Gamifying Guns
- Thread starter Robert Rath
- Start date
Not to turn this into another "the end is nigh" thread, but that was a big part of why the crash of '83 happened: companies in unrelated industries making games to flog their products. That's why there were games made by companies like Colgate and Quaker Oats on the Atari 2600.
OT: This is an... interesting development. The gun itself is scary enough, and I say this as someone who goes target shooting on a semi-regular basis. That thing does not sound like a civilian weapons system at all, if anything it sounds like something out of a piece of military sci fi. The app is disquieting in its own way too, although the more I think about it, the less I think about it, and the more I think of the gun it's meant to sell. The whole marketing to gamers thing is actually good news, if other industries start figuring it out. It means they're finally recognizing that there are adults out there gaming with their own money, rather than kids using their parents' money. That's a significant step towards finally getting the old farts to stop using videogames as a scapegoat, and start looking for a new boogeyman. I used to think that had already happened, but apparently all it takes is a panicked NRA to get it going again.
I would argue that guns are made to kill. Whether animals or humans, the whole idea behind a black powder propelled bullet is to cause to harm. Society may now frown upon the harm part and hope that firearms are merely used for entertainment and target shooting, but harm is the original purpose.slash2x said:
That being said, I will agree that majority of us or (somewhat) mature, responsible adults that know the difference between right and wrong, inappropriate behaviour, and rash action. However, not all humans are. There are immoral, psychopathic, insane beings out there. They use what tools and weapons they can to inflict as much harm, pain, and suffering as they can.
The fear here is that this sort of technology will make it even easier for the average person to shoot people from increasingly 'safe' distances.
The concern is that if/when this incident occurs, the scapegoat will be leveled at games because of how it was marketed, becuase of the training app. An unfair analysis, but there it is.
Again, I agree that problem lies with the person, but not everyone sees it that way.
In fact, from a certain point of view, the 'game' sounds amazingly benign. Anyone who thinks that the training app turned the nice person into a bloody thirsty killer would be completely bonkers.
Also throwing my hat into the, "This idea kind of freaks me out," ring.
two words that video games don't "teach" you about a rifle: "eye relief"
Good luck hitting anything past 100 meters if you don't know how to properly look down the sights of a rifle.
OT: since when does technology closing the gap on old technology instantly correlate with video games? Since when did children/young adults not fantasize about being a solder/warrior/knight/legionnaire?
Your worrying about a social issue that has been around for much longer than you or I. Until they can find out what gene that is and remove it, your fear of people blaming video games for something that has been around for a very long time will continue to march on or until they find something else to blame, I vote down with Twitter!
Good luck hitting anything past 100 meters if you don't know how to properly look down the sights of a rifle.
OT: since when does technology closing the gap on old technology instantly correlate with video games? Since when did children/young adults not fantasize about being a solder/warrior/knight/legionnaire?
Your worrying about a social issue that has been around for much longer than you or I. Until they can find out what gene that is and remove it, your fear of people blaming video games for something that has been around for a very long time will continue to march on or until they find something else to blame, I vote down with Twitter!
Did you know that if you Satan Himself [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong]?
The auto-targeting advancement (and note that we're at the beginning of this technological development) was inevitable. And we saw it coming [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartgun].
But, you know, so were crossbows. And I'm sure some longbow veterans lamented that these newfangled (resurfacing) weapons were ruining the spirit of war (or of hunting or marksmanship) since training with one was little more than a week. And yes, new tech is scary. Pope Innocent II passed a bull proscribing using crossbows...against Christians. Yet, if a new weapon helps us kill more infidels Ottomans Huns heretics catholics Nazis Soviets terrorists, well then lock and load![footnote]The great exceptions always seem to be the tools too blunt for anything short of total war: Nukes, deadly chemicals, biological contagions. If we created a cloud of self-replicating nanobots that only killed those with specific genetic markers, then Boom goes London and boom Paree...[/footnote]
What's scary to me isn't that people will become more deadly with less training, but that this aiming system can be attacked to a drone or a BigDog [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigDog] and can become the next extra-judicial CIA assassination toy. Because our current administration likes extra-judicial CIA licenses to kill (currently at 50 civilian casualties per "high-value" neutralization, but that's a personal grievance)
Regarding madmen, what keeps us alive and safe from rampage killers is not the slow advance of technology (there will always be ways around that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaklahoma_City_Bombing]) it's that amok madness manifests rarely enough that their death toll is very low. (Also we're getting better at stopping amok killers from popping off.) By far, the most of us are really averse to killing people...or, really, any creatures, for reals. And we're remarkably averse to disobeying the law (even when the law is stupid or dangerous to follow).
Regarding senators, some of us who've studied American history recognize that sometimes senators need shooting. I think we as a country miss the era in which senators were nervous about the dangers of revolution turning violent.[footnote]Note how the peaceful OWS demonstration was cleaned up by law enforcement, discreetly at night at the behest of corporate influences on the state. When someone does shoot a senator, they can point at things like that and say "we said our piece and no-one listened."[/footnote] It might be nice to see our senators start behaving like they really don't want to be shot, and acknowledge that no-one has actually shot them on account of everyone choosing not to do so.[footnote]And yes, I know this resonates with typical pro-gun vitriol, but this is one of their points I agree with: People in high places who aren't afraid of us proletarians tend to lose touch with our tribulations until we bust out the guillotines. And then it's too late.[/footnote]
Anyway, at some point this tech will be better, easier and commonplace, and wouldn't it be nice if the number of gun deaths of innocent bystanders from stray fire were drastically reduced?
TL: DR: Technology and progress goes on. This is not a surprise. This won't increase rampage deaths, but may make our senators more nervous (and I see that as a good thing).
238U
The auto-targeting advancement (and note that we're at the beginning of this technological development) was inevitable. And we saw it coming [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartgun].
But, you know, so were crossbows. And I'm sure some longbow veterans lamented that these newfangled (resurfacing) weapons were ruining the spirit of war (or of hunting or marksmanship) since training with one was little more than a week. And yes, new tech is scary. Pope Innocent II passed a bull proscribing using crossbows...against Christians. Yet, if a new weapon helps us kill more infidels Ottomans Huns heretics catholics Nazis Soviets terrorists, well then lock and load![footnote]The great exceptions always seem to be the tools too blunt for anything short of total war: Nukes, deadly chemicals, biological contagions. If we created a cloud of self-replicating nanobots that only killed those with specific genetic markers, then Boom goes London and boom Paree...[/footnote]
What's scary to me isn't that people will become more deadly with less training, but that this aiming system can be attacked to a drone or a BigDog [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigDog] and can become the next extra-judicial CIA assassination toy. Because our current administration likes extra-judicial CIA licenses to kill (currently at 50 civilian casualties per "high-value" neutralization, but that's a personal grievance)
Regarding madmen, what keeps us alive and safe from rampage killers is not the slow advance of technology (there will always be ways around that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaklahoma_City_Bombing]) it's that amok madness manifests rarely enough that their death toll is very low. (Also we're getting better at stopping amok killers from popping off.) By far, the most of us are really averse to killing people...or, really, any creatures, for reals. And we're remarkably averse to disobeying the law (even when the law is stupid or dangerous to follow).
Regarding senators, some of us who've studied American history recognize that sometimes senators need shooting. I think we as a country miss the era in which senators were nervous about the dangers of revolution turning violent.[footnote]Note how the peaceful OWS demonstration was cleaned up by law enforcement, discreetly at night at the behest of corporate influences on the state. When someone does shoot a senator, they can point at things like that and say "we said our piece and no-one listened."[/footnote] It might be nice to see our senators start behaving like they really don't want to be shot, and acknowledge that no-one has actually shot them on account of everyone choosing not to do so.[footnote]And yes, I know this resonates with typical pro-gun vitriol, but this is one of their points I agree with: People in high places who aren't afraid of us proletarians tend to lose touch with our tribulations until we bust out the guillotines. And then it's too late.[/footnote]
Anyway, at some point this tech will be better, easier and commonplace, and wouldn't it be nice if the number of gun deaths of innocent bystanders from stray fire were drastically reduced?
TL: DR: Technology and progress goes on. This is not a surprise. This won't increase rampage deaths, but may make our senators more nervous (and I see that as a good thing).
238U
Semi automatic rifles only have one real use and that is to kill people. They are useless for hunting and target shooting. Yes you can kill someone with a car but you can drive to work in one, you can stab someone with a kitchen knife but you can cut the Sunday joint with it. There is no non human killing use of semi auto rifle that cant be done more effectively by a 303 bolt action rifle. However you can't walk into classroom and fire 156 bullets in 2 minutes with a 303 rifle. If you have no intent to kill a human you don't need those weapons.slash2x said:
As I have mentioned several times on this forum, I'm a hunter. I would not use this gun to hunt. I would not use this gun to target practice. I would not use this gun period. If I can't take it with a .308, 12 Gauge, or .22, I don't deserve it.
As for the dangers of the gun in a violent person's hands? Almost anyone with a Remington 700 .223, a good scope, and a couple weeks of dedicated practice can put your eye out at 1000yds for a tenth of the price. And I'd bet I can buy a dozen of them on E-Bay right now.
I'm not too worried what "The Public" thinks about my hobbies. (Gaming or Hunting) In the next 20-30 years the current leadership will die off, "The Next Big Moral Panic" will sweep the world, and nobody will give a damn about Video Games. In the mean time, I'll be sitting in a tree stand, playing with my tablet, and waiting for Bambie's Mom to wander by.
As for the dangers of the gun in a violent person's hands? Almost anyone with a Remington 700 .223, a good scope, and a couple weeks of dedicated practice can put your eye out at 1000yds for a tenth of the price. And I'd bet I can buy a dozen of them on E-Bay right now.
I'm not too worried what "The Public" thinks about my hobbies. (Gaming or Hunting) In the next 20-30 years the current leadership will die off, "The Next Big Moral Panic" will sweep the world, and nobody will give a damn about Video Games. In the mean time, I'll be sitting in a tree stand, playing with my tablet, and waiting for Bambie's Mom to wander by.
If a gun is cheating, so is a bow. Go kill a deer with your bare hands, teeth, and natural stalking skills. Until then, your argument just doesn't hold water. The rifle is the natural progression of technology from the bow. I am sure when the bow was invented there was some yahoo making a cave painting forum post about "go kill a deer with an atl-atl and I will respect your skills".itsthesheppy said:
The idea that because your edible quarry didn't evolve higher brain function, killing it with some arbitrary level of technological achievement (developed because your species DID evolve that function) is somehow "unfair" is illogical at best.
EDIT:
Also, this is not a device intended for deer, or any other four legged game. They just can't tell you that it's intended purpose is to improve the effectiveness of a modern sniper and lessen the need for a spotter and old fashioned dope book, because it makes the liberals squeal, scream and wring their hands as if someone with $17,000 is going to spend it just to kill people "on our streets". (This, of course, applies to the U.S., if you are not an American, your mileage may vary)
Said one guy at Skynet right before he hit the "on" switch.itsthesheppy said:
Amen and thank you for your service.slash2x said:
I would like to add to this that even if they dropped these on the market and sold 100,000 units to private owners, you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning on the surface of the moon than being shot by one within the border of the United States. People with $17,000 to spend on a rifle are people who make enough money not to commit violent crime. It's the guy that sold enough crack to buy a low end $100 .45 pistol and a mid range steak knife that you need to worry about. He's the guy watching your house trying to time when you leave for work and when you come home every day.
Fellow hunter here, and I totally agree. I use a Remington 700 .308 for hunting and that is more than enough for anything in the lower 48. This gun in the OP is useless to me. To add also, semi-autos are perfect for target practice and can be used hunting no problem, I just don't personally use on. I own a Remington Woodsmaster but that behemoth weighs a ton and don't want to lug it around. I want to get an M1A to try to hunt with that sucker, though. Gotta comment on the bows, bow hunting is a blast and improves your skills as a hunter dramatically.Keneth said:
Someone might have said this but we already use robots.rasputin0009 said:
They are called drones and are responsible for countless civilian deaths. Nobody really cares because it all happens so far away and terrorism is not terrorism if it is Britain or America doing it. I mean, they are living in a village with a suspected terrorist in it, they shouldn't have gathered publicly by going to a wedding or, increasingly, a funeral. Or by gathering together to help the wounded and move the dead from the last drone strike.
Finally, the idea of leaving everything down to robots is terrifying. Someone needs to be held accountable when 30 civilians are turned into a cloud of red mist or a famous journalist is almost blown up by air support (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921807.stm I was young but I remember WATCHING THAT LIVE. The microphones all blew out and the camera man wiped someones blood off the screen. The footage was never aired again.). You cannot hold a robot properly accountable, even a drone being controlled by someone else is difficult enough to pin the blame on. If your AI buggers up and it accidentally confuses "School" and "Terrorist Training Camp", you have noone to blame.
Not that there is a particularly good track record on blaming people when people make those mistakes...
OT:
This terrifies me. Just sounds like a way of making sure a nutjob that wants to kill a politician can actually make the shot. I mean, sure, it is going to be one of the most easily traced rifles around, what with being so unique. But what if someone steals it? And then takes a pop or two at a senator or politician? Or hell, random citizens? Remember the American Sniper(s, wasnt there a copycat?), imagine how much worse they would have been with far more accurate weapons.
I know this thing will not hit all the time. But this just sounds like a recipe for disaster. Someone is going to die by this weapon.
Thats an interesting piece of technology, if they can do they that they could automate the whole thing and have a ground drone/RoV fire a machine gun or automatic grenade launcher at a target 500yds away. In the past attempts at that have usually never got further than placing a TV camera crosshair over the target and hoping they hit.
Has anyone noticed that the AK-47 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47] doesn't sustain the same characteristics between any two games that feature it? Devs, it's the most ubiquitous gun on the planet. It shouldn't be a mystery.
Printed guns can be shot, but their best use is as prototypes for molding replacement parts. This is actually a big deal in Africa in which warlords will often engage in genocide against completely unarmed populaces. At this point, thanks to 3D library archives online they can mount a defense, if an asymmetrical one.
Regarding hunting, nature doesn't expect fairness or sportsmanship. It's no less fair for us to use rifles against deer than it is for a cat to use its natural hunting capabilities on mice.[footnote]The cat is faster and more maneuverable than the mouse. Cats detect mice more accurately at greater range than vice versa. And the cat's claws and incisors completely outarm the poor mouse. In fact, a cat is able to play with and control the mouse for a period before killing and consuming it. In its favor, the mouse has: population.) As hunters know they need to be aware of the populations they're thinning. Kill too many and you won't get to hunt (and eat) them anymore.[/footnote]
Similarly, tigers in Pakistan and India are better hunters than humans, and man-eaters often will kill most of a human hunting expidition that goes after it.[footnote]Tigers are endangered due to habitat loss, loss of natural prey and poachers. Man-eaters come from those who run out of prey and attack humans, after which local communities hunt specifically after the man-eater.[/footnote] Man-eaters can also determine armed humans versus unarmed ones. They stalk solitary unarmed ones for sustenance, and harass armed teams in their own territory.
238U
Printed guns can be shot, but their best use is as prototypes for molding replacement parts. This is actually a big deal in Africa in which warlords will often engage in genocide against completely unarmed populaces. At this point, thanks to 3D library archives online they can mount a defense, if an asymmetrical one.
Regarding hunting, nature doesn't expect fairness or sportsmanship. It's no less fair for us to use rifles against deer than it is for a cat to use its natural hunting capabilities on mice.[footnote]The cat is faster and more maneuverable than the mouse. Cats detect mice more accurately at greater range than vice versa. And the cat's claws and incisors completely outarm the poor mouse. In fact, a cat is able to play with and control the mouse for a period before killing and consuming it. In its favor, the mouse has: population.) As hunters know they need to be aware of the populations they're thinning. Kill too many and you won't get to hunt (and eat) them anymore.[/footnote]
Similarly, tigers in Pakistan and India are better hunters than humans, and man-eaters often will kill most of a human hunting expidition that goes after it.[footnote]Tigers are endangered due to habitat loss, loss of natural prey and poachers. Man-eaters come from those who run out of prey and attack humans, after which local communities hunt specifically after the man-eater.[/footnote] Man-eaters can also determine armed humans versus unarmed ones. They stalk solitary unarmed ones for sustenance, and harass armed teams in their own territory.
238U
I'm not talking about going to Sports Authority and buying a $1,000 compound bow. I'm talking about walking into the woods with nothing and fashioning one. We don't have the teeth and claws necessary to take down game. But fashioning a bow or a spear out of stuff found in the woods and using that? Manly as fuck.Frost27 said:
Rifle is just cheating. Why not just set out land mines and collect the pieces later? Silly.
It won't be a war crime if your robots shoot their robots. I said it'll be better when humans are taken off the battlefield and replaced with robots. Not "Americans".Xiado said: