Several business ventures explored the idea of cyber hunting in recent years, but the practice has been banned in at least 25 states, the bulletin said, adding that officers should be aware of the existence of such devices.
Sounds a bit more complicated than just "gun + internet = illegal".
"At this time there is no evidence to suggest that such equipment was established for any purpose other than illegal hunting activity," the bulletin said. "However, the apparatus could be used for more nefarious activity that would be of direct concern to the law enforcement and public safety communities."
The first sentence could be from '1984'.
"There's no evidence that you didn't kill your wife."
I think what it actually means is that, despite there being evidence that the set-up was intended for illegal hunting activity, there is no evidence that it was intended for anything else (i.e. shooting people).
I find it amusing that 'illegal hunting activity' is not of 'direct concern' to law enforcement. Huh? It's illegal, right? Then why isn't law enforcement concerned? If it's not a big deal then why is it illegal?
The wording in the article is a little hazy, but I think it was trying to say that it's primarily the domain of the Fish and Wildlife Service rather than local police or other federal law enforcement.
Any particular law enforcement agency doesn't necessarily take interest in every kind of criminal offense - only things that fall under their jurisdiction. I think the point was that this is primarily a concern for Fish and Wildlife right now regarding illegal hunting - that means not really relevant as a threat to Homeland Security or local police forces, but could become so later.
Well of course they are, but it's crazy how that's even a question. In the USA guns are entertainment with playtoy status and people seriously believe they could perfectly well stop someone shooting at them by just having a gun handy and shooting them back. Like a video game.
In Arizona you don't even need a permit and if you sell a gun between two private people you don't even need to do any background checks, instant sale regardless of the buyer's mental status or intentions. There was a big gun show with private sales this weekend just 10 miles from that tragedy last week.
"Such a system, if fully operational, could direct substantial -- and deadly -- firepower." That's the purpose of a gun, right? These reporters really get some people "all into a tizzy" over rather bland headlines. It'd be nice if they reported on real injustice once and awhile.
I think the headline might be misleading. From reading the article, it appears that what's illegal is hunting with a remote controlled weapon... not necessarily the remote-controlled weapon itself. But it's really not crystal clear either way.
15 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] threadSounds a bit more complicated than just "gun + internet = illegal".
The first sentence could be from '1984'.
"There's no evidence that you didn't kill your wife."
Any particular law enforcement agency doesn't necessarily take interest in every kind of criminal offense - only things that fall under their jurisdiction. I think the point was that this is primarily a concern for Fish and Wildlife right now regarding illegal hunting - that means not really relevant as a threat to Homeland Security or local police forces, but could become so later.
2: mount the whole setup on a walking robot.
3: ??
4: apocalypse
In Arizona you don't even need a permit and if you sell a gun between two private people you don't even need to do any background checks, instant sale regardless of the buyer's mental status or intentions. There was a big gun show with private sales this weekend just 10 miles from that tragedy last week.
Apparently defense contractors can still make these things: http://robotstocknews.blogspot.com/2009/05/uks-sunday-times-...
And there must be giant hogs in Georgia, if you need a total of 6 shotguns to kill them.
Also, hoghide is incredibly tough.
The article headline is definitely in error, not just misleading.