h a l f b a k e r yBirth of a Notion.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This would be a subscription web site that allowed people to shoot trespassers on a clearly marked stretch of American real estate. The subscription would be on a per bullet basis, paid in advance, with a complete admission of liability for by the user for any bullet shot through the web site.
One
or more "webgun" would be set up for the stretch of land allowing people to let off pot-shots at anyone who appears without permission. This would, of course, be everybody so everyone who appears be shot. Potentially fragmentation grenades could be placed in a web grenade launcher if the physical site was in a permissive state.
mowmylawn.com
http://www.halfbake...dea/mowmylawn_2ecom
It was my idea first. [BinaryCookies, Aug 27 2002]
[link]
|
| |
Can you name one state where this would be legal? We are allowed to shoot in self-defense, but I can see no grounds for shooting random trespassers, however clearly warned. Otherwise you would see people setting up tripwire guns like those formerly used on the Berlin Wall. |
|
| |
Though I might well use a site that allowed me to target shoot online with real ammo. (Never target shot with fragmentation grenades, after all.) |
|
| |
This is a psychotic version of mowmylawn.com. See HB list: Computer: web technology |
|
| |
// Can you name one state where this would be legal? // |
|
| |
No, but the first place it would likely be adopted would be Texas. Or perhaps Nevada. |
|
| |
And the lag time between the command and the firing would be... |
|
| |
...measurable in nano-seconds. Legal first in Montana. Of course. |
|
| |
As a citizen of a less armamentally-enhanced nation, I would settle for "FixItSoTrespassersCantSueMe.com". |
|
| |
BinaryCookies: Of course it is a pro-gun version of mowmylawn.com to let people theraputically blast away at pesky trespassers. I thought I would branch this idea out to give it more room to breath. |
|
| |
Remember: fragmentation genades don't kill people - instead users do. |
|
| |
(Apologies to Five Man Electrical Jam) |
|
| |
o/~ ...And the page says 'anybody caught tresspassing can be shot on sight', |
|
| |
So I hacked the site and i wrote on the index, "What gives you the right |
|
| |
To put up a page and post my name, as an excuse to bitch and moan? |
|
| |
If God was here, he'd tell it to your face, 'this one deserves a fishbone...'" o/~ |
|
| |
Given the nature of many of the post I have seen on this site I would surmise that Aristotle is a non-American manifesting faulty perceptions of the US legal system. So that there is no confusion, trespass is not and never has been a grounds for the commission of intentional torts. While TX has a self defense homicide defense that is very permissive this requires an imminent threat to self and not property. |
|
| |
I'd say you pretty well nailed it. |
|
| |
Well, I may be wrong since it was some years ago, but on my only visit to the United States of America, I visited Beverly Hills (not my choice). I seem to remember some lovely looking signs on celebreties' lawns saying things like "(...) armed response" and "Trespassers will be shot". Again, I may be wrong, but I can check my pictures of the trip. |
|
| |
Given the single post of [pablopk] that I've seen I would summise that he is an American that does not understand irony. |
|
| |
//an American that does not understand irony.//
...as distinct from the other sort. |
|
| |
Hey now let's not let this descend into US bashing (though they may have been where it started). I appreciate the joke but I just wanted to clear up an unfairly held perception upon which it was based. Despite what Charlton Heston would have the rest of the world believe the States are not peopled by gun waving imbeciles (imbeciles probably, gun waving, not by a stretch). Also as to PauloSargaco's astute observation: 1) yes, Beverly Hills is best left out of any travel plans; 2) they are stars and rich, as you well know they can get away with anything; 3) saying it and doing it are two very different things. And finally, to angel's gentle ribbing, isn't Alanis Morrisette a Canadian? |
|
| |
"You guys will be safe anytime you come out to visit me in Cali. I don't even mind you trampling my roses ."
Sincerely,
O.J. |
|
| |
Armed Forces around the world can implement this in high-security areas; Visitors to the website can assist in sentry duty, shooting down trespassers within a specified range. That way, less manpower needed... Hell, it could even be part of a recruitment drive |
|
| |
"//Can you name one state where this would be legal?//"
"//Legal first in Montana. Of course.//" |
|
| |
Funny you mentioned this If i understand the law in this state just right ( keep in mind that they need to protect the owners of shooting ranges here) if you have the appropriate fence and the correct amount of no trespassing signs per certain distance there is pretty much no liability if one were to ignore this and enter.
I would hate to see how many animals were shot chewwing on the the rotting remains of the suicidal unfortunates.
then the subscribers would get pissed of when the (nearly baited ) bears would get the unfortuates before they could. So based on the fact that there would be noone to eat the harvested animals, fishy |
|
| |
hmmmm.... From a legal analysis standpoint: |
|
| |
1. It is perfectly legal to have a gun, mounted in a remotley control turret in your yard. |
|
| |
2. If the shooter were from a non-extradition country, or using an anonymous web browser, then who would be libel? |
|
| |
3. Perhaps a better name would be "Do-as-you-will.com." That way you are not actually inducing them to shoot the trespassers. The signs should say something like "enter at your own risk -- bad neighborhood!" |
|
| |
//1. It is perfectly legal to have a gun, mounted in a remotley control turret in your yard. // no, it isn't... |
|
| |
This is, of course, a forward thinking idea. I would be very embarrassed to put up an idea where it so stale that people have already implemented it. |
|
| |
People have already implemented version of it where aspiring gardeners have been able to use internet-connected robotic devices to eliminate weeds. This is just The War On Terror version of such a device, with the added advantage that people could choose to only shoot the kind of people look like terrorists ... |
|
| |