Anonymous wrote:...and hunters are often the weak point in firearms licensing, as they are not going to clubs regularly, being amongst their peers or effectively monitored by other shooters.
Were you discussing the UK or North Korea?
Having to be "effectively monitored by my peer shooters" would certainly help me make my mind up choose a different sport.
Weren't ideas such as "police state" a thing of the past? Boy, ain't no fashionable anymore!
Um, no that's based on fact. Derrick Bird had his guns for hunting. Thomas Hamilton was likewise outside the club structure, since the Police erroneously approved an FAC for target shooting despite the fact he was not a member of any club.
The facts are that spree shootings are almost exclusively committed by people outside of strong social groups. Loners if you will - this is well known.
Clubs constitute a strong social groups and do self-police. One club I know very sadly had to call time on an old member. He was suffering from a degenerative illness and when he attempted to get up and walk downrange to fetch his target whilst all around him were still shooting, it was clear he not only posed a risk to himself, but potentially posed a serious threat to other range users since he was unable to correctly recall or abide by the range safety rules. In this situation he only posed a risk to himself. What if he had tried to load and carry on shooting whilst others were downrange?
Likewise it is rare but not unheard of for clubs to refuse people full membership if they have not shown adequate respect for the firearms they are shooting during their probationary period, and their instructors have repeatedly had to prevent them posing hazards to other members.
By contrast, some hunters shoot as part of a group or also shoot with a club, but for some, they get their FAC and the next time they talk to anyone in the shooting world is 5 years later when they see the Licensing Officer for their next renewal. This is a serious weak point in the licensing system. If they suffer serious depression or develop a mental or degenerative illness in that time, who is going to call time on them and let the Police know there are grounds for a review?
Well, the partner could if they're married/in a relationship, maybe their colleagues if they know the person has firearms. But who is going to make the call?
This is especially a weak point with Shotgun certificates which don't actually require a personal reference on the application.
I'm not saying hunters are bad, that people shouldn't hunt, blah, blah, blah. I'm just identifying that spree shootings are almost exclusively committed by people who are not part of a strong social group - like a club. Provided that Police do their jobs properly and don't give out target FACs to people outside of clubs, then as far as licensing goes, hunting is the weakest point in the chain in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn't have them - under UK law anyway. In other countries different laws and different social dynamics mean there are obviously different strengths and weaknesses to their respective systems.
It ain't about a Police state, it's about keeping guns out of the hands of people who have a clear and certifiable mental illness, who cannot be trusted to handle firearms. People like Seung-Hui Cho, Thomas Hamilton or Derrick Bird.
I have to say, the title of this thread is misleading. Shooters do not want this.
One shooter has decided this would be a good idea and put it in their blog. Presumably in response and support of the developments made by Anschutz.
I should make my position clear that I do not think there is any value to this in civilian shooting - either target or hunting. However clever the system, it can always be removed or bypassed - if man can make it, man can break it. And as the UK has found out, if people want guns, they will get them. Black market imports, homemade guns knocked up on a lathen in a shed, etc. They're not hard to manufacture for those with serious criminal intent.
That's not to say the technology is worthless. The do-not-shoot tags could have some value in combat zones to reduce friendly fire, although the guns would have to have an override switch in case the enemy compromised the system and obtained the tags or the codes to pose as "friends", and stop themselves being shot at! It would still have to be drilled into people that the tags can fail and they should still identify their targets first.
For hunters, if you need those tags, then you shouldn't be in possesion of a firearm anyway, because you clearly have a callous disregard for safety and human life. The type of people who shoot at noises in the dark or at rustling sounds in bushes without clearly identifying their target first shouldn't be out there anyway, and it's not surprising that there have been cases of idiots shooting fellow hunters under those circumstances. This system would arguably make things worse as the hunting tags will give them a false sense of security. If they assume everyone has a tag, then they will think that if the gun will shoot, then it's safe to take the shot. But people can drop/lose tags, or the tags can fail.
Likewise, the RFID wrist-strap system could have some value in law enforcement where similar systems have been mooted for years now. A scary percentage of American Police are shot or killed with their own sidearm. Anything that can reduce that (including other factors like better training where appropriate) would be a good thing. The RFID system could also be an extra layer of security to stop club or hire guns at clubs or commercial ranges being removed without permission (by (1) sounding an alarm, and (2) locking the gun), but beyond that limited scenario, I believe it has little value.