A hunter comes across a beautiful woman skinny dipping. He calls out “Are you game?”
“Yes”, she replied. So he shot her.
So you’re probably not going to be a customer for my Fresh Meat website. It’s a combination online slaughterhouse/meat market. You cruise through the animal pens by remote television camera. Pick out an animal you like (we’ll be starting out with cows and chickens, but we’re planning on expanding into pigs, lambs, turkeys, and ducks). Then we lead the animal into the “special” pen and you activate the patented remote control Sledge-o-matic. The meat arrives at your house by next day delivery.
I wouldn’t be suprised if existing laws can’t be applied to this so clearly so by default it would probably be legal. IANAL, YMMV. No doubt new laws will be written to address it.
I wonder who the potential customer is? The closest thing I’ve seen to this are benchrest shoooters who use “rail guns,” extremely heavy .22 caliber rifles that are mounted on a type of machine rest and aimed by micrometer screws. They typically lack anything resembling a sholder stock and are arranged so the only physical contact is with the trigger. I haven’t seen remote electronic triggers but I’m sure somepone has used one. I don’t think anyone who is willing to spend money to “hunt” is likely to want to be so insulated from the experience. I don’t think we’re likely to find anyone, either pro hunting or anti, who is seriously in favor of this.
What msmith537 said.
The regular defence of hunting (which I’m not entirely at odds with) is the whole ‘getting back to nature, raw in tooth and claw, man versus animal, shoot your own food’ aspect. This sick idea removes the personal involvement entirely and divorces the shooter from the reality. It’s just killing for fun without the inconvenience or unpleasantness. You have to wonder what kind of person finds that idea attractive as a pastime. I’m sure there’s some, but do we really have to pander to every market?
And the ‘disabled hunter’ gambit is BS.
while i agree with you, do lend me your post:
The regular defence of hunting is the whole ‘getting back to nature, raw in tooth and claw, man versus animal, spear your own food’ aspect. This idea of using guns from a safe distance removes the personal involvement entirely and divorces the **hunter ** from the reality. It’s just killing for fun without the inconvenience or unpleasantness. You have to wonder what kind of person finds that idea attractive as a pastime.
i think killing helpless animals for fun sucks.
Well, having recently lived in Texas for 15 years, I think this is giving the regulatory agencies conniption fits, and may make it to the legislature.
Texas is very pro-gun and tends towards a fairly Libertarian-ish viewpoint WRT private property. But this remote-controlled hunter thingy is really pushing the envelope, politically and, well, of just plain ol’ taste.
I don’t see how it’s much of a public danger on a 330 acre ranch, especially if there are simple precautions like traverse and elevation limits on the mount (I don’t know if there are, just saying…). Of course, it’s the simple stuff like that which is forgotten until someone signs onto the website, elevates the gun to about 45* and lets fly a round that lands several miles away in a schoolyard and kills a kid.
What bothers me most is that, on a 330 acre ranch, the animals might have to be baited into range of the gun/camera, which is even further down the slope of “sportsmanship.”
While I see the potential abuses of this technology, which alarmed Magiver, I don’t think Al-Qaeda is rushing out to equip themslves with this stuff.