What Is It With Americans & Guns

[donutsina911]

Originally Posted by ian parkes

Passed the tamar river police boat at weekend , armed policeman standing on stern with assault rifle watching me carefully as I passed the Dockyard .

I can think of a reason for that machine gun , Cornish Holiday Town seagulls

or could it have been nuclear submarines moored up or armament replensishment going on...

[Andy Moore]

Originally Posted by Andy Stevens

If you beat someone with a cricket bat, you going to ban them? How about bricks? You can throw them, best ban them!

Cricket bats are not designed to kill people. Get real.

I'll say again: people have *no need* to 'play' with machine guns. There is *no need* to teach a child to fire a machine gun.

Gangsta rappers like guns. What sort of example are they setting?

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Andy Moore

Gangsta rappers like guns.

Wow, that's a sweeping generalisation. I suppose following on this faultless logic the girl in the video likes killing people with machine guns. No, she likes firing at a moving vehicle and watching what happens to it.

There is no need to teach people to use weapons, and no need for them to play with them. There is also no *need* for people to play Cricket, disturb wildlife with hill walking, pollute the environment in powerboats, drink, smoke, practice archery etc etc. Doesn't mean it can't be fun, safe, and controlled.

[Andy Moore]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Wow, that's a sweeping generalisation. I suppose following on this faultless logic the girl in the video likes killing people with machine guns. No, she likes firing at a moving vehicle and watching what happens to it.

There is no need to teach people to use weapons, and no need for them to play with them. There is also no *need* for people to play Cricket, disturb wildlife with hill walking, pollute the environment in powerboats, drink, smoke, practice archery etc etc. Doesn't mean it can't be fun, safe, and controlled.

Fireing machine guns to see what damage they can do is a world away from playing cricket, hill walking & archery, and I am sure you know that really.

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Andy Moore

Fireing machine guns to see what damage they can do is a world away from playing cricket, hill walking & archery, and I am sure you know that really.

I think I would far rather see people take out their agression in a controlled manner than go around taking it out on some poor old age pensioner.

The sort of people who intend to hurt people will do so no matter what. If they don't have guns they will do it in another way.

In Northern Ireland a bloke burst into a school with a fire extinguisher filled with petrol - torched a load of kids - a miracle loads weren't killed.

A car is also a terrible weapon - think how many people you could mow down if you wanted to.

Family wiped out in a house explosion last week - no guns used.

In Northern Ireland they had a ban on ALL guns - didn't seem to stop the IRA did it?

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Andy Moore

Fireing machine guns to see what damage they can do is a world away from playing cricket, hill walking & archery, and I am sure you know that really.

I would dispute that it is a world away from other leisure pastimes, I don't think that's something any of us can say, as it prejudices other peoples enjoyment in comparison to our own.

Your point that Guns are designed to cause injury/death is a valid one. I can accept the logic that if there was nothing in this world **designed** to kill people then yes, this might be a better place. Archery falls into that category, as does fencing. Would you be so negative if the young girl had decided to take up fencing? Same argument - a sword is designed to kill someone?

I think when you look at weapons in general you have two options. One, you take a utopian view that without them the world would be a better place, and see this as an attainable goal.

Two, you take the view that they are an evolution that is irreversible, and that bigger and better weapons will always be developed. IF you take this view, then surely better a known evil? Better that people are trained in safe (and yes, after working with Army Cadets I would argue that there are safe ways) weapon handling, and are fully aware of what it is they are holding, and what it can do? If you shield people, children especially, from these things, then the glorification they see on TV will be their only benchmark. Training and understanding will produce knowledge, not misconception, and that can only be a safer and better philosophy.

[Andy Moore]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I think when you look at weapons in general you have two options.

One, you take a utopian view that without them the world would be a better place, and see this as an attainable goal.

Two, you take the view that they are an evolution that is irreversible, and that bigger and better weapons will always be developed. IF you take this view, then ...... safer and better philosophy.

What about option Option 3? You leave machine guns, along with other automatic weapons, in the hands of the military where they belong.

Yes, I think option 3 is the safest, don't you?

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Andy Moore

What about option Option 3? You leave machine guns, along with other automatic weapons, in the hands of the military where they belong.

Yes, I think option 3 is the safest, don't you?

Safest, probably. Still too idealistic? Almost certainly. As a solution, it would help the problem (I don't think it would solve it, as you would still get "in house" incidents). However, as a realistic solution, it is impractical.

Internationally, you cannot expect all militaries to keep that tight a reign on all of their weapons. So, as soon as the conlusion that weapons will fall into the hands of non-military, this solution breaks. At that point, you say, well, if bad intentioned civilians have weapons, perhaps we should arm some of our police. Ok, so we've now just put more small arms outside the Military. What are the chances they might be found by someone else? What are the chances of children being exposed to them? Higher? Well, if there is that increasing chance they are going to have access to small arms, I'd rather they had a knowledge of what these things can do, and how to operate one according to safe procedures.

It's all very well taking the bubble wrap approach, but in my view, it is not practical to expect that even if it was so decreed, weapons would stay in the hands of the Military only. For that reason, instead of looking at it as a major problem, I believe education will diminish potential problems. Not remove, just diminish.

[Andy Moore]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

It's all very well taking the bubble wrap approach, but in my view, it is not practical to expect that even if it was so decreed, weapons would stay in the hands of the Military only. For that reason, instead of looking at it as a major problem, I believe education will diminish potential problems. Not remove, just diminish.

I think you are trying to come up with a by product of what these rednecks are doing in order to try and in someway justify it. Gathering together at the Idaho Full-Automatic Show, or whatever it was called, has nothing to do with 'education'. If it was so important, we would have it on the National Curriculum.

Look, I don't want to insult anyone, but the reason blokes are into guns is that it makes them feel 'big in the pants'. It gives them kicks. Nothing to do with educating their children.

Any what about the bombs? What were they teaching?

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Andy Moore

I think you are trying to come up with a by product of what these rednecks are doing in order to try and in someway justify it.

I think you are trying to promote anti firearm feeling by constantly coming back to one example of what guns are used for!

Would you argue that real life exposure to weapons will have a different effect to exposure to weapons in films? If you agree with that then you have your answer. Trying to make themselves feel big would have produced a video of "Redneck" blokes having weapon shooting competitions etc. What we saw was a young girl, closely supervised, being allowed to try a fully automatic weapon in a controlled environment. Whether conscious or not, by design or not, that's education. If that young girl's real life experience of weapons is that you always keep them pointed in a safe direction, and carry out loading/unloading procedures, that will stick in her mind far more than when she sees a film depicting a loaded and readied weapon stuck in someone's waistband without the safety catch applied.

I don't want to get too drawn into this argument, as I suspect that both of our reasoning has validity, and neither point of view will alter much!

So, I'll leave this one for you to respond to, and look forward to seeing you out on the water! (You'll know my rib, it's the one with the Browning .50 on the bows... )

[Jono]

I hold a FAC and have done so for many years. “Pre Dunblane” I owned handguns, rifles and shotguns. I used to reload all my own ammunition and would happily spend hours tinkering with ballistics to try and match the perfect load for a particular gun. I can understand that people don’t like the idea of “civilians” owning guns, based on what they see on television. However there is a world of difference between guns used for target shooting, be it paper targets at 25 metre for a pistol or 1,000 yds for a bench rest rifle and those that used to be used for disciplines like practical pistol, where the pistols were developments (very expensive developments ) of standard police or services issue. Now, in the “Post Dunblane” era, I may not own a single shot .22 target pistol. Bearing in mind that these have the muzzle energy of not much more than a pea shooter, yet I can still possess a .44 calibre carbine, a 12 gauge shotgun or a military calibre rifle, all of which have massive muzzle energy capacity. Do those people who clamour “pistols are only made for killing people” have any understanding of this at all? I think not.
The “gun culture” that undoubtedly exists and is growing in this country, despite what statistics have been quoted here, fuelled by popular culture. How many of the young (or even not-so-young )kids, who find guns cool, because a music idol sings about them or is seen to carry them, or in the case of that arsewipe, 50-cents, has even been shot, actually have any comprehension of the damage that a bullet can do?
The man beaten about the head, who doesn’t get up as in the films, but spends the rest of his life having to wear nappies because he is incontinent. The youngster who is shot in the leg with a cheap eastern block pistol who doesn’t just suffer a slight limp, but who has to have his leg amputated and remains dependant on his parents for the rest of his life. What about showing the operation to replace a man’s face and scalp after he’s been hit with a broken glass?

Get rid of the glamorisation, the myths and the “coolness” of violence in any form and replace it with education about the real effects.

Don’t get sucked into the argument that banning the possession of handguns, especially those specifically built for target shooting, has had any effect on gun crime.

As an aside…

I do feel that “Pre Dunblane” the licensing authorities were getting a little lax. I had, at one time, four large calibre hand guns in my safe. Now that was an awful lot of “fire power”. At the time I was shooting .22 target league, full bore pistol league, practical pistol and had just started to shoot handgun out to 100 metres. Now that’s a discipline that required an awful lot of skill (No, I wasn’t very good ). If the powers that be had restricted FAC holders to one small bore and one full bore I don’t think there would have ever been an issue. However the draconian ban (Knee jerk.. call it what you will) has caused an awful lot of ill feeling, especially in light of the report and enquiries which revealed that Hamilton should never have been “renewed” under existing Police worries about him.

Have I wandered off topic?.....again?

<edit> I confess I didn't bother watching the video clip until now, having seen that sort of thing before, on film and live. However, I can see what some might think..... it is rather "Gung-ho" isn't it ? What I want to know from our ‘Merkin cousins, is the legality of converting pistols to full auto? I thought that was banned, pretty much everywhere. There is a small bit in the clip with a bloke firing two pistols with extended magazines. Are they available or have they been converted from semi auto to full auto (modified sear?). Legal or not?

[Andy Moore]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I think you are trying to promote anti firearm feeling by constantly coming back to one example of what guns are used for!

I am not anti gun. I just think its rather warped for civilians to be involved with machine guns.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I don't want to get too drawn into this argument, as I suspect that both of our reasoning has validity, and neither point of view will alter much!

So, I'll leave this one for you to respond to, and look forward to seeing you out on the water! (You'll know my rib, it's the one with the Browning .50 on the bows... )

Nice one.

[jyasaki]

Originally Posted by Jono

What I want to know from our ‘Merkin cousins, is the legality of converting pistols to full auto? I thought that was banned, pretty much everywhere. There is a small bit in the clip with a bloke firing two pistols with extended magazines. Are they available or have they been converted from semi auto to full auto (modified sear?). Legal or not?

Again; these guys are collectors. They are licensed to ownfull-auto firearms. Every one of these firearms are registered with the federal government. The licensees are pretty closely watched.

Legal? For them, yes. For anyone else (like me), definitely a felony.

As an aside, I believe (not sure) that modifying a semi-auto to full auto is not legal. However, with proper licensing, you can buy a full-auto pistol anyway, so what would be the point?

The full-auto shootout is a gathering of the full-auto collectors nationwide. This is sort fo the equivalent of the guys who own ex-military fighter aircraft getting together for an air show. Not something that happens every week.

For Andy, there are a lot of things that originally were designed for things we no longer use them for. Your cricket bat originated from a piece of bone that was used as a club. Your kitchen knife originated from a sharp stone that (egads) was used to kill poor defenseless animals, as well as that other tribe who was trying to steal a quick meal.

I don't know; I saw a 17 year old kid who was being urged to drive faster and faster, to the limit of a car's ability to hold the road. God forbid that he drive like that on the highway, or in a neighborhood. Good thing, I suppose, that he was in a controlled environment, with safety crews and equipment on-hand, as well as professionals who could help teach him.

Funny thing, though; that wasn't a hell of a lot different than the shootout. Controlled environment, safety crews, potential for really bad things if taken from that environment; only thing different was the tool used. Oh, and the inherent bias involved in people looking at them.

jky

[codprawn]

Does anyone remember the poor bloke killed by a parachute flare at a football match in Cardiff? It actually blew a hole right through his chest from the other side of the stadium!!!

Of course there was a call to BAN flares - then someone realised that maybe that would cause a few problems for mariners so they decided to ban multiple shot pocket type flares as used by windsurfers and hikers etc. If a shop wishes to stock these flares now they have to have a full dealers FAC - bonkers. If it had been one of those flares that caused the damage fair enough but as usual it was just a typical knee jerk reaction!!!

[Alice]

Should have just banned Football!

[codprawn]

An on Jono's note...

I have also been involved with guns for many years - always abroad where they don't have such stupid laws.

Recently I had to hand in a lovely replica air cartridge revolver to be destroyed by the Police. The gun had a power of 6ftlbs of muzzle energy(shotgun 2,000).How much compensation did I get? Not a bloody penny - £250 down the drain!!! WHY? Because it can be converted into a normal gun - yes and so can a few pieces of steel and a piece of wood!!!

If you have the equipment to convert one of these guns you would still need a source of ammo - if you have the equipment you can just as easily knock up a crude gun from scratch.

Of course I handed my gun in - if I hadn't I would be looking at a MANDATORY 5 yrs in prison!!! Wonder if any of the Yardies handed theirs in????

[Hugh Jardon]

perhaps one day we can have a duel, pistols at dawn!! hopefully my time in the RAF shooting team will fair well!

Originally Posted by codprawn

An on Jono's note...

I have also been involved with guns for many years - always abroad where they don't have such stupid laws.

Recently I had to hand in a lovely replica air cartridge revolver to be destroyed by the Police. The gun had a power of 6ftlbs of muzzle energy(shotgun 2,000).How much compensation did I get? Not a bloody penny - £250 down the drain!!! WHY? Because it can be converted into a normal gun - yes and so can a few pieces of steel and a piece of wood!!!

If you have the equipment to convert one of these guns you would still need a source of ammo - if you have the equipment you can just as easily knock up a crude gun from scratch.

Of course I handed my gun in - if I hadn't I would be looking at a MANDATORY 5 yrs in prison!!! Wonder if any of the Yardies handed theirs in????

[nugent]

i live for my fire arms and pyro, but i do beleive the law's are wrong.
my group was recently stoped in rhyader wales, in car due to the way we was dressed, was held there for 2 hrs due to what we was carrying , all legal to us, that is the bit that did it, how can we, meger earth lings. carry the items that we had and the police are not even allowed it. them selfs,
we run a very big business in what we do and carrying all strange fire arms and explosives, is normal to us, but it is fully liscenced and legal.
my point is people like us struggle with this, the yardie gangster, does what he does and will allways do, you would not believe the paper work we have to contend with,or the cost of our insurance policy/ due to these ass holes

as jono says our passion is a bang or shoot, and pay good money to enjoy our out look on life, which in turn puts some people some place in a job with manufacture and ammo supplies, takes one deranged lunatic to spoil it for hundreds of others. wrong very bloody wrong


http://www.hfmgroup.com/ we do stock some goodies

[ian parkes]

As a matter of interest to the gun experts here , what is law concerning using a gun at sea .

I always fancy shooting at a floating target with my airgun when on my friends colvic motor sailer but have never done so as Iam unsure of the law.

On a boat that does 5 knots you need something to pass the time

[codprawn]

You now face 5 yrs in jail if you shoot an airgun in a public place - yes seriously!!! And it's not "up to" it IS 5 yrs - same as if you had an MP5 - something wrong somewhere - yet another one of Blair's 3,000 new laws sneaked in last year alone!!!

Wether the sea is a public place is another thing. And a lot depends on how far out you are - 12 miles is international waters.