California to ban internet hunting.

[Do Miss America]

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Wildlife regulators took the first step Tuesday to bar hunters from using the Internet to shoot animals, responding to a Texas Web site that planned to let users fire at real game with the click of a mouse.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/05/04/internet.hunting.ap/index.html






Good for them. This is seriously the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, it's just wrong in so many ways.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I never heard of that before

I'm opposed to hunting anyway, how many people are really hunting for food to keep themselves alive? One of the most traumatic experiences I've ever had was seeing a dead deer on top of a truck in a parking lot of all places, there was blood all over the place. I've never forgotten that image.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Agree fully with you both. My other (tentative) exception is hunting to cull. I still dont like this, but it is necessary at times. I know farmers here have big problems with kangaroos and rabbits. The rabbit sespecially, as they're an introduced species.
Anyway, I'm sidetracking. Shooting is not a sport. It's bloodlust.

 

[all_i_want]

how the hell do you shoot animals over the internet? how is that possible? and why not just buy a computer game instead, which allows you to shoot all kinds of things?

i agree with you all, this must be single-handedly is the stupidest business idea ever conceived.

 

[BVS]

It's not just a stupid business idea, it's immoral and irresponsible.

There's a gun mounted on a webcam that can be aimed and fired over the internet. But what happens if the animal is wounded? You can't track in down. What happens when someone is taking a shortcut through the woods and gets shot...interesting trial don't you think.

Absolutely irresponsible.

 

[dandy]

breathtakingly stupid and irresponsible.

 

[verte76]

This is the damnedest thing I've ever heard of. Shooting animals on the Internet? I say stop it.

 

[nbcrusader]

Let's see. We can use the internet to objectify and make a woman do just about any sexual acts we can imagine, but if it affects an animal, we better pass a law........

 

[BVS]

Let's see. We can use the internet to objectify and make a woman do just about any sexual acts we can imagine, but if it affects an animal, we better pass a law........

My views are not based on any animal rights issues. I honestly do believe that RESPONSIBLE hunting does have to take place with certain animals.

My views are the dangers of having a weapon just a mouse click away.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

This is retarded.

Strange how people care about this when most of the world's population consumes animals for food.

"We don't think Californians should be able to hunt sitting at their computers at home," said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the state Department of Fish and Game.

Why's that, because we should be more like India? I care so much about animals that I eat them every day.

 

[BVS]

This is retarded.

Strange how people care about this when most of the world's population consumes animals for food.

Why's that, because we should be more like India? I care so much about animals that I eat them every day.

This isn't about animal rights. It's about the responsibility of it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

This isn't about animal rights. It's about the responsibility of it.

I've seen the word "responsibility" on most every post on this thread, but nobody has stated a thorough case.

 

[melon]

Let's see. We can use the internet to objectify and make a woman do just about any sexual acts we can imagine, but if it affects an animal, we better pass a law........

I guess you're advocating killing people over the internet then?

Melon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I guess you're advocating killing people over the internet then?

Melon

Explain.

 

[melon]

This is retarded.

Strange how people care about this when most of the world's population consumes animals for food.

Why's that, because we should be more like India? I care so much about animals that I eat them every day.

If you want to hunt animals, get your legal hunting rifle, wait until hunting season, and shoot away. You'll have plenty of meat to shove in your deep freezer then.

As it stands, this internet ploy is just an excuse to kill animals out-of-season and I doubt the meat is even eaten. There's responsible hunting, which I support, and then there's irresponsible hunting like this thing over the internet.

Melon

 

[BVS]

I've seen the word "responsibility" on most every post on this thread, but nobody has stated a thorough case.

A responsible hunter when wounding an animal, will track the animal down. This is impossible with this system. Now the animal when wounded will end up suffering before dying, or get an infection that can spread and effect the others.

 

[BVS]

Explain.

See my first post.

 

[nbcrusader]

The California law has nothing to do with gun safety - which will be regulated in Texas where the gun is located.

"We don't think Californians should be able to hunt sitting at their computers at home," said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the state Department of Fish and Game.

This is just a different group with their own moral agenda.

Besides, this is likely just a gimmick that will help separate another group of suckers from their money.

 

[Do Miss America]

The actual Head of Texas Wildlife and Park is trying to shut this guy down as well. I think California is trying to distance itself because there is too much room for loopholes and problems when dealing with the internet.

 

[XHendrix24]

If you want to hunt animals, get your legal hunting rifle, wait until hunting season, and shoot away. You'll have plenty of meat to shove in your deep freezer then.

As it stands, this internet ploy is just an excuse to kill animals out-of-season and I doubt the meat is even eaten. There's responsible hunting, which I support, and then there's irresponsible hunting like this thing over the internet.

Melon

Agreed.

 

[all_i_want]

hunting over the internet. sounds pretty damn stupid (and lazy) as well.

 

[Maggie1]

Im glad it has been banned. I will never understand why some people get off on killing helpless animals. It is just sick.

 

[Angela Harlem]

nbc and mac, you guys don't think this concept is stupid, irresponsible, and overall insane?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

They're just animals - we eat them, we wear them, we put them to work. In addition, there are more problems over the internet than this. I'm also more concerned about the value of an innocent human being's life than the chicken I buried in my stomach at the dinner table. Personally, I'd never shoot an animal for the fun of it, but I don't condemn it to the equivalent of child pornography.

 

[indra]

Let's see. We can use the internet to objectify and make a woman do just about any sexual acts we can imagine, but if it affects an animal, we better pass a law........

The woman can choose what she does or does not wish to do. The animal does not have that choice. It's not all that hard to see the difference.

 

[BVS]

They're just animals - we eat them, we wear them, we put them to work. In addition, there are more problems over the internet than this. I'm also more concerned about the value of an innocent human being's life than the chicken I buried in my stomach at the dinner table. Personally, I'd never shoot an animal for the fun of it, but I don't condemn it to the equivalent of child pornography.

You obviously don't understand the ramifications of this if you honestly think this is hunting.

 

[indra]

They're just animals - we eat them, we wear them, we put them to work. In addition, there are more problems over the internet than this. I'm also more concerned about the value of an innocent human being's life than the chicken I buried in my stomach at the dinner table. Personally, I'd never shoot an animal for the fun of it, but I don't condemn it to the equivalent of child pornography.

It's been shown that people who abuse animals (and this is abuse -- there is no purpose to it at all) and far more likely to abuse other people, including those innocent children you are worried about.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You obviously don't understand the ramifications of this if you honestly think this is hunting.

http://www.live-shot.com/

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It's been shown that people who abuse animals (and this is abuse -- there is no purpose to it at all) and far more likely to abuse other people, including those innocent children you are worried about.

Mass-murderer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer killed neighbors' pets and impaled a dog's head on a stick.
Patrick Sherril, who murdered 14 co-workers and then killed himself, stole pets, then tied them up and allowed his own dog to mutilate them.
David Berkowitz, the so-called "Son of Sam," shot his neighbor's labrador retriever.
Albert DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler," shot arrows into boxes of trapped cats and dogs.
Brenda Spencer, who fired 40 shots into a crowd of children, murdering 2 and wounding 9, had a history of setting the tails of neighborhood cats and dogs on fire.
Edmund Emil Kemper III, who murdered his mother and 7 other women, used to abuse cats and dogs.
Carol Edmund Cole, who murdered 35 people, admitted that his first violent act was strangling a puppy.
Richard Allen Davis, kidnapper and murderer, doused cats with gasoline and set them on fire.

Nobody known has yet participated on internet hunting/shooting and later went off to kill a human being. And no, I wasn't specifying children in particular. Those who have tendencies towards hostility on other human beings may very well abuse animals. I don't see it beginning with animal hunting.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Albert DeSalvo - Thirteen women were strangled in Boston, USA, between June 1962 and January 1964. The killer, moved by uncontrollable sexual desires, plausibly talked his way into the confidence of women living alone. Once admitted to their homes, he raped and strangled his victims. His hallmark was to tie the ligature around their necks with a characteristic bow under the chin.


David Berkowitz - famous serial killer.

Brenda Spencer - pled guilty to two counts of murder and assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. She has been up for parole three times and has been turned down each time, the last in 2001. At her first parole hearing she expressed doubt that any of the victims were hit by bullets from her rifle and contended they might have been shot by police. She also claimed to have been under the influence of alcohol and hallucinogenic drugs at the time of the shootings and asserted prosecutors and her attorney had conspired to fabricate test evidence showing she had no drugs in her system. By her third parole hearing she was admitting guilt and expressing remorse but was still contending she had been drunk and high on marijuana laced with PCP the day of her deadly rampage.

Carol Edmund Cole - very well had evil intentions to begin with, proves nothing that his first violent act was strangling a puppy.