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."
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.
I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.
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.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
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.
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
- 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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