Web-controlled guns are illegal | Hacker News Reader

Web-controlled guns are illegal

chronicle.augusta.com

14 pointsdabent15 comments

"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.

Are they being made illegal because they are morally wrong, or because citizens should not have access to them?

Apparently defense contractors can still make these things: http://robotstocknews.blogspot.com/2009/05/uks-sunday-times-...

Oh man, there goes my startup idea :(

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".

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.

The article does not say anything about web controlled guns being illegal. In 25+ states, cyber hunting is banned.

The article headline is definitely in error, not just misleading.

"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.

1: create webcam-n-gun rig.

2: mount the whole setup on a walking robot.

3: ??

4: apocalypse

Web-controlled or not, I wonder if it is legal in Georgia (or the US in general) to let firearms lie around unprotected?

And there must be giant hogs in Georgia, if you need a total of 6 shotguns to kill them.

Why set up one gun when you can set up six? More firepower always wins, right?

Also, hoghide is incredibly tough.

Wow!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com