2 NYPD cops ambushed, shot in head

[Fenixgoon]

So why is talking about gun owner responsibility (like mandatory training, finger print technology) and background checks immediately shat on by the gun nuts on these boards?

We know what the problem is, it's not the guns but the gun nuts, so why can't we address the issue again?

if you make background checks easy, like opening NICS to everyone (not just FFL's), that makes it much easier. as it is, in some states it's very easy to privately transfer firearms, while others require you to go through an FFL.

why is fingerprint technology necessary? one of the wonderful things about firearms is how incredibly simple and reliable they are.

what defines a gun nut? and AFAIK, most "gun nuts" are law abiding members of society. they don't commit the 13,000 annual homicides.

 

[ivwshane]

if you make background checks easy, like opening NICS to everyone (not just FFL's), that makes it much easier. as it is, in some states it's very easy to privately transfer firearms, while others require you to go through an FFL.

why is fingerprint technology necessary? one of the wonderful things about firearms is how incredibly simple and reliable they are.

what defines a gun nut? and AFAIK, most "gun nuts" are law abiding members of society. they don't commit the 13,000 annual homicides.

I don't have answers, I'm simply asking a question. What defines a gun nut? The exact opposite of what defines a gun grabber

 

[rommelrommel]

So why is talking about gun owner responsibility (like mandatory training, finger print technology) and background checks immediately shat on by the gun nuts on these boards?

We know what the problem is, it's not the guns but the gun nuts, so why can't we address the issue again?

If you believe in the individual right interpretation of the second then any regulations are a non starter in the USA.

Personally I think fingerprint tech won't be viable for decades, if ever. Guns are incredibly simple and reliable because of their simplicity... No one that is trusting their life to a gun is going to support adding something that could cause it to fail in a crucial moment.

Mandatory training is another idea that is good in concept but usually ends up teaching next to nothing and becomes a barrier to entry for new owners. Historically, anything to do with regulation has been attributed by gun owners as part of the disarmament agenda. I'm Not sure that has always been the sole motivation, but it's been part of it. Any time you want to add more regulation you're going to get pushback, especially if you can't show that it's going to get results.

I'll probably get flamed by the absolutists, but if licensing was done cheaply, easily, and fairly, I support it. There should be no fee, a minimal knowledge component (I would concentrate on legal issues) and being disqualified from ownership should be uncommon (convictions for violent crimes, some mental issues, or a court order) and there must be a meaningful appeal process.

 

[WackyDan]

So why is talking about gun owner responsibility (like mandatory training, finger print technology) and background checks immediately shat on by the gun nuts on these boards?

We know what the problem is, it's not the guns but the gun nuts, so why can't we address the issue again?

I generally ignore you, but you seem to be asking a fair question...

Mandatory Training: Many states do require some form. In NY I had to take the CCW course just to own a handgun and that was no guarantee that my permit I submitted after taking the class would be approved or with what restrictions. In NY I also had to take a hunter safety class if I wanted to get a deer permit/tag and go hunting. In SC, no training required to own a handgun unless you also wanted to conceal carry. Same for here in NC.

I've been through three different CCW classes and I have to say, they were the best investment anyone could make even if they never planned on carrying concealed.

Should there be some sort of mandatory training taken or proven before buying a firearm or specifically a handgun? As a gun owner, I have no problem with that. Many gun owners would as they view it as a hurdle put in place to slow down their path to owning gun(s). You also have to remember that back in the day, many high schools had shooting clubs and Boy Scout troops also practiced shooting. When I was in Civil Air Patrol (USAF Aux) in the 80's we went to the local National Guard Armory and shot AR-15's in .22 on their range. So I think as a society we have lost that early childhood training and respect for firearms and nothing has really back filled that gap.

Biometric or "Smart" Guns: There isn't a single police dept or federal agency that has adopted a smart gun. The reason? They aren't reliable. Not a single one. Issues with recognition, and timing. That is for the fingerprint ones as well the RF tag models. Why would a citizen trust one when law enforcement doesn't? Police depts want the technology too as it would help eliminate officers potentially being killed with their own gun. So, I think we are probably another ten+ years from seeing anything remotely reliable enough or fast enough. Lastly, with 300 million guns in the us, biometrics don't really solve anything. Guns in general don't wear out. They are practically infinitely serviceable. There are many cheapies out there that might be the exception to that rule, but serious gun owners typically don't invest in those anyway. This is one case of the genie being out of the bottle already.

Background Checks: A lot of us don't have issue with that. Many however do. I think this is ultimately the one win that the gun control crowd will get in the next ten years, but it will face strong opposition. It will not hamper the flow of straw purchases to criminals and will not prevent private sales from happening however. That is the rub. All it will do is open up new scrutiny and penalties to those that attempt to sell privately and get caught.

The problem isn't the gun nuts either. The man who shot these two officers wasn't by definition a gun nut. He was criminal that twice in his life illegally acquired a firearm. That is the problem * along with his KNOWN mental health issues.

My question to you is what do you think constitutes a gun nut? Their political views? The number of firearms they own? Whether they carry concealed? Open carry? Their lack of training or excess of training? Their defense of gun ownership? What combination of all those?

I ask as I've seen plenty of gun nuts in my mind. I know some probably would call me one. My brother is a gun nut... He believes the deadbolt on his door is his "gun safe". Seriously - he said that. I've seen the guys who pump every penny they earn into guns and ammo. They have 50k rounds of .223/5.56 ammo plus all the other calibers and have delusions of playing out mad max for realz when the shit hits the fan. I've seen the guys who take tactical training courses as civilians and then buy all the special stupid gear - holsters, harnesses, etc. Nothing wrong with training as it will help you under stress, but there something to be said about those that think it deputizes them - damn the law.

So - again, what is a gun nut to you?

 

[ivwshane]

I generally ignore you, but you seem to be asking a fair question...

Mandatory Training: Many states do require some form. In NY I had to take the CCW course just to own a handgun and that was no guarantee that my permit I submitted after taking the class would be approved or with what restrictions. In NY I also had to take a hunter safety class if I wanted to get a deer permit/tag and go hunting. In SC, no training required to own a handgun unless you also wanted to conceal carry. Same for here in NC.

I've been through three different CCW classes and I have to say, they were the best investment anyone could make even if they never planned on carrying concealed.

Should there be some sort of mandatory training taken or proven before buying a firearm or specifically a handgun? As a gun owner, I have no problem with that. Many gun owners would as they view it as a hurdle put in place to slow down their path to owning gun(s). You also have to remember that back in the day, many high schools had shooting clubs and Boy Scout troops also practiced shooting. When I was in Civil Air Patrol (USAF Aux) in the 80's we went to the local National Guard Armory and shot AR-15's in .22 on their range. So I think as a society we have lost that early childhood training and respect for firearms and nothing has really back filled that gap.

Biometric or "Smart" Guns: There isn't a single police dept or federal agency that has adopted a smart gun. The reason? They aren't reliable. Not a single one. Issues with recognition, and timing. That is for the fingerprint ones as well the RF tag models. Why would a citizen trust one when law enforcement doesn't? Police depts want the technology too as it would help eliminate officers potentially being killed with their own gun. So, I think we are probably another ten+ years from seeing anything remotely reliable enough or fast enough. Lastly, with 300 million guns in the us, biometrics don't really solve anything. Guns in general don't wear out. They are practically infinitely serviceable. There are many cheapies out there that might be the exception to that rule, but serious gun owners typically don't invest in those anyway. This is one case of the genie being out of the bottle already.

Background Checks: A lot of us don't have issue with that. Many however do. I think this is ultimately the one win that the gun control crowd will get in the next ten years, but it will face strong opposition. It will not hamper the flow of straw purchases to criminals and will not prevent private sales from happening however. That is the rub. All it will do is open up new scrutiny and penalties to those that attempt to sell privately and get caught.

The problem isn't the gun nuts either. The man who shot these two officers wasn't by definition a gun nut. He was criminal that twice in his life illegally acquired a firearm. That is the problem * along with his KNOWN mental health issues.

My question to you is what do you think constitutes a gun nut? Their political views? The number of firearms they own? Whether they carry concealed? Open carry? Their lack of training or excess of training? Their defense of gun ownership? What combination of all those?

I ask as I've seen plenty of gun nuts in my mind. I know some probably would call me one. My brother is a gun nut... He believes the deadbolt on his door is his "gun safe". Seriously - he said that. I've seen the guys who pump every penny they earn into guns and ammo. They have 50k rounds of .223/5.56 ammo plus all the other calibers and have delusions of playing out mad max for realz when the shit hits the fan. I've seen the guys who take tactical training courses as civilians and then buy all the special stupid gear - holsters, harnesses, etc. Nothing wrong with training as it will help you under stress, but there something to be said about those that think it deputizes them - damn the law.

So - again, what is a gun nut to you?

First off, the problem is the gun nuts and what I mean by that is not that it's the gun nuts that are killing people, it's the gun nuts that are preventing reasonable conversation from even taking place.

Having said that, do I think you are a gun nut? Based on your post, I'd say no.


So what is a gun nut to me? I think it's anyone who comes up with any excuse to not address the death by gun issue and is incapable of rationally addressing proposed solutions using facts or historical data to either support or discredit those ideas. A gun nut is someone, when presented with facts or historical data is unable to change their opinion or concede any point being made.

A gun nut essentially has the same type of mentality any other person with extreme views might have (picture a Muslim extremist, a kkk member, or someone like dick Cheney).

 

[Fern]

So why is talking about gun owner responsibility (like mandatory training, finger print technology) and background checks immediately shat on by the gun nuts on these boards?

We know what the problem is, it's not the guns but the gun nuts, so why can't we address the issue again?

We already have background checks (at the federal level). Where I live we are required to have the local sheriff do a background check too. I believe a significant problem has been coordination between the fed and state govts. Individuals with mental health issues that should have denied were not flagged at the federal level background check. I understand we have just budgeted a fairly substantial amount to fix this.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with "finger print technology".

Why mandatory training? Haven't the psycho's demonstrated already that they are proficient with guns?

Fern

 

[rommelrommel]

He's talking about smart guns that are tied to an authorized owner.

 

[Perknose]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37019486&postcount=436

Ahh, another punk ass with penis envy. Another pathetic liar would not dare to face the truth. Go home and take your daily dosage of Viagra, little punk.

How sad and pathetic. All talk and nothing else. NOTHING!!!


Oh, I am still here, in the US, in "YOUR" country and you are STILL UNABLE to do a thing about that. NOTHING, just like you. So limp and unable to do a thing but foaming at the mouth and spreading more lies and lies. ROTFLMAO x 10000000000

Whine more, BITCH!!! That's what you are. Show the whole world your true "white power".

For quite some time in this thread, you have done little but engage in vitriolic insults with other posters -- Posts # 400, 413, 428, 436, 444, 450, 452 are but some examples. This constitutes thread crapping. Your formal complaint against another poster forced me to wade through all this. Ugh. You have not done yourself any favors here. Please do not continue in this vein.

Perknose
Forum Director