of his setup, I have a few gigs of extra transfer. Live Shot Setup
    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  143. I agree by MoggyMania · · Score: 1

    This "online hunting" seems a lot more to me like handing somebody a skateboarding game and claiming that makes up for their inability to use a skateboard designed for somebody with an average body. There's a LOT more to a hobby than just the momentary act.

    If they want to accommodate physical disabilities, that's great. But accommodation does *not* involve separating somebody that's different... I don't want a fake version of reality apart from everybody else as a disabled person, I want to be able to participate with those I know/care about. If I can't find a way to do so, I move on to doing something else we *can* all paricipate in.

  144. Large benefit?! by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities.

    What, exactly, is the large benefit to hunters with disabilities?

    They can now "hunt" without having to deal with the non-ADA-compliant forest? I always thought that being in the forest was half the appeal of hunting in the first place.

    They can once again kill something? I don't regard the thrill of victory as a valid reason for hunting.

    They can once again kill something for food using a robotic weapon and, presumably, getting someone else to drag their prey home and butcher it? Might as well order up a Deluxe Pack from Omaha Steaks.

    Can someone explain what this "large" benefit is?

    1. Re:Large benefit?! by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain what this "large" benefit is?

      Mr. Underwood makes more money? On the list of the bizaar, this one is right up there.

      --
      What?
  145. Use 'em in Iraq! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should set up some of these gun platforms in Fallujah and let geeks from around the world blast terrorists from the comfort of their home computers!

  146. This will NEVER last! by mcknation · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I cannot imagine that this will last longer than a week. I know that this guy has a lot of property, and the range of a .22 is about 3/4 of a mile...however.
    I have one question.
    Who other than Lloyds of London could insure this hair brained scheme? The premiums have to be HUGE!
    I would take a .22 shot to the leg on his property in exchange for all of his land ;-0

    /-McK

    1. Re:This will NEVER last! by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Well, it probably wouldn't be any worse that taking someone who is sight-impared hunting. There will be an attendent with a trigger override present at all times making sure the range is clear, and I'd imagine they have someone standing by to hunt down anything that is wounded and not killed.

  147. Mod Parent Up! by MoggyMania · · Score: 1

    Agreement here... If I had mod points, I'd certainly give one to you.

  148. Someone's gonna die by bigberk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no problem with hunting, nor killing animals (mmmm... lamb!) but this guy's idea is just plain idiotic.

    It's not a good idea because it poses a significant, and unusual, risk to human life and on top of that, it is going to remove the level of immediacy that is required to allocate legal responsibility for an action (i.e. shooting a gun) with a person (Joe Sixpack).

    What if someone is out in the range adjusting some equipment, and the thing that was supposed to disconnect the Internet death trigger malfunctioned... I mean, is he planning on using an OS that is authorized for mission critical / life supporting systems? That won't be Windows or Linux, as you probably know.

    The idea is just flawed. We as Engineers go to a lot of trouble to make systems that are safe for humans. This system poses unnecessary and probably significant risk to humans.

    1. Re:Someone's gonna die by m3j00 · · Score: 0

      Judging from the looks of it, you shouldn't be too worried. There's no reloading mechanism from what I can see, so they probably just load you up, then let you take a shot. It's not exactly quake3 style action just yet. :D

    2. Re:Someone's gonna die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So do rollercoasters, but we see faster, higher, rougher rides all the time. Engineers design systems because they love figuring out how to do it and it pays well. They include safety factors only because of litigation and public demand--safety is almost always an afterthought.

      I don't think a remote gun is a unique idea by itself, but giving it internet access is somewhat intriguing in a morbid way. Technically, it wouldn't seem that difficult. Logistically (scheduling the masses who would want to try this thing) this could be challenging unless he's planning on having 20 - 100 of these things or otherwise charge an outrageous price. $10/shot or 5 minutes for very little capital and maintenance sounds like a nice return. Reasonable safeguards like a pin lock on the pan/tilt base or unplugging and locking the thing seem like satisfactory safety solutions. This isn't any different than maintenance workers who repair large printing presses or other huge and automated factory equipment (they have to lock-out the operation definitively somehow).

    3. Re:Someone's gonna die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mount limiting traverse and elevation and electrical/mechanical safeties are easy to implement and are standard, VERY SIMPLE military technology.

    4. Re:Someone's gonna die by foofy · · Score: 1

      or they could.. you know..

      unload the gun before they walk out in front of it.

    5. Re:Someone's gonna die by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      You unplug it when you work on it.

      There are things other tha working on it that make it dangerous.

    6. Re:Someone's gonna die by willpall · · Score: 1

      Umm... He could unplug it?. The same dangers await the rangemaster at the shooting range. In fact, it is easier here to ensure the saftey of onsite humans as all they need to do is unload the rifle. C'mon, it's not that hard, folks.

      Don't misunderstand me, this idea disturbs me somewhat, but I don't feel the need to trump up safety issues to make an argument against it.

      --
      Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    7. Re:Someone's gonna die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is just flawed. We as Engineers go to a lot of trouble to make systems that are safe for humans. This system poses unnecessary and probably significant risk to humans.

      Yeah, but we're talking about redneck, Bush-voting, gun-toting psychopathic humans.... so this is definitely A Good Thing.

    8. Re:Someone's gonna die by Loether · · Score: 1
      The FAQ's on the site talk about safety - http://www.live-shot.com/faq.shtml

      Why is there someone on site during a session? Several reasons. Foremost is safety. The on site personnel have the same view as you and have the ability to override the firing signal if the firearm is aimed at something not supposed to be shot. A bird flying into the area for example. They are there to answer questions via e-mail, instant messaging, or web cams. They reset the system after each session and will be the primary scorer in competitions. With a human there the whole time to pull the plug I don't think you need to worry about someone getting killed.

      --
      TODO create witty sig.
    9. Re:Someone's gonna die by scayford · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Who wants to be the "assistant" to go retrieve the dead animals? Anyone? Raise your hand. Anyone?

    10. Re:Someone's gonna die by Jason+Ford · · Score: 1

      It's not a good idea because it poses a significant, and unusual, risk to human life

      I agree. And, there's a possibly animals might get hurt, too.

      --
      I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
    11. Re:Someone's gonna die by Kenneth · · Score: 1


      What if someone is out in the range adjusting some equipment, and the thing that was supposed to disconnect the Internet death trigger malfunctioned...


      That mysterious and magical device is known as a human. There is always someone there whenever firing can go on, and I stroungly suspect that the firearm is removed from the device that fires it whenever anything is to be adjusted downrange. In other words the same precautions that are taken on a regular firing range.

      This is not a totally automated device. Someone has to be there to reload, clear jams, oversee the firing mechanism to assure there are no human casualties. It is NOT done with a device, it is done by a human being who is also likely the one going downrange, and will be protecting his own butt.

      Also note that this isn't like a magic 8 ball, or a webcam that you can control. It is something that only one person gets to use at a time. Time on it must be scheduled, and a membership be purchased. It is not by any means a point and shoot situation.

      --
      There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
  149. You Suck - I Posted This Last Night by NoelWeb · · Score: 0

    Nice, thanks moderator-from-hell-from-last-night.

  150. This is an awesome idea. by multiplexo · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The military should figure out how to do this in Fallujah. Build an APC with a bunch of guns on it that could be remotely controlled via the internet. Then they could sell of time slots that would allow people to run around in Fallujah and kill insurgents.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  151. I Shot The Sheriff.... by KhaZ · · Score: 1

    He said an attendant would retrieve shot animals for the shooters, who could have the heads preserved by a taxidermist.


    What happens if you shoot the attendant? :)

    Seriously tho'. Anonymously websurf, steal someone's account, however the hell you break into the security, and just shoot some other person for free.

    This is my own opinion, and sure to be trolled down/flamed, whatever - but I dun't care.

    Personally, this is subjective, but hunting is STUPID. If you're at a level that this appeals to, then YOU are stupid.

    Do you think hunting means man vs nature? Then I hope to God you descend into the wilderness, naked, and use your hands and feet to combat that grizzly you have stuffed over your sofa. THEN I'll be damned proud.

    Hell. If you even assembled your own tools, rather then buy a gun at Walmart, a case of beer, and shoot some poor mother cub while laughing with your buddies, I'll respect you.

    --
    - - - -

    KickingDragon

    1. Re:I Shot The Sheriff.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha, you soo funny, like all 200 other /.er to post the same thing.

      as you are too stupid to look at the website...

      A human operator watches your ever move, and will step in to stop you.

  152. Damn Carpetbaggers! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Damn Califernians er messin' round with good 'ol southern huntin' too. Is this ervenge fer Dubya n' Congriss kickin' thur ass?

  153. Hunters with disabilities by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
    My uncle has no legs and he don't need no stinkin' webcam rifle! He still bags a couple whitetails every year. I think he has a special permit that lets him shoot from his 4-wheeler.

    Is this webcam rifle thing gonna haul the game back to the truck, too?

  154. Disability isn't usually a full-body/brain thing. by MoggyMania · · Score: 1

    Having one kind of impairment doesn't mean the whole body and/or brain doesn't work. What makes you think that having a disablility that makes traversing a forest difficult would have anything to do with aiming a gun, real or virtual?

    Think about it: quads and paras are able to drive motorized wheelchairs and properly-equipped *cars* -- aiming a gun isn't likely to be a problem.

  155. Really? by sbszine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's just the 'grown up' version of pulling the wings off flies; an indulgence of the barbaric side of human nature. I appreciate that you see some kind of spiritual side to it, but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.

    If people want to have a spiritual experience or a team building exercise there are numerous civilised alternatives. If people want to understand where their meat comes from, they should tour some factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses. If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion. If people want to honour animals, they should leave them alive rather than spuriously 'thinning out their numbers', South Park style.

    And yes, I grew up on a farm and have killed things and eaten them. But I was young and stupid then.

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    1. Re:Really? by Piquan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.

      How do you know?

      I mean, do you ask everybody you meet if they're a hunter?

      I have friends who do and don't hunt. There's not a test that I can apply, other than asking "do you hunt?" I expect it's the same with you, unless you have a "hunter seeker" that tells you when you're talking to a hunter. So you have the following sample of the hunting population: (1) people whom you've asked if they hunt, (2) people whom you find out hunt through other means (such as, they mention it in conversation), and (3) pissed idiots that you assume are hunting, or observe hunting.

      I'm going to make a guess here, and assume that you probably don't have a lot of conversations about hunting. So most of your sample is probably from #3. That's a skewed sample.

      I have never knowingly had a conversation with the "pissed idiot" variety of hunter, and I've talked with many hunters. I have seen people getting pissed and blasting away at roadsigns, but I haven't ever known them to be hunting. Just being dangerous idiots.

      I've seen multiple comments mirroring your sentiment in this thread, and I'm surprised. If you walked through a school and saw 98% that were dressed normally, and 2% that were dressed in too-tight white shirts with pocket protectors, would you assume that all computer types are thusly dressed? Or would you consider that perhaps computer types come in different shapes and sizes, and that perhaps there are computer geeks in that 98%? Stereotypes are always dangerous when you try to evaluate a social class.

    2. Re:Really? by jcsehak · · Score: 1

      If people want to honour animals, they should leave them alive rather than spuriously 'thinning out their numbers', South Park style.

      So... we should honor animals by processing them in "factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses?" You don't think they'd rather be running around outside?

      What about the overpopulated deer habitats? We should let the environment get overrun with whitetail for lack of natural predators?

      but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.

      I don't think you know many hunters. The only hunters like that I see are on TV. Granted, I'm sure they exist, but I doubt there are any more stupid hunters than there are stupid vegetarians.

      --

      c-hack.com |
    3. Re:Really? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      I doubt there are any more stupid hunters than there are stupid vegetarians.

      Heh. I was a hunter at one time and I am a vegetarian now. The one thing you'll probably never see vegetarians do is get together on opening morning of the hunting season to knock back a few drinks and then pile into a car with a bunch of lethal weapons (not to mention the car).

      I actually believe that hunting is good for thinning the herd. After all, we an afford to do without so many hunters....

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    4. Re:Really? by jeffChuck · · Score: 1

      "the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere."

      The majority of hunters that you see is probably much different than the majority of hunters. Most true hunters (ie not pissed idiots) spend their hunting time away from where most people in society would see them. It is terribly unlikely that you will have any success hunting if you stick around roads and towns getting drunk all day.

      "If people want to understand where their meat comes from, they should tour some factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses."

      You can't possibly think that it's better to eat meat from corporate farms and slaughterhouses than to hunt. Hunters (again, not the pissed idiot variety) respect nature and will only kill what they need. They are also truly concerned for the suffering of the animal and will ensure that it is killed quickly and that all of it is used for good. The more conscientious hunters will even go so far as to tan the hides and donate them to hospitals, etc. to be used in crafts.

      Now compare this with the typical American farm... animals are kept in cages often too small for them to even turn around. They live terrible lives and are eventually forced into slaughter houses by any means possible, there are terrible stories of disabled cows being dragged by turcks into the slaughterhouse and other atrocities. Once there, they are processed in such a hurry with such terrible standards that we are dying from the bacteria and other garbage that ends up in our meat.

      I personally think that we would be better off if everybody would give up meat, but knowing that this will never happen, I will certainly support somebody who is a civilized hunter over somebody who supports the terrible corporate farms of America and other nations.

      That said, I think that the topic at hand, internet hunting, is disgusting and unacceptable. This will remove the hunter entirely from the situation, causing her to be careless. If you aren't actually there to see the suffering that is caused by taking stupid shots and wounding animals, you woun't have any reason to be careful about what you are doing.

      This is not something that will be used by disabled hunters, they know that this is nothing like hunting. It will instead by used by the lazy and rich version of the pissed idiots mentioned in the parent post.

    5. Re:Really? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      an indulgence of the barbaric side of human nature

      But you admit that it is human nature? What you are trying to say is "I am right, so it must be human nature that is wrong"?

    6. Re:Really? by Eythian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion.

      Your view seems pretty narrow there. Claws and teeth don't always determine what you can or can't kill. All kinds of factors matter. The ability to plan, make and use tools, and so forth. I'd wager a human alone would be better equipped against a lion than a monkey (say) would be. Humans can take trees and turn them into spears, and other things. Intelligence edges us up the food chain, not our claws and teeth.

      As for the rest of your argument, it's tricky to argue with people who imply that anyone who thinks that someone with different ideas to those they now hold is stupid, so I don't think I'll bother.

    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, I grew up on a farm and have killed things and eaten them. But I was young and stupid then.

      Well, at least you're not so young now.

    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a 'T' - T!
      Give me a 'R' - R!
      Give me a 'O' - O!
      Give me a 'L' - L!
      Give me a 'L' - L!

      What's that spell???
      ...
      It's ok, you can take your time.

    9. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion.

      Apparently, you do not believe intellect comes in to play whatsoever. Reguardless to whether you believe hunters are "intelligent," the use of intelligence to develop tools for hunting trumps teeth and claws. The brain is, and always will be, the trump card in the food chain.

      Just because food farms are clinical and "clean" does not make it any different from hunting. You are still killing the animal. Atleast when someone hunts, they need to invest the time and effort to get off their fat ass, get out of the 'burbs and into nature and be able to shoot straight enough to hit something. Slaughter house cows know that when a cow enters a certain building, it never comes out again. Does is suffer on its way up the shoot into the slaughter house? They panic when brought up that specific shoot. An animal being hunted does not know what is coming. If it did, it would flee. And if the hunter is good, the clean kill is painless. There is a lot less suffering going on there.

      Blanket stereotypes are very dangerous and very distasteful. I bet you are one of those bastard spammers who flood the internet with you viagra flotsam. You are the reason Microsoft is poised to create another monopoly, this time using sendmail. You are why I loose e-mail becuase I need my filter set so aggressively and why I cringe everytime I fill out a webform becuase I am uncertain whether my e-mail adress is going to be sold to a Latvian spamhaus. All you tech savy computer users are spamming asses. Just like all hunters are beer swilling rednecks who shoot holes in signs and wall around with their ass cracks showing.

      Hunting is a tradition. It inspires a respect for mother nature and a love of the outdoors. It brings people outside where clean air can fill their lungs and their bodies do not atrophy from sitting in a computer chair all day. When was the last time you went to bed at 9:00 PM to get up while it was still dark outside to go be outdoors?

      If you are a troll, I commend you on your craftsmanship. If you are not, I shun you for your closed-mindedness.

      DISCLAIMER - I do not hunt, have never hunted and have never fired a gun. But I have friends who have and they do not ridicule me for not doing so.

    10. Re:Really? by ukmountie · · Score: 1

      I think you're getting Hunters confused with Rednecks there. The average pissed idiot isn't likely to shoot anything other than another pissed idiot, and that's evolution.

    11. Re:Really? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere

      So you are, what, appealing to stereotype? I don't think I've ever seen that attempted before. Usually the stereotype is the part of the discussion that requires argumentative support, but for you, stereotype=authority.

      And yes, I grew up on a farm and have killed things and eaten them. But I was young and stupid then.

      That you fit your own stereotype is humorous, but does nothing for your argument.

      What your statement would look like if turned to describe other stereotypes (computer geeks, nerds, programmers, etc.), I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

    12. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should have said hunting is the 'grown up' version of killing a fly with a flyswatter, but you still do that don't you? That would not work for your train of thought. Do you eat meat? What about carrots? Do you think it make you a better person to have some one else kill your food for you? You do understand that for you to live something else must die? fruit, meat, vegetables are all alive until they die. Get over it. We are on the top of the food chain for a reason. We use our attributes (brain) better than the other animals.

    13. Re:Really? by ParamonKreel · · Score: 1

      I believe the term you were looking for was "Hunt-Dar".

    14. Re:Really? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Your argument would only apply to illegal hunters. Legal hunters get permits. Permits are issued in numbers designed to control the populations. Not at all 'spurious'. If you left them alive, the deer would strip the forest. Then all the other little critters would die. How nice and noble of you.

    15. Re:Really? by Tassach · · Score: 1
      That said, I think that the topic at hand, internet hunting, is disgusting and unacceptable
      As a hunter I have to agree with your sentiment if not the words. Disgusting? No more so than a dozen other things I can think of. Besides, "disgusting" is a subjective term -- what's "disgusting" to you may not be to someone else. Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, so let's just stick to objective facts, OK?

      Objectively, my main objection to this is safety -- speaking as an engineer, hunter, and shooter, I see no practical way of designing such a system with an acceptable degree of safety. Even the current setup with a low-caliber rifle on an enclosed range with a severely limited range of motion gives me the heebie-jeebies. Remotely-operated weapons have their place: on the battlefield. They don't belong at the target range or on the hunting grounds, and they have absolutely no business whatsoever being hooked up to a publicly-accessible network.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    16. Re:Really? by Piquan · · Score: 1

      I believe the term you were looking for was "Hunt-Dar".

      Yeah, that may have been better, but I just wanted to get in the Alpha Centauri reference. (One of the discoveries was the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm.)

    17. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1

      So... we should honor animals by processing them in "factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses?" You don't think they'd rather be running around outside?

      My personal preference is for them to be running around outside, yes.

      What about the overpopulated deer habitats? We should let the environment get overrun with whitetail for lack of natural predators?

      If it's a land management issue they can be culled by the apropriate authority. Someone with training and an idea of the desired number would be ideal.

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    18. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1

      But you admit that it is human nature? What you are trying to say is "I am right, so it must be human nature that is wrong"?

      It's arguable as to how pointless violent humans 'naturally' are, but in my opinion there seems to be some built in pointless violence there. The question then is which expressions of violence are right (ethical) and which are wrong.

      As part of the social contract we are expected to express our natural sex drive in the form of consensual sex rather than rape. I personally would prefer that our violent instincts be expressed consensually (e.g. through organised martial arts, sports etc) rather than without consent (killing a non-dangerous animal).

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    19. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1

      Your view seems pretty narrow there. Claws and teeth don't always determine what you can or can't kill. All kinds of factors matter.

      Duly noted. Most people just get their food from the shops tho'. I also suspect -- but cannot confirm -- that the original poster buys far more meat than he personally kills. So while I acknowledge that people can kill things if they so choose, I was trying to say that it's not something we have to do in order to eat (which is the case for a lion).

      As for the rest of your argument, it's tricky to argue with people who imply that anyone who thinks that someone with different ideas to those they now hold is stupid, so I don't think I'll bother.

      Oh go on, give it a try. If I flame you you need not dignify me with a response.

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    20. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1

      I'm going to make a guess here, and assume that you probably don't have a lot of conversations about hunting. So most of your sample is probably from #3. That's a skewed sample. [...] Stereotypes are always dangerous when you try to evaluate a social class.

      Your point is well made, but, as you say, what I observe -- combined with what little pseudo-objective information I can glean from the media and advocacy groups -- is all I have to go on. At some point we have to generalise or lapse into solipsism. For example, you haven't met the majority of heroin addicts, but I imagine you would apply generalisation based on your experience plus secondary sources, and decide not to lend a random junkie your guitar. That's a stereotype too, but (in my experience) the people who don't apply it end up at the hock shop buying their shit back.

      At any rate, my points pertaining to the OP's ideas about hunting (rather than my stereotypes about hunters) still seem valid to me.

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    21. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1

      So you are, what, appealing to stereotype? [...] Usually the stereotype is the part of the discussion that requires argumentative support [...]

      The OP defined hunting (and implicitly ascribed attributes consistent with his definition to all hunters). I replied with counterexamples (stereotypical, but counterexamples nonetheless) from my own experience. Symbolically, he wrote 'A x, P(x) -> Q(x)', and I replied 'E x s.t P(x) and ~Q(x)'. Another poster has since pointed out that the hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample.

      I would be interested to hear why my statements (pertaining to a subset of hunters) require a rigorous logical argument but the original post (defining hunting for everyone) does not.

      That you fit your own stereotype is humorous, but does nothing for your argument.

      I made that comment as indemnity against the inevitable bullshit about people who haven't shot a bunny being unable to make an ethical judgement. As you point out, it is irrelevant to the logic of the argument.

      What your statement would look like if turned to describe other stereotypes (computer geeks, nerds, programmers, etc.), I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

      See this comment for my boilerplate reply.

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    22. Re:Really? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1
      I would be interested to hear why my statements (pertaining to a subset of hunters) require a rigorous logical argument but the original post (defining hunting for everyone) does not.

      The OP set out to prove exception to the case of the parent post:
      • Logically sound - There are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity.
      • Logically unsound - No, all hunters are childish barbarians.
      Another poster has since pointed out that the hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample.

      You did point out a counterexample to the suggestion that hunting is a positive and enriching activity (yourself). The problem is that your argument (that hunters are childish barbarians) requires more than simple proof of exception. It would be possible, given the available evidence, to make a value judgement about you personally, but you haven't supported an argument that would reasonably extend that judgement to hunters in general.

      See this comment for my boilerplate reply...For example, you haven't met the majority of heroin addicts, but I imagine you would apply generalisation based on your experience plus secondary sources, and decide not to lend a random junkie your guitar.

      Straw man. Lending guitars != hunters are childish barbarians.
    23. Re:Really? by Eythian · · Score: 1
      Duly noted. Most people just get their food from the shops tho'. I also suspect -- but cannot confirm -- that the original poster buys far more meat than he personally kills. So while I acknowledge that people can kill things if they so choose, I was trying to say that it's not something we have to do in order to eat (which is the case for a lion).

      Sure, that's almost certainly correct, however that doesn't have all that much bearing on the food chain argument. I'd say that if you look at humans as a society, we can eat whatever we choose pretty much, so that puts us at the top of the food chain.

      Oh go on, give it a try. If I flame you you need not dignify me with a response.

      Alright then :)

      I think it's just the 'grown up' version of pulling the wings off flies; an indulgence of the barbaric side of human nature.

      This may be true - but so what? People need outlets. I program computers, or whatever. Other people may go hunting. I don't see that as a bad thing.

      I appreciate that you see some kind of spiritual side to it, but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.

      Don't forget, your sample is self-selecting. The 'proper' hunters don't litter, don't shoot roadsigns, and so on. The ones you see are the ones who bring themselves to your attention by being annoying. Sure, there may be that immature element to it, or the element where the hunting isn't so much the activity as doing it with friends, but this isn't inherently bad, it's the same with virtually any activity.

    24. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1

      Logically sound - There are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity.

      That seems reasonable, but I have yet to see an example of the former. The form is sound (p V q), but none one in this thread has actually used that argument until now. I'm sure there's someone living in a remote area hunting responsibly for the sole purpose of feeding his family, but I'm equally sure that that person is in the tiny minority.

      Logically unsound - No, all hunters are childish barbarians.

      Again, the form is logically sound (p->q), and again, no one has used that specific argument yet. I said that the majority of hunters that I had met (that is, some but not all, right? you can comprehend this basic idea?) exhibited those characteristics IMO.

      You did point out a counterexample to the suggestion that hunting is a positive and enriching activity (yourself). The problem is that your argument (that hunters are childish barbarians) requires more than simple proof of exception.

      You do understand that a counterexample is used to disprove rather than prove, right? He said 'hunting is always x'. I gave an example of when it was not. My argument is then that hunting 'isn't always x', rather than 'hunting is never x'. The clues you missed in my original post are equivocations like 'majority of' and 'in my experience'.

      Straw man. Lending guitars != hunters are childish barbarians.

      Sigh. A straw man argument proves a different logical form than the original argument to be proved. My example uses the same form, that is counterexample as a disproof of proposed universal modus ponens. I am saying here that since some junkies steal, not all junkies are honest. Likewise, since some hunters are barbaric, not all hunters are civilised (as the OP claimed).

      How people choose to use that information is up to them. Most people decide to spurn junkies (perhaps illogically, but there you go).

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    25. Re:Really? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there's someone living in a remote area hunting responsibly for the sole purpose of feeding his family, but I'm equally sure that that person is in the tiny minority.

      The claim your premise presumes, that hunting is only reasonable if necessary to maintain human life, is not proved. You reconstructed a new argument based on that premise, and attacked its inverse (those not hunting out of direct need for food are unreasonable). Ergo, straw man, again. Sigh indeed.

      The rest of your discussion descended into a pedantic exploration of what is meant by generalization...

      The clues you missed in my original post are equivocations like 'majority of' and 'in my experience'.

      Okay, let's look for those in your conclusion:

      I think it's just the 'grown up' version of pulling the wings off flies; an indulgence of the barbaric side of human nature.

      Nope, none there. The pronoun "it" above has no clarifying antecedent. Your statement does nothing to deny that you mean "it" to mean hunting in general, for all people. You mentioned your own experience with hunters in your supporting statements, but you clearly made a leap from your experience to hunting in general when you got to the conclusion. Therefore, no such clues to the scope of your conclusion are evident.

    26. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1
      The claim your premise presumes, that hunting is only reasonable if necessary to maintain human life, is not proved.

      That's not what I said. Read my post again. Someone hunting to feed his family is an example of responsible hunting that I gave in support of your comment that 'there are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity' is a logically sound argument. You offered a reasonable argument. I agreed, and now you attack the argument as unreasonable. Make up your mind.

      You reconstructed a new argument based on that premise, and attacked its inverse (those not hunting out of direct need for food are unreasonable). Ergo, straw man, again. Sigh indeed.

      No. You offered p V q as a logical argument. I agreed. You then switched to arguing against q->~p. There's your straw man. Incidentally, the inverse of 'hunters are either responsible or barbaric' is 'hunters are neither responsible nor barbaric'.

      Okay, let's look for [equivocations] in your conclusion

      The first two words: 'I think'. It's an opinion not a proof.

      Now it's time for you to respond to the points that you have been unable to answer so far:
      • The hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample. True or false?
      • My statements require a rigorous logical proof, but the original poster's do not. Why?
      • You use the words 'inverse', 'counterexample', 'proof', 'premise', 'straw man', 'equivocation', 'argument' and 'logically sound' withoput understanding their formal meanings. You have had no academic training in the field of logic. True or false?
      Deeply interested in your reply.
      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    27. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's almost certainly correct, however that doesn't have all that much bearing on the food chain argument. I'd say that if you look at humans as a society, we can eat whatever we choose pretty much, so that puts us at the top of the food chain.

      Okay, conceded.

      This may be true [hunting as an indulgence of barbarism] - but so what? People need outlets. I program computers, or whatever. Other people may go hunting. I don't see that as a bad thing.

      I think hunting and (recreational) coding are scratching two different itches: bloodlust and creativity respectively. Further, coding is bereft of lethal cruelty whereas hunting, perhaps, is not.

      Of course, whether sport hunting is cruel is opinion and debatable. However, given that skeet-shooting, target shooting, biathlon, paintball etc are sports undisputably lacking in lethal cruelty, there are alternatives for the sporting shooter who wants to relax of a weekend. Likewise, if agression must be indulged there are consensual contact sports such as boxing.

      So, I guess what I'm saying is that there are non-contentious outlets for people who need them.

      Don't forget, your sample is self-selecting. The 'proper' hunters don't litter, don't shoot roadsigns, and so on. The ones you see are the ones who bring themselves to your attention by being annoying.

      That makes sense, but it's far from the spirit warrior description of hunting made by the original poster. It's then an argument of quantification: how many hunters are responsible and how many are not? What are their reasons for hunting? And so on. The point being that the OP's definition of hunting does not cover all hunters, and IMO probably doesn't even cover most.

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    28. Re:Really? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1
      That's not what I said. Read my post again. Someone hunting to feed his family is an example of responsible hunting that I gave in support of your comment that 'there are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity' is a logically sound argument. You offered a reasonable argument. I agreed, and now you attack the argument as unreasonable. Make up your mind.

      Balls of steel. Never have I seen bullshit so artfully woven. I have to commend you. That is a masterpiece. Seriously, I am not being sarcastic. That really is impressive. However this argument goes, you get cool points for that. The only reason I am keeping this going is to see what you say next. Let's summarize where we stand so far in a shorthand example:
      • Me: I think my kids should go to school.
      • You: I think school is reasonable for those who cannot provide any other means of care or education for their children. Therefore...
      • Me: Hold on a second. School may be a good thing even if other choices are available.
      • You: My statement was in support of your argument. You are therefore responsible for it. Make up your mind about where you stand!
      Classic.

      the inverse of 'hunters are either responsible or barbaric' is 'hunters are neither responsible nor barbaric'.

      Technically correct. I should have said "opposing view".

      You use the words 'inverse', 'counterexample', 'proof', 'premise', 'straw man', 'equivocation', 'argument' and 'logically sound' withoput understanding their formal meanings. You have had no academic training in the field of logic. True or false?

      I have had sufficient training to recognize ad hominem when I see it, and to know that such attacks are always launched from a position of weakness.

      Moreover, I have sufficient experience with human behavior to identify patterns. Your core retort depended upon my assumption of responsibility for your words, or to put it simply, attributing statements to me which I did not in fact say. Your ad hominem rider cited instances of my use of certain terms, including 'equivocation', which I did not in fact use. I advise, therefore, that you refrain from taking the argument out of the arena of logic by questioning each other's motives, character, or qualifications. You wouldn't want the discussion to descend into an evaluation of your reading comprehension skills.

    29. Re:Really? by sbszine · · Score: 1
      Balls of steel. Never have I seen bullshit so artfully woven.

      Cheers.

      Let's summarize where we stand so far in a shorthand example: Me: I think my kids should go to school. [...]

      You're revising after the fact again, and trying to disguise it beneath an analogy. We are talking about the ethics of hunting, not education. Here is what you said, in black and white... there's no changing it now:

      "Logically sound - There are some for whom hunting is a positive, fulfilling, responsible activity, and there are some for whom hunting is childish barbarity."

      Now you can more accurately go on with:

      You: I think school is reasonable for those who cannot provide any other means of care or education for their children. Therefore...
      Me: Hold on a second. School may be a good thing even if other choices are available.


      Taking it out of analogy form and back to the original argument, we have me saying (these are quotations) that 'hunting responsibly for the sole purpose of feeding his family' is reasonable, and you replying that '[hunting] may be a good thing even if other choices are available'. Agreed?

      I have had sufficient training to recognize ad hominem when I see it, and to know that such attacks are always launched from a position of weakness.

      Odd, then, that attack me in just such a manner with your 'never have I seen bullshit so artfully woven' comment, rather than arguing your position. At any rate, I understand that your person does not affect the validity of your argument. That's cool. But you were the person who demanded logical rigour in the first place, and it's a bit hard for me to demonstrate it to you when you aren't familiar with the jargon and maths. Especially when you use words like 'inverse' and 'straw man' that have a very specific meanings. Again, I acknowledge that that doesn't invalidate any argument you may have.

      Your core retort depended upon my assumption of responsibility for your words, or to put it simply, attributing statements to me which I did not in fact say. Your ad hominem rider cited instances of my use of certain terms, including 'equivocation', which I did not in fact use.

      Let's look at the context in which I used that word:

      Me: "The clues you missed in my original post are equivocations like 'majority of' and 'in my experience'".
      You: "Okay, let's look for those in your conclusion"
      Me: (quoting) "Okay, let's look for [equivocations] in your conclusion"

      I trust you will agree that the subject of our exchange was equivocation? I put the word in brackets to indicate that I was replacing the (non context-free) pronoun with the noun to which it referred. The only other noun 'those' could have indicated was 'clues', which has the same meaning in the context (i.e. clues revealing the presence of equivocation).

      You wouldn't want the discussion to descend into an evaluation of your reading comprehension skills.

      Is that another veiled ad hominem I detect? Let me respond in kind. Yeah, I'd look like I real idiot if I didn't understand that unmodified pronouns implicitly denote the subject of the conversation.

      Right, now back to the questions still unanswered:
      • The hunters I have described may not represent most or even many hunters. This is true but does not invalidate my counterexample. True or false?
      • My statements require a rigorous logical proof, but the original poster's do not. Why?

      And now to the argument at hand, which I understand currently to be '[hunting] may be a good thing even if other choices are available'. Please correct this or subsititute it with an argument of your choice if I have it wrong.

      I think that if hunting is not required to support / protect life (and it rarely is), then shooting a non-threatening animal is needlessly cruel (or barbaric as I put i

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  156. Add some Sport to it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    How about have surplus turbofied Mars rovers chase around the animals with a pellet gun?

  157. In other news... by pfrCalif · · Score: 1

    "Sony will be releasing a stalker robot that can stalk celebraties and other individuals from afar, recording their everymove with a joystick and touch of a button. This is seen to be a major boon for disabled stalkers."

  158. hax by JVert · · Score: 1

    Said the deer: "Lets go, this guy bots"

  159. One big surprise by MicroBerto · · Score: 1
    There are billions of ideas, comments, insights on why this is cool or wrong...

    the only thing I'm really surprised about is why someone didn't think of this any sooner? It was really only a matter of time, but I'm surprised nobody else thought of it!

    What other insane ideas are we leaving out?

    --
    Berto
  160. Re:Shopping Mall+ This + Tranq Darts = GREAT FUN by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I'd pay well over $20 if they mailed me a DVD compiling the video of me aiming, zooming, firing, and the associated reactions.

    Careful what you ask for.

  161. Y'all are SHOOTERS.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'all are SHOOTERS.... NOT hunters.

    Don't give me that crap about "the hunt", crikey...

    The HUGE majority of nimrods in the USA are total losers who use hunting as an excuse to be macho dickheads.

    Go chase down your "game" with a knife or a bow, and then I'll agree that it's "hunting", otherwise, shut the fuck up about how "noble" it is to sit around to shoot an animal who you've lured to your location because you're too fucking lazy or out of shape to track it yourself.

    Shooters.... BAH!

    I mean NO disrespect to true hunters by the way, and you know who you are.

  162. Animals should play "shoot there biped" by AllNicksWereTaken · · Score: 0

    Deers (and other animals) should learn to use a mouse and play "Shoot the Biped".

  163. I can only hope someone does by rawket.scientist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope someone does write an aimbot.

    Part of responsible, real-life hunting is taking responsibility for your crappy shots. If you wound an animal but don't fell it, you need to track it down and put it out of its misery. Period.

    What happens when John Q. Callous hits his target in a slow death spot from a thousand miles away? Who's going to make sure that the animal doesn't crawl into a hole and suffer for hours until it dies?

    Me personally, I'm crap with a gun even if I've had hours to practice with it. How many n00b fools are going to try this with neither the means nor the inclination to make a humane kill?

    --
    John Hancock wuz here.
  164. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  165. ADA by MrWa · · Score: 1
    While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities.

    Is his website blind-friendly?

  166. Perfect Predator? by gtkuhn · · Score: 1

    Surely you don't mean humans are the best predator "regardless of size"? And pound-for-pound, humans may be good, but my cat Gizmo is the "perfect" predator. In her age, she hunts only birds now (her tastes have refined), but she can still grab low flying ones right from the air!

  167. Congratulations! by phunqe · · Score: 1

    What will be the ad for this thing?

    "Congratulations! You can now have the hamburger in one hand and the mouse in the other, hunting without physical activity in the comfort of you own home".

    I recognize the importance in the disabled hunter's case, of course, but for the rest this just comes off like just another step to make sure you never leave your house.

  168. Hack that computer and kill someone by Guus.der.Kinderen · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There has been a vivid discussion on this topic at http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&thread id=263951 . The thread starter (there) has an interesting point of view on the matter. Choice quote:
    I can see it now. The dumb ass goes to pick up all of the dead animals laying about, after first choosing the "turn rifle off" option. Someone breaks into the site using a couple of bounce points, chooses the "turn rifle on" option and BANG BANG BANG.
    Or even worse, some kids happen to be playing in the field! "I know I shot the kids all dead, but I thought it was a game".....
    Although he gets a little aggravated, he does has a valid point. Should giving people control over a gun (i.o.w: "killing device") over the internet even be considered?
    1. Re:Hack that computer and kill someone by Suidae · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no concept of gun saftey. No one with any sense would wander downrange of the gun without first at least removing the magazine and clearing the chamber.

    2. Re:Hack that computer and kill someone by Guus.der.Kinderen · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the 1400 that die, and 100,000 that get injured accidentally each year.

      Reference: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/accident.html

  169. The difference is... by Vthornheart · · Score: 1

    You'd probably be more likely to recieve the Poo in this situation. ;)

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart
  170. $10,000 cheap, the DOD would pay $10,000,000 by yorkpaddy · · Score: 1

    this guy is ingenious, I bet the DoD will be at his door soon. Imagine what they would pay for such a system

    --
    "brxref .k.p ,.by xprt. gbe.p.oycmaycbi yd. cby.nci.bj. ru yd. am.pcjab lgxlcj" don'
  171. Ah, now... by jd · · Score: 1
    That is actually one of the very few arguments that I'd consider to be genuine, precisely because it doesn't try to hide. From an ecological standpoint, provided those doing the hunting know what they're doing and are restricted in number, I don't see the problem.


    Ecologically, the problem arises when you have enough people trying to cheat the system (which is going to happen - poachers are inevitable) and/or too many "legal" hunters. The dynamics of population are not geared to handle culls well.


    The mass extinctions I mentioned in Australia, plus various extinctions elsewhere (eg: the Moa and the Haas Eagle in New Zealand, the Wooly Mammoth in Europe, etc) were the result of hunting to the point where the population collapsed totally.


    In more modern times, the Passenger Pidgeon was totally exterminated in a single human generation. Virtually every whale species came close to extinction, due to "factory ships" slaughtering them in vast numbers. Several did, in fact, get hunted to extinction. Blue Whale numbers are only now beginning to show a modest gain, even though the ban has been in place for 20-odd years.


    Modern hunters don't, as a rule, seem to be any smarter than the early humans, when it comes to knowing when to stop.


    When they are smart, where they take the proper precautions to avoid excess (and to know what "excess" even means in a given situation), where they don't hide from what they're doing (eg: using high-power rifles to shoot across ravines), THEN I would be willing to accept that they've more than shown they understand the ecological impact of what they are doing.


    The ethical side... nnnnngggggg... that's not really answered. Let's say that it turns out that some Cetatians are intelligent, sentient beings with something akin to an aquatic civilisation. Those in Japan who happily go out and kill dolphins by the hundred might easily claim that they are being honest about the hunt and the death, et al, but under those circumstances, I'd still prefer them to find some other way of being honest.


    Ok, that's a fairly extreme (though totally genuine) example. It's pretty clear that your average Elk and Deer are unlikely to be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics any time soon. On the other hand, if that was the limiting factor for what was reasonable to shoot, we wouldn't have a world overpopulation crisis. We might not even have a world population.


    Yes, you've got to draw some line somewhere. Humans aren't capable of photosynthesis (yet) so do need to eat. The question is where you draw the line, and what reasoning you use to do the drawing.


    I'd say honesty about what you're doing is a very big part of that reasoning. Denial of reality is generally a Bad Idea. But honesty can't be the only part of the reasoning. There's got to be more, and that "more" part has to be rooted both in what the ecosystem can support and in what can ethically be considered fair.


    If you've reached this point, you probably don't know where the hell I'm going. Well, neither do I. It's late here. What I do know, though, is that anything which results in compassion and thought going into a decision on whether to hunt or not, has got to be an improvement on a culture of "blood sports". When it's all just a game, and the prize is a trophy far removed from the reality of life... That's when you have problems.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  172. but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whats the URL? I wanna fucking shoot something!

  173. Poor Monkey by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    A month ago I went to that website and played what I thought was another one of those "Whack the Monkey" flash ads. But it turned out to be *sniff* real! I feel horrible. I clobbered the living hell out of that poor darling little monkey before I realized it.

  174. Just plain won't work by ComputerSherpa · · Score: 2, Insightful
    All the debate over whether this is right, whether it should be legal, whether the equipment will malfunction, is moot. I give you the sequence of events for this site:

    1. Hordes of eager would-be Internet hunters sign up for service.

    2. Site gets used for about a week.

    3. All the animals leave because they figure out pretty quickly that going into a certain area next to the strange man's house = death.

    4. No more animals = no more subscriptions = no more funding. Site goes bust and the guy finds himself a new career.

    Check back a month after he switches from target-practice to live-prey. I predict the site will be out of business by then, unless the guy decides to start stocking his back yard with prey.

    --
    Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
    1. Re:Just plain won't work by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      From the article:
      Berger said state law only covers "regulated animals" such as native deer and birds and cannot prevent Underwood from offering Internet hunts of "unregulated" animals such as non-native deer that many ranchers have imported and wild pigs.

      It wasn't exactly clear from TFA, but it sounds like he might have imported non-native deer onto his ranch for that purpose.

  175. Paintball! by msimm · · Score: 1

    He could always just cave in and set it up to paintball them.

    That way it would be sort of cruel *and* (just a little bit) funny (as opposed to just cruel..and deadly).

    Maybe thats not really a good idea. o_O

    Wait, I hear the venture capitalists calling!

    --
    Quack, quack.
  176. Texas! by cjsnell · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    God damn, I love my state!

    Only in Texas!

  177. Suicide? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.

    Remind me never to go out drinking looking for women with these guys.

    Seriously though - what's to stop someone shooting the attendants? Who would be legally responsible?

    If someone shoots the guy remotely, is it technically suicide?

  178. Sigh... by raehl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thanks for totally missing the joke, and then EXPLAINING it.

  179. I AM AWESOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i for one welcome our gun-toting internet-controlled overlords

  180. I thought this was fake by demi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But I guess we're taking it seriously.

    Luring, or waiting for, animals to walk in front of a camera so you can shoot them by remote control isn't hunting. It's executing animals for fun, and it shouldn't be any more legal than someone drowning cats to get their jollies off.

    --
    demi
    1. Re:I thought this was fake by stanmann · · Score: 1

      PETA agrees with you, and feels the same way about your steak, pork chops and chicken fingers.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    2. Re:I thought this was fake by demi · · Score: 1

      As it happens, I don't eat steak, pork chops or chicken fingers (nor do I necessarily support PETA). But I'm not trying to outlaw meat or hunting here, my point is that this isn't hunting. If you want to pay a slaughterhouse to let you operate the boltgun because it turns you on, there's something wrong with you.

      --
      demi
  181. play a freakin game of quake instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have to shoot things at all, just use a game of quake - why kill if it's not to consume because there is no other source like a supermarket. There is no reason for hunting like this with live animals.

  182. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He recently built a platform for about $10,000USD to house this new system on his 300 acre properly, but the Parks and Wildlife department is now scrambling to find ways to try and stop him."

    You know it just strikes me as wrong that even though none of these police is actually aware of any laws against this, they're trying their damndest to find some law they can apply to it so they can stop him... even though it is obvious that there is NO law written that is actually INTENDED to stop something like this.

  183. Even MORE interesting when the target is HUMAN ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1



    Imagine someone use that rifle to shoot and kill a HUMAN BEING via the NET !

    Will that be counted as a MURDER or an ACCIDENT ?

    Who will be responsible for the death ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  184. I'd Rather CounterStrike. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    Or halo, Tribes, etc. etc.
    1. Your prey is a renewable resource
    2. It's actually a Fair fight.
    3. It's cheaper
    4. Far less moral dilema
    5. You can chat with them too.
    About the only advantage of cyber-hunting is that you don't have to get your feet dirty. Might as well just go to a rendering plant and pay to kill a cow.
    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  185. There aren't any hunters *without* disabilities by guru512 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    There aren't any hunters *without* disabilities, so great news to all you brain-deads!

  186. Platform by maroberts · · Score: 1

    It's only a matter of time before he installs guns on tracked vehicles, which you can rent out using your credit card, going mobile hunting from the comfort of your own living room.

    And for a bonus, it means that you're not there to get your ass shot by your friends in a "hunting accident".

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  187. Hey! I just got an even better idea..... by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

    Why not bring in team play? a lot of bots controlled by humans over the internet, running around and killing things...

    err..wait...

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  188. Re:What's the point? - Tetris by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tetris is NOT a game.

    Tetris is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.

    Tetris is about handling blocks safely.

    Tetris is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal. (arguably it doesn't help working in a group)

    Tetris is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also blockheads.

    Tetris is about the lengths you will go to keep your blocks stacked and disappearing.

    Tetris is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the blocks you drop will disappear. And Tetris (for humans) is about honoring those blocks, by making its disappearance for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier disappearance than it would suffer from the bytes and operands of some virus, from deleting or from formatting.

    Tetris is about understanding your place in nature:

    You are a blockhead.

    You are at the top of the hiscore list

    You are SO full of shit that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own life, like braincells.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  189. I think it would be more challenging if by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
    You had a USB camera and gun aimed at you, and a video monitor in the deer's habitat. If the animal sees you first, blam!

    Now that would get the heart going!

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  190. Thought about this years ago.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 years in fact.

    I was going to call it bunnyblast.com and charge those Wall Street crettens $100 a rabbit. Rabbits in a pen, carefully designed so that the camera mounted swivel .22 wouldn't see the walls.

    For an extra $50 I'd mount your trophy and send it to you.

    Then I thought about militant animal activist, of which the 'net has packs of, organizations that would DDOS my ass to the dark side of the moon.

    bunnyblast.com it would of got me a /. front page.

    -Anon

  191. Good excuse for aliens to civilize us by Dusabre · · Score: 1

    When they come for us, I'm sure that "You have consistently abused technology to allow the murder of other beings for pleasure. You present a clear and obvious danger to other civilizations."

    PLUS

    "And there's a clear link between your governments and the attacks on the Two Quasars of Megaloon 2 and the intergalactic terrorist Batititi. Aphod 3, a friend of a guy who met Batititi's third son-in-law (estranged) at a starship swapmeet, had a cappuccino in Paris in 1873. The connection is obvious!"

  192. A beautiful white-tail buck by b.e.n.n.y_b.o.y_1234 · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck..."

    Isn't that beautiful? I know, let's blow it's fucking brains out.
    I suppose I just don't get it....

    1. Re:A beautiful white-tail buck by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      Isn't that beautiful? I know, let's blow it's fucking brains out.

      You forgot the part about cooking and eating the meat. Not to mention stuffing and mounting its head on a wall, then adorning it with a ball cap and sunglasses.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  193. FFS by cstubbs · · Score: 1

    You're not a goddamn hunter if you're disabled.

  194. BUT by denpo · · Score: 1

    hunters are humans with humanity disability

    --
    //TODO: put sig here
  195. And when the shot does not kill, but only maim? by Sakse · · Score: 1

    A quite likely scenario is that the shooter does not manage to actually KILL the animal, but simply wound it gravely.

    What happens when a wounded animal runs off? With normal hunters, you would continue to hunt it to put it out of its pain. It's more or less a moral obligation to make the animals death as painless as possible.

    With this 'remote shooting gallery' idea, things are going to go very wrong the moment they shoot with live ammunition on animals.

    Modify the system to 'shoot' a photo instead, pinpointing where you would have hit. Perhaps even estimating if it would have been a kill.

    Just avoid a system where it is more or less guaranteed that animals will suffer more than any hunter would accept.

    --
    Fast, Soon, Correct. Pick 2.
    1. Re:And when the shot does not kill, but only maim? by Suidae · · Score: 1

      What happens when a wounded animal runs off? With normal hunters, you would continue to hunt it to put it out of its pain.

      Don't be silly. They sell the oppertunity to hunt the wounded animals to guys on crutches.

  196. Re:Even MORE interesting when the target is HUMAN by BarryNorton · · Score: 2, Funny

    INDEED !

  197. never mind pron..... by zmollusc · · Score: 0

    ..the british government will be demanding that ISP's alert them whenever one of its' serfs has control of a gun. The firearms unit will be helicoptering its way to your house before any deer show up on your monitor.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  198. Hacking not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would hacking be a problem? The gun would be physically limited in where it could point, and there would be a physical break between the internet and the guns whenever someone needed to repair something or whatever.

  199. This is even more fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of the furore in 1999, when a South African had the idea of letting whores run round his game farm, and allowing bikers to hunt them down and shoot them with paintball guns (for a fee, of course).

    Choice quote, from this blog:

    A 19-year-old hooker called Lindy was quoted as saying, "The fee is low, but it's an adventure, and at least I should lose a bit of weight." !!!!!

  200. Oh great... by eieken · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now we can have a real live Duck Hunt... But without that fucking dog there to laugh at you when you miss...

    --
    Meet new people, and kill them.
  201. And the next one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "First it was rocks and clubs, then we sharpened it and put it on a stick. Then there was the bow and arrow, black powder, smokeless power and optics," Berger said. "Maybe this is the next technological step out there."

    And the one after that will just be to radio a nuke over the forestry area. Make sure we get 'em all. As all the animals are getting harder to find, aproaching extinction and all in Texas.

  202. Marines with disabilities by notany · · Score: 1

    With the same idiotic logic, maybe we should have internet attached rifles, mortars and tanks.

    Handicapped people may want to shoot irakis too.

    --
    Dyslexics have more fnu.
  203. The way I understand it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The gun will only be able to aim at a specific area, the animals must be lured to that area via food(bait) or noise(animal calls). SO I see little inherent risk to humans in this situation, ..just stay out of the "kill zone".

    I realy dont see what the big deal is, there are alot more dangerous hunting practices going on right now, spotlighting, hunting at night with night vision goggles, and silencers. drunken idiots stumbling through the forsest with loaded guns shooting at whatever moves. (yeah they exist outside of the sterotype .. i know because I know a few of them)

    Besides ... do you realy think this is the only guy who has a web controlled gun on his property .. he isn't. so get over it.

    1. Re:The way I understand it is by brainburger · · Score: 1

      eh? who else has web-controlled guns?? (and can I play?)

  204. Only an idiot... by Celsius10 · · Score: 1

    would venture out to retrieve the carcass before unplugging the gun.

    --
    "Little things hitting each other. THAT'S WHAT I LIKE!" - Time Bandits
  205. Really?? Watch me!! by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion.

    No buddy, look at the brain of a lion and then compare that to what's in the cranium of even the stupidest among us and then tell me where in the foodchain lions belong. We've got guns and trucks and they've got shit in comparison. As far as I'm concerned, they're a species shit out of luck. Today for an animal species to survive it either has to be real tasty or nice and cuddly or a lot smarter and meaner than us. Sorry buddy, but if you wanted to place someone above us in the foodchain you would have to look off-planet and find yourself an Alien Predator.

    Some of you vegetarian spiritualists pussies suggest that people be made to personally kill the animals they eat. Watch me.

    1. Re:Really?? Watch me!! by not_a_product_id · · Score: 1
      I don't know about "personally kill the animals they eat. Watch me" but I get pretty pissed off at people who think that being a vegetarian is stupid but then get all sqeamish and girly if they even see raw meat (let alone hunting or a slaughterhouse).

      if you hadn't called me a 'pussy' I'd almost have applauded you. ;-)

      --

      ---
      We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience

  206. How you know it works on your computer by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Giving new meaning to plug and prey

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  207. Holy Liability Batman. by LabRat007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    nuff said

    --
    "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
  208. Attendant shot... by morie · · Score: 1

    ...while retrieving the kill of the previous shooter.

    Much more fun than hurting harmless animals, not?

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  209. "target-practice online with a .22 caliber rifle" by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    Of course, you only get one shot, and then you have to buy a new monitor.

  210. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is old news. Showed up on technocrat.net hours ago at 02:54AM.

  211. Mod article "-1 Flamebait" by rcastro0 · · Score: 1

    Or should it be, mod this whole idea "Flamebait".

    Oh, come on, I admit it is an effective flamebait... can't... resist... posting... reply... arg...

    From the article:
    Berger expressed reservations about remote control hunting, but noted that humans have always adopted new technologies to hunt.

    Technologies like: Barbed Wire Fenced Grazing Grounds and Slaughter Houses! He as a texan should know. This web enabled Slaughter house cannot be more efficient than the real thing.

    Notice I didn't mention using machine guns to hunt !

    --
    Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
  212. Re:Shopping Mall+ This + Tranq Darts = GREAT FUN by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Mark my words. Some wacko will set up a copycat in a city.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  213. Shoot your computer by morie · · Score: 3, Funny

    How long before the first redneck misunderstands and shoots at his computer wih a rifle?

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    1. Re:Shoot your computer by tazanator · · Score: 1

      umm .. I got photo's of a 12 ga slug going thru a monitor... It was a stress reduction exercise (take some old computers to the range and show them what a "critical Stop" really is.

      --
      I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
  214. What is all the fuss about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm posting AC 'cos there are far too many overly aggressive types out there, but c'mon - everything non human is an animal. People like the cute fluffy ones and despise the reptilian ones (in general) so there's all this do-gooder stuff about protecting animals (again, this rarely happens for the ugly/vicious/non mammalian ones)

    Personally I think - they are all animals...we are humans...why shouldn't we eat them. Sure, make an effort to treat them reasonably as a healthy animal makes healthier food, but for goodness sake, it's like Pet Insurance!

    I mean, I really like my cats, and they get their inoculations each year, but if one has an injury requiring major surgery it isn't going to happen. They are cats. Sad to see them go, but we'll get another.

    We are humans - evolution says we got here by hunting and cultivating better than every other species (okay lets exclude insects etc) so like the famous comedian said, "I would happily kill every last pig, goat, horse, sheep etc etc if I thought for one minute it might be a bit of a laugh!"

    :-)

    1. Re:What is all the fuss about by Jason+Ford · · Score: 1
      everything non human is an animal

      What do you think people are? Non-animals? We're in the Animal Kingdom, no?

      they are all animals...we are humans...why shouldn't we eat them

      So, by this logic, and, assuming people are animals, we should eat them, too? Even though I'm vegan, I can identify a good argument for eating animals. This is not a good argument.

      Am I of the 'overly aggressive type' that you feared? I hope you understand that our difference of opinion about this matter does not make us enemies.

      --
      I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
    2. Re:What is all the fuss about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure! eat the humans. watch out for the brain though. Oh, and supplement the diet with lots of other things, plants, animals, fungi, aliens, whatever (don't want to get some strange disease for neglecting part of a balanced diet). Seriously, consume human flesh! It might be good for you.

  215. "A little light bulb went off in my head," he said by D4MO · · Score: 1

    eh, light bulb went "on"...

    Some people shouldn't have guns...

    --

    Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
  216. YES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hunting + Robots with Shotguns
    This has so much potential. We have an unlimited supply of l33t g4m3rz ready to fight terrorism.

  217. Human Morality?! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    So when cats hunt (in the way they do) its YOU moralising thier NATURAL behavior.

    As if humans don't moralise their *own* natural behaviour...

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  218. Re:Remote Hunting....White House by SurryMt · · Score: 1

    You could probably find a nice window overlooking the White House lawn, or even the National Mall....

  219. One already exists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in Quake.
    Look up 'quake frogbot' sometime on google.

  220. Stupid and dangerous by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 1

    I don't thing mixing guns ant the Internet (where those guns will certainly get 0wn3d) is a good idea.

    If you really want the thrill of "killing something online" (quick, somebody call the patent office), why not just get a good FPS (might even be a hunting FPS). Okay, you need a good bot, maybe a hybrid could be done (the real robot, real animals, but blanks instead of real ammo).

  221. Re:Even MORE interesting when the target is HUMAN by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

    I hope you don't spend time manually adding all those links to wikipedia.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  222. shounds like by supergwiz · · Score: 1

    I know know it's early but it sounds like its gonna be the Killer App.

  223. Got a Link by Scriptchic · · Score: 1

    Anyone got a link so we check this out. I'm interested in exactly how this works.

  224. simply far too many... by j4ck50n · · Score: 1
    idiotic statements here to reply too. the ignorance is rampant. no, overwhelming....simply overwhelming

    the stereotypes, my god the stereotypes. nothing makes me smile more than chair-bound city dwellers squawking about how easy hunting is with "high powered rifles" and "gps" etc. etc.

    you should all be ashamed of yourselves...

  225. Questionable by cfpresley · · Score: 1

    What about shooting the quickly passing by farm hand, or children that stray into the kill zone? Just as the internet empowers perverts to imitate women in chat rooms, or blatant racism in forums, the anonymity (real or perceived) will silence some people's conscience.

  226. Is it just me.. by julesh · · Score: 1

    Is it just me who saw the title of this article and thought "Be vewy quiet. I'm hunting Internets."

    And then wondered if Nukular weapons would be appropriate.

  227. pro-gunners should shoot this crap down by vapor22 · · Score: 1

    I hope all the RKBA advocates are working to stop this idea now.

    This is a BAD idea for Americans and gun ownership and it will hurt rather than help the 2nd Amendment advocacy.

    Gun ownership is about responsibility. period.

    Having a remote control gun for the video game generations is ludicrous. There is a serious lack of personal responsibility already in this society today. If you let people shoot things over the internet you're just removing another step of accountability.

    that being said, i don't worry about who gets the blame if someone is accidentally shot and killed. the owner of the land, the gun, and the server would be criminally negligent for letting people on to the property to be shot at.

    that should put a chilling effect on the proliferation of these kind of things in a hurry.

    --
    -- Believe your Justice!
  228. Kill one for me by ColtCougar · · Score: 0

    I am going hunting this weekend ~ I prob won't litter, or shoot street signs, but hopefully I will put a bullet through the heart of a deer, then gut it, bag up the guts, and skin, and take the meat to get processed...
    then make some good 'ole venison chili...

    I hope I just digusted some of you tree huggers... :)

    You all hunt, just some of you are pussy's about it and let McDonalds do the killing.
    Come to Georgia ~ we'll take you hunting.

    --
    -There are only soldiers, and men who wish they were soldiers.
  229. The Four...No, FIVE, Rules of Gun Safety by Guncrazy · · Score: 2, Funny
    Rule 1: Treat every gun as if it were loaded, even if you know that it's not.

    Rule 2: Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

    Rule 3: Never let the gun point at anything you aren't willing to shoot.

    Rule 4: Always identify your target, and if possible, know what is behind it.

    Rule 5: Always unplug the ethernet cable before going downrange.

  230. New meaning to remote security? by cualexander · · Score: 1

    I can just see it now. Some crazy person could set up a remote security system with this technology and shoot burglars upon entry. Where to people come up with this stuff? Technology is crazy these days. I mean there are even remotes that find the remotes these days. I want to know what you can't do remotely these days. Not much really. You can pretty much automate your entire house by sitting anywhere in the world. Kind of scary really.

  231. I have a question by Mawbid · · Score: 1

    What kind of loser would hunt sheep?

    --
    Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
  232. What kind of moron by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    What kind of moron gets pleasure from the suffering and death of animals?

    Thats just sick...

    1. Re:What kind of moron by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      What kind of moron gets pleasure from the suffering and death of animals?

      Do you like steak? Fried Chicken? Barbecued ribs? Venison stew? Rabbit stew? Guess what - all those come from the death of animals.

      Of course, the real question should be why would anyone want to shoot an animal that they can't physically retrieve, dress, butcher, cook, and eat...

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:What kind of moron by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      killing for food is one thing.

      Actually deriving pleasure from killing is another.

    3. Re:What kind of moron by trongey · · Score: 1

      You have an amazing grasp of the obvious.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    4. Re:What kind of moron by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      What about the "thrill of the hunt?" The pleasure is derived more from the process leading up to the killing of Bambi than from the actual killing.

      Me, I'm more of a fowl hunter - there's just something about getting up at 4:00am, sitting in a duck blind for a few hours in freezing temperatures while making ridiculous sounds that approximate the call of a duck, then trying to hit a fast-moving duck on the wing with a shotgun...too bad I haven't had any time to actually go hunting in a couple of years...

      Or, to take a different tact, which of the following is more cruel?

      1. Keeping an animal from birth in a cage so small it cannot turn around, with tag stuck through its ear, in a building with thousands of other animals in the same predicament, then, on the day it reaches a certain body weight, hitting it in the head with a hammer to stun it so you can slit its throat and let it bleed to death

      or

      2. Allowing an animal to run free in the wild, doing whatever it is that wild animals do, then at some point in their adult life, putting a bullet in its heart to kill it within a few seconds

      The first describes the life of the cattle whose flesh is neatly packaged and sold in your local supermarket. The second describes the life of a deer which is hunted for food.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    5. Re:What kind of moron by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I Agree that the conditions that livestock for food are kept in are generally bad, however that is not justfication to go and kill other animals for 'fun'.

      You can't justify your own cruelty by saying that someone else has done worse. Its like Saddam excusing himself because Hitler killed more people.

      To take your own argument: The third and most humane scenario you convenently forgot to mention is:
      3) Allowing an animal to run free in the wild, doing whatever it is that wild animals do and NOT hurting them AT ALL.

    6. Re:What kind of moron by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      You make a valid point, except for one detail...

      Your option 3 deprives us humans of thick, juicy steaks and tons of other great main dishes. That's more cruel and inhumane than either of the two options I listed :-P

      Given the choice of death or a life without ever again tasting the delicious flesh of animals, I'd probably choose death.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  233. Old Eddie Murphy line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Women got it made. They have half the money and all the pussy!"

  234. Here's a sport... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    What kind of heartless moron can derive pleasure from inflicting pain and death on wild animals, then have the nerve to call it a sport?

    They must be the most evil kind of dumbasses.

    But I'd pay to shoot those fuckers on line. Now THATS a sport. Giving them some of their own medicine and seeing how they like it.

  235. Slashdot Anti-Hunters by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Wow I see a ton of anti-hunting sentiment on here but just have to sit back and laugh at all the posts by the severly misguided. I grew up on a farm in wisconsin and still actively hunt, as a matter of fact deer hunting season is in a few days.

    First of all this guy is located on one of those farms that raise animals especially to be hunted. While I don't specifically see much point in this type of hunting it differs very little to all of
    the beef cattle in pens I pass on my way to work every morning.

    This morning on the way to work I saw two deer splattered all over the highway hit by either trucks or some mom in a SUV not keeping alert.

    Many say that I am not wanting for food because
    I can go to the grocery store and get my meat. Well yes this is true, but when I was just out
    of high school I actually worked at a meat packing plant. Not only did I work at the plant I had the job of killing those animals for you. Tell me what
    the difference is between me pulling the trigger there than doing it in the woods? I have done both
    the only difference I can tell is the range at which I done it.

    If you are a vegitarian well then good for you but
    I prefer meat and I am not changing because you want me to.

    I see alot of posts about the challenge of hunting. Deer are a ton smarter than most of you realize, for every deer I shoot a whole bunch get
    away by outsmarting us. Now that being said I did not find a whole lot of sport in pressing a pneumatic bolt firning weapon against a cow and shooting it dead so you can go have your steak or hamburger tonight.

    Everyone have a great day and when you are sitting at the local steak house think about the fact that somebody pulled the trigger so you can eat.

    --


    Got Code?
  236. Cheat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now we can add LAG to the reason we didn't get that big buck this year.

  237. You might think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A lot of people claim that nothing dies to feed them, but that's almost never actually the case.

    Do you eat cheese? Hopefully it's certified Kosher, or from a company like Cabot that explicitly states no animal products are used. Otherwise, it's likely to contain renet (calf stomach lining).

    Do you eat wheat? Wheat harvesting machines kill hundreds of small animals in the process. Saying you're not killing them on purpose is a rather bad place from which to argue.

    Do you eat any of those "alternate" products: fake meat, soy milk, etc.? Many of those are actually tied to large meat packers. You may not be directly consuming meat, but you're funding it.

    You may consider it a noble goal to attempt to reduce your impact on the animal kingdom, and I'll support you in that. But it's usually dangerous to speak in terms of absolutes.

    1. Re:You might think so by DjReagan · · Score: 1

      Yes, I eat cheese. No idea if its certified Kosher or not, as I don't care much for outdated religious rituals. Never heard of a company called Cabot either - they quite likely don't operate in this part of the world. But, the cheese that I do buy does not contain animal renet, however likely you want to believe that to be.

      As for incidentals, such as any animals that happen to be accidentally killed by harvesting machines, or by killed companies that are producing multiple different types of food products - you're clutching at straws in your argument. You might as well bring up species that are being made exinct by changes in global temperature because of greenhouse gasses emitted by the mass transit that is shipping food from the farms to the supermarkets. At least these are things I go to time and expense to try and minimise by purchasing locally grown products, that have been farmed using organic methods.

      As for it being dangerous to speak in terms of absolutes, that is exactly what the person I was replying to was doing when they said "You can either let yourself starve to death or Babmi will die to feed you."

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
  238. Why Hunt? A hunter responds. by bshroyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't get the lure of hunting at all.
    I'll try to respond to this, honestly and respectfully. Bear in mind, I'm only one hunter, so my motivations will not match those of all other hunters.

    My father imparted me with two fundamental hunting ethics:
    1. Give your prey a the opportunity to use his strengths against you
    This means that, when hunting birds, you don't shoot them on the ground, or in the water. If you encounter a stationary game bird, you first flush the bird, and allow it to put some distince between it and you, before you shoot. For big game (deer, for example), choose your weaponry or environment so as to require a very close (20-30 yards) encounter. Deer have unbelievably sharp senses of sight, smell, and hearing. Getting one to approach you to within 20 yards is no easy task. Some big-game hunters proudly display the elk trophy they took with a 350-yard shot -- I wouldn't call that hunting; it's more like a display of marksmanship. If you want to impress me with your skills as a hunter, show me the elk you took with a bow at 25 yards.

    2. Only kill what you intend to eat.
    You can't "catch and release" when you're hunting. If you don't intend on eating it, you've got no reason to kill it.
    People who grow vegetables will tell you that tomatoes, corn, beans, peas -- all taste better when they come from your own garden. In addition, you know that they're organic (if you've chosen to raise them that way.) In the same way, pheasant, duck, and venison taste better to me when I know I've harvested it myself. In addition, I know that this meat is "free range" and organic, as well as lower in fat than anything I can buy at market.

    In your comments, you raise some frequently-heard arguments:
    The animals stand no chance. Neither does the pig, cow, or chicken going to slaughter. Using ethic #1, above, the prey is allowed to use his innate talents against my technology. The majority of the time (in my own hunting experience) the animal wins.

    The hardest part is finding something - after that, if you have reasonable aim, you will surely kill it. This is partially true. It is difficult, and rewarding, to find game animals. I've spent many long, quiet hours remaining motionless in the woods waiting to hear or see a deer. Some of those unsuccessful hunts are memorable to me because of everything else I've seen -- an ermine catching a mouse, a wren landing on my boot, a skunk leading her kits across a field.

    Reasonable aim isn't a guaranteed kill, however. There are species of ducks (scaup) I hunt that fly at nearly 50 miles per hour. This season, I saw perhaps 300 of these ducks, was able to lure enough into range to take a dozen shots, and killed only two.

    I think all hunters should have to fight the animals with hand-to-hand combat. Give the animal a chance to do some damage in return.
    I've often thought about this. I've been close enough to deer on several occasions that I could have jumped out of my tree with a knife in hand to do battle. I'm not sure it's legal in my state to kill a deer with a knife. I'm also not positive that I could have a "cleaner" kill with a kife than with an arrow or bullet to the heart.

    I understand that hunting is not for everyone. I don't deride those who don't enjoy hunting. There's a thrill in hunting, and it's not about killing, death and destruction - it's about personal accomplishment, of self-sufficiency. Sure, I could go to the grocery store and buy a duck -- hunting may cost more, but in the end I get the duck, the memory of the sunrise that morning, and a sense of achievement as well.

    --
    The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
  239. Old idea? by NASAdude · · Score: 1

    I had an idea to do this about a year ago. Alright... I didn't build it yet (let alone patent it!), so I guess I really can't complain.

    I thought it would be better to automate the process a little more. Set up each blind with an auto-targeting rifle using machine vision for target identification and tracking. It would be feasible using off-the-shelf components. One could go so far as having a system that even automatically compensates for range, air density, and wind, and targeting appropriate kill-zones on the animal.

    I considered the risk of erroneous identification. At this time, I felt the best way to handle this is via photo/video confirmation via cell or network. That way the kill shot would have to be confirmed by a human. It would be limiting if the dial-up/login/confimation takes too long, though.

    Another advantage would be to have multiple hides with autonomous systems. It would be especially useful running multiple hides simultaneously from one managing remote console. In fact, in this case they wouldn't even have to be automated, just remote controlled. My preference would still be having automated sighting, identification, and tracking. Then it's just pulling the trigger (or clicking the mouse) over a secure (or closed-loop) connection.

    Would laws pertaining to hunting from vehicles pertain to this scenario? It seems the intent of that law might prohibit automated systems.

    Obviously each component of the system would have to be thoroughly tested in many unloaded scenarios.

    It would probably be a lot more practical (and with considerably less legal concern) to do all this with cameras only. The ideal situation would be a wide-view camera for motion detection and targeting. A high-quality high-zoom camera would be the "rifle" camera. It could be set to take video, sequenced frames with a delay, or single shot, depending on preference. This sort of setup could acquire very high quality photographs of wildlife without much effort. No remote console/control would be necessary.

    It could be made less expensive by only using one camera with variable zoom, using it as both the spotting scope and the capture camera. Another cost-cutting measure would be to drop the bulk of the image recognition for identifying the animal. It could be simplified to look for motion and apparent size to find objects of interest and capture those. Human or automated post-processing could decide the value of the image/video.

    Upon doing a web search, I found that there are lots of camera traps/hides/blinds. But most are tripwire-triggered (IR beam gate or IR motion). None I found incorporate image motion detection, image recognition, and automatic camera pan/tilt/zoom.

    So how much should I charge when I start selling these? ;)

  240. Use enough bullet... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    they simply won't kill the animal, only cause it pain

    Well, you can kill an elephant with a .22LR, you just have to get the shot placement juuuusssst right. But yes, I wouldn't consider going after most american deer breeds with a .223. It's considered a varmit cartridge for a reason.

    On the other hand, a .223 is overkill for squirrel and gopher (except for longer ranges). About right for coyote. I'd want something bigger than a .30-30 for elk hunting. Something like my .300WBY. You have to match your cartidge to your game and hunting style.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Use enough bullet... by LordBodak · · Score: 1

      That is true, I was generalizing to deer hunting. And I still find it funny that we expect our soldiers to do their jobs with a varmint cartridge.

      --
      LordBodak's journal.
    2. Re:Use enough bullet... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      And people wonder why I say that I'd almost rather go into combat with my M1 Garand, or even my $90 yugoslavian SKS...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Use enough bullet... by patches · · Score: 1

      Well I understand what you are saying. However most people don't want to think about it but the main idea in war is not really to kill your enemy. In most cases you merely want to injur him. A dead enemy combantant takes one combantant off the field, however an injured enemy combantant takes two or three combantants off the filed.

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    4. Re:Use enough bullet... by LordBodak · · Score: 1
      I was just reading something yesterday where soldiers are saying that when dealing with the threats we're dealing with now, an injured enemy doesn't take two or three combatants off the field. They are perfectly willing to let their own die and keep fighting. And in many cases the injured enemies are even still fighting... until shot three or four times.

      The supposed advantage of .223 was that the ammunition was so much lighter, so they could carry more (or carry the same amount with lighter packs), but where is the advantage when it takes four shots to do what the M-14 (.308) or M-1 (.30-06) did with one?

      --
      LordBodak's journal.
    5. Re:Use enough bullet... by Tassach · · Score: 1
      I wish people would stop toting out this old fallacy. Yes, it is true in a stratic sense that it is better to wound an enemy soldier than to kill him, however this was *NOT* repeat *NOT* a significant deciding factor in adopting the 5.56NATO cartridge as the primary small arms round.

      The real reasons for the move to 5.56 were WEIGHT and RANGE. A smaller caliber round means a lighter weapon, which means that for the same weight a soldier can carry a LOT more ammo, or the same amount of ammo plus additional equipment.

      The second reason is that they found that most targets more than 200 yards away were engaged with heavy crew-served weapons (artillery, mortar, tanks, heavy machinegun, etc) and not small arms -- therefore the standard-issue rife need only be effective out to the 200-300 yard range. Tactical doctrine is that if the target is further away than than a couple hundred yards, you call for heavy weapons support. Nowadays, an infantryman's primary weapon is his radio, not his rifle.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  241. Re:What's the point? - Tetris by bujoojoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashdot is NOT a game.

    Slashdot is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and nerds.

    Slashdot is about handling trolls safely.

    Slashdot is about working alone, or in a group, to write a funny comment.

    Slashdot is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are nerds, that every day you post is because someone else - plant or animal - moderated you up.

    Slashdot is about the lengths you will go to keep your posts fed and healthy.

    Slashdot is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the link you post will cause some server to hurt and die through slashdotting. And slashdotting (for nerds) is about honoring that server, by making its death for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier death than it would suffer from the click throughs of some other site, from virii, from accidental unplugging, or from RAID failure.

    Slashdot is about understanding your place in nature:

    You are a troll.

    You are at the bottom of the food chain.

    You are SO ineffective at what you do that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own karma.

    --
    This space for rent
  242. New Lobbies by trongey · · Score: 1

    Think of all the new opportunities in Washington:
    Computer Weapon Control lobby
    Computer Weapon Registration lobby
    The NCA (National Computer Association)

    Plus all the new laws about carrying concealed computers, computer weapon training courses, no more computers in federal buildings...

    It's a job creation goldmine!

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  243. Whatever by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The simple fact is that eating pasture fed animals that are slaughtered on home pastures (whether game or stock) is much more humane than the alternatives.

    The alternatives being:-

    1/ pasture fed stock that are packed together like sardines & truck/trained/shipped hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles for slaughtering.

    2/ Feedlot stock that are penned like tinned sardines virtually all their lives in knee high shit & need to be pumped full of anti-biotics to survive & are fed on a diet that's totally unnatural (when young feedlot cattle are weaned off milk & pasture to a diet that's virtually all grain that's forced onto them, they can be chonically ill for at least a month, as cattle just arn't designed to eat a diet that's more than 15% grain for extended periods). Don't let us start on the problems caused by the lack of sunlight, etc.

    It's a real pity govt regulations have meant virtually the end of on-farm slaughtering (trucking pre-slaughtered animals in refridgerated trucks is infinitly more humane). What's even worse is the govt tax policies & subsidies that encourage feedlot meat, when without such artificial influences, feedlot meat would be totally unviable compared to pasture beef/lamp/pork/whatever except for very high price niche gourmet supplies.

    You see feedlot stock require constant attention, drugs, suppliments, hormones, etc, while many types of pasture stock need not ever see a human being till slaughter time.

    I use to work on a 100,000 acre outback sheep station, that also kept cattle & pigs, plus feral pigs 'n goats & wild roos, so I know what I'm talking about.

    Of course the sheep did need attention, including mulesing at lamp marking, shearing & diping every year & crutching mid term between the shearing, but most of the cattle only ever saw human beings up close when being rounded up for slaughter. The pigs were kept in a huge pen out the back & got the slops from the kitchens (the sheep station was a research station owned by a Uni) & were let out to graze during the day on pasture 'n saltbush. For most of the pigs the 1st time they experianced humans up close was at slaughter time, when one of the Kelpie/Border Collie crosses led them up the race to face a .22 between the eyes. We also had a contract for wild goat meat with a supplier to a number of ethnic restaurants. This meant every couple of months having the Kelpie/Border Collies round up a mob of goats (with the help of a Jackaroo on a Ag-bike) & penning them in a large yard with electric fencing that contained suffient pasture &/or saltbush. Then every week, depending on demand between 1 & a dozen or more would be slaughtered, which involved them being run up a race one by one by a dog, & then having their throats deeply slashed as their heads were ripped back so their necks broke at the same time. It may sound gruesome but their quality of life was much better than feedlot stock & their last days were much better than the lasts days of pasture stock that are trucked off to the meatworks, often via the markets as well.

    Ontop of that we had a contracted Roo shooter working the property when Roos plagued up. Mind you only the 2 Roo species that were in plague numbers were slaughtered, The Roos probably had the most humane deaths of all - not knowing they were going to be a meal till they fell within the beam of a spotlight & were instantly killed by a .223 or a .303 bullet passing through their heads. Well other then the pouched Joeys that had their skulld smashed, but being a research station that was in the public eye (that had city types often visiting) the Roo shooter was told not to shoot obvious mature females for this very reason. He could take 50 roos a night, work that out over a year.

  244. Duckhunt by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

    For chrissake, this is a dumb idea. Give them an NES, the little plastic gun, and a copy of Duckhunt. Much more safe.

    Best. Game. Evar.

  245. humans are made to run down deer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deer may be faster, for a moment, but it doesn't
    have the endurance of a healthy normal human.
    (I mean a "native" or wild human, not some flabby
    software developer)

    The deer will overheat. Humans have superior
    cooling. Keep jogging, keep tracking the animal,
    and soon enough it will collapse of heat exhaustion.
    Then you eat it raw. :-)

    Be sure to bring back some parts for the tribal
    elders, pregnant wife, and little kids.

  246. Hypocrisy and democracy gone wrong by ButtChicken · · Score: 0

    I've grown up on a farm and have hunted all of my life; what ever happened to letting people live they way it suits them as long as it doesn't infringe on other people? I don't verbally attack meat eaters for torturing animals by supporting factory farms. Unless you are a vegan, moral arguments against killing and otherwise using animals are hypocritical and reek of ignorance (chicken doesn't grow up in cellophane). If you anti's have ever seen or read about factory farmed meat or even 'happy' organic meat (yes I work on an organic beef cow farm), a wild animal has LIVED a much better life and comes to a similar end as the cows only if they are unlucky / unfit. Read a book on factory farming or urban sprawl and then put your banning energies towards something useful.

    I have forgotten more than most of the sanctimonious, anti-hunting city dwellers will ever know about the US's wildlife and yes I kill and eat a few animals a year. I also put a lot more money directly and indirectly into preserving the species for whose well-being we are responsible. Once again, "put-up" (buy land, put a conservation easement on it, and don't allow hunting) or "shut up".

    So all of these holier-than-thou ./ers passing judgment on rural interests from your duplexes and high-rises can keep your laws and opinions local... but sadly I fear that's not the way democracy works; tyranny of the majority, here we come: look a county based election map sometime http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/.

  247. From the article: by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said."

    Stereotype yank? Oooh pretty: let's kill it!

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  248. Re:Why Hunt? A hunter responds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give your prey a the opportunity to use his strengths against you


    That there is city-folk thinking. Out in the country we kill them wherever we can, because it's dinner. Kill them quickly, and as painlessly as possible, forget that stupid "let them get in the air" crap. It's not like this is supposed to be a fair fight or something. That's like saying "don't wear camoflage so that they can use their natural eyesight to find you."

  249. it's sure to be a.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killer App

  250. I think this is a VERY bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you shoot them via remote. And what happens if they move at the last second? How exactly do you stalk a finish off a wounded animal in pain? The convenience of this is not enough to outweigh the pain and suffing it may cause. I have no problem with hunting. It is more humane than most farming, and certainly more humane than letting animals die of disease and starvation resulting from our having killed all their natural predators. But please people! Show some responsibility and actually be present if you are going to take something's life. Be there to cleanly kill wounded animals and to make sure there isn't some dumb guy about to walk in front of your gun.

  251. free trial by haralder · · Score: 1
    For anyone wanting a free trial, use my account:

    user: user
    pass: ' or '1'='1

  252. Stupidest idea since... by togofspookware · · Score: 1

    I don't even know. A long time.

    "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.

    Oh, yeah. It's beautful. Good reason to kill it, I guess :P

    As for you rednecks saying "well you eat at mcdonalds right?", no, I don't approve of McDonalds, either. And we buy our eggs from cage-free chickens. Besides, there is a difference between ignorance (hamburgers come from hamburger factories, right?) and straight out cruelty (ooh! let's shoot a bullet through its heart! yeah!) I much more respect people that are at least *trying* to be nice.

    --
    Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
    1. Re:Stupidest idea since... by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, I thought eBay was a stupid idea also.. and before that AOL.

  253. Cows suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't feel bad for any animal that's dumb enough to be hunted with a hammer.

  254. Gez by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    I thought hunting was about 4 yobs driving down creekbeds in a old ute with a car load of beer 'n blasting anything that falls in the beam of the spotties with a .303, a .223, a .22 Magnum & Macca's double barrel shottie.

  255. Not Hunting, Just Killing by thelizman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hunting, as a sport, emphasizes aspects which put food on the table for our ancestors. It's not simply about putting a jacketed slug into an animal, its about excercising patience, the stalk, the outdoors, about becoming one with your environment. What passes for hunting nowadays is already a travesty, what with laser range finders and designaters, infrared high power scopes, pheremone enhanced scents, and prerecorded broadcast noises designed to attract rutting deer. We (the hunting community) have lost respect for the animal as a clever prey worthy of our effort, and have turned it into a glorified bloodsport with a billion dollar a year industry convincing us they need their product to get that edge.

    So don't get upset over this moron and his robo-hunter. Its just one more turn.

    (Real hunters use iron sites. Hardcore hunters use a bow and arrow. Real men hunt with giant fucking knifes and sharpened sticks.)

  256. Where's the torture? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Indeed, the parent was a horrible analogy! Torture would imply that the animal being hunted is intentional pain.

    Perhaps you should go to Iraq for awhile, then you might learn what it's like to be a torture victim. When you hunt, one does better to get a clean shot off, killing the prey as quickly as possible (without ruining the meat). If one has the skill and opportunity, a head-shot is probably best in many cases. Anybody who would deliberately shoot to injure and animal as opposed to kill is not a hunter but a sadist.

    As for the "food" animals, their lives are often ones of terrible neglect. As you say, I'd rather be a buck living a happy life of grass and rutting and then suddenly *blam*, than be a pig stuck in a small pen, hearing the painful squeels and smelling the blood as others are taken off to be processed and knowing somehow that my turn is next...

  257. Americans never meet the majority by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    Lets be honest the vast majority of Americans in Iraq rarely get beyond the Green zones except when in armed convoys. As such they only ever meet quisling Iraqis that work in Green zones or Iraqis that are saying whatever they think the American wants them to say because there's a heavily armed convoy backing the American up.

  258. PETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only living things that are going to be shot are the PETA members who throw themselves into the line of fire or attempt to sabotage the platform. This reminds me of the Hegins Pigeon shoot. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

  259. Safety Concerns by levin · · Score: 1

    For those of you who have asked questions about someone hacking into a computer and turning off the safety and shooting someone, or the safety malfuncitoning or something, did you ever consider that you can UNLOAD the rifle? If you UNLOAD the rifle then it's pretty hard to get killed by the rifle unless the guy includes a bludgeon function as well.

    I'm by no means saying that this is a good idea, but if you go out into the field to work on equipment and don't have the presense of mind to unload the gun, then you're probably going the way of the dodo bird before too long anyway.

    --

    `which fortune`
  260. How Crazy is that by garfield1979 · · Score: 1

    Have any of you thought of if someone set this up in the window of a bulding in dense population with a high speed internet connection, and then connected to it from somewhere else and started going rampage on people, how can they allow such home made remote shooting machine to even be used for comercial ends ?! This is wrong on so many levels

  261. Wait just a minute! by gandalf23atwork · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Getting a clean professional quality shot of a deer is thousands times more difficult compared to shooting it. A rifle will shoot through branches and leaves. A camera does not.

    Wait just a minute! If you don't have a good view of the target (deer/sheep/tin can/whatever) then you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS TAKING THE SHOT!

    That's how hunting accidents happen.

    If I can't clearly see it, it ain't getting shot at. Otherwise I could shoot cousin Earl or some dumbass wandering around in our woods. Also, if you can't see it, you may shoot a doe with a fawn, which is a no-no, least 'round here.

    Damn, people, think about this shit! Hopefully you were just spouting off, but anytime you pick up a firearm you have got to be careful.

    Let's recap the rules for safe gun handling, shall we?

    1) All guns are always loaded!
    2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!
    3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!
    4) Always be sure of your target!

    (Sometimes they're phrased differently, but the content is essentially the same)

    -gandalf23@work

  262. another point by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Another take:
    Some advantages come with disabilities in other areas.

    Colorblind individuals often have excellent night vision. Having the Sickle cell gene protects against malaria.

    To take this to extreme:
    Dolphins gave up manuverability on land for better mobility in water.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  263. Even the most popular insurgencies are the same by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    Fact is the vast majority of people in any 3rd world country are too busy surviving to bother with taking up arms against the occupier.

    But the fact is most Iraqis are worse off now. Unemployment has doubled with the coming of the Americans (& inflation due to the higher incomes of those that do work & the high incomes of contractors, means that the 50% that are unemployed are worse off than the odd 20% that were unemployed in embargo era Iraq) & death rates in the country have tripled (just ask any morgue employee), meaning a significant percentage maybe a majority sympathise with some insurgents.

    I say some because so far more than 300 seperate insurgent groups have been positively identified (there are probably thousands) & it seems most are not of the extremist Wahhabi/salafist variety that go arround executing aid workers.

    Generalising about insurgents as all being war criminals & terrorists because of the actions of Zarqawi & co is no more logical & accurate than generalising about all American soldiers being war criminals because a small minority abused prisoners & a Marine shot dead a disarmed wounded insurgent on camera.

  264. A better statement about Hunters with disabilities by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    If they lost the ability to move well enough to hunt, there was always plenty of work to be done. Whether that meant grinding grain by hand, preparing skins for leather production, the dressing of game, production of arrows or other weapons.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  265. Re:Why Hunt? A hunter responds. by bshroyer · · Score: 1

    Out in the country we kill them wherever we can, because it's dinner

    If you're looking for as much meat as quickly as possible, then by all means, go ahead. What you're describing is hunting as a chore, not hunting as a pastime.

    My grandfather grew up on the plains of North Dakota in the 40's. His father would give him three shotshells and expected him to return with dinner. If he didn't, Grandpa tells me, he was punished. Grandpa had no qualms shooting a flock of mallards in the water at close range.

    Every year, I return to the old family farm in North Dakota, to hunt those same mallards. With a bag limit of five, I'd be done hunting in ten minutes if I simply found the first flock sitting on the water and started pounding them. Instead, I set out decoys and wait to shoot them on the wing, and get a full morning of entertainment out of it. I'm not a farmer, I'm an actuary. I have the luxury of time and an unlimited supply of ammo.

    And I probably enjoy my hunting a lot more than Grandpa did, 60 years ago.

    --
    The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
  266. Actually by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of shotguns purchased by the US military for both WWI & WWII (like more than 90%) were used by/issued to Airfield security personel , MPs & the Shore Patrol & used as police weapons for things like riot work etc.

    Just as many police units keep a shotgun in the Trunk, it was the same for Shore Patrol & MP units during the 2 world wars. When you consider such units existed where ever Americans were based, from Iran to Australia to Africa to China, India, Iceland, etc, etc, etc, let alone combat zones, you'll see that such units were easily able to fully utilise shotguns stocks purchased by the military.

    So in reality the use of shotguns as trench guns & jungle guns were more rare exceptions than the rule. Just ask war veterans, I bet at least 98% will say they never saw shotguns being used in combat situations by US forces.

    1. Re:Actually by $ASANY · · Score: 1

      But the fact that they existed and served a useful (if rarely employed) military purpose contradicts the conclusion in Miller that it had no relation to the 2nd Amendment. If it is employed as a military firearm, it is by definition consistent with a "well regulated militia". The point is that the SCOTUS ruling in Miller is based on a faulty conclusion not supported by the evidence. It shouldn't be cited as an authoritative source for understanding the 2nd amendment, and is ripe for being overturned if only the facts could be presented.

  267. Appreciating Natures Beauty by Paraplex · · Score: 1

    "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.

    "If I just put strychnine in mine and my good buddies coffee, the world would be two morons closer to perfection!" he elaborated.

  268. Waking Life by Paraplex · · Score: 1

    My favourite movie gun reference:

    ------------
    POOM POOM POOM POOM. I blew him out of the gas station, and ever since then, I always carry this.

    (He pulls out a revolver)

    I hear you. A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.

    I'll drink to that. And you know, I haven't fired this for such a long time I don't even know if it'll work.

    Well, why don't you pull the trigger and find out.

    (BOOM. He shoots the bartender in the chest. The bartender gets up, grabs the gun hidden behind the counter, and shoots the other guy. Both fall dead. Blood is everywhere.)
    --------------

    Classic
    'plex

  269. hunting's more humane than farming by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    Just look at the quality of life & they're dead in seconds.

    Now compare that to stock animals, whether pasture fed or feedlot stock.

    Pasture fed stock can spend days squashed together like sardines as they are trucked/shipped for slaughter hundreds or even thousands of miles away, & then they are more often than not slaughtered in ways that are much crueller than a bullet in the head.

    Feedlot animals are even worse. They're penned together like sardines most of their lives knee deep in shit & need to be pumped full of anti-biotics, hormones & suppliments just to survive. Ontop of which they're fed a diet they arn't designed to live off naturally & thus are ill for a signifivant proportion of their lives. Take cattle they're not designed to have a diet consisting of more than 15% grain for any sort of extended period, yet feedlot cattle have a diet that's more than 90% grain. Really feedlots are hell on earth for the animals in them.

    Give me game any day - try one year old saltbush fed feral goat & one will never look back.

    One thing I do disagree with is the hunting of native wildlife (that hasn't plagued out due to human driven enviromental changes), why someone would shoot a majestic creature like a mountain lion or bear is beyond me. Some people claim that bears & mountain lions can be dangerous, but only when humans intrude in their enviroments, either directly or via housing developments, in which case I feel bears & mountain lions should have every right to kill people, just as one by default should accept being potential shark bait when one swims in the sea.

  270. Local News @ 11; Man shot by MyDoom by DigitalEntropy · · Score: 1

    In a series of what police are calling, "unusual events," a Texas man was slain today when his home computer contracted a virus, and shot him dead via a networked camera and rifle apparatus.
    Even though the system was connected to the Internet, and had Windows XP's Service Pack 2, authorities believe there was no foul play involved.

    --

    Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
  271. Re:Why Hunt? A hunter responds. by autophile · · Score: 1
    Sure, I could go to the grocery store and buy a duck -- hunting may cost more, but in the end I get the duck, the memory of the sunrise that morning, and a sense of achievement as well.

    When *I* go to the grocery store in the morning...

    Get the groceries.... check
    Memory of sunrise that morning.... check
    Sense of achievement.... check.... Ohhhhh I am so sad.

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  272. Can this Apply to the AC-130? ;) by RJH260 · · Score: 1

    I have been toying with the idea of presenting a similar idea to the government, to sponsor the AC-130. For a fee, you would get gun camera footage of 30 secs of operation of the geteling guns and 3 rounds from the Howitzer. I'd take a DVD of that! I'll buy that for a dollar! -Rich

  273. Eating Polaroids by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    I don't know about your but I don't like eating Polaroids. They give me gas. They also make some pretty poor summer sausages, IMHO.

    1. Re:Eating Polaroids by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      That's okay...don't care much for deer meat either.

      Now elk - that's another story :)

  274. Just got back from a backpacking trip by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    In Mt Rogers National Recreation Area in Virginia. It is hunting season. These guys are jokes. I hunted until I was 22 or so then quit because of drunk rednecks shooting at anything that moves and pulling pistols over my dead buck (really happened: he saw me shoot it and stole the deer from me at gunpoint). I saw guys hunting in pairs this past weekend with more equipment than wits. Using GPS, wireless comm, laser sights, etc. What a fucking joke. I shot my first deer when 12 with a .270 that had no scope and had to cut its throat for a coup d'grace. I still get the willys thinking about it.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  275. Re:Why Hunt? A hunter responds. by H.E.+Pennypacker · · Score: 1

    Another important aspect of hunting that should not be overlooked is population manangement. In most areas of my state, Wisconsin, whitetail deer populations are in excess. This leads to increased crop damage and car accidents, among other negative things. The deer hunting season is viewed as a harvest to bring population numbers back to normal. If someone thinks a quick death by bullet is inhumane, it's much "better" than a long period of starvation due to an overpopulated herd in a harsh winter.

  276. Re: Constitution primer by Rocco+Bambieze · · Score: 1
    Sorry, that's just not even close to the truth...

    The Constitution was designed to "create" and "limit" the powers of our central government.
    It was designed to be a shield between the free people of this land and their public servants (aka elected representatives).

    It is not the purpose of The Constitution to define the rights of "We The People". The first ten ammendments were added despite the protests of many drafters of both The Declaration and The Constitution, in the end it was decided to mention those ten rights specifically so that they could never be violated.

    It is not subject to (re)interpretation as our language and the meaning of words becomes more vague.

    Perhaps most importantly, It is not the purview of either of the three branches of government created by The Constitution to assign it any meaning other than that clearly intended by the people of that time and age who created it.

  277. Re:Why Hunt? A hunter responds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Some big-game hunters proudly display the elk trophy they took with a 350-yard shot...[snip]...show me the elk you took with a bow at 25 yards."

    So its basically a dick-measuring contest where the shortest wins?

  278. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  279. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  280. How about setting one up in Afghanistan... by thewils · · Score: 1

    Who knows, you might bag a rarely spotted Osama.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  281. I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if we can set up a rifle/camera combination in Texas and shoot people like that.. you know, for those that can't make the trip to Texas.

  282. NPR reported the name as John Lockewood (Lockwood) by SiliconSlick · · Score: 1

    Tonight's "All Things Considered" on NPR
    reported that the man's name is John Lockewood
    (Lockwood/Lokwood?), not John Underwood.

    Online audio should be available later today at:

    http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/

    Just FYI.

  283. Re:Why Hunt? A hunter responds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whitetail deer populations are in excess

    Because natural predators are in depletion, also from human "management" methods. Makes you wonder how nature ever got along without mankind to manage things, don't it?

    Not intended as a troll, though you're welcome to see it as such if you like.

    --random wildlife biologist posing as a geek

  284. Attaching a robotic gun to the net - by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    seriously, what could possibly go wrong??

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  285. Vegans by Cecil · · Score: 1

    The moral vegetarians/vegans are the ones you're referring to. And I don't think there's anything wrong with the way they're approaching the problem: Remember, cows eat grain too. Much more of it than we do in fact. But that's not the only reason people become vegans or vegetarians. There are environmental reasons and there are health reasons too.

    The environmentals claim that producing enough meat to feed a human takes at least 10 times as much arable land (for the grain to feed the animals), takes much more water, and creates much more waste, than it would to simply cut out the middle-man and eat the grain directly. If everyone suddenly turned vegetarian, we'd have a huge surplus of grain left over. Some of the farms would probably go out of business (sorry, environmentalists don't let businesses get in their way) and return their fields to fallow, giving some precious habitat back to the wildlife.

    The health people have some legitimate and some imagined concerns. For certain, factory farms and even family farms are pumping more and more antibiotics, chemicals, drugs, and hormones into the animals, often without any regard for whether they actually need it, it's just standard procedure. I can't say whether this is in fact a health risk or not, but it makes me uneasy personally, and it's one of the main reasons I like to eat vegetarian dishes when I can. At least the pesticides are supposed to wash off...

    1. Re:Vegans by Kehvarl · · Score: 0

      And I don't think there's anything wrong with the way they're approaching the problem: Remember, cows eat grain too.

      Yes, cows eat grain, and when that grain is harvested, the same quantities of small animals die in the harvesting process. However, I know animals die so I can eat and I have no problem with it. The moral vegans claim animals don't die for them to eat, and that is simply not the case. In my opinion, a fallacious argument is invalid.

      If everyone suddenly turned vegetarian, we'd have a huge surplus of grain left over.

      From my understanding, if everyone suddenly went veganm we'd all starve to death because a majority of the grain that is grown ad fed to livestock is of a variety not suited for human consumption.

      There's also the fact that no single form of plant can sustain humans. So we can't just switch over to one type and free up lots of farmland, we'll have to have the farmeers grow enough of the right mix of types that people don't start dying of malnutrition while eating normally. Then there's the fact that the land that we use to grow the low-quality or specially bred grains for cattle may not be suited to grow grain and other plants for humans.

      See what I mean about not understanding? The arguments just don't seem to make sense to me. However, I do thank you for responding with some helpful information.

    2. Re:Vegans by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, if everyone suddenly went veganm we'd all starve to death because a majority of the grain that is grown ad fed to livestock is of a variety not suited for human consumption.

      You're mistaken.
      People can eat field corn (or any other grain fed to animals) just fine.
      If everyone went vegan, we would require less energy and land.

      But raising cows does have benefits. Cows can eat grass. Meat and dairy products are easier to transport and store than their calorie equivalent in grain.
      --
      -Dave
  286. Not so by ggeezz · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure where or what you hunt, but in my experience that is simply not the case. I hunt whitetail deer in the woods of the Applachian Mountains. There are many times when I can watch a deer for several minutes, know exactly what it is, have plenty of "good shots," but never have a clear enough view to get a good picture.

    This happens because you can only see parts of the deer at a time, while the rest is behind a tree. But that doesn't mean you can't see the deer's head (to know whether it's a shooter), then wait for it to walk forward enough to get a clear shot at it's vitals.

    I'm sure what you're saying might be the case in certain areas, but it's definitely not the case here.

  287. Re:Why Hunt? A hunter responds. by valenti · · Score: 1

    The deer population is so high around my farm due to the great availability of food (corn, soybeans, alfalfa). I'm not sure what the natural predators would be - we have coyote, I don't think wolf and bear would fit in too well with the human population. (in the lower third of Michigan) Before white settlement in Michigan this was 99% mature forest lands, with a very low deer population.

    I've nearly given up on planting trees or a garden. The deer eat everything (or kill the trees by rubbing antlers on them). To my mind, the deer population is about three times too high. I think I'll have to put up a tall fence, but that will be expensive and ugly.

    (there is also the tuberculosis and chronic wasting issues -- if the deer pop. isn't cut way back, there will be more finacial problems for cow farmers, and you'll be paying more for cheese, milk & steaks)

  288. The military already do it with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The military do pretty much the same with Predator UAV, only they are hunting people rather than animals