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."
Yahoo has the story, too. They include a link to the website: live-shot.com.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
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.
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!!
he Web site already offers target practice with a
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
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.
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.
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.
Your right, I should have said continued....
.... part 3 and part 4
b 0109.h tml
OK here,
this document makes it very clear that the threat of gurilla warfare forced a policy of reconcilation instead of occupation
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/ayoo
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!"
I'll bet cats and dogs would enjoy some good venison from time to time.
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)
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.
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
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?
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.
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