Reading this --using an online translator-- seems to suggest some shooters want mandatory electronic measures of surveillance placed on their guns so i.e. their weapons can only fire when they're at the range or being hold by the rightful user, etc.
Link: http://toz35.blogspot.com/2010/09/intel ... rauch.html
Please, note that I may have misunderstod the original text since I do not speak German so I had to go trhough one of those freely available online translators--with sometimes dubious translations.
Now the shooters want electronic surveillance on their guns
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Interesting, and a joke.
Seems one of the ideas was to put a camera on that only allows the gun to fire when it can detect a dark spot (i.e. a target).
But this is no good for hunting, 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.
RFID controlled triggers have some merit actually, and have been looked at by law enforcement (along with other tech like finger/hand-prints) to ensure only the owner can use a firearm since (in America in particular), so many cops are killed with their own sidearm.
Think they've been rejected for the time being for being too expensive and not 100% reliable - cop won't get shot with their own gun, but they might get shot by someone else's whilst they try to persuade the system to validate and set the trigger to active!
It would only be useful in certain circumstances though. You could use them to deactivate club guns being removed from a range without permission for instance.
It could be bypassed no doubt, but it would be an extra layer of security.
In terms of privately owned personal firearms though, I see very little benefit. Hunters aren't going to be going to a range, and shooters may want to dry-fire at home using SCATT/Noptel, which is kinda difficult if the trigger is inactive.
EDIT: Actually, seems that post may be based on a new development by Anschutz.
Gun only shoots if the matching wrist strap is within range, only shoots if it's on target, or for hunting, won't shoot if you point it at anyone or anything wearing a "don't shoot" tag (i.e. fellow hunters, dogs, etc would carry a "don't shoot tag, although this is fairly pointless because you should always be sure of what you're pointing your gun at before your finger gets anywhere near the trigger).
Seems one of the ideas was to put a camera on that only allows the gun to fire when it can detect a dark spot (i.e. a target).
But this is no good for hunting, 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.
RFID controlled triggers have some merit actually, and have been looked at by law enforcement (along with other tech like finger/hand-prints) to ensure only the owner can use a firearm since (in America in particular), so many cops are killed with their own sidearm.
Think they've been rejected for the time being for being too expensive and not 100% reliable - cop won't get shot with their own gun, but they might get shot by someone else's whilst they try to persuade the system to validate and set the trigger to active!
It would only be useful in certain circumstances though. You could use them to deactivate club guns being removed from a range without permission for instance.
It could be bypassed no doubt, but it would be an extra layer of security.
In terms of privately owned personal firearms though, I see very little benefit. Hunters aren't going to be going to a range, and shooters may want to dry-fire at home using SCATT/Noptel, which is kinda difficult if the trigger is inactive.
EDIT: Actually, seems that post may be based on a new development by Anschutz.
Gun only shoots if the matching wrist strap is within range, only shoots if it's on target, or for hunting, won't shoot if you point it at anyone or anything wearing a "don't shoot" tag (i.e. fellow hunters, dogs, etc would carry a "don't shoot tag, although this is fairly pointless because you should always be sure of what you're pointing your gun at before your finger gets anywhere near the trigger).
-
Guest
-
Guest
Were you discussing the UK or North Korea?...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.
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!
-
Telecomtodd
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:15 pm
- Location: Saint Charles, MO
My interpretation of the Anschutz presentation is that Europeans have a tendency to shoot hunters and dogs. Apparently they have a difficult time distinguishing a target bull from a human and canine and need electronics to figure this out.
We Americans have similar problems. The old story of farmers painting the word "COW" on the side of a cow is to help hunters who are unable to distinguish the difference between a deer and a cow. Unfortunately, no one has the ability to write "DEER" on the side of the deer, so accidents still happen. However, since the anti-gun lobby firmly believes that firearm loving, chuch-going neanderthals own guns, it's questionable (in their minds) whether any of them are actually capable of reading.
I also noticed the Fortner action. I hope Anschutz develops a way to help biathaletes distinguish the difference between a target bull and Santa Claus. No doubt, those sweaty knuckle-draggers will certainly try to bag Rudolph, and Santa better get a ballistic vest this December for those Anschutz buyers who have not purchased this marvelous security system.
I was speaking with my work supervisor about my 1913, and his strange comment was, "I hope you never go "postal" with it". I then discussed how I have a whole 20 minutes to shoot 20 rounds - if I ever tried to go "postal" with a 1913, it would be the slowest massacre on record.
Lastly, I own no weapons, but I own plenty of firearms. The "weapons" comment by the originator needs correction. If I needed to register my "weapons", I'd have a field day cateloging my steak knives. I wonder if I'd need a ATF Form 4 for my Ginsu?
We Americans have similar problems. The old story of farmers painting the word "COW" on the side of a cow is to help hunters who are unable to distinguish the difference between a deer and a cow. Unfortunately, no one has the ability to write "DEER" on the side of the deer, so accidents still happen. However, since the anti-gun lobby firmly believes that firearm loving, chuch-going neanderthals own guns, it's questionable (in their minds) whether any of them are actually capable of reading.
I also noticed the Fortner action. I hope Anschutz develops a way to help biathaletes distinguish the difference between a target bull and Santa Claus. No doubt, those sweaty knuckle-draggers will certainly try to bag Rudolph, and Santa better get a ballistic vest this December for those Anschutz buyers who have not purchased this marvelous security system.
I was speaking with my work supervisor about my 1913, and his strange comment was, "I hope you never go "postal" with it". I then discussed how I have a whole 20 minutes to shoot 20 rounds - if I ever tried to go "postal" with a 1913, it would be the slowest massacre on record.
Lastly, I own no weapons, but I own plenty of firearms. The "weapons" comment by the originator needs correction. If I needed to register my "weapons", I'd have a field day cateloging my steak knives. I wonder if I'd need a ATF Form 4 for my Ginsu?
-
Guest
An European just read this:
Hunters tend to drink in my area and they also have little knowledge of ballistics so it's no strange seeing hunters shoot in the direction of rural houses, etc. Or worse yet, shooting rifles at moving game with no backstop and plenty of rural houses and small towns in the background. The politicians --and hence the cops-- only enforce silly licensing rules that do nothing to prevent accidents or crimes happening.
So it's totally posssible that you loose your license for some reason --like failing to renewal your paperwork-- hence you loose your weapons --you paid for--yet it's possible a drunk hunter shoots your ass or a robber threats you with a weapon and all the cops will do is file a report. Don't even think of defending yourself unless you want to ruin your life.
As for weapons everything can be considered a weapon and you may be prosecuded for it. So don't leave your baseball bat in your car after the game, nor have a multi-tool knife on you or your car, etc. You get the idea.
The above does not and will not prevent bad people harming you. Its sole purpose seems to be going after the law abidding citizens. Funny thing, some people seem to agree with it.
So I answer this:My interpretation of the Anschutz presentation is that Europeans have a tendency to shoot hunters and dogs. Apparently they have a difficult time distinguishing a target bull from a human and canine and need electronics to figure this out.
Hunters tend to drink in my area and they also have little knowledge of ballistics so it's no strange seeing hunters shoot in the direction of rural houses, etc. Or worse yet, shooting rifles at moving game with no backstop and plenty of rural houses and small towns in the background. The politicians --and hence the cops-- only enforce silly licensing rules that do nothing to prevent accidents or crimes happening.
So it's totally posssible that you loose your license for some reason --like failing to renewal your paperwork-- hence you loose your weapons --you paid for--yet it's possible a drunk hunter shoots your ass or a robber threats you with a weapon and all the cops will do is file a report. Don't even think of defending yourself unless you want to ruin your life.
As for weapons everything can be considered a weapon and you may be prosecuded for it. So don't leave your baseball bat in your car after the game, nor have a multi-tool knife on you or your car, etc. You get the idea.
The above does not and will not prevent bad people harming you. Its sole purpose seems to be going after the law abidding citizens. Funny thing, some people seem to agree with it.
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.Anonymous wrote:Were you discussing the UK or North Korea?...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.
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!
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.
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
-
Guest
Some other stupid ideas that politicians have come up with:
1. Serialized ammo. The ammo was supposed to be micro-etched with a serial number so that it could be traced. What about hand loading and casting your own bullets? Easy enough that it would create a black market.
2. Serialized barrels. Some police departments have barrels with etching on the barrels that will identify bullets from that gun. With the exception of a couple of small bore Berettas with tip up barrels, all automatics have barrels that can be replaced in just seconds. So a shrewd on-duty cop could put an after-market barrel in his duty weapon and after a shooting puts in his issue barrel. So the ballistics show that he did not fire any bullets at all.
3. Safeties on double action only pistols. No explanation required.
1. Serialized ammo. The ammo was supposed to be micro-etched with a serial number so that it could be traced. What about hand loading and casting your own bullets? Easy enough that it would create a black market.
2. Serialized barrels. Some police departments have barrels with etching on the barrels that will identify bullets from that gun. With the exception of a couple of small bore Berettas with tip up barrels, all automatics have barrels that can be replaced in just seconds. So a shrewd on-duty cop could put an after-market barrel in his duty weapon and after a shooting puts in his issue barrel. So the ballistics show that he did not fire any bullets at all.
3. Safeties on double action only pistols. No explanation required.
-
Guest
I truly hope Europeans stay there and never come to the US. We are such savages......carrying handguns for self defense, not needing licenses to own military style semi auto rifles, not constrained by magazine capacity limits in most states......
America is a scary place. Don't come here. Stay in your peer-monitored controlled society.
America is a scary place. Don't come here. Stay in your peer-monitored controlled society.
-
mikeschroeder
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:56 am
- Location: Kansas
Hi This stupid idea wasn't the politician's, it was a company that invented a way to serialize ammunition. It's still a stupid idea, unless you and I have stock in their company.Anonymous wrote:Some other stupid ideas that politicians have come up with:
1. Serialized ammo. The ammo was supposed to be micro-etched with a serial number so that it could be traced. What about hand loading and casting your own bullets? Easy enough that it would create a black market.
http://www.ammocoding.com/
later
Mike
Wichita KS