Trumps guns.

[clivehorridge]

I don’t think they shoot chickens Nick

....he only needs the wings Rich...

 

[fbnss]

yes, don't need a gun for that.

 

[clivehorridge]

yes, don't need a gun for that.

Mind you, if you shot a chicken with one of those, there’d probably be nothing left of it to eat, except the wings ...

 

[Chas]

This 1998 cartoon is still sadly relevant

 

[Chris]

It's unfortunate but an inescapable truth that shooting guns is fantastic fun. Yep, basically the gun was designed as a weapon to hunt and of course to kill your enemies, but I've never yet taken someone onto range and let them shoot who has not come off the firing point with a tremendous grin on their faces. Publicly admitting that shooting is terrific fun just isn't seen as normal or acceptable by some.

I know of people who are against gun ownership who have been on paint balling days where they get to shoot at other people and have loved it. I can't square that in my head I'm afraid.

As shooters we know that shooting per se and gun ownership is something much misunderstood, hugely misrepresented and in many cases unpopular. It's very hard to build a case for actually owning a firearm in the UK. Clays pigeons do not have to be shot. Foxes are not about to take over the earth, deer aren't plotting to overthrow the government. This is how handguns were removed. Effectively, other than the pleasure of shooting holes in paper, there wasn't a credible reason to own one. We threw everything into the argument to keep them, but we'd lost before we even began. Semi automatic rifles went under the same argument. No one NEEDED and assault rifle.

It's terrible to say, but doubtless there will be another event at some point in the future and that open the whole debate again as well as further vote winning measures. I have no objection to stringent measures on gun ownership but they have to be sensible, proportionate and above all effective. Recent control changes have actually been quite sensible and have removed some of the ridiculous bureaucracy but they take forever to agree and enact.

 

[Bob]

I think the scariest thing here is the amount of comments on various sites suggesting the answer to this plague of school shootings is to put guns into schools. People suggesting teachers all carrying guns, and employing military veterans to stand guard... the worst part is I could actually see that happening.

Yes, mental health is a major factor, but the ease of availability of small, easily concealed semi automatic weapons is the number one problem.

I am a teacher in a secondary school. We see kids with major social issues every day, and some of them could get involved in crime after they leave.. But not for one second do I have any fear of one of them coming in with a gun to go mad. Where would they get it?

Those that are so blinded they cannot see..

 

[Bob]

Just saw your post after posting mine Chris, and you make a fair point. I've shot clay, and also live game for pest control, but there's a hell of a difference between a 12 gauge and a sub machine gun.

 

[mike smith]

The Americans, and i must say they are a foolish people, think they have a right to have guns, they also say its in their constitution to bare arms, well it is, but not the the way the interpret it. That part of their constitution about guns, related to the wars of independence when the country was run by malitias, thats what it says in black and white or should that be african american and white, stupid people.

I have been to the States and i must say they have one of the most magnificent country side i have ever seen, in some cases better than Australia, but they just cant see that other people dont have the same opinion as they do and if they do, they are wrong. Another thing they do wrong is think when they win a football game, or whatever they call it, they are world champions, think about how many other teams from other parts of the world played, have a go.


But lets look at fire arms in the states. I went into a gun shop once and it was like going into a military armoury, why in the hell do you want military weapons, or guns of any type for that matter. Ok people will come out with all sorts of arguments saying people get stabbed or strangled or other nice ways to die, but these mass shootings happen all the time and they do nothing about it, because the gun lobby runs the country, plain and simple, when got a stupid old fart like Charlton Heston standing up and saying take it out of my dying hands, then thats it, they will never listen or do anything about it.

 

[moggy1968]

I also fell foul of the dunblane thing, me and a mate were quite into pistol shooting at the time. He was in the police at the time (went on to special branch via firearms) I was in my units army shooting team. Both of us obviously were prevented from continuing our civilian handgun shooting. I don’t recall either of us objecting much at the time. If it meant another child not being shot that seeemed a worthwhile sacrifice.

What someone would need a military 5.56 at home is beyond me.

I am of course talking about ‘proper’ firearms, not .22 rabbit shooters (calm down, I’m being facetious ) I’ve seen wounds from .22, and from 9mm, 5.56, 7.62 and .50 and there’s a world of difference in the amount of damage they will do

I enjoyed shooting, I liked the challenge and I was good at it, but I feel no great need to have to continue to do that in my civilian life. I think it should be possible to have sensible controls for handguns that would allow people to have them, but is it worth the risk of another dunblane just so someone can get their rocks off on a Sunday afternoon on the range, no I don’t think so.

When you need armed guards to protect school children your society is seriously fucked up. An inconvenient truth frequently overlooked is also the number of acccidental shootings that kill people, it’s hundreds. Teachers running around with guns isn’t going to help that! Also, unless your military or police your unlikely to be capable of reacting correctly in an emergency, and in the case of Americans I’m not even sure about then!!

You can own a .50 cal in the uk? Seriously?

 

[moggy1968]

When I was at school and 9 years old I swapped my stamp album for a clip from a pistol I assume. It had 8 bullets in it, copper coated with brass cartridges. I guess they were about 10 mm in size. I think my dad thought they were training rounds as he was quite happy with it until I pushed one vertically into a crack in the crazy paving and then hit it with a six inch nail and hammer. There was a slight crack and the cartridge flew up but I don't think the main charge went off. Don't they have to be in a barrel ? What gun might it have been from? Full at 8 bullets. I assume my friends dad separated the clip from the gun as he never got his hands on the main event.

Maybe blanks? Still mighty dangerous up close (I got shot in the knee by one and it really hurt!!!) they would have just been the cartridge with no actual round on the end if they were. If they were regular rounds no they don’t have to be in a barel to go off, just hit it hard enough in the right place. They sound like they might have been 9mm handgun rounds, probably ex military.

 

[froggy Steve]

I have a 7.62 CZ 858 in my cabinet upstairs, I bought it brand new, with a 30 round mag for 300€. Its a semi auto, straight from the factory, it cannot be changed into an auto. For 300€ its a cheap, but the chipboard butt and handle will last years. I can hit a paper target at 100m most in the inner on a good day

 

[frank rabbets]

Thanks moggy. Any dads that were alive when I was at school fought in the war so I guess it would have been a smuggled pistol. I did have a little .22 revolver off another kid which I hid under my mums bible box. Happy days.

 

[Mojo]

 

[StarCruiser]

After the Mumbai terror attack in the Taj Mahal Hotel, metal detectors were fitted to hotel front doors. I don’t know if every other outside door in the building had the same, but I suspect not. The point I’m making is that with every control that is brought in, the law abiding majority will abide by them, while those that want to circumvent the control will find a way to do so.

 

[Towpack]

I think the scariest thing here is the amount of comments on various sites suggesting the answer to this plague of school shootings is to put guns into schools. People suggesting teachers all carrying guns, and employing military veterans to stand guard... the worst part is I could actually see that happening.

Yes, mental health is a major factor, but the ease of availability of small, easily concealed semi automatic weapons is the number one problem.

I am a teacher in a secondary school. We see kids with major social issues every day, and some of them could get involved in crime after they leave.. But not for one second do I have any fear of one of them coming in with a gun to go mad. Where would they get it?

Those that are so blinded they cannot see..

Scary though it may be, armed guards and/or teachers in schools may be the only answer, certainly for the short term. There are just far too many guns in the US, both on and off ticket for a ban or tighter controls to be implemented and have any real effect IMO. If I lived in the US I would want a sidearm of my own.
I held an FAC back in the late 80’s - early 90’s with two BA rifles, a SA pistol and a revolver, all for target shooting and loved it so agree whole heartedly with Chris on the enjoyment factor. The reloading of your own ammo and experimenting with different bullet weights and loads etc I found particularly satisfying. I’d just applied for a variation to hold a SA assault file when Michael Ryan committed the Hungerford massacres which resulted in those weapons being banned. Simarlarly, the Dunblane shootings resulted in SA pistols being banned. This, plus the closure of a local range is why I packed in and surrenderd my FAC.

 

[moggy1968]

After the Mumbai terror attack in the Taj Mahal Hotel, metal detectors were fitted to hotel front doors. I don’t know if every other outside door in the building had the same, but I suspect not. The point I’m making is that with every control that is brought in, the law abiding majority will abide by them, while those that want to circumvent the control will find a way to do so.

I don't agree and all the evidence is against it. If you have controls, yes someone may be able to get through, but the harder you make it, the less likely that is. Thats why we have controls at airports, thats why we have gun controls. Thats why we have road traffic laws. Thats why we have all laws. All of which are proven to reduce risk. You can't eliminate it, but you can certainly mitigate it. Yes, people still get murdered, but the fact it's against the law, and we live in a (supposedly) moral society, those murder levels are significantly less than other countries where the laws and moral codes are not so well developed and certainly less than when you have total lawlessness. You can't just throw your hands up and say 'whats the point, lets have no controls'

 

[clivehorridge]

I know nothing of guns and have very little interest in them, other than as very interesting articles of engineering and in many cases beauty. The craftsmanship in some articles of firearms is truly stunning.

I had a brief spell of interest in my teens when visiting my uncle’s dairy farm, and although i disapprove of shooting wildlife generally, we often went out with a rifle and shot rabbit which at that time were mostly infected with meximotosis introduced as a pest control.

I enjoyed it as a kind of “sport” and maybe that’s why I can empathize with the likes of Chris and others posting here.

On the other hand, I see no reason whatsoever why any civvy “needs” a firearm of any sort.

The fact is, if there were no guns, there would be no shootings, but obviously there will always be guns, ruling out that option.

So the dilemma has been, and always will be, striking a balance given the facts.

What are the facts? As far as I can see, they include:

Guns exist;
Responsible folks want to own and use them;
Irresponsible folks (including thieves and nutters) want to own and use them;
Regulation exists in an attempt to ‘control’ the above;
Massacres still happen.

So the only option available is to modify the regulations (if any) to mitigate the frequency and extent of the massacres, learn to live with them, and the consequences.

That’s hard, ‘cos the only ones doing the massacring are the nutters with access to a gun who are capable of avoiding regulations.

Maybe better implementation, enforcement and policing the regulations is needed.

If I had my way, civvies owning or having access to guns should be banned with strict enforcement. Sorry Chris et al.

Nobody can tell me that massacres would still happen at the rate and intensity they have been, if gun possession was totally banned, although it wouldn’t rule them out.

I tend to think I might be in a minority here, but I dont care, and who knows what the populous thinks without some sort of anonymous secret ballot?

In my view, if you want to shoot, join a club and use the club guns, no reason on earth why you would need to take it off the club premises or home with you, or join the Police or the Army, whatever. Guns simply should not be legally available to the common man or woman.

Alternatively, (which will be the case) we have to be ready to expect massacres (and all other gun-related deaths and injuries) without complaint, as a consequence.

Complaining yet allowing is hypocritical, we can’t have it both ways folks.

JMHO

 

[Bert]

What someone would need a military 5.56 at home is beyond me.

People say the same about 4x4 drivers Moggy. We don't (in most cases) need them, we do it because it is enjoyable.

If I had my way, civvies owning or having access to guns should be banned with strict enforcement. Sorry Chris et al.

Clive, civvies owning hand guns in the UK has been banned since '97. As I've said previously, gun crime (in the UK) using hand guns is on the increase, year in, year out. There is already strict enforcement, it is illegal, but this does not prevent the lawbreakers one jot.

 

[StarCruiser]

I don't agree and all the evidence is against it. If you have controls, yes someone may be able to get through, but the harder you make it, the less likely that is. Thats why we have controls at airports, thats why we have gun controls. Thats why we have road traffic laws. Thats why we have all laws. All of which are proven to reduce risk. You can't eliminate it, but you can certainly mitigate it. Yes, people still get murdered, but the fact it's against the law, and we live in a (supposedly) moral society, those murder levels are significantly less than other countries where the laws and moral codes are not so well developed and certainly less than when you have total lawlessness. You can't just throw your hands up and say 'whats the point, lets have no controls'

I don’t really think that’s what I was saying. Just that making something illegal doesn’t prevent it happening. The right to bear arms is written into their constitution. Removing all guns would be taking away that freedom. Afterwards all manner of things could occur in place of gun crime to a populous now devoid of their usual means to defend themselves. Sure, gun related deaths would fall dramatically, you can see the jubilant headlines now that ignore totally the shift to other forms of mass crime. I don’t want to see anyone killed or injured that doesn’t need to be (lawfully) but I think it truly naive to think that America or anywhere else flooded with them can be cleansed of all its guns.

 

[frank rabbets]

Imagine the cost of putting an armed guard in every school in America. He would not stop a rifle bullet anyway. He would be the first target on the way in.

I'm afraid the Genie is out of the bottle with guns in America as it is with plastic pollution.