[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by brando

All this rant and you want to relax the present laws on gun ownership? You're just sliding towards the "enshrined" laws of gun-ownership that allow psychopaths in the US to rack up really high scores when they flip out and go off shooting their class-mates and teachers, relatives or total strangers.

I have never said I want to relax gun laws, I just think that citizens shouldn't pay for the incapacity of their institutions. I would like more efficient gun laws, which would allow us to own firearms and keep on living our normal lives.

How comes you keep on mentioning the US and never look into an example that is really close to ours? In Switzerland, every man is given an assault rifle to keep in his house, and they even allow the owning of fully automatic firearms, still, you don't hear of a gun massacre in Switzerland everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

In response to an earlier post where you suggest that we enjoy shooting people on computers and compare Spitfires to the SMLE, as well as inferring that some of us do this and "hate firearms", I thought I'd mention my experience.
I've handled and fired all of the infantry weapons of the British Army up to and including the L1A1 SLR and the GPMG, and sidearms such as the the Webley MkVI and the Browning 9mm. All of them interesting and great fun to fire in a military context. In that one of the most important aspects of live-firing is discipline, both self-discipline and that applied by warrant-officers and N.C.O's to ensure that gunfire is both directed and effective in hitting the target. Outside this context firearms take on a sinister role in civilian life.

Why sinister? If anything you just lived one of the many sides of firearms, the use in military situation, but as mentioned above, there are many other contexts, few of them sinister me thinks. I find it more sinister to see a British collector spending loads of money for a gun that has been de-activated but is desirable cos there's SS skulls and bones on it..

I have taken several Brit friends to shooting ranges in Italy with little or no experience in firearms, and they ALL thoroughly enjoyed it, leaving with the same question "why we make so much fuss out of it?!".

From my experience in the Army and having visited and worked with foreign armed forces, I can tell you that there's way more of a strict attitude about firearms in gun clubs than in many military ranges.

I went clay pigeon shooting a year ago in a shooting range in the Midlands, the guys asked me about my experience etc.. but they would still stay within a step from me and any other shooter before/after me, because their responsibility was to ensure first of all a safe experience, especially to people that might not be that literate on the subject and risks of gun handling.

Gun clubs had a good reputation for many years, especially during the years when mass call-ups were a likely response to international wars. Since the end of the cold war, and indeed before that time, the idea of conscripting gun enthusiasts to defend our shores had fallen in face of the modern army structure - small, eminently professional, and high-tech.

gun culture doesn't just belong to military circles, you should well know this. The best Luftwaffe aces were fine hunters and brought their shooting skills to use with incredible results.

However, a series of events changed the public's attitude to gun ownership and gave rise to the current regulations. Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria have all showed up the dangers and shortcomings of the previous structure and the present structure in the case of Cumbria.

Indeed, they also proved that despite the clamping down on guns ownership, you can still go on a killing spree and act undisturbed for hours.

No doubt it's galling to be restricted to muzzle-loading handguns, rim-fire .22 rifles and shotguns - but what are the alternatives?

A different take on the subject for starters. Re-considering the issuing of license procedures, recurrent psychological tests, strict regulations (you commit a penal crime, no matter if gun related or not, you can kiss your license goodbye) and gun clubs routines and culture (which can easily help assess "trouble" individuals). In this way we'd all be happier. Again, check out the Swiss regulations.

Michael Ryan showed the shocked citizens of Hungerford just how lethal a Chinese Kalashnikov, an M1 carbine, and a Beretta 9mm pistol could be in the hands of a crazed and indiscriminate shooter; while Thomas Hamilton demonstrated the effectiveness of alternating full-metal-jacket and hollow-point rounds in the four handguns he used to kill sixteen children, one teacher, and finally, himself at Dunblane Primary School. It should also be noted that a similar number of victims were wounded by gunfire in both these cases. It's fairly certain that not so much loss of life would have been caused had these maniacs only been armed with muzzle loaders and rimfire .22 rifles, although Derrick Bird showed that shotguns and a .22 rifle could indeed amass a double-figure score when combined with the use of a vehicle on back-country roads.

Exactly. A killer on a killing spree could do the same with a knife or other means, and a semiauto .22 or a full bore rifle are still damn lethal. The problem here is not in the number of victims (cos that's the only concern of the government), but the fact that a society where there's an effectively controlled issue of firearms can be still safe, or even safer.

What's important to note is that none of the gun massacres in either America or Great Britain have been prevented by gun-carrying members of the public or armed police. And in most cases the shooters have killed themselves before they can be captured.

well, that's speculation I'm afraid: a gun massacre won't happen if the person is stopped in time by police forces or other citizens, and I'm sure that these happen often, but don't make it to big news.