water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

uh and actually, let me turn the question around: how do you think reinstating all pistols and semiautos would change things, since citizens who are deemed as eligible to own a firearm can already own one or more?

Do you know what are the European standards for the carrying and use of handguns and similar, and the sanctions you risk if caught not respecting these regulations?

[brando]

..."Same goes for the Cumbria shooting, where they couldn't stop that maniac simply cos they didn't have any firearms to confront him with.. the core issue is that police forces in the UK are not pro-active or preventive, they're somehow anachronistic, thinking that you can solve things with a buff on the head and a patronising chat.. crime is changing, and so should the police forces: the reply to the London riots was a classic example of their utter incompetence "we weren't ready for this".. really? A city that had terrorist attacks? A multi-cultural melting pot of millions of people? A city that will host the Olympics next year?!
And mind you, when I talk about incompetence, it's not the poor PCs that I'm talking about, those poor people are just doing their job with the means they're given, I'm talking about all the heads and their stuck-up-their-own-ar$e police procedures and care for human rights and what not.. if you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear when a police office carries a sidearm.
Once again, it's your government choosing for you, cos they don't like you nor trust you. Most of the folks at the government come from specific social layers and circles anyway, and have little or no understanding or care for "little Britain"....

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

[MD_Titus]

+1 brando.

Also, someone who passes a psych test today could utterly lose it tomorrow. Muzzle loaders and small calibre rifles are either low rate of fire or relatively lower lethality than a large calibre automatic rifle.

As for hunting in this country, bar deer you're going to atomise your target with anything much above a .22. We kinda lack big game.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

... firearms are not just about killing, they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.

Firearms are only about killing and injuring* as that is their function and raison 'etre. Discipline is just about how you use (or don't use) them.




*except for target pistols, flare guns etc

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

No, it's a parallel comparison, it's to understand where/how/when you guys draw the line. It's also because many of the "no firearms" advocates never handled one, and because of videogames/movies etc they think that gun owners sleep with their pistols under their pillow or walk around with a Garand on a shoulder strap. It's an utterly ignorant attitude that is comparable to witch hunting done in the middle ages: you don't understand something so you make it look evil and dispose of it.

Here we go again, evil..? A gun cannot be evil, or good. It's a gun. It's designed to kill. How exactly do you deduce where I 'draw the line' from the output of entertainment companies? Like I said it is irrelevant. Killing somebody for real is always wrong, it might be done for a good reason but it's still wrong.

What don't I understand? (You're being patronising... again btw) I don't have to understand anything, it's a matter of choice, regardless of what you think I think.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

That's very dangerous thinking. What happens the day the Government decides on something that you're against and that might potentially influence your life? Will you say "tough" to yourself? Do you really think that the firearms law that we have in place in the UK now are adequate in their incomplete shape and protecting you against firearms?

It happens all the time, mainly financially, but also in healthcare, education, tax etc etc etc. I don't agree with every piece of legislation passed, and yes, I do just say tough if it's something that affects me badly. I can vote at the end of the day, it's a flawed system but it's better than nothing. The current firearms laws suit me fine. I have no interest at all in owning a gun.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I personally would like a re-insertion of handguns and semiautomatic full bore rifles, even if just kept in shooting clubs and not allowed in a household, this because I have interest and passion for the mechanics, history and use of firearms. I enjoy target shooting, reloading, collecting, studying and discussing about firearms, I am ready to be psychologically tested to see whether I'm suitable for the use/detention of firearms (wouldn't be the first time) and last but not least I would love to have everybody approach to firearms with a different attitude, far from the evil portrayal they receive, but with an attitude of respect, understanding and common sense, which can teach us all that firearms are not just about killing, they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.

At the end of the day you're obviously 'into' guns. Sadly, for you, the vast majority of people in the UK don't care enough about them to warrant a change in the law. I don't see any great public debate on the subject, even after the Cumbria shootings.
As for your 'they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.'
No they are not, they are about firing lethal projectiles at whatever you point them at.

[brando]

It seems clear that those individuals who want to fire military weapons should join the TA or the Army, while those who wish to fire weapons without being shot back at should submit to stringent controls on where and how guns are stored and fired. No usable weapons to be stored at home (except for farmers' shotguns) and detailed usage lists to be kept strictly up to date at gun clubs. Ammunition expenditure to be more firmly regulated, and random body searches used to back up these regulations.
In reality though, with the presence in our country of committed jihadists and serious criminals, storage of lethal weapons and ammo at gun clubs would be hard to enforce and maintain. Many small armouries were closed at the time of the Troubles when the IRA were abroad on the British mainland - and no doubt the authorities are more than happy if they don't get re-opened. Proper regulation would require a significant input from a national Police force that is absolutely strapped for cash and already involved in dealing with criminality. They don't need to be diverted to service a handful of gun-owners.
What they do need is more weight to the laws governing the possession of un-registered firearms. I'd be happy to see a mandatory life-sentence become the penalty for carrying any handgun, with the penalties for trafficking or converting firearms and/or supplying ammo being of similar or even more stringent severity. People can rabbit on about human rights and personal freedom, even the statistics of death in former wars and the rise of "first-person shooters", but try explaining that BS to the relatives and friends of those dead from gunfire.

[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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Firearms are only about killing and injuring* as that is their function and raison 'etre. Discipline is just about how you use (or don't use) them.

*except for target pistols, flare guns etc

yeah, you kinda contradicted yourself there.. they're even an Olympic discipline, which is vaguely inspired to their original purpose, but then so is the use of bows, isn't it?

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

+1 brando.

Also, someone who passes a psych test today could utterly lose it tomorrow. Muzzle loaders and small calibre rifles are either low rate of fire or relatively lower lethality than a large calibre automatic rifle.

As for hunting in this country, bar deer you're going to atomise your target with anything much above a .22. We kinda lack big game.

yes, you can lose it, but that's why there should be a more common gun club mentality and attitude, where you're kinda kindly forced to be in a social group when using your firearm.

Uh and a semiauto .22 is very, very accurate and lethal up to 150 yards, with subsonic ammunition even up to 250 and still very very lethal. Considering the very close distance at which the gun massacres happened here, you can appreciate that the calibre of your firearm becomes of secondary importance, but then, you would know this if you had some experience on firearms.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

Here we go again, evil..? A gun cannot be evil, or good. It's a gun. It's designed to kill. How exactly do you deduce where I 'draw the line' from the output of entertainment companies? Like I said it is irrelevant. Killing somebody for real is always wrong, it might be done for a good reason but it's still wrong.

whereas killing someone in a videogame when you're 12 is ok, right? I'm afraid that sometimes we make the mistake to think that all families are normal, with healthy values and sound principles. Unfortunately it's not the case, and all the youth senseless violence that we have now is also fruit of this de-sensibilisation to it. Remember that kid that killed his ex girlfriend last year with a stone? Comparing how hard it is to kill someone in real life as opposed to a videogame or a movie with his friend, who thought he was joking?

What don't I understand? (You're being patronising... again btw) I don't have to understand anything, it's a matter of choice, regardless of what you think I think.

again, different opinions here, difference is that I say them, you keep them for yourself probably.

It happens all the time, mainly financially, but also in healthcare, education, tax etc etc etc. I don't agree with every piece of legislation passed, and yes, I do just say tough if it's something that affects me badly. I can vote at the end of the day, it's a flawed system but it's better than nothing. The current firearms laws suit me fine. I have no interest at all in owning a gun.

and again, that's your case, but you can appreciate that there are other people that might have a different opinion and want to voice it. It's not like we want to bring war to your country or anything, that's the kinda impression I get when I read your comments sometimes.

At the end of the day you're obviously 'into' guns. Sadly, for you, the vast majority of people in the UK don't care enough about them to warrant a change in the law. I don't see any great public debate on the subject, even after the Cumbria shootings.
As for your 'they're about discipline, prevention, hunting, sport, collecting, and that they always served us great and like nothing else in the defence of our freedom.'
No they are not, they are about firing lethal projectiles at whatever you point them at.

We already talked about this Winnie, I'm ok cos I can still use the firearms I want when I want to, and again mine was a mere consideration of the ridiculous state of the law here in terms of gun ownership, that's all. I respect your lack of interest on the subject, but what I don't tolerate is generalisation, like your last sentence, which is obviously driven by ignorance on the subject (which again it kinda surprises me, since you admitted yourself that you have books on firearms).

[nearmiss]

Gun laws

The only gun laws you need is the right to bear arms.

The crooks leave you alone, because they don't know if you are carrying.

The crooks don't invade your home, because they don't know what you have to protect yourself.

Look at all the genocide, throughout the world. The one's with the guns are the troublemakers and murders, yet the people they are hurting don't have guns. You want to stop the murder and mayhem, arm the people that currently have no way to protect themselves.

Yes you would have civil wars, but the peaceseeking side would have the ability to defend themselves. As it is they are slaughtered mercilessly.

Look at Somalia and Kenya now, over a 1 million people (with no guns) have had to flee Somalia or die there. All these people have become a problem for the rest of the world. I don't feel uncharitable when I say this. I'm just saying, if those people had been armed the outcomes would be different. I think it would have been horrible, but I don't think there would have been as many killed and suffering.

It would be difficult to give them guns now, because all the able bodied men have already been killed for the most part. The refuges are the young, the weak, the old and infirm. These people have to turn to the world for compassion, and they have strong argument for compassion and aid.

When a despotic government or factions want to start trouble, just make sure the folks they despise or otherwise plan to destroy have guns to defend themselves. Outcomes would be different.