5 ms·

Funny, the first thing I thought of was long-distance target shooting or hunting, not mass killings. The fact that you immediately go to the sniper mass killin

Funny, the first thing I thought of was long-distance target shooting or hunting, not mass killings. The fact that you immediately go to the sniper mass killings angle is what I find to be pretty fucked up.

wavesounds 14y ago
Long distance target shooting? It has a computer that helps you aim. Where's the fun in that?
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Long distance target shooting? The bullet kills the animal for you. Where's the fun in that?
  - wavesounds 14y ago
    I get hunting, I don't get "target" shooting, just play a video game and save the $17k - or am I missing something?
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      Hunting is 99% spending time getting into a position to take a shot, and then dressing your kill (and, for larger animals, getting all that meat out of the woods) and less than 1% aiming and pulling the trigger. This weapon increases the chances of you accurately targeting the vitals on an animal at ranges from 100 to 200+ yards, which a lot of hunters would probably be nervous about trying to shoot at. Ideally, this weapon would reduce the number of animal injuries, and increase the number of immediate kills. [edit: Ah, I just re-read your comment - you are actually saying you understand the use of this weapon while hunting, but don't understand the purpose of target shooting with it. Perhaps to prepare for hunting?]
    - bmelton 14y ago
      Except when there are really[1] fun[2] targets[3], I generally get bored too. I do love sporting clay, which is similar to trap and skeet, except you walk from one station to the next, and the patterns are different at each station. [1] - http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets-that-make-the-range-more-fun/?pid=495#image http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets... [2] - http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets-that-make-the-range-more-fun/?pid=500#image http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets... [3] - http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1314484 http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1314484
phreanix 14y ago
I really don't see any long range precision shooters getting any joy out of a computer that does all the hard work for them.
- RyJones 14y ago
  It does the least interesting part of the work. It doesn't read wind or mirage, which is the hard part. Also, read up on rail guns and benchrest shooting; then get back to me on "doing all the hard work for you".
  - phreanix 14y ago
    I've dabbled in BR (rimfire and airgun) and while yes, wind doping is quite challenging, a lot of the satisfaction behind a good shot still comes from the aggregate effort: breathing, trigger pull, muscle control. For me at least. The guys with the rail guns tho, that's a whole 'nother level.
- nettdata 14y ago
  As a long distance shooter, and lover of technology, I would most assuredly get a lot of joy out of this. Also, you'd be incorrect about this doing the hard work. They add the concept of "windage" almost as an afterthought, and I can tell you that at long distances, it is anything but. In long distance shooting, pulling the trigger is the easy part.
abraininavat 14y ago
I notice you don't bother to argue with the parent's point -- that this weapon is a lot more dangerous than your average rifle since the level of skill required to use it effectively (and, equivalently, lethally) is much lower. It seems a valid point to me. Maybe you could give share your viewpoint instead this silly red herring suggestion that the parent is deranged for bringing up the point.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I'm not the author, but I'll recap some of the points I've made all over this thread. 1) Where you claim it makes a more effective killing machine, another might easily say that it makes a much safer hunting weapon, or more easy to use for wounded, injured, disabled or handicapped hunters or veterans. 2) There are many, many ways that criminals could exploit even every day items to achieve extremely deadly results, and until we're ready to ban every single one of them (which admittedly, Mayor Bloomberg seems poised to do), we should not punish the majority for the very unlikely potential criminal use by a very small minority. 3) It's an advancement in technology that I worry may be stifled for private industry and instead hoarded for military application, which will almost certainly lead to slower development in the technology. Imagine further into the future, as the technology evolves, it might be able to distinguish between humans and potential prey. Or even perform sentiment analysis on humans to differentiate between humans at peace and humans that are actively trying to kill you. Also, for the record, I'm not suggesting that being afraid of the potential for technology such as this is completely unreasonable, but I am arguing that in this country, at least for now, we do have a Bill of Rights that protects our right to bear arms and this, such as it is, classifies as such, and should not be bannable on the meritless assumption that every would-be shooter will now plunk down $17,000 and become a super-villain just because they can.
  - abraininavat 14y ago
    1) I agree you'd have to include that in the weighing of pros vs cons. I think many people who argue that this weapon should be illegal for the average person would concede that it would make sense to legalize it for people with a disability. 2) Come on, seriously? You say "even every day items". It makes less sense to ban every day items than it does to ban extravagant items that very few people, if any, need or even want. I can kill someone with a fork. More people have been killed with forks than with this weapon. Are you willing to (digitally) stand here and suggest to all of us that it doesn't make sense to ban this rifle until we ban forks? And where is your line? Every rational person has a line at which they say "X weapon clearly should be illegal for every day people to own." So where's yours? Do you not feel high explosives should be regulated? If farmers decided sarin gas (since it was mentioned elsewhere in this conversation) was a good pesticide, would you be all for it? Wherever you draw your line, it's just as arbitrary as anyone else's. 3) I'm simply not seeing any novel technology here. Motion tracking? It's been done. Servos being controlled by a microprocessor? It's been done. Distance gauging? Trajectory adjustment? Where is the new technology that we'd all miss out on? Regarding the note about the bill of rights, what a horribly conceived piece of writing is the second amendment. It asserts the right to "bear arms" but doesn't give any hint as to the definition of "arms". An H-bomb classifies as an "arm" just as perfectly as this firearm does. We've outgrown that short-sighted text.
ryderm 14y ago
Considering it's a killing machine designed to make it as easy as possible to kill something very far away from you with no skill, I think jumping to mass killings is the logical thing to do. There is no reason something like this needs to be sold to the public.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I'll wager this isn't a valid use case for you, but having worked with a number of disabled veterans who prefer the AR15 for its ease of use and modifiability to accomodate their physical injuries, something like this may accomodate their needs for hunting and such more easy. It also potentially enables those with diminished eye sight or nearsightedness for greater accuracy. On top of that, at least as it stands right now, it makes the operation of a long-range rifle safer and more effective. I don't know why that would be considered a negative.
hristov 14y ago
So what is your point, that since you did not think of it, we do not have to worry about it? I am sure the potential mass murderers will think of it.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  There are lots of things to worry about in this world. Cars are dangerous. Gasoline is dangerous. Shotguns are dangerous. Swimming pools are inordinately dangerous. Very, very far down on my list of things to worry about are $17,000 ultra-long range computer aided bolt-action trigger initiated rifles. [edit - after thinking a bit, I believe I could come up with a list of 500 things that we should be more worried about than this weapon. Just the cost alone means that there will be very few of them in general circulation. In the next 20 years, I wager there will be less than 10 homicides in the United States resulting from this weapon. If you want to get up in arms about something - start with the likely 500,000+ automobile deaths that will occur in the same time period (I'm presuming automobile safety will bring the numbers down to those levels)]
  - abraininavat 14y ago
    Pretty lame strawman. "X is more dangerous than Y" does not imply "X should be illegal if Y is illegal", due to any number of other factors.
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      My argument is more along the lines of, "There is a list of things we should worry about. Somewhere, on that list is Y. Ahead of Y, there are 250 other things, that, if we really wanted to change the world for the better, make it safer for ourselves, and our children, we would focus on. If we wish to act rationally, and make the world a better place, there will be far greater return on our effort, lobbying, and resources, to worry about items higher up on that list, as opposed to some incredibly unlikely events that will occur because of Y. For some reason, Y grabs our attention though - and I was just trying to pull us all back to realizing, that, in the grand scheme of things, Y is irrelevant to the safety of ourselves, our children, and our community. As such, little to no effort should be put towards worrying about, or legislating Y."

wavesounds 14y ago

Long distance target shooting? It has a computer that helps you aim. Where's the fun in that?

sliverstorm 14y ago
Long distance target shooting? The bullet kills the animal for you. Where's the fun in that?
- wavesounds 14y ago
  I get hunting, I don't get "target" shooting, just play a video game and save the $17k - or am I missing something?
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    Hunting is 99% spending time getting into a position to take a shot, and then dressing your kill (and, for larger animals, getting all that meat out of the woods) and less than 1% aiming and pulling the trigger. This weapon increases the chances of you accurately targeting the vitals on an animal at ranges from 100 to 200+ yards, which a lot of hunters would probably be nervous about trying to shoot at. Ideally, this weapon would reduce the number of animal injuries, and increase the number of immediate kills. [edit: Ah, I just re-read your comment - you are actually saying you understand the use of this weapon while hunting, but don't understand the purpose of target shooting with it. Perhaps to prepare for hunting?]
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Except when there are really[1] fun[2] targets[3], I generally get bored too. I do love sporting clay, which is similar to trap and skeet, except you walk from one station to the next, and the patterns are different at each station. [1] - http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets-that-make-the-range-more-fun/?pid=495#image http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets... [2] - http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets-that-make-the-range-more-fun/?pid=500#image http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2012/03/28/10-shooting-targets... [3] - http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1314484 http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=1314484

phreanix 14y ago

I really don't see any long range precision shooters getting any joy out of a computer that does all the hard work for them.

RyJones 14y ago
It does the least interesting part of the work. It doesn't read wind or mirage, which is the hard part. Also, read up on rail guns and benchrest shooting; then get back to me on "doing all the hard work for you".
- phreanix 14y ago
  I've dabbled in BR (rimfire and airgun) and while yes, wind doping is quite challenging, a lot of the satisfaction behind a good shot still comes from the aggregate effort: breathing, trigger pull, muscle control. For me at least. The guys with the rail guns tho, that's a whole 'nother level.
nettdata 14y ago
As a long distance shooter, and lover of technology, I would most assuredly get a lot of joy out of this. Also, you'd be incorrect about this doing the hard work. They add the concept of "windage" almost as an afterthought, and I can tell you that at long distances, it is anything but. In long distance shooting, pulling the trigger is the easy part.

abraininavat 14y ago

I notice you don't bother to argue with the parent's point -- that this weapon is a lot more dangerous than your average rifle since the level of skill required to use it effectively (and, equivalently, lethally) is much lower. It seems a valid point to me. Maybe you could give share your viewpoint instead this silly red herring suggestion that the parent is deranged for bringing up the point.

bmelton 14y ago
I'm not the author, but I'll recap some of the points I've made all over this thread. 1) Where you claim it makes a more effective killing machine, another might easily say that it makes a much safer hunting weapon, or more easy to use for wounded, injured, disabled or handicapped hunters or veterans. 2) There are many, many ways that criminals could exploit even every day items to achieve extremely deadly results, and until we're ready to ban every single one of them (which admittedly, Mayor Bloomberg seems poised to do), we should not punish the majority for the very unlikely potential criminal use by a very small minority. 3) It's an advancement in technology that I worry may be stifled for private industry and instead hoarded for military application, which will almost certainly lead to slower development in the technology. Imagine further into the future, as the technology evolves, it might be able to distinguish between humans and potential prey. Or even perform sentiment analysis on humans to differentiate between humans at peace and humans that are actively trying to kill you. Also, for the record, I'm not suggesting that being afraid of the potential for technology such as this is completely unreasonable, but I am arguing that in this country, at least for now, we do have a Bill of Rights that protects our right to bear arms and this, such as it is, classifies as such, and should not be bannable on the meritless assumption that every would-be shooter will now plunk down $17,000 and become a super-villain just because they can.
- abraininavat 14y ago
  1) I agree you'd have to include that in the weighing of pros vs cons. I think many people who argue that this weapon should be illegal for the average person would concede that it would make sense to legalize it for people with a disability. 2) Come on, seriously? You say "even every day items". It makes less sense to ban every day items than it does to ban extravagant items that very few people, if any, need or even want. I can kill someone with a fork. More people have been killed with forks than with this weapon. Are you willing to (digitally) stand here and suggest to all of us that it doesn't make sense to ban this rifle until we ban forks? And where is your line? Every rational person has a line at which they say "X weapon clearly should be illegal for every day people to own." So where's yours? Do you not feel high explosives should be regulated? If farmers decided sarin gas (since it was mentioned elsewhere in this conversation) was a good pesticide, would you be all for it? Wherever you draw your line, it's just as arbitrary as anyone else's. 3) I'm simply not seeing any novel technology here. Motion tracking? It's been done. Servos being controlled by a microprocessor? It's been done. Distance gauging? Trajectory adjustment? Where is the new technology that we'd all miss out on? Regarding the note about the bill of rights, what a horribly conceived piece of writing is the second amendment. It asserts the right to "bear arms" but doesn't give any hint as to the definition of "arms". An H-bomb classifies as an "arm" just as perfectly as this firearm does. We've outgrown that short-sighted text.

ryderm 14y ago

Considering it's a killing machine designed to make it as easy as possible to kill something very far away from you with no skill, I think jumping to mass killings is the logical thing to do. There is no reason something like this needs to be sold to the public.

bmelton 14y ago
I'll wager this isn't a valid use case for you, but having worked with a number of disabled veterans who prefer the AR15 for its ease of use and modifiability to accomodate their physical injuries, something like this may accomodate their needs for hunting and such more easy. It also potentially enables those with diminished eye sight or nearsightedness for greater accuracy. On top of that, at least as it stands right now, it makes the operation of a long-range rifle safer and more effective. I don't know why that would be considered a negative.

hristov 14y ago

So what is your point, that since you did not think of it, we do not have to worry about it? I am sure the potential mass murderers will think of it.

ghshephard 14y ago
There are lots of things to worry about in this world. Cars are dangerous. Gasoline is dangerous. Shotguns are dangerous. Swimming pools are inordinately dangerous. Very, very far down on my list of things to worry about are $17,000 ultra-long range computer aided bolt-action trigger initiated rifles. [edit - after thinking a bit, I believe I could come up with a list of 500 things that we should be more worried about than this weapon. Just the cost alone means that there will be very few of them in general circulation. In the next 20 years, I wager there will be less than 10 homicides in the United States resulting from this weapon. If you want to get up in arms about something - start with the likely 500,000+ automobile deaths that will occur in the same time period (I'm presuming automobile safety will bring the numbers down to those levels)]
- abraininavat 14y ago
  Pretty lame strawman. "X is more dangerous than Y" does not imply "X should be illegal if Y is illegal", due to any number of other factors.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    My argument is more along the lines of, "There is a list of things we should worry about. Somewhere, on that list is Y. Ahead of Y, there are 250 other things, that, if we really wanted to change the world for the better, make it safer for ourselves, and our children, we would focus on. If we wish to act rationally, and make the world a better place, there will be far greater return on our effort, lobbying, and resources, to worry about items higher up on that list, as opposed to some incredibly unlikely events that will occur because of Y. For some reason, Y grabs our attention though - and I was just trying to pull us all back to realizing, that, in the grand scheme of things, Y is irrelevant to the safety of ourselves, our children, and our community. As such, little to no effort should be put towards worrying about, or legislating Y."