Geohashing Meets an Angry Rancher With Firearms

katicli writes "Geohashing, an obscure xkcd pastime which involves going to random coordinates generated by md5 hashing, the date, and the opening status of the stock market, appears to have just gotten far more interesting. The official wiki reports a warning for other geohashers intending to go to the spot designated for June 14th in the San Francisco area, as several avid fans of xkcd were met by an angry rancher and firearms."

Overreactions

[BWJones]

My first reaction is that the geohashing folks overreacted. I might be a little concerned and take photos of license plates if a bunch of people suddenly showed up on my property somewhere out in the boonies.

As to the firearms, were they scared at the mere presence of firearms or did the ranchers actually point them at anyone? If they simply saw the guns in the truck, what possibly could have scared them? Ooooh, guns.... scary.

Re:Overreactions

[ScrewMaster]

To a lot of overprotected-live-in-the-parent's-basement technojock types, a gun is scary, if nothing else because of unfamiliarity. Besides, if the ranchers were taking pictures of license plates, odds are they were planning on involving law enforcement, not gunning anyone down.

Re:Overreactions

[Wog]

Yep.

"Two vehicles later drove on property, first truck with two rifles or shotguns in plain sight."

Egads, the ranchers had firearms mounted in their trucks! OH NOES, THEY MUST BE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF MURDERING US, THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION!

Please, PLEASE take note that nobody said that threats were ever made, or that firearms were ever presented in a menacing way. For anyone that works with livestock, having long guns mounted in vehicles and handguns on one's person is absolutely normal, routine, and safe.

If I were running a ranch and a bunch of 20-somethings showed up on my private property, I would be taking pictures and making sure I had a weapon at hand, too.

I'm a fan of XKCD and love the idea of Geohashing, but these folks really should make an effort to notify landowners and get permission before entering private property.

Re:Overreactions

[Secrity]

They need to do far more than make an attempt to contact the landowner, they need to get permission from the landowner.

Re:Overreactions

[Stanislav_J]

I was looking at the geohashing map for my area of NJ a while ago. That particular day, the site happened to fall in someone's back yard in suburbia, with no apparent way to get there using public property. I wondered how the geohashers, if they went, would handle that. I assumed they'd just meet up on the street instead of actually going onto someone's private property. Now, I'm not so sure. Do these guys make a practice of meeting on private property? If so, they're probably lucky they haven't been challenged before this.

From random pokings around their wiki, it looks like proper protocol is to ask permission of the property owner, if available. If not, some of them seem to just hang in the area, perhaps maneuvering to where they can get a visual/photo on the hash.

In any "hobby" like this, there are always a few nogoodniks who fail to use common courtesy (or sense). Like the folks who want to hit the highest point in every state. A few of the lower "high points" in eastern states are actually on private property, and I recall reading about one where the land owner fenced in the area to keep people from just traipsing up to the spot and taking pictures with no permission.

Re:Overreactions

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.. There's generally a distinction between a farm and a ranch too.

Just saying.

Re:Overreactions

[ya really]

My family lives on a farm in rural Ohio and I was stuck waking up at the buttcrack of dawn for many years to feed the animals (gotta drive some cool equipment though along the way). Anyways, a farm to any farmer includes the raising of crops (soybeans, corn, wheat, alfalfa, etc). A ranch only has livestock. One that has both would be considered a farm, not a ranch. Texas has farms and it has ranches, since they do grow things such as wheat and cotton down there.

Some might go farther to say that there are also orchards and plantations (not to be confused with those of the Antebellum era in the United States). However, a "spade is a spade" and I tend go with farm=crops/crops+animals, ranch=only animals.

Re:Overreactions

[giostickninja]

On the contrary, they are often quite jolly.

Re:Overreactions

[Deltaspectre]

I think that's your problem right there ;)

Farms don't have staff, they have workers.
(I grew up on a farm/ranch, where my dad always made sure to have a shotgun or rifle handy )

Bacon fixin's

[mrmeval]

It depends on the area and the farm. When I was a kid you might have had a gun handy or not. The gun really wasn't there to deter people it was there to maybe take game or put down a badly injured animal.

In Indiana in some areas within the last few decades there have been enough incidents involving strangers that farmers do go armed for people. A farm near my parents had an incident where someone started shooting at a combine. There was no warning and no reason was ever found. There was also a sniper incident in that area recently where several people were killed. While there are hunters in that area the sniper incident encouraged a large number of people to learn what a rifle is and what it can do. I suspect there are more non-hunters who can shoot than hunters in that area now.

If you're going to go to a rural area and be an ass expect to get cornholed. I like the comic but if it's readers are such stupid fucking morons as to trespass they can be hog feed for all I would care.

Re:Bacon fixin's

[Omestes]

If you're going to go to a rural area and be an ass expect to get cornholed. I like the comic but if it's readers are such stupid fucking morons as to trespass they can be hog feed for all I would care.

Most of the ranches in the west are on public lands, so even if it is posted there is no such thing as trespassing, since all the ranchers have is grazing rights. A couple of our gold claims out here are smack dab in the middle of ranches, and the rancher can't deny access. The only time it gets iffy is on privately maintained roads, then courtesy (and often personal safety) demands that you head up to the ranch house and ask permission.

As for cornholing... Erm... are you living in the 1800s, or in the Deliverance country? Most ranches are big businesses, with thousands of head, and tens of thousands of acres. These are run by huge companies, and the head rancher is usually financially well off, and educated. Most of the hands are either freindly half-drunk Mexicans, or friendly blue collar folk escaping from city life and complications.

The wild west isn't that wild anymore.

As for guns, expect them. Where we go, there are rather large predators running about, and tons and tons of poisonousness snakes. Also your 200 miles from nowhere, and there are some bad folk stomping around up there.

This is my experience in AZ, but I'm guessing it is largely the same everywhere in the west, possibly more so in civilized CA.

Re:Bacon fixin's

[nomadic]

A farm near my parents had an incident where someone started shooting at a combine.

The combine probably deserved it.

Re:Overreactions

[baboo_jackal]

in fact isn't that common to have a firearm on/with you even if you work on a ranch/farm.

Anecdotal evidence isn't. I don't think it's possible for you to make the claim that you know what's generally common practice among *all* ranchers and farmers based on your individual experience.

When it comes down to how an individual chooses to run/defend his or her ranch, it's highly dependent on the *local* population of livestock predators (which might also include things that attack humans).

not everyone is carrying a six shooter or rifle/shotgun on them all the time. Only when they see a specific use for it.

I would argue that, as a rancher, it would be *prudent* to carry firearms (responsibly, of course) at all times. It's always better to have a gun, and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

Re:Overreactions

[rohan972]

On farm I grew up on, my dad rarely carried a gun, my uncle fairly often. For shooting pests, crows, foxes etc which can be quite devastating to lambs. (My uncle spend more time working the sheep than my dad, who did more work with crops). But while not many in our area carried guns all the time, it wouldn't have rated a mention to see someone with a gun at any particular time. On one place I worked, I was frequently reminded by the owner to take my rifle with me during work, but he had more problems with feral animals than we did at home. I'd say it was common to carry a gun, but certainly common to not be carrying a gun too.

Re:Overreactions

[Deltaspectre]

I think 839 and 1097 have something to say to you!

Re:Overreactions

[clang_jangle]

Just yesterday I had to run some people off my land. I have it posted "NO TRESPASSING" very clearly all around the perimeter, no way can anyone end up on my property and claim not to know (unless they don't read English, I guess). Though I don't grab my shotgun before setting off to confront stupid people like that, most of my neighbors do. I can't say I blame them. These geohashers (and anyone else who shows up unannounced on private property) are pretty much looking to become s statistic.

To you city folks who think this is wrong, how would you like to wake up and find me in your living room?

Re:Overreactions

[ScrewMaster]

To you city folks who think this is wrong, how would you like to wake up and find me in your living room?

Depends. Are you a seriously-hot blond nympho with huge tits who happens to have a thing for senior software engineers?

Re:Overreactions

[cp.tar]

To you city folks who think this is wrong, how would you like to wake up and find me in your living room?
Depends. Are you a seriously-hot blond nympho with huge tits who happens to have a thing for senior software engineers?

Even worse.

If I woke up and found some weird guy in my living (or any other) room, well, just kick him out. Yeah, I don't lock my door or anything, and there is little or nothing in the fridge, so it's not that big a deal.

However, if a busty blonde nympho suddenly turned up in the middle of the night, the busty brunette/redhead (depends on her mood) sleeping next to me might be inclined to expect an explanation.

And I would have none.

Re:Overreactions

[Provocateur]

seriously-hot blond nympho with huge tits who happens to have a thing for senior software engineers

That's when I reach for my SECOND gun on the wall...the squirt gun for those wet T-shirt emergencies like this

Re:Overreactions

[julesh]

These geohashers (and anyone else who shows up unannounced on private property) are pretty much looking to become s statistic.

Geohashers do not go onto private property. From the original description [xkcd.com]: "When any coordinates generated by the Geohashing algorithm fall within a dangerous area, are inaccessible, or would require illegal trespass, DO NOT attempt to reach them." (emphasis mine). The usual procedure (as was followed in this case, if you read the description) is to meet on the closest public road to the coordinates generated.

This land-owner was overreacting to the presence of a large group of people on the public road close to their property, not to trespassers.

Re:Overreactions

[DerekLyons]

This land-owner was overreacting to the presence of a large group of people on the public road close to their property, not to trespassers.

Ah yes, the Slashdotter demographic speaks from their basement the standards all people must live by.
 
Meanwhile, out here in the real world, here are the problems I've seen while living in rural areas or have been seen close friends who live in rural areas; meth cookers, partiers leaving behind trash, partiers damaging property, vandalism to buildings and equipment, motorbikes and quads damaging property and interfering with livestock, livestock killed, livestock stolen, cars and trucks stolen, marijuana being raised along the edges of fields and in woods, etc. etc. etc...
 
There's a reason, multiple reasons, why the land owner reacted the way he did.

..and meth cookers

[swb]

Rural areas have, in the recent past, had serious problems with meth cookers. Either stealing anhydrous ammonia or using abandoned or unused houses and buildings to cook meth. Since meth cookers are usually tweakers and tweakers are usually paranoid and borderline psychotic, they have a tendency to be dangerous. And then there's just thieves stealing cattle or farm equipment, who are also generally armed and dangerous.

I've heard this from BLM rangers in Arizona and landowners in North Dakota.

Even if geohashers aren't doing anything "wrong" and are trespassing in error, at a minimum ranchers/farmers know that a sheriff may be 30 minutes or more away and that confronting an unknown quantity in a rural location and unarmed is inherently dangerous. So you grab your rifle from the truck.

While this might get you in hot water in the city when the police show up, in the country it means when your wife's cousin's husband (ie, the sheriff or deputy) shows up he usually will ask the landowner what time the barbecue on Saturday is and does he want those people arrested or just escorted out of the county.

And getting arrested in a rural area sucks. They'll treat you nice, but the "punishment" means spending 2-3 days in jail until bail is set and someone can drive down to bail you out (they won't let you out to go to the bank to get money wired to you) and if you choose to fight it or have to go to trial, making several trips at inconvenient times, hiring a local attorney (whose rates tend to go up for outsiders) and then paying some fine.

Re:Overreactions

[Kidbro]

I'm not arguing against you, but this long discussion about trespassing made me want to post about Allemansrätten [wikipedia.org] (Swedish, lit. transl: everyman's right). It is pretty much legal to enter private property as long as you stay out of gardens and the absolute vicinity of houses (just a clarification, as English is not my native language; when I say "property" here I speak about land, not houses). Essentially the law (which is a part of the Swedish constitution) exists in order to ensure that people will always have access to the country's forests, fields and lakes.

In short, barring special circumstances or special permits, it is illegal for the owner to drive anybody off their property.

I'm certainly not saying you're wrong - I just thought that people may want to know that alternative views on the concept of private property exists, and just picked one of the first posts in the discussion about it to reply to.
Oh, and Sweden is not the only country that has this practice. The law exists in other Nordic countries, and to a lesser extent some other European countries.

Re:Overreactions

[clang_jangle]

I'm sure you have your own reasons for wanting those kids to get off your lawn, but we all live on this planet, why not share? Why not join them?

Great idea! Why don't you start by leaving your door open and welcoming whomever wants in. After all, who are you to deny shelter, kitchen, and bathroom privileges to the homeless?

But seriously, after over 30 years of living in major cities (San Francisco, L.A., Philadelphia, Seattle, Atlanta) I've had enough and when I get home I want peace and quiet and I wish to be left alone. If you want to buy land and open it up to the public, you've got that right. Personally, I want my little forest and my little pond to remain pristine and undisturbed. I worked my butt off for 30 years to get it. Now I keep bees in my off time, and I don't want to have to lock all my tools and other belongings up to keep them, so no trespassing on my land. Is that okay with you?

Re:Overreactions

[Muad'Dave]

The real issue in the US, beyond that of the landowner's wishes, is that of liability. I forbid trespassing solely based on the fear of litigation by the trespasser. Those necking teens can sue the landowner if one of them twists an ankle.

Re:Overreactions

[bugnuts]

They have major problems with reintroduced wolves.

Wrong.

Also, mountain lions and coyotes are responsible for a lot of livestock deaths.

Mountain lions are protected in virtually every state. If you shoot one, you are committing a felony, even if it's killing your dogs or livestock.

Wolves are also protected, and they only needed reintroduction because of asshats like you spreading lies about them. There have been issues with them killing livestock, but not major problems as you state. In addition, welfare ranchers are raising their cattle on PUBLIC LAND which everyone pays for, then they have the GALL to act like they should have exclusive rights to it, even over what used to be a natural predator that lived there.

There are a few things about the old west that I really hate... one of them is the disrespect for the land. And wolves and mountain lions are part of the land here, just like the pines and rattlers.

Re:Overreactions

[elhedran]

Searched for "homicide rates per capita per country"

got

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita [nationmaster.com]

Of note, U.S. is listed at four times the number of homicides per capita than Australia. The U.K is even lower. Brazil isn't listed, which I assume to mean it wasn't included in the study. And this is homicides, by knife, gun or otherwise. There is a whole separate graph for 'killed by guns'.

Note the source of the study as well. 1998 to 2000. The same time period you seem to claim you got your data from.

Feel free to link to your own study, be sure it lists definitions and sources for the data it uses.

Re:Overreactions

[NormalVisual]

it only takes a few grams of pressure to pull a trigger, my point stands.

Your point is still not valid. The lightest trigger pull on any gun I own is about 4 pounds, or roughly 2000 grams. The lightest that I've ever fired was about half that, which still in no way could be construed as being "a few" grams, and in my opinion is way too light to be safe for a self-defense gun. The heaviest pull on one of my guns is just shy of 10 pounds. Three pounds of force applied with a sharp knife will produce a rather nasty wound, and won't do anything at all when applied to the trigger of any of my guns. Hell, I've had blood drawn by a falling piece of paper.

let me know when a blade produces a fist sized exit wound and has the concussive force of a bullet.

Concussive force doesn't mean jack in the context of firearm injuries (it's less than being punched even when talking about something like a .50 BMG), and there aren't many handgun rounds that are designed to produce exit wounds at all - an exit wound means some of the bullet's energy has been wasted. It's also quite easy to hit a non-vital area with a bullet and thus not produce a lot of bleeding. The same is true when stabbing someone, but a good slash with a knife is going to result in a substantial loss of blood *wherever* it's applied.

You're trying to argue a generalization that being shot is always worse than being slashed or stabbed, and that's just not true. Either can be fatal, both suck quite a lot for the recipient, and both would be best avoided where possible. However, if the fight has gotten to arm's reach, there's simply no guarantee whatsoever that the guy with the gun will come out on top, nor any reason to think he has more of a chance than the other guy.

Predation of livestock

[sjbe]

They have major problems with reintroduced wolves. Also, mountain lions and coyotes are responsible for a lot of livestock deaths.

"Major problems"? Please. The number of livestock killed by reintroduced wolves is miniscule. There are less than 2000 [wikipedia.org] reintroduced wolves in the lower 48 states. Even including Alaska the entire US has only about 9000 wolves. Ranchers fear wolves but they are not a serious problem in any way, shape or form. There simply are not enough of them to be a significant problem except for the occasional unlucky rancher.

Coyotes were responsible for significantly more [wikipedia.org] sheep deaths but even then it is a small portion of the population. A bit over 100,000 deaths were due to coyotes out of a population of 4.6 million. Coyotes often experience dramatic population restructuring in areas where wolves (which are bigger and stronger) are reintroduced. Coyotes however are also much better at living close to humans. I saw one in my backyard twice this year and I live 5 miles from one of the ten largest cities in the US.

Mountain lions have a total breeding population of around 50,000 spread across both of the americas. They are a threatened species and there are estimated to only be several thousand of them in the US most of them in and around the Rocky mountains with a few in south Florida. Like wolves, in most places their numbers simply aren't large enough to constitute a serious threat to most ranchers.

Re:Predation of livestock

[khallow]

One of the weakest arguments to ever show its face in slashdot. Six deaths over 130 years? In comparison, black widow spiders have killed [wikipedia.org] at least 63 people in the US between 1950 and 1990 (according to wikipedia). You do the math.

Re:Predation of livestock

[sjbe]

First, the mountain lion numbers are a lie. Have you ever tried to find a mountain lion that did not want to be found. It's impossible.

You're right that finding the animal itself would be a challenge. But they do leave evidence of their existence. Scat, carcasses, tracks, etc. It's hard to find a mountain lion but it's only impossible to find one that doesn't exist.

I live in Arkansas, and technically they don't exist, but ask some of my hunting buddies around here. We have a very large breeding population.

With all due respect to your hunting buddies I'm not impressed by extrapolations from anecdotal stories. Mountain lions have been known to appear in much of the US in small numbers. By your own arguments if there was a large breeding population the impact would be seen.

Also, coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions pose a serious threat to a ranchers livelihood.

There aren't enough wolves in the US to pose a serious threat to ranchers finances here. Coyotes are an issue but they also are not even close to endangered and ranchers are free to hunt them as needed.

Also, coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions pose a serious threat to a ranchers livelihood. Mountain lions kill at least one large herd animal a week. So that's 50,000 * 52= 2.6 million animals a year.

First off, mountain lions are generalist predators that will eat a wide variety of prey [wikipedia.org] ranging from deer to insects (yes insects) depending on what is locally available. Second the number is 50,000 SPREAD ACROSS TWO CONTINENTS. Your numbers sound impressive but the number of prey animals are FAR greater. For example the number of domestic sheep in the US alone at any given time is more than double that number and NO predator is even close to causing a decline. Once in a while a rancher has some bad luck but that's the way it goes with farming. Furthermore you are presuming that every animal a predator takes is a domestic animal which is clearly not even close to being the case.

Re:

[bugnuts]

Here in the old west, it's extremely common for ranchers to have a "range rifle" stashed in the back of the truck. I had to lend my dad a shotgun because he was having a bear problem and he's on a small farm. Guns are just a tool... I would've been more alarmed if the rancher showed up with a machete.

What I want to know is how they recognized the guns so well (so clearly they are exposed to them) yet sounded so alarmed that a rancher would have one in his truck. That's bizarre to me.

Hell, I have a mini-1

Re:Overreactions

[Firethorn]

There's a difference between carrying a firearm and having one available in the truck. It doesn't even have to be visible, it might be in a gun case or sleeve for protection behind the seats. My grandfather, who traps, keeps a .22 revolver under his seat most of the time. For a rancher or farmer, a firearm is a tool, and often thought of about as much as a cordless drill.

There's enough gun weenies out there that it's often not worth the hassle if somebody panics when you're in town.

All this discounts concealed carry. Not to mention that they might have been carrying and you simply didn't realize it. I'm part of the firearms community that concerns itself with self defense. This includes both concealed and unconcealed carry. People who carry unconcealed have reported that an amazing amount of people never realize that they're carrying.

We're not normally talking about a chrome plated six shooter in a tooled leather harness with silver highlights, here. We're talking a flat black firearm in a black leather or synthetic holster. If they're carrying one of the smaller ones, perhaps with a shirt bloused a bit over the top, it can easily be mistaken for a blackberry or other such device.

Re:Overreactions

[bsDaemon]

the amount of FPSism that abounds in certain sectors of the geek community, you'd think that they'd be desensitized to guns by now.

I grew up in the sticks and shot in rifle competitions when I was a kid. I grew up around guns and I have some now. The gun isn't the scary thing.

The scary thing is an unknown person with one. Especially an unknown person whose private property you've just invaded without permission - and apparently in numbers.

Why does that guy take the gun with him? Because how the hell does he know what this large group of hippies that just showed up in his property wants? They're just there for a math joke, but for all he knows they're trying to set up the next woodstock.

The moral of the story is, don't tresspass and then bitch when the owner of the property asserts his rights. Then again, around here people root for the cracker kids and the mp3 traders, so I'm not really surprised.

Re:Overreactions

[SanityInAnarchy]

the amount of FPSism that abounds in certain sectors of the geek community, you'd think that they'd be desensitized to guns by now.

FPSes tell me that headshots are easy, and that all it takes is a moment of not listening for footsteps, or a moment's hesitation with my own gun, and I'm dead. And here I am without even a knife... You'd think FPSes would make geeks even more sensitive to guns.

They're just there for a math joke, but for all he knows they're trying to set up the next woodstock.

I somehow doubt woodstock would be his biggest fear. For that matter, if that's what they're doing, seems like a perfect opportunity to cash in on his previously-undervalued property.

Re:Overreactions

[Dogtanian]

I somehow doubt woodstock would be his biggest fear.

Oh, I dunno. In real life, he's not as cute and harmless as he appears in the Snoopy cartoons.

Re:Overreactions

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

No, that should just make them more sensitive to death. From watching "SAW IV" I discovered that its easy to get two people to rip each others guts out with meathooks. If anything that should make me more sensitive to meathooks, right?

If you saw meathooks in a non-meatlocker, meathandler, butcher kind of context, yes. It'd certainly make me suspicious.

Re:Overreactions

[bigtangringo]

I think I speak for a lot of us here when I say: What a punch of pussies.

Re:Overreactions

[ScrewMaster]

I think I speak for a lot of us here when I say: What a punch of pussies.

Ah, I believe you meant "punch of bussies".

Re:Overreactions

[SBrach]

It's also generally not a good idea to bring a calculator to a gun fight.

Re:Overreactions

[Score Whore]

Re-read the "article." Sounds like the people who interacted with the farmer were told to stay off. And later a truck drove on the property that had visible guns. From what I can glean no one that the trespassers interacted with had a visible gun. Just that they saw a gun in a truck on the property.

The children need to grow up. I wonder how upset they each time the find new evidence that the real world isn't an amusement park there for their entertainment, sanitized and clean and all about hugging them.

Re:Overreactions

[Omestes]

These are people from the bay area.

I don't mean to bash all of them, but a couple that I know have an unnatural fear of guns, hell I'm dating one. She grew up in an affluent family in SF, and until she moved to AZ, has never really seen a real gun, much less handled one.

The first time we went up north, I threw on my "snake, javelena, mountain lion, pissed off bull" gun (a 22 revolver with alternating snake snake shot), and she was scared shitless. I asked her if she wanted to shoot it, but she couldn't even touch it, so much was her dread. She didn't even want me to wear it, until I pointed to the paw prints the size of my fist.

Re:

[Tryle]

Maybe idiots are in season for hunting and he had his permit. I wouldn't worry though, because he probably has to take a female (doe) first, so luckily for these losers there wasn't one in their herd. In fact, they probably NEVER have women around them, ever.

Re:Overreactions

[geniusj]

^D? Wrong control code..

Re:Overreactions

[MrMista_B]

Overreacted?

So, what, you think you shouldn't be more cautious than usual around people with guns, or do you think it's something that can be safely ignored without comment?

Myself, if I go somewhere, and a guy with a couple of guns in his truck pulls up, I'm not going to be thinking he's just a cute handsome stranger. They were *right* to be concerned when guns are involved - an overreaction would be ignoring them and doing nothing.

Also, in the future, if they go to a location and there's angry farmers with guns on location, they would be *right* to mention that, maybe, *maybe* it's not a good idea to go there. Or would that be another overreaction?

Re:

[morari]

Does it matter either way? I always have a gun behind the door and in various drawers throughout the house. If someone is trespassing, it is best to assume that they want trouble. If not, then you are naive and that may come back to bite you one day. Your first reaction shouldn't generally be to shove a gun in someones face, but having one on hand is always for the best. Furthermore, if you want, having one on hand in in plain sight (say in a shoulder holster) is even better. That way, you don't have people

Re:Overreactions

[Brian Gordon]

Yeah, I don't know why the xkcd folks think they can just get away with this.. you can't just drive out to a random spot; that's called trespassing unless it just happens to be on public land.

Re:Overreactions

[Anonymous Coward]

In free countries you can [outdooracc...otland.com]. It's one of the fundamental rights, like privacy, free speech and water. The right to roam.

Re:Overreactions

[Toonol]

The right to privacy means that I can't stop people from trespassing on my property? I have no right to privacy on my own land? Your definition of rights has some internal inconsistencies, buddy.

Re:Overreactions

[dryeo]

Generally the right to roam does not include developed/built up property. It is more for things like forests, grazing land etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam [wikipedia.org]

Re:Overreactions

[couchslug]

"The right to roam" may be fine in isolated instances of ethnically homogeneous countries with no appreciable rural crime rate.

The US is not that, and allowing it would be absurd and instantly exploited by criminals. There is ample historic support for protecting rural property from rustlers, theft, etc. Remember that the special conditions which apply in tiny areas like Scotland have no bearing on the rest of the world which faces MUCH different realities.

Re:Overreactions

[couchslug]

"Because thiefs and other criminals will obviously never get onto your land when it is illegal. It's only after you allow them onto your land they will steal stuff and kill you..."

What drivel. Being able to have detected trespassers removed by law enforcement, and to defend your land allows you to deter the bad folks from acting. The land is yours, not theirs, so it makes no sense to allow them on it in the first place. For example, under a "right to roam", all a thief need do is come onto isolated land and wait for the opportunity to steal fuel or equipment (tractors and harvesters are very expensive). Farmers may own thousands of acres, and have many acres un-farmed but in use for other purposes like wildlife conservation or left fallow between farming cycles. The "active use" test is absurd.

Why should property rights and personal security on ones own ground be thrown away because someone else might like to wander about what isn't theirs?

"And nevermind the fact that this right to roam is generally about the part of your land where you don't live (hard to kill you there) and which you don't actively use (hard to steal anything there)."

That still allows access, and potential liability if the trespasser, er, "roamer" gets hurt climbing a fence or falls into a ditch. BTW, why should I give anyone who wants it the opportunity to build a still or meth lab on my unused property? They have plenty of room for that on public lands! :)

The right to "roam" may work nicely in the Shire among friendly Hobbit-like people, but the US and much of the world isn't the fucking Shire.

My land is bought, paid for, not a group asset, and anyone I don't invite there is unwelcome. Those wanting land are welcome to amount to something and buy it as I did. Otherwise, they are cordially invited to stay out of what _I_ own. The idea that property rights make for un-freedom is literally Communist nonsense and not true in nations that have land reform and a free market. Anyone wanting land in the US is free to buy it at market prices, and there is AMPLE cheap land to be had.

The argument for "roaming" really boils down to people wanting things from other people they haven't paid for.

Re:Overreactions

[pipatron]

Pff, n00bs.

In Sweden you're allowed to camp for two days on random property, and pick mushroom and berries in the forests. The government can even forcibly remove fences if some land owner have put them up, if the fences prevents people from exercising their right to roam.

Re:Overreactions

[Wavebreak]

Right to roam wins. How it's mostly a nordic concept and not a universal one boggles me.

Re:Overreactions

[mabhatter654]

actually states like Texas have "right to roam" quite extensively for livestock... if cattle roams into your private yard, you wouldn't be allowed to stop or hurt it, even if it starts smashing your stuff. Land owners have the "right" to "try" to put up fences and that's about it. In fact in many states if the cattle roams into a public road and you hit it, you are responsible for paying for the animal the owner didn't keep out of the road!

Why would the reverse not be true? Why would a person not have the right to go where the cattle could go? Ranchers can't claim their property rights are "violated" when they don't respect others' in the same manor and keep their cattle on their property.

Re:Overreactions

[Omestes]

Trespassers will be SHOT, Survivors will be SHOT AGAIN.

Extreme much? Trespassers will be asked to remove themselves (depending on their number, and if they're causing damage), and if they resist shot (or have the authorities called). This is how things work in a SANE society.

If your land isn't posted at each entry, you really should be a decent human and operate under the assumption that they don't know that they are trespassing. And if is, you should be a decent person and ask nicely before killing people.

Generally killing people should be the last resort. If your not a sociopath.

Re:Overreactions

[andphi]

I agree. If I were a property owner (particularly with livestock) and suddenly a bunch of folks with GPS units showed up on my land and headed for a specific spot without so much as a 'by your leave' or 'Hi, we're here to do X. We'll do X quickly and be gone,' I'd be suspicious as well and likely to reach for the biggest gun I own. The geohashers could just as easily have been livestock rustlers.

I like XKCD as much as the next geek, but if they do this sort of thing without due consideration for the people whose land they're traipsing over, they should, well, STOP.

Re:

[timholman]

I agree. If I were a property owner (particularly with livestock) and suddenly a bunch of folks with GPS units showed up on my land and headed for a specific spot without so much as a 'by your leave' or 'Hi, we're here to do X. We'll do X quickly and be gone,' I'd be suspicious as well and likely to reach for the biggest gun I own. The geohashers could just as easily have been livestock rustlers.

Or they could have intended to make a drug deal out in the boonies. Or they could have been out there to steal g

Re:Overreactions

[Joe Tie.]

But somehow, because it's a remote area they think they can do it without getting caught.

As it says on the Wiki...

[Maxo-Texas]

http://wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Known_Issues [xkcd.com]

"If someone says you are trespassing, it is probably best to heed them and turn back. Shotguns are a good indicator of trouble. See Template:Disclaimer."

Sounds like that other thing where you use GPS and leave a bowl with stuff in it.

The reaction scares me (and not the local's)

[Ferzerp]

If these people were scared by the mere presence of a few guns, this seriously worries me about the future of the 2nd amendment. I guess there is solace to be taken in knowing that the people who would read that comic and go to that place aren't a very good representative set of the people though.

Still it worries me.

Re:The reaction scares me (and not the local's)

[Farmer Tim]

Guns aren't scary: they're a predictable mechanical device. People, on the other hand, are highly unpredictable and should be treated with a certain amount of caution when they make it perfectly clear they're armed, especially if you happen to be doing something illegal at the time like tresspassing.

Seems to me the geohashers decided to avoid turning a fun day out into a lot of hassle with either ranchers or police, and issued an appropriately detailed warning. So rather than being afraid of guns, perhaps they're just not reckless idiots.

Re:The reaction scares me (and not the local's)

[mortonda]

If these people were scared by the mere presence of a few guns, this seriously worries me about the future of the 2nd amendment

Yes, it is worrisome. I can't believe how much anti gun rhetoric I hear from people who don't really know anything about it. Truth is, until you actually fire a gun, you don't really understand them. I was kinda nervous around guns, until I had fired a few.

I'm all for gun control: I've worked on my gun handling skills to make sure that I know what to do with a gun. Things like, never point a gun where you wouldn't want it to go off, always safe the gun (and unchamber it) when not in use, and always inspect the gun to verify its condition and state when you pick it up. Even when a law enforcement friend hands me a gun, I will still check the safety, clip and chamber, because I am responsible for it.

I think if more people would do this sort of thing, they wouldn't find guns to be intimidating. The mere presence of a gun does not intimidate me, and a gun in the presence of someone who is obviously competent is a welcome sight. I only get nervous around noobs that don't have the experience in gun control.

Re:The reaction scares me (and not the local's)

[Stiletto]

We are also fighting to ensure the safety of our own populace and country. Notice, not a friggin thing has happened on our soil since taking the initiative to bring the war to their area.

Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.

Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: I see.

Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

geocaching in a paranioa-state

[v1]

Too many people wigging out nowadays with the "unattended package" scares to geocache anymore. If you go out in the woods and leave something hidden, or interact with something hidden, and someone sees you, too great of odds that they will call the bomb squad or DNR or something like that.

The Real World

[uspsguy]

WOW! a bunch of people from San Francisco ventured out in to the real world and found that people have strange ideas like property rights and the right to bear arms. I'm glad they got an education.

Re:

[exabrial]

This is exactly what happens in Kansas during hunting season. If you hunt on someone's land without permission, the will come meet you with a gun. People don't want their land littered with trash, rutted with prints from four wheelers, illegal activity (meth labs, stealing of Anhydrous Ammonia) happening. And what people forget on the east and west coasts is that YOU are the own sheriff of your property. The USA provides protection for the rancher in this case against intruders, not the other way around.

Not quite "the real world"

[PCM2]

It took a few moments to sink in. "In the San Francisco area" ... with guns mounted on trucks? Why, unless people are using one of those really broad definitions of San Francisco, that could be nowhere else but ... yup. Upon checking the address on Google Maps, it turns out to be none other than San Ramon, California -- about 15 minutes from where I grew up.

I know what you guys are thinking. "A bunch of uptight yuppies from San Francisco got in their cars and drove out to the wild wilderness and got a taste of the real world..." Yeah, right -- if by that you mean "took a pleasant drive out among the trees along the curves of Crow Canyon Road," just off the 580 Freeway kinda wilderness. Maybe they took the long way back and stopped off at Stoneridge Mall on their way home.

News flash for ya, folks. The exact location where these folks went is out a long, undeveloped road, sure. But San Ramon is a suburb, people. Yeah, if you're out there you'll find that 80 percent of the people are white. But that's not "white trash missin teeth an' drinkin moonshine" white, that's "53 percent of the people in this town are college educated and 17 percent have graduate degrees" white. It's "48 percent of the families in this town have median incomes higher than $100,000" white. Look it up. [san-ramon.ca.us]

Clearly, these "geohashers" must be even bigger peckerwoods than the people I grew up with (in neighboring Castro Valley) if that environment makes them uncomfortable. If white guys with guns mounted to pickup trucks makes them uncomfortable, I hope they had a speedy return to wherever they came from, completely bypassing Oakland, California, whose demographics are markedly different. And whatever they do, they should not wait for the bus on the streetcorner out in front of my local bar. It's gotten pretty hairy over there a couple times over the last few years.

Re:Not quite "the real world"

[nomadic]

News flash for ya, folks. The exact location where these folks went is out a long, undeveloped road, sure. But San Ramon is a suburb, people. Yeah, if you're out there you'll find that 80 percent of the people are white. But that's not "white trash missin teeth an' drinkin moonshine" white, that's "53 percent of the people in this town are college educated and 17 percent have graduate degrees" white. It's "48 percent of the families in this town have median incomes higher than $100,000" white. Look it up. [san-ramon.ca.us]

Come on, don't let facts get in the way of all the pro-gun slashdot rants. Let's take the average vocally pro-gun slashdot poster. They're geeks, so probably not especially physically imposing. Grew up into math and computers and science, and probably got picked on for it. When they grew up they picked a safe, sedentary job. The only way they can assert their masculinity is by boasting about gun ownership online, and denigrate people who treat guns with caution.

Shame, would have been a good contender for the DA

[Lazy Jones]

Darwin Awards I mean ;-)

And so it goes...

[QuietLagoon]

... people with too much time on their hands, annoying the rest of the world, calling it fun, and blaming it on the Internet [xkcd.com].

Re:And so it goes...

[Council]

Perhaps people should just stay inside all day.

Why Is This News?

[John Hasler]

So a bunch of citiots tried to go onto private property without permission to have a party and got warned off. Why is this news?

I live close by

[rossz]

That's real damn close to where I live. I've been up in that area on numerous occasions. In fact, I took some riding lessons at a ranch up there. My guess, the rancher has had some problems with teenagers harassing his herd. Teenagers do stupid things, like chase the steer around for the fun of it. There has also been the rare occasion of steer and horse thefts. Just a little information. A rancher with a shotgun is as common as a rancher with a nose on his face. Nothing to get excited about.

An Angry Rancher with guns?

[CrimsonAvenger]

A bit misleading that. Article DOES mention "two very unfriendly vehicles" and "Two vehicles later drove on property, first truck with two rifles or shotguns in plain sight."

It doesn't seem to mention an encounter with the owner of the vehicles/guns, though. Perhaps because they apparently wet themselves and fled at the sight of the gunrack in the pickup (where my family lives, gunracks in pickups are so much a part of life that the only time you notice them is when the pickup does NOT have one)/

I do, however, agree with this statement by one of the geohashers - "in the future, we should respect property owners". A lot of trouble can be avoided by following that guideline.

Hello internet

[Council]

Hey, Randall here (hey, my account still exists!)

Sometimes the coordinates fall on military bases. Sometimes they're in the ocean. Sometimes they're in the middle of Bill Gates's house (when that one happens, maybe we can work something out). So even if it weren't for the legality issues, there's a big common sense element.

The idea is that you get as close as you can to the point without going onto private property without permission. Most of the time, this means meeting on a road or cul-de-sac or whatnot. The point is just to get people close enough that they can all exchange high fives and then go to a nearby park or bar together.

I've met unfriendly people while out hiking (both for geohashing and for fun). I've also met some astonishingly friendly people, more than you'd expect. People on the whole are decent. But if you're wandering around in strange places in the real world, there are risks inherent to that, and you do have to use your judgment. If you treat the coordinates like commands and try to get at them no matter what, you're doing it wrong.

Ranchers, guns and good manners.

[Mi5ke561]

There are indeed reasons for that Rancher to be armed. First off, if you get into trouble, it can take 911 longer than the rest of your life to get there. Pretty much you're on your own. Secondly, I don't know if anybody's noticed or not, but it's spring and cows drop calves and sheep drop lambs this time of year, and Coyotes are everywhere. Worse still, coyotes have something in common with man-- they frequently kill for the hell of it. And the margins on running a ranch are close enough that you can't afford to lose livestock to random predation unless you want to go broke, so this time of year, if you see a coyote, out comes the SKS or whatever, (very popular as a ranch rifle) and the coyotes in question become fodder for vultures, magpies, ect. There are places where there is a tradition of free range. Most of Nevada outside of Clark or Washoe Counties for example, still let you roam around as long as you're not damaging anything. A lot of ranchers are looking at keep out signs though, because of idiots who do things like cut locks, cut fences and shoot at water troughs. (And in a desert, shooting a water trough is actually a crime that merits hanging, even though nobody does) and sometimes livestock. In order to prevent such things, if you're working a ranch, you pack a rifle. And it is considered good manners to ask, and if you're hunting and get lucky, a couple of cleaned birds on the way out is usually appreaciated. And I usually carry some stuff to take a few minutes to fix a downed section of fence if I find one. One makes friends that way. The bottom line is that those young idiots who seem to have gotten a case of the vapors over a rancher with a camera and guns that happen to be his working tools in the gun rack, were handled far more gently than they probably deserved and they should be thankful rather than complaining. And they do owe him an apology, so that little suggestion that was on their website is one that they should take to heart.

They were lucky.

[davmoo]

I live in a rural area in the Midwest. If a horde of people I didn't know suddenly descended on my property, and I don't see some badges or blue and red lights accompanying them, those people would see a gun too...and mine wouldn't be in a rack.

Oh boy

[jav1231]

It sounds like typical media scare. Think of all of the stories you see in the paper or on the news about "man with a gun." It's as if the mere presence of a gun denotes wrong doing.

Trespassers will be shot

[serbanp]

... survivors will be shot again.

Someone's sig on slashdot.

Re:Culture --weird

[Alain Williams]

it's pretty normal for American ranchers to have guns around.

On the other side of the pond we would regard anyone waving a gun around as very scary and wonder if he was a lunatic. In the UK we keep guns under strict control and at places like licensed competitive rifle ranges. Yes: farmers do have them, but they keep them out of sight. We also have fewer gun related incidents, although an illegal gun culture is unfortunately growing.

Re:Culture --weird

[Ferzerp]

Hey, your irrational fear of firearms is showing. RTFA. There was no waving of anything. It says they were in plain view in his truck. In other words, he had a gun rack... Oh no. He had a gun rack with guns on it. RUN TO THE HILLS!

Re:Culture --weird

[Grey_14]

I dunno why people always think a fear of firearms is irrational, it is a device made for the sole purpose of killing or wounding a living creature, it does so in an instant with the twitch of a finger. couple that with the general fact that people are idiots (the geohashers in this case seemed to be the idiots, but it's a fair general rule to live by, unless proven otherwise: people are idiots.). I'm afraid of firearms, I'd rather they never be anywhere near me. I'm not one to advocate that they all be taken away either because unfortunately the cat is out of the bag there, people have guns and getting them away from criminals AND legitimate owners would be pretty much impossible now.

Anyways, yeah they overreacted to someone just having guns in their truck, but I don't think being afraid of or uncomfortable around guns is all that irrational.

Re:Culture --weird

[Ferzerp]

Actually, it is a device made for the sole purpose of propelling a projectile to really fast speeds. Any application of this function is the responsibility of the individual user.

It always amuses me that the slashdot crowd will defend some technology (e.g. vulnerability detection software, p2p, etc) and claim that the individual is responsible for the use, but then say things like what you've said.

By the way, bittorrent is made for the sole purpose of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works. (see how that sounds? now reread what you wrote)

I guess we only believe in individual responsibility here when it fits our agenda.

Re:Culture --weird

[Tony Hoyle]

Bad example - bittorrent *was* - the creator admitted it publicly.

Yes and the purpose of a gun is to kill. Your definition is like saying 'the purpose of a car is to rotate wheels at a specific speed'. It's meaningless.

Re:Culture --weird

[mortonda]

Yes and the purpose of a gun is to kill.

Not necessarily. The purpose of a gun may also be to say "I have the power the protect myself, my property, and my rights". Sometimes killing happens in the process.

2nd amendment and all that.

Re:Culture --weird

[ScrewMaster]

You're absolutely right, but I'd say it's less a matter of fundamental hypocrisy as it is one of fear. And that's mostly from unfamiliarity ... people are afraid of the unknown. We're pretty much hardwired for that, and in this case I think the government does us a disservice by discouraging people from owning firearms or learning how to use them properly. I'd rather have someone who knows what he's doing with a gun holding one on me, rather than someone who's never fired one before and is terrified of it. That applies as much to criminals as it does to us law-abiding types.

It's a machine people. Yes, it's one that requires some knowledge and self-discipline to own and use safely, but that's all it is. Would that We the People spent as much time bitching about the poorly-trained drivers we have in this country as we do about gun owners. The untold millions of four-wheeled sociopaths on the road today are responsible for a hell of a lot more death, destruction and general mayhem than all gun owners combined. But that's okay, you see, because cars are technology that we all find comfortable and familiar, in spite of the fact that a car is just as much of a weapon as a .44 Magnum. If everyone carried a gun, but only a few drove automobiles, we'd all be irrationally afraid of cars.

Personally, I'm far more concerned about being killed on the way to work by some lobeless, cell-phone-wielding, SUV-driving thimblebrain than I am about being shot. If the Feds really (I'm mean, really) want to make our lives safer, they should force the states to implement some serious training requirements for obtaining a driver's license. That should mean a CV (Commercial Vehicle) license for anyone that wants to drive a big SUV. Do that, and leave gun owners alone, and they would save a lot more lives each year.

Re:Culture --weird

[Firethorn]

Additionally, most firearm murders* are criminal on criminal. If you're not a criminal, hanging out with criminals, you're as safe or safer in the United States than you are elsewhere. Personally, I blame the war on drugs.

*I'm excluding suicides because they'd just find another, and accidents because the real accident rate is insignificant.

Re:Culture --weird

[Jawn98685]

I dunno why people always think a fear of firearms is irrational, it is a device made for the sole purpose of killing or wounding a living creature...

Bzzzzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.

I own several guns. Several of those have never even been pointed at a living thing, despite having thousands of rounds put through them. One of those was designed and manufactured "for the sole purpose" of punching little holes in paper (hopefully, very close together). Another, for breaking small clay disks.

You fear is irrational. It springs from ignorance. There are a great many things that are far more likely to cause you bodily harm than firearms. Granted, there are some gun owners who shouldn't be trusted with anything even as dangerous as a pointy stick, but there are, for example, even more automobile drivers who shouldn't be trusted with anything faster than a skateboard. Do you likewise have a fear of cars? I'll wager that you do not, despite that fact that you are far more likely to be gunned down by some arrested-adolescent speeding through traffic in buzzing import car than you are by a gun owner.

Re:Culture --weird

[protolith]

"I dunno why people always think a fear of firearms is irrational"

Because it is irrational to fear guns. If your fear is based on ignorance then it is a rational fear, and can be corrected.
Your post attempts to rationalize your fear with the injection of a form of understanding. If you Fear an inanimate object simply based on its designed or perceived designed purpose then it is an irrational fear.

Hoplophobia along with Agoraphobia, Arachnophobia, and any of the other host of phobias are all defined as irrational fears.

If in fact your fear is based to a degree on ignorance (unfamiliarity with the workings of firearms), I suggest you spend some time taking lessons at a local shooting range.

As for the guns are designed to kill thing.... Well yes, most guns are deigned to, or are based off of guns designed to kill. But the truth about that is, some things need killing. Animals don't sacrifice themselves to be food on a table. If its made of meat it was killed to be put on your plate. If its made of red meat, then it was killed with a gun (firearm or captive bolt) to become food. As for killing people, "couple that with the general fact that people are idiots" you summed up why some people need killing, because some idiots will take your life for their personal or political gain.

Irrational..

[E IS mC(Square)]

Hey, your irrational fear of firearms is showing.

Yep, its irrational. After all, most of the school massacres do NOT happen in the US.

Re:Culture --weird

[debatem1]

Why would somebody owning a gun be "scary" or "a lunatic"? I can understand the fear of guns empowering criminals (even if I don't agree with the conclusions some reach on that basis) but guns in the hands of the good guys should probably be reassuring, not alarming.

Re:

[Belial6]

That is absolutely made up. Most firearm incidents are not unintended. You simply don't here about 99.99% of the gun incidents because they don't get reported. Why? Because someone picked up their gun, and showed it to an aggressor, thus ending the conflict before it ever becomes violent.

Here is a little hint for you. Most humans are far more likely to enter a physical conflict that they believe they are sure to win. As soon as someone sees a gun, they are no longer sure they are going to win, and

Re:Culture --weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, of particular amusement "Because someone picked up their gun, and showed it to an aggressor, thus ending the conflict before it ever becomes violent." - if drawing down on someone isn't an escalation in violence I have no idea what is. +5 informative my ass.

Re:Gun in the hand of the good guy

[mazarin5]

We wear black and white cowboys hats. And you think Americans are ignorant of other cultures!

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

On our side of the pond we hear that the illegal gun culture has been huge for years. One of our celebs moved over there like 10 years ago, kept having people walk into her house with guns to rob her (note: if it happens once or twice a year to the same person, it's considered chronic and excessive here; I don't know if she got hit up a couple times or if they kept showing up every month or so or daily or what), got real bitchy about it.

Near as I can tell, the news is propaganda'd over there to suppress r

Re:

[cperciva]

how is that rash of knife crime coming out? I've noticed a lot more stories about stabbings on the Beeb.

One advantage of knives is that they're easier to aim. I have yet to hear a story about a drive-by knifing in which the culprit missed his target but accidentally killed someone who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If someone really wants to kill someone else, it's very hard to stop him. But getting them to use knives instead of guns at least cuts down on the collateral damage.

Re:Culture --weird

[Majik Sheff]

Removing knives from the hands of Brits will also cut down on the number of crimes committed in the kitchen.

My apologies to our British friends, this was a cheap shot at your cooking which has admittedly improved.

Re:Culture

[couchslug]

Indeed. Guns are tools, and ranchers have ample use for them such as killing critters (feral dogs, etc) that threaten their livestock. Fuel and equipment thieves are another good reason for ranchers to be armed. Diesel theft from irrigation pumps can threaten their ability to make a living, and thieves may be armed. In isolated areas the police can't be there on the spot to help.

Remember kids:
If it isn't your land and you don't have permission to be there, stay the hell off. There is plenty of public land to play silly games on.

Country folk are often very good at looking out for their neighbors. If you don't belong there, expect to be checked out. I'd be delighted to have a neighbor who would observe and photograph any questionable visitors. Being visibly armed deters violence, and cameras preserve potential evidence.

Re:Culture

[couchslug]

"Being visibly armed is a threat."

No, "pointing and brandishing" arms is a threat.

The distinction matters.
Arms in a gun rack or shouldered on a sling are not a threat, though their potential should be taken into account.