# Shooters



## woodbloke (11 Jan 2011)

In the wake of the shooting tradgedy (yet again :roll: ) in Arizona, here's an interesting little snippet from the BBC...when are the 'murricans ever going to learn?..beats me - Rob


----------



## jonrms (11 Jan 2011)

Well ok I will reply to this.

I teach firearms and coach up to olympic level. I am a fully qualified RCO (range officer) I am also American living in England. I have a fair share of firearms and am often asked by police and vets to dispatch animals. Over here in the UK you need to justify your firearms. IE you cant just have one because you want one... or if applying for a section 2 licence (shotgun) because you want to do clay pigeon shooting... I agree with this principle... even down to the fact that you are only permitted to having a certin alloted amount of ammo at any given time. and can buy a certin number as well. 

However this goverment doesnt have it right either... I wont go into details but if I wanted to go on a rampage its VERY easy and scary that I can or others in my situation. Although fully vetted I believe in the heat of the moment anyone and everyone is capable of snapping. 

Now I am just giving as much information so if your reading this you can make up your own mind... I think that America has it WRONG!!! yep I said it.. even though I still own firearms over there in my house which is rented to a family member... but has no access of it... ie in a safe that would be well very difficult to get at. 

Anyway firearms are no more dangerous than a knife... or a lathe... a Car is by far more dangerous and used to committ more crimes, murders than knifes or guns.... HOWEVER when a gun crime occurs it is often larger numbers of victims effected at any one time. 

I know some of you might be against firearms and some even in favour of them.. I am neither here nor there with my views.. I believe they serve a purpose and need tight regulation like everything else.. you have to pass a car test to get a licence.... and in the uk you have simular laws dependant on your licence you are applying for. 

and fyi.. pistols and handguns still exist despite common knowledge.. there just kept quiet... and I wont comment on my own collections.


----------



## woodbloke (11 Jan 2011)

Obviously a subject which is contentious and I've got no wish to get involved in heated discussion over t'interweb but the salient point is that the individual was able to walk into a shop and quite legally and freely purchase a lethal weapon and unknown quantity of amo...that he 'snapped' is another issue (and it's happened twice in the UK in living memory) and I agree that we've had issues recently with knife crime in London.
Were access to lethal weapons much, much harder (as it is in the UK and elsewhere) then this sort of event might not have happened. This is the thing that most folks in the UK and Europe find amazing...the free and generally unfettered access to lethal weapons which seems to be a 'mind-set' and ingrained into the American psyche.
As a result of this, the incidence of gun crime in the US of A is just a tad higher :-" than the UK - Rob


----------



## miles_hot (11 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":1muqkgih said:


> ...that he 'snapped' is another issue (and it's happened twice in the UK in living memory) and I agree that we've had issues recently with knife crime in London.



Rather more than that I fear - Dunblain, Hungerford and some others I think plus mr moat and the the lakedistrict one last year...

Miles


----------



## woodbloke (11 Jan 2011)

miles_hot":1pn067d4 said:


> woodbloke":1pn067d4 said:
> 
> 
> > ...that he 'snapped' is another issue (and it's happened twice in the UK in living memory) and I agree that we've had issues recently with knife crime in London.
> ...


Agreed...forgot Mr Moat  - Rob


----------



## bugbear (11 Jan 2011)

Guns are excellent devices for killing - many of them are designed for that sole purpose by skilled and dedicated manufacturers.

It is often pointed out that almost anything CAN be used to kill - but when Horrett Campbell attacked a bunch of children with a machete, he was actually held off by a single nursey nurse (Lisa Potts) and there were no deaths.

Lisa Potts was horribly injured though.

BugBear


----------



## woodbloke (11 Jan 2011)

The point that makes gun crime so different BB is that death(s) and injury can be inflicted so easily at a distance, simply point the weapon and pull the trigger. This is of course why this sort of weapon (inc the likes of bows) were abhorrent to the medieval knight as they could be disposed of beyond the stiking distance of a sword blade. Knife (and machete) crimes require the user to be 'up close and personnel' - Rob


----------



## cambournepete (11 Jan 2011)

I cannot see any legitimate reason for any ordinary member of the public to own a firearm.

As for saying...


jonrms":kcxx6hcv said:


> Anyway firearms are no more dangerous than a knife... or a lathe... a Car...


Sorry Jon, I think that is complete nonsense.
Guns are designed for killing.
The other tools you mention are not. They can if used inappropriately, but they are not designed for it.
My lathe might hurt me, but there no way I'll carry it to the nearest shopping centre and start hitting people with it.


----------



## jeffinfrance (11 Jan 2011)

i have a couple of questions.

what was the only country in europe not to get invaded during the last two "world wars"?

what is the only country in europe where every able bodied man has a firearm?

just for a view from a different angle, here is a list of genocides against gun banned populations and the dates the gun bans were brought in.
Excerpts from

THE WAR ON GUN OWNERSHIP STILL GOES ON

as appearing in March 1994's Guns & Ammo magazine.
_________________________________________________________________

The Down-Side of Gun Control

Advocates cannot see any harm in gun control, but it has a nasty
downside. Its victims number in the tens of millions. Its downside is
genocide: the mass-murder of civilians on account of religion,
language, or political views. Since 1900, at least seven major
genocides have occurred worldwide involving 50-60 million victims (see
table).

MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES -- THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL
Date of
Perpetrator # Murdered Gun-Ctrl Source
Gov. Date Target (Estimated) Law Document
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Ottoman 1915-17 Armenians 1-1.5 Mil. 1866 Art. 166,
Turky Penal Code

Soviet 1929-53 Anti-Comm. 20 Million 1929 Art. 128,
Union Anti-Stal. Penal Code

Nazi 1933-45 Jews, 13 Million 1928 Law on Fire-
Germany Anti-Nazis, arms & Ammun.
& occupied Gypsies April 12,
Europe Weapons Law,
March 18

China 1948-52 Anti- 20 Million 1935 Arts. 186 & 7
Communists Penal Code.
1966- Pro-Reform
1976 Group

Guatemala 1960-81 Mayan 100,000 1871 Decree #36
Indians 1964 Decree #283

Uganda 1971-79 Christians, 300,000 1955 Firearms Ord.
Pol. Rivals 1970 Firearms Act

Cambodia 1975-79 Educated 1 Million 1956 Arts. 322-328,
Persons Penal Code

TOTAL VICTIMS: 55.9 MILLION
_________________________________________________________________

jeff


----------



## Racers (11 Jan 2011)

Hi,

My brother-in-law and sister were both into target shooting, both did very well in national competitions but they had to hand in all there hand guns. The government never told any one just how much that cost to do, and they lost a hobby that they liked. He still got to keep his rifle and pump action shotgun.

Pete


----------



## monkeybiter (11 Jan 2011)

Due to the ineffectual handgun ban I had to hand in my six pistols. I was well compensated financially but still felt like I had been robbed. But I'm not against sensible gun control.

As far as the 'guns are designed to kill' argument goes, there are plenty of guns designed to put holes in targets, and plenty of knives are designed to put holes in people.

If I wanted to hurt a lot of people I could throw a bucket of petrol into a crowd or go for a walk with my chainsaw or go for a drive with a couple drinks inside me etc. etc. There will always be more methods of hurting each other than can be controlled by legislation.


----------



## studders (11 Jan 2011)

Just to throw a spanner in.....

I wonder how many times having a Gun has saved someones life?


----------



## bugbear (11 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":3gmvtihj said:


> The point that makes gun crime so different BB is that death(s) and injury can be inflicted so easily at a distance, simply point the weapon and pull the trigger.



I rather hoped that was the point I was making ?!

BugBear


----------



## woodbloke (11 Jan 2011)

bugbear":2x6yja1a said:


> woodbloke":2x6yja1a said:
> 
> 
> > The point that makes gun crime so different BB is that death(s) and injury can be inflicted so easily at a distance, simply point the weapon and pull the trigger.
> ...


Ah...see where you're coming from now BB. Agreed - Rob


----------



## RogerS (11 Jan 2011)

studders":2ji276xm said:


> Just to throw a spanner in.....
> 
> I wonder how many times having a Gun has saved someones life?



Funny you should say that as I was thinking exactly the same thing. The guy in Arizona walked up from the back of the queue and then started shooting. If more people in that queue were 'packing' then a well-aimed bullet in the back of the blokes head would/could have saved lives and injuries.

And then there is the town in the USA where they passed a law making it compulsory for everyone to own a gun. Guess what? Crime especially violent crime went down. That kind of hits on the head the argument that easy access to guns makes crime more likely.


----------



## DeanN (11 Jan 2011)

cambournepete":1bqt1cdm said:


> I cannot see any legitimate reason for any ordinary member of the public to own a firearm.
> 
> *Guns are designed for killing.*



My take is that a gun is designed to send a projectile down its barrel, and onwards towards a target. Its the person behind the gun that decides what to do with that projectile - sport (target), pest control, hunting, or if necessary to take/save a life.


----------



## jeffinfrance (11 Jan 2011)

studders,

if a few upstanding armed citizens were in the crowd, only one or two people would have been shot that day.

jeff


----------



## jonrms (11 Jan 2011)

anyway everyone is entitiled to there view.. I gave my mine... which is not nonsense... your view may differ from mine by I havnt and wont tell you that your opionion is wrong.... because your entitled to it. 

anyway can we get back to wood working... lol


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

jeffinfrance":1el5jign said:


> studders,
> 
> if a few upstanding armed citizens were in the crowd, only one or two people would have been shot that day.
> 
> jeff


Don't be stupid. For every upstanding armed citizen in the crowd there would be several dozen armed nutters - and an even bigger blood bath. The idea that more guns makes life safer is totally ridiculous. Infantile. That's what a lot of Americans think and Americans get shot a lot (how many thousands per year?) because they allow a lot of guns. Opposite in the UK - with very low numbers of gun deaths compared to everywhere else in the world.
In any case upright citizens wouldn't go near guns by definition. Guns owners tend to be criminals, psychopaths, people with personality disorders, pineapples etc etc.


----------



## kirkpoore1 (11 Jan 2011)

I don't think most of you fully understand the situation. The gun control issue here is essentially a religious issue mascarading as patriotism and being used politically. There is a very small segment of individuals who are, in my opinion, irrationally afraid of criminals or government or whoever. These people think they need a gun on them everywhere except their own bathroom, and sometimes even there. (There is another segment, only slightly more rational, that think all guns are evil incarnate, but they are barely organized and except in large cities have no impact.) Most less radical pro-gun people would not be against some restrictions and better law enforcement mechanism. But being pro-gun is now a litmus test for Republican politicians, even more than being anti-abortion or anti-illegal immigrant. No Republican politician can vote for even rational restrictions such as more thorough spot checks of gun dealer records to spot sham buyers (those who pass their guns on to criminals). 

Now, as far as I can tell, the Tucson shooter had no criminal record and no government contact because of his mental illness. So unless you had UK type restrictions and took all handguns away, he could have bought a gun. I'm sorry, but I think a total ban is just as irrational the other way. 

Kirk


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

kirkpoore1":31wjka6b said:


> ... I'm sorry, but I think a total ban is just as irrational the other way.
> 
> Kirk


That it obviously saves many lives is sufficient reason for near total ban on guns such as we have in the UK.


----------



## miles_hot (11 Jan 2011)

jeffinfrance":3r4wjva6 said:


> i have a couple of questions.
> 
> what was the only country in europe not to get invaded during the last two "world wars"?


Mainland UK (not counting the channel isles here! ) managed to escape that pleasure



jeffinfrance":3r4wjva6 said:


> what is the only country in europe where every able bodied man has a firearm?


I suspect that the swiss not being invaded had a lot more to do with money!

Both puerile arguments when talking about gun control - you might as well as who Genghis didn't invade  

Miles


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

DeanN":7fhm8drr said:


> ....Its the person behind the gun that decides what to do with that projectile -


That's the whole point - they are usually nutters,criminals and psychopaths. Normal people aren't interested in guns.


> or if necessary to take/save a life.


How many lives are saved by guns in America? Except when the odd psycho is holed up by the cops I suspect there are no instances at all. 
Whereas several thousand innocent people are shot dead every year.
Weird place America!


jeffinfrance":7fhm8drr said:


> what is the only country in europe where every able bodied man has a firearm?


It was the penknives what dunnit!


----------



## Russ (11 Jan 2011)

Just a hunch, (and correct me if I'm wrong) but I doubt he would've caused the same amount of carnage using a loo brush?

Guns kill, that's their sole purpose.


----------



## studders (11 Jan 2011)

So what's your solution then Jacob, for those nutters who are intent on causing as much bloodshed as they possibly can whichever way they can, have every able bodied person fully armed with a withering glare?


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

studders":22kfht6e said:


> So what's your solution then Jacob, for those nutters who are intent on causing as much bloodshed as they possibly can whichever way they can, have every able bodied person fully armed with a withering glare?


Gun control. Highly effective. Proven. Glaringly obvious. Do you really need it explaining?
Actually not MY solution it's the solution imposed in all civilised countries with low rates of gun crime.


----------



## studders (11 Jan 2011)

And what about Knives - Axes - Hammers - Lumps of Wood (with or without embedded nails) - Archery Equipment - etc. etc. ?
Control or Ban them all do we?


----------



## theartfulbodger (11 Jan 2011)

blimey

I was going to add a sensible post but I'm new here and don't want to rile people up. (hammer) 

A couple of questions for all the vegetarian Guardian readers:

Has the UK got some of the most stringent gun laws in the World?

Do idiots that *wouldn't* be granted a FAC or a SGL commit crimes with illegal guns?


----------



## monkeybiter (11 Jan 2011)

> blimey
> 
> I was going to add a sensible post but I'm new here and don't want to rile people up.



It was all going nicely until the thread spoiler joined in. Best not to take it seriously once that happens. :roll:


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

studders":232b3m1l said:


> And what about Knives - Axes - Hammers - Lumps of Wood (with or without embedded nails) - Archery Equipment - etc. etc. ?
> Control or Ban them all do we?


You obviously haven't noticed that all those things are far less effective as killing implements, compared to guns. If you don't get that - imagine a battle with guns on one side and your list above, on the other. Who do you think would win? Take your time, just think - take as long as you need.


----------



## DeanN (11 Jan 2011)

Jacob":2y5bmej2 said:


> That's the whole point - they are usually nutters,criminals and psychopaths. Normal people aren't interested in guns



In the UK, you wouldn't be granted a FAC or SGC if you were a nutter, criminal or psychopath. Only "Normal" people with a need for the license would be granted one. Therefore, a section of "normal" society must have an interest in, or have a need for guns.

My point, is that some people do have an interest in guns for a variety or reasons - eg competitive target shooting. This does not make them abnormal.

I'm all for strict gun control, and I think the UK has got it correct.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

theartfulbodger":19qu3tvn said:


> ..
> A couple of questions for all the vegetarian Guardian readers:
> 
> Has the UK got some of the most stringent gun laws in the World?


If you don't know the answer you must be a vegetable yourself and I guess you wouldn't understand that this results in low levels of gun crime. It's not difficult to work out - just try a little harder, we know you can type, you can't be totally thick.


> Do idiots that *wouldn't* be granted a FAC or a SGL commit crimes with illegal guns?


If it's a gun crime then yes, by definition. And crimes are also committed with legal guns. But either way there are far fewer guns available to them, so gun crime is low.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

DeanN":2qbq5ls9 said:


> Jacob":2qbq5ls9 said:
> 
> 
> > That's the whole point - they are usually nutters,criminals and psychopaths. Normal people aren't interested in guns
> ...


The problem is the nutters who slip through the nets one way or another, legally or otherwise makes no difference. Either way - fewer guns and more control means less gun crime.


----------



## theartfulbodger (11 Jan 2011)

Jacob, the question was rhetoric.

Obviously you're either drunk, you have a bee in your bonnet about something or you're just plain rude. Or maybe you're just [a rude person]?

I would normally enter a debate about the gun ownership calmly but am not willing to stoop low enough as to have a "conversation" with anyone who uses the term "vegetable" as a put down. Well done. Be proud.




Edited to remove a rude word. Sorry, it was late.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

Vegetarian Guardian readers versus the vegetables?


----------



## theartfulbodger (11 Jan 2011)

lol

My use of the phrase "vegetarian Guardian readers" was to typify the left wing hand wringing type who normally see guns as evil. Nothing to do with vegetables.

Good night


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2011)

jonrms":3qnrcnsc said:


> ...... Although fully vetted I believe in the heat of the moment anyone and everyone is capable of snapping. .....


In which case you should not be in possession of any firearms. You are clearly not a suitable person and the vetting process has not picked this up.


----------



## studders (12 Jan 2011)

Oh I see, we've moved from maniacs to Battles. Not so much a shift of goalposts, more a relocation of playing field.


----------



## theartfulbodger (12 Jan 2011)

Sort of, Studders. "Battle" is a strong word.

I was going to post in defence of the shooting people, but refrained, instead posting a thought provoking question or two.

This incited a personal attack which I laughed at/defended. However you want to read it.


Wonder how many of these posts will remain when the mods are up in the morning?


----------



## studders (12 Jan 2011)

Never take anything here too seriously is what I say.
However much 'we' think we're right they are only our opinions*, and that goes for 'them' too.


*Except in my case as I know I'm right. vbg


----------



## miles_hot (12 Jan 2011)

Jacob":3ljgxq8a said:


> jonrms":3ljgxq8a said:
> 
> 
> > ...... Although fully vetted I believe in the heat of the moment anyone and everyone is capable of snapping. .....
> ...


I don't thing you can say that Jacob (well actually, case in point you can as you obviously did before you point that out!) I think that Jon is correctly pointing out that we all have that potential - many experiments have shown that the vast majority (possibly all?) have the ability to turn into monsters capable of extreme acts. Granted these are more commonly in a group context where peer pressure / authoritarian figures can create the mental environment required for the transformation however I wonder if, given that sort of "camp guard" capability exists, there are other mental pressures which could cause the abnormal to come to the fore. How anyone can reach a point in their thinking process where shooting loads of people, either targeted or more oddly at total random, can seem a "sensible" or rational next step is utterly beyond me but then I'm obviously not under the mental load that the gun men are under....

Either way it would seem harsh to make that sort of judgement on Jon without a suitable emoticon. :shock: 

Miles


----------



## monkeybiter (12 Jan 2011)

Miles; I think you're trying to reason with the unreasonable. It was a good tempered discussion, which is unusual anywhere for this topic, until [predictably] the mood was poisoned by our resident agent provocateur.


----------



## Kalimna (12 Jan 2011)

Mornin' All,
As one of the lefty hand-wringing, vegetarian Guardian readers (who loves meat and reads the Times, and wouldnt vote Milliband unless there were no other parties around), I fail to see, in the absence of interests such as target shooting and legitimate hunting, how anyone should *need* a gun.
Lets see a simple illustration (please don't nitpick the specifics, it's early and my coffee hasnt wound up to my brain fully yet). Two neighbours are having an argument. Neither has guns. They argue, and it may even come to fisticuffs, but no-one is seriously hurt. Lets say one then gets a gun, and even if not produced, threatens the other. The other then gets a gun to 'protect' himself and we now have a volatile situation whereby two folk have the potential to cause death at a distance. With collateral damage too.

The whole 'other things kill too' argument is spurious, as there are few other things (recklessly driven cars being one) that kill so much collaterally as guns. And whatever the intention of a specific gun, they are all designed to, or are derived from, something meant to kill. And initially kill humans. Hunting came later. Nothing else comes close to the ability of a gun in the hands of either a nutter or a 'normal' person who flips to kill and mame at a distance. You don't get sniper knives for instance! Whilst a different topic, the argument is, in the essentials, the same as saying "My granny smoked and lived to 92, therefore cigarettes are safe and anyone who says otherwise is a nutter". Whatever a persons particular opinion is, it remains only an opinion. And opinions are not fact, truth is unfortunately not a democracy.

I think the UK has it spot on. You can apply for (though I dont know the specifics) guns for various areas of sport and hunting, and whilst some people who shouldnt slip through, they are a small proportion indeed. And whatever your take, there is never, ever, ever any need for a member of the public to own a repeating weapon that holds a large magazine.

In the eyes of many in the world, the USA is an appallingly bad example of how not to use guns in a civil manner.

Many things kill. Few kill as efficiently as a firearm, as that is precisely what they are designed to do. The fewer guns in circulation, the fewer gun related injuries/deaths/crimes there are. It really doesnt take a genius to work this out. Im with Jacob on this one.

Rant over, time to get my car fixed 

Adam S


----------



## RogerS (12 Jan 2011)

Jacob":8e1927e2 said:


> ...........But either way there are far fewer guns available to them, so gun crime is low.



This article in the FT would suggest that what you're saying is pure unadulterated tosh.

"Kennesaw, where everyone is armed by law"

"But this city, half an hour’s drive north of Atlanta, is unique: it is the only place in America where it is compulsory to own a gun"

"But almost 30 years after the law was passed, it is still in place and still popular, *not least because Kennesaw’s crime rate has remained disproportionately low, even as the town’s population swelled from 5,000 in 1982 to almost 35,000 now.* According to the latest FBI statistics, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes – mainly robberies and aggravated assaults – during 2008. In other similar-sized local towns the figures were much higher – 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. For property crimes – largely burglaries and thefts – Kennesaw recorded 555 while Dalton had 1,124 and Hinesville 1,802."

Moral : get a gun, cut down crime.

The original link http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb ... z1AnykEfUI


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

I gave up trying to give my view.. Miles thank you for your helping point out my point of view in better wording. 

Anyway yawn.. I wont bit to the comments above because it seems it is either for a wind up or really someone needs to step back and review there thought on life. 

simple fact is there are alot of firearms in the uk... the general public are not aware of such.. the vetting must be going well. sadly there are still situations where idiots loose the plot and cause decent shooters of all diciplines to be forced back into hiding "so to speak" 

And it also effects public and there views and idealisms on a firearm... the rifle, shotgun, pistol cant hurt anyone as stated before.. its the person in control! "or not so to speak"


----------



## nanscombe (12 Jan 2011)

Jacob":1e7ymzlk said:


> jonrms":1e7ymzlk said:
> 
> 
> > ...... Although fully vetted I believe in the heat of the moment anyone and everyone is capable of snapping. .....
> ...



Are you so obnoxious in real life?

Calling people mutters, psychopaths etc just because they have an interest in firearms?

Calling fellow forum members "vegetables".


Perhaps we should ban lathes in case they are used to knock up a working, air powered, smoothbore weapon.

We should also ban hand tools in case someone uses them to knock up a functioning crossbow or bow and arrow.

Prohibit re-runs of the A-Team, McGyver and Scrapheap challenge, just in case someone learns how to make weapons.

And as for all those potentially lethal knives, chisels, screwdrivers and high powered staple *guns*, they should be banned while we are at it.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

jonrms":6za8su3o said:


> .....
> simple fact is there are alot of firearms in the uk... the general public are not aware of such.. ....


If you know specifics you should tell the police. You are talking about illegal guns which could end up being used to kill people.


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

Jacob, I have a responsiblity to the police. the firearms I have mentioned are legal... however the general public are not aware of them.. there is a gradeing system to hold firearms, ie section one covers rifles and multi shot shotguns.. ie that contain more than 3 in a mag. SG (shotgun) licence which is 2 plus one in the barrel.. then you go onto more specific licences... where you can posses explosive materials... and section 5 which permitts handguns and other specialist firearms. 

And there are more.. however joe smo doesnt have the access required to get these... and its ALOT of vetting and varification to even obtain them. 

finally slanderous statements regarding my "mental health" or "suitablility" will not be tolerated. attempting to make your point by attacking ones creditablity "mine" in question will not be tollerated. Not only is this against forum rules it is also illegal and being a american in the UK I am still on the lawsuit culture! 

Enjoy and please note if I did come across anything illegal in this "specialist" field I would not hessitate to report it and remove it from the person holding it!


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

nanscombe":1125j33n said:


> .....
> Calling people mutters, psychopaths etc just because they have an interest in firearms?
> ......


To "have an interest in firearms" is the thin edge of the wedge, is on the same spectrum, however you want to put it. It's an early warning sign. 
Of course most people who have an interest in firearms don't harm anybody, we know this, but they are still part of the gun culture. Would you be happy living next door to someone who has an interest in firearms and keeps a few too, even if legal? Possibly not.
If I had in an interest in guillotines and gallows you would think this was a bit peculiar at the very least.
I used to have a workshop opposite a gun club. Once I looked out of my window and saw someone pointing a rifle at me from 100 yards or so away. I phoned the club and they said it was probably someone just testing his sights and the gun wouldn't be loaded. I should have phoned the police. There were other incidents and eventually it was shut down, much to everybodies relief. Yes most of the members were harmless, but it's the others who we worry about. It only takes one.


----------



## bugbear (12 Jan 2011)

Ah - yet another gun control "discussion" on the internet ends in people calling each other psychopaths and liberals.

'twas ever thus.

BugBear


----------



## nanscombe (12 Jan 2011)

Jacob":2iyvneef said:


> ... I used to have a workshop opposite a gun club. Once I looked out of my window and saw someone pointing a rifle at me from 100 yards or so away. I phoned the club and they said it was probably someone just testing his sights and the gun wouldn't be loaded. I should have phoned the police. There were other incidents and eventually it was shut down, much to everybodies relief. Yes most of the members were harmless, but it's the others who we worry about. It only takes one.



That is one reason that I have never held a live gun, it would be too easy to point it at some disagreeable oik and decrease the surplus population.

I just bottle up any anger and go onto Internet fora instead.


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

it is against the law to point a firearm or immation firearm (blank fires included) at anyone.. loaded or not. by doing this you are assulting that person. you will get a min of 5 years jail ...loose your fac if you hold on and will have a criminal record... 

there are exceptions to this. although they do not apply to the above post. ie for training and in a controlled enviorment. but ..... you should have rang the police.. I would have and I would have come down hard on that person who was in possesion of that firearm. 

not good.


----------



## Alf (12 Jan 2011)

Well this thread has followed an easily predictable pattern, I see.

My only contribution is to point out the presence of the "Add Foe" option now available on this forum, with which you can automatically ignore selected members. Suggest a few people explore its possibilities...


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

jonrms":3p2u6t1j said:


> ..... you should have rang the police..


I agree. I would do if anything like that happened again. 
But then you have to put up with being called a vegetarian, limp-wristed, hand-wringing, Guardian-reading, do-gooder, politically correct, pathetic liberal , etc etc . There are some in the police who would take the same view - quite likely to get a bit of sarcasm thrown at you.
At least it's not like America, where taking an anti gun stance can result in you getting shot.


----------



## woodbloke (12 Jan 2011)

Alf":32af4r2h said:


> Well this thread has followed an easily predictable pattern, I see.
> 
> My only contribution is to point out the presence of the "Add Foe" option now available on this forum, with which you can automatically ignore selected members. Suggest a few people explore its possibilities...


...as I have done Alf, for one forumite hereabouts who shall be nameless, which means of course that I can't follow what Jacob's wittering on about :lol: - Rob


----------



## theartfulbodger (12 Jan 2011)

Morning all,

Apologies for "biting".

For what it's worth I agree with much of the reasoned debate above, especially this snippet from Kalimna:



Kalimna":h75jf0uv said:


> I fail to see, in the absence of interests such as target shooting and legitimate hunting, how anyone should *need* a gun.


----------



## RogerS (12 Jan 2011)

theartfulbodger":2jnek2oa said:


> Morning all,
> 
> Apologies for "biting".
> 
> ...



They don't..unless they are illegal. The two examples that you give are valid reasons given as part of the vetting process. If you don't give a valid reason then you don't get a licence. Simple.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

theartfulbodger":14eq2txh said:


> Morning all,
> 
> Apologies for "biting".
> .....


 :lol: 
I don't mind being bitten as long as I can bite back!
NB I'm not a vegetarian.


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

my wife is a vegetarian... and besides me doing target shooting.. I also hunt.. 
I dont have a issue with either.. the vetting is very safe.. go on have a laugh.. I wont remain faceless... here you go.. and yes this is in the uk.

and its me!!!

I HAVE REMOVED THE PHOTOS .. NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO HIDE... BUT I FEEL IT MIGHT PROVOKE MORE DISCUSSION OR DEBATE AND I DONT WANT THAT.. THIS IS A WOOD WORKING FORUM NOT A FIREARM FORUM... ANYWAY THIS WAS MY CHOICE NOT A MODS OR ADMIN... MINE ALONE.. FOR THOSE WHO HAD A LOOK... I HOPE NO OFFENCE WAS MADE.


do you need to see more. lol.... really all are practiced safe.. notice no mag before the first pic.


----------



## bugbear (12 Jan 2011)

Jacob":12dmye4f said:


> I don't mind being bitten as long as I can bite back!



Indeed.

Your enjoyment (to the extent, as far as I can tell, or deliberating provoking them) of a prolonged exchange of intemperate language is one of your less endearing traits.,

BugBear


----------



## Russ (12 Jan 2011)

jonrms said:


> and its me!!!
> 
> 
> :shock:


----------



## Noel (12 Jan 2011)

Having witnessed shooting incidents, gun fights and similar stuff in my part of the world for many years along with the usual punishment shootings (which are still happening) I've got to agree with all Jason has said. A interest in guns, especially the larger calibre, is totally unhealthy and the less owned in our society the better. Personally I'd ban the lot. And pictures of folk showing them off too!


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

Well if you notice I am on a range... and also the second bit of photos was for protection of crops.. ie farming/pest control. 

so sadly there is a need for firearms.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

Russ":20k1fu57 said:


> image
> :shock:


Well there's a good argument for tighter gun controls - people posing and having Rambo fantasies with silly guns. Some people just don't grow up.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

Noel":37tjopsk said:


> Having witnessed shooting incidents, gun fights and similar stuff in my part of the world for many years along with the usual punishment shootings (which are still happening) I've got to agree with all Jason has said. A interest in guns, especially the larger calibre, is totally unhealthy and the less owned in our society the better. Personally I'd ban the lot. And pictures of folk showing them off too!


There's a surprise for the gun lobby! 
Surely the high level of gun ownership in NI makes it a safer place to live? :roll:


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

ummmm those are not legal firearms people have or are owening that are causing the issue now are they?


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

jonrms":37u4e2j0 said:


> ummmm those are not legal firearms people have or are owening that are causing the issue now are they?


What's the difference if you are being shot at? 
In fact some of them will be legal. There isn't a total ban even in NI.


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

the differance would probably be that you wouldnt know you were being shot at.... 

ie the legal person wouldnt make mistakes and miss...

no really... a person owning a legal firearm wouldnt be shooting outside of a school to hit some leader of some sort... he/she would be either working, target shooting, or even playing on his / her lathe. 

really cmon. your arguement isnt going anywhere... comment as much as you like.. but I am finished with this thread.. it bores me.
if there were any actual arguements or debates I might join but this one is old... your view is taken on board... although I disagree. I agree with alot of people here.. america doesnt have tight enough gun control... I said that before. and I am american.. in the uk.. again i said that too. 

I give you this Jacob.... join me any day under full instruction.. and see if you still fear them... ie I will happily coach you .. providing you have a full back ground check etc... and I will have you fire everything from a air weapon to a full bore rifle. 

if you tell me that they.. being firearms are unsafe after that then you wouldnt have listened to a word said..

reallly no joke. i am happy to coach you if your near by... just to prove that firearms are safe.. just have to do a back ground check first..


----------



## theartfulbodger (12 Jan 2011)

Can't say fairer than that!


Remember what Freud said

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity”


mind you, he also said

“Just as no one can be forced into belief, so no one can be forced into unbelief”


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

theartfulbodger":1pvi3lsn said:


> Can't say fairer than that!
> 
> 
> Remember what Freud said
> ...


Yebbut you are both doing it again; suggesting that supporting gun control is somehow feeble, weak and fearful. 
In fact it's the other way round - gun ownership is compensation for inadequacy and the worst gun crimes are done by some very weird and feeble minded people.

I won't be taking up johnrsm's offer of training. Thanks anyway, but I am just not interested in guns, believe it or not, and it's not due to fear. Used to play with them when we were kids but just grew out of it!
If I wanted to shoot at targets I'd rather play darts in a pub.


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

gun ownership is compensation for inadequacy 


Do you actually listen to yourself?
A Firearm is a tool!


----------



## nanscombe (12 Jan 2011)

jonrms":9ab0xu2e said:


> gun ownership is compensation for inadequacy
> 
> 
> Do you actually listen to yourself?
> A Firearm is a tool!



Careful. People could start saying that about owning other tools is compensation for inadequency. Not good for a Woodworking forum.  

"My goodess! Look at the size of his table saw. What's he compensating for?"


----------



## miles_hot (12 Jan 2011)

nanscombePerhaps we should ban lathes in case they are used to knock up a working said:


> So what wood would you use for the barrel - ash as it doesn't split?  I'm sure you could knock up some jig to riffle it but I guess that would mean that the wood would have to be hard as nails...
> 
> An interesting question
> 
> Miles


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

nanscombe":3ei5lggb said:


> jonrms":3ei5lggb said:
> 
> 
> > gun ownership is compensation for inadequacy
> ...




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: LMAO.... I must be the perfect person for this... custom chopper, hot tub, scuba diving, fast cars (yes 911 porche, and 300zx and RX7) ok no longer own the cars and drive a sensible car now... a volvo s40 R design.. notice the RRRRRR LOL

anyway I must be compensating for something.... and with two kids I dont think its that.... maybe something in my childhood... nope.. got a nintendo when it came out.. then super nintendo.... cant be that... gosh I need to see a shrink... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

miles_hot":1uivb2r6 said:


> nanscombePerhaps we should ban lathes in case they are used to knock up a working said:
> 
> 
> > So what wood would you use for the barrel - ash as it doesn't split?  I'm sure you could knock up some jig to riffle it but I guess that would mean that the wood would have to be hard as nails...
> ...


----------



## nanscombe (12 Jan 2011)

miles_hot":jjqt1k3f said:


> nanscombePerhaps we should ban lathes in case they are used to knock up a working said:
> 
> 
> > So what wood would you use for the barrel - ash as it doesn't split?  I'm sure you could knock up some jig to riffle it but I guess that would mean that the wood would have to be hard as nails...
> ...


----------



## barkwindjammer (12 Jan 2011)

If tomorrow the Uk government announced that there was to be a full and open public 'vote' to 'adopt' American statute and therefore wider gun ownership and implement it here in the Uk upon that vote,
how many contributors to this thread would vote yes.

all those who would vote yes say 'Aye'
all those that would vote no say 'no'


----------



## miles_hot (12 Jan 2011)

barkwindjammer":32l5lpdy said:


> If tomorrow the Uk government announced that there was to be a full and open public 'vote' to 'adopt' American statute and therefore wider gun ownership and implement it here in the Uk upon that vote,
> how many contributors to this thread would vote yes.
> 
> all those who would vote yes say 'Aye'
> all those that would vote no say 'no'



God no
Miles


----------



## RogerS (12 Jan 2011)

barkwindjammer":2ktyow7q said:


> If tomorrow the Uk government announced that there was to be a full and open public 'vote' to 'adopt' American statute and therefore wider gun ownership and implement it here in the Uk upon that vote,
> how many contributors to this thread would vote yes.
> 
> all those who would vote yes say 'Aye'
> all those that would vote no say 'no'



I don't quite understand what you mean by 'American Statute'. Which Statute and in which State as they are all different.


----------



## jonrms (12 Jan 2011)

if were talking about texas or Los vegas.. heck no.. if were talking about new england ok....but still no.


----------



## Walter Hall (12 Jan 2011)

Roger S":1cjelsnk said:


> Which Statute and in which State as they are all different



I would guess that he means the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which gives the right to bear arms. Or was that the right to arm bears?


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2011)

Brittleheart":3d9s6xmb said:


> Roger S":3d9s6xmb said:
> 
> 
> > Which Statute and in which State as they are all different
> ...


Bare arms? OK by me, but no guns please.






Had a look at RogerS's Kennesaw center of civilised world. Turns out to be nonsense, no surprises there! There is a by law, with exclusions for anybody who doesn't agree. :lol: Nobody has been prosecuted. Crime stats are vague.


----------



## big soft moose (12 Jan 2011)

Brittleheart":3vp9vq8g said:


> Roger S":3vp9vq8g said:
> 
> 
> > Which Statute and in which State as they are all different
> ...



well the right to arm bears is important


----------



## RogerS (12 Jan 2011)

Jacob":q0rbbr1p said:


> .....Turns out to be nonsense, no surprises there! There is a by law, with exclusions for anybody who doesn't agree. :lol: Nobody has been prosecuted. Crime stats are vague.



Thus spake the Seraph and forthwith appeared a shining throng.


----------



## miles_hot (12 Jan 2011)

RogerS":3mtai69j said:


> Jacob":3mtai69j said:
> 
> 
> > .....Turns out to be nonsense, no surprises there! There is a by law, with exclusions for anybody who doesn't agree. :lol: Nobody has been prosecuted. Crime stats are vague.
> ...



with my rubbish spelling that would have been a thong which would be a whole different book I suspect


----------



## Anonymous (13 Jan 2011)

its like groundhog day

Haven't we had this discussion before?

I see jacob is talking cack again!!


----------



## RogerS (13 Jan 2011)

mark270981":oban2mfh said:


> its like groundhog day
> 
> Haven't we had this discussion before?
> 
> I see jacob is talking cack again!!



Aye you are right. Any reference work that shows he is wrong is dismissed as 'nonsense'. Statistics ignored if they don't support his twisted viewpoint. Belittle and abuse people when they have made a good point.


----------



## RogerS (13 Jan 2011)

miles_hot":x9d2e4d5 said:


> RogerS":x9d2e4d5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":x9d2e4d5 said:
> ...



What? :shock: 

Jacob in a thong? You mean like this?


----------



## Jacob (13 Jan 2011)

A bit quiet in this thread - too quiet :shock: 
I just wondered if anything has happened to the crazy gang. I hope they haven't all shot themselves accidentally! 
Happens a lot in gun toting circles.

I quite fancy one of these:


----------



## lanemaux (13 Jan 2011)

Once more I must see this from a colonials viewpoint. As a Canadian who lives in a VERY rural area I view guns somewhat differently than folk who live in towns , cities or even rural areas that are thoroughly domesticated. Bears have attacked in my immediate area! Even having them rooting about in the trash is a dangerous affair. These are rare of course , yet still occur. I admit to feeling safer with a rifle rather than a pointy stick. Also there is the pest problem , raccoons and such. Chasing them away with rude language just does not work . We also have a yearly deer hunt to thin the numbers of these tasty herbivores and keep their crop damaging down. They are mighty hard to out run and wrestle down to the ground. I believe that I might be excused for my view that guns can be tools if there is a legitimate use for them. As far as target shooting goes , well is it not a good idea to practice to become proficient at anything so that it might be done properly and as safely as possible? Just my view of course, but one that I believe is valid.


----------



## Kalimna (13 Jan 2011)

Lanemaux - a very reasoned and sensible post on how firearms perhaps should be viewed. Am I correct in thinking that Canada has simillar levels of gun ownership to America, but gun crime levels near UK levels? 
And I note that, from sig, that you live in Kincardine. Well, I live a couple of miles outside Kincardine, but east of the atlantic 

Adam


----------



## Jacob (13 Jan 2011)

Kalimna":2idlq43a said:


> Lanemaux - a very reasoned and sensible post on how firearms perhaps should be viewed. Am I correct in thinking that Canada has simillar levels of gun ownership to America, but gun crime levels near UK levels?
> And I note that, from sig, that you live in Kincardine. Well, I live a couple of miles outside Kincardine, but east of the atlantic
> 
> Adam


If you live next to bears then I suppose there is a case for some defensive measures. There aren't any in the UK though.
But we could all get tooled up anyway - just in case one escapes from a zoo. Be prepared!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada


----------



## monkeybiter (13 Jan 2011)

Jacob":1ok14fpu said:


> If you live next to bears then I suppose there is a case for some defensive measures. There aren't any in the UK though.



We've got trolls though :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (13 Jan 2011)

the definition of troll

A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned. 

how many aliases have you had mrgrimsdale, I mean Jacob, no I mean Mr G rimsdale


----------



## monkeybiter (13 Jan 2011)

> the definition of troll



I checked before I posted :wink:


----------



## lanemaux (14 Jan 2011)

Actually Adam , Kincardine is the nearest large town , population of 7,000 or so. We are about 25 kilometers away in Mennonite country , very peaceful. I was once a denizen of Toronto , our largest city , population of millions (not even sure how many nowadays). Gun ownership in rural Canada is fairly high for reasons mentioned earlier. No real gun crime to speak of though , country folk are fairly relaxed here. The cities have some gun crime , not a patch on our southern cousins though. Perhaps the tighter firearms requirements or maybe just fewer concentrations of population , Toronto is quite spread out compared to most major cities. A little elbow room can be a remarkable help in keeping the peace in my opinion. Our gun laws are a compromise between the right to bear arms of the Americans and the regulation of ownership that seems the norm in the UK from what I have read. We have crime in about the proportion one might expect depending on location or possibly a little less. What is heartening is how little of it ends in blood. My theory is that it has to do with what manner of guns are hardest to get , handguns and concealable weapons are very tough to acquire , trotting down the streets of the city with a rifle is sure to attract attention you see. Any incident in which our police must even draw there own weapons is also one that will make the news on TV as well. To me this indicates that the incidents must be somewhat more rare than in say Texas where people must be injured or die to attract media. All in all I rather like how we do it here thanks. As to your own Kincardine, I expect that our summer long weekly parades of the bagpipe might well bid fair to fit right in there. Oh yes , we also have the Scottish games complete with the tossing of the phone pole. Good fun for all.


----------



## bugbear (14 Jan 2011)

This shooting has been such an effective advert for the efficacy of the Glock (and the special, large magazine), that sales have gone up.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (14 Jan 2011)

mark270981":3ef1eccr said:


> the definition of troll
> 
> A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.
> 
> how many aliases have you had mrgrimsdale, I mean Jacob, no I mean Mr G rimsdale


There you go - they are talkinG about me again! :lol: :lol: Haven't you heard: don't feed a troll?

I rather thought this thread had been hijacked by the shooters - which in the circumstances (recent mass murder by gun nutter) could be seen as tasteless and appalling.


----------



## Ironballs (14 Jan 2011)

My experience of guns is limited and I like it that way, same for any offensive weapon. I'll share two experiences with you. A few years back we had the great pleasure of doing a driving tour round south western USA, absolutely brilliant and I'd go back in a flash. One thing we noticed the further we got from the west coast was the number of bullet holes in road signs, in some areas they were so badly shot up you couldn't read them - and further down the road there were brand new signs to replace the shot ones. Sensible and responsible people do not drive around in the cars with a loaded weapon to hand taking pot shots out of windows. They couldn't do it if they didn't have guns.

The other experience is closer to home, much closer, next door in fact. Was sat in my front room one day and looked out of the window to see my window licking, knuckle dragger of a neighbour with his equally bright brother in law stood outside with an air rifle. They then proceeded to shoot branches off a pine tree over the road between 2 houses, giggling away and totally illegal. I went outside and had it out with them, they failed to see what the problem was but packed it in after I went back inside - if they hadn't I would have been on the phone to the rozzers. I stuffed a load of info from the web about gun law in the UK through their letterbox the next day and didn't see the gun again. Thankfully they moved out a little later and a copper moved in.

Now it's not a great leap to go from these 2 morons and an air rifle to a pillock in a pickup with an M16 and a grudge. Less guns available means less opportunity for gun crime


----------

