New U.K. Gun Law.

[Kukakkau]

Well that's a good law only people who really should be carrying shotguns over here are farmers anyway. Only other place I've seen a shotgun is shooting ranges and you're really just hiring them there mostly.

 

[MartialArc]

Good, cant stand guns. Despicable things that were invented to kill, no practical use what so ever. May as well be called art and stuffed into museums.

A bit ironic that someone refers to something as having "no practical use what so ever" on a forum on a video gaming website.

Many venues of entertainment have "no practical use what so ever." And since when does personal distaste constitute a valid reason to make something illegal. As I mentioned just previously, for each person in the UK that dies at the end of a gun, 10 are killed in a drunk driving car accident.

Sure there are people around that consider alcohol to have no practical purpose and in reality it is a poison. The only "purpose" it specifically has is to kill. Yet many enjoy using it, and responsibly, and often enough without lethal consequences. The parallel is unmistakable. Clearly alcohol is more dangerous, claiming ten fold the lives. Perhaps someone dying in a car accident isn't as memorable as some ramdom guy going insane and shooting up the place, but they're every bit as dead.

So seriously, why all the gun hate? I'm going to wager that its because you've never properly learned to shoot, and have had little to no exposure with safe shooters. What you know is what you've seen on the TV, some random guy shooting up the place. Many of you are VERY familiar with alcohol I'm sure, even if you yourself don't drink, you have been around people who do.

So what we've come to is a place where the dangerous activities others enjoy should be strictly regulated, but stay away from the ones *I* enjoy. If you can't see how poor this is in practice, that is unfortunate.

It is sad that so many can't look past their own prejudices. Today the topic is guns, somewhat of a minority own and use them for enjoyment. Tomorrow it could be XXX activity that you enjoy, whatever that may be. Somewhat of a minority probably enjoys it as well, and for some reason XXX other group of people want it to go away because of XXX benefit to society. The pattern repeats itself over and over.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Agreed on the armed police thing. Maybe not to the extent of arming all officers, but I think it would certianly be a good idea for most police stations to have a couple of trained Firearms officers present, not carrying firearms, but with a small armoury at the station so they could quickly access guns if needs be rather than waiting for an armed response team to come from the nearest city.

Duno if that would work... What do you reckon?

My perspective is somewhat irrelevant considering I am not a resident of your nation, but very generally there is an issue of timeliness. By only arming a portion of the police force you ensure that an armed response will generally take significantly longer than an unarmed response. To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why there is any resistance at all to giving the police firearms when they are, above all else, responsible for protecting the citizens of a nation from the thugs and villains of the world.

Certainly it reduces the level of silly officer mistakes but it also eliminates a key tool in the conduct of the job. Without a firearm, a police officer is just a citizen in a uniform. Without a weapon to back it their only power is consensual. I could be wrong obviously since I have no first hand experience of a world where a beat cop is unarmed. Hell, even the campus police at the University of Texas are armed. Well, except for the bicycle riding meter maids...

 

[Johnnyallstar]

the family car?

Aha! There is so much death on the roads in America, the same basic logic should apply to cars as much as guns right? How many crimes have cars been involved with as runaway vehicles? Shouldn't then, using the same logic, cars be banned?

People are trying to blame the tools for the fault, rather than the craftsmen.

The traffic accident death rate in the US is 12.6. The total firearm related death rate is 11.66, unless you want to discount suicides, then it's 7.07.

Though I did mention the death toll on US roads, I didn't explicitly mean accident related deaths in crime, which may have lent itself to you misunderstanding my point. I meant ALL forms of crime, from robbery, to traffic violations, to hit and runs, to the car being used as a getaway vehicle after a murder, and beyond. There is so much crime that involves a vehicle at some point, that, using the same logic, should mean a ban of vehicles should stop those crimes.

Of course, the principle proves itself to be inherently flawed. The car, the gun, the knife, the spatula, the pool stick, the hammer, and the bathtub are completely innocent of actually causing any crime involving their use. The idea of banning them for their involvement is idiocy because it doesn't prevent somebody from just using something else. Take away a gun, and a determined murderer will use a knife, or a rope, or his bare hands.

EDIT: I would also like to see where you got those statistics please. I thought accident related deaths were at about 5% and homicides under 1%, and heart disease around 25%. Should we ban hearts because most people die from their failure per year than any other cause?

 

[Wadders]

And again I cant help but laugh at the morons who come up with this shit. Im not one of those NRA nuts, but its just ridiculous to think that making it harder to get guns legally will lower crime, if anything, it will make it easier for criminals to take advantage of lawbiding citizens.

It lowers gun crime dramatically and that's the issue here.

I agree, lowering gun crime is a very important issue. This proposed modification to the law however, will not help achive that end as far as I can see.

It is now at the point where getting a gun illegaly is easier than getting one legally. So where is the sense in tightening the law, when criminals wont even go to the trouble of jumping through the loops to get a gun legally.

Admittedly the Cumbria shootings were performed with legal weapons, but the proposed law would not have stopped them happenign had it been put in place sooner, as the murderer would have still been able to keep his guns under the proposed law.

So yes, reducing gun crime is vital, but this law is not the way to go about it.

I'm from Wisconsin, which is kind of a less crowded farming area.

Around here everyone has a gun, but it doesn't matter because you can go into your backyard and hunt and actually use it.

Where would you shoot a gun in Britain? Isn't the entire Island pretty damn crowded?

I'm all for the freedom to bear arms, but why own a gun if you aren't going to use it to hunt or protect yourself?

No, the entire Island is not pretty damn crowded. I can look out of my window and see erm... 2 houses and a farm, within about a 3 mile radius of the hill where my house is. There's a tiny village down the road, and thats about it. The nearest town is 7 miles away, the nearest large town 18 miles away. My county is very rural indeed. I have plenty of space to shoot my gun. Scotland and Wales are pretty empty too, and theres plenty of rural space in England as well.

Ah nice choice SMLE's are lovely looking guns. Never knew you could get .22 ones though, always assumed they were chambered for .303 and that was that. Hope you manage to get your mitts on one

And yeah shotguns are great gun to shoot. I'm guessing they are totally different to shoot than rifles at a long range though. It's all short distances, judging speed, and reaction shooting. Well, clays are. They are fun weapons to mess about with too, provided you stay safe. Tried shooting clays Down The Line from the hip the other day. It didnt go too well

They are quite hard to find. Most of the .22s end up with cadet squads (first gun i ever fired, some of my fondest memories) and ive heard its quite hard to fins .303 ammo. Especially since standard calibre now is .22
And that sounds like a lot of fun, i really want to try it now xD

Aw wow, the more you know... Wish I'd joined cadets, sounds liek a blast Ever shot a .22 semi automatic? My friend has and he loved it, I'd love to have a go with one just for shits and giggles

Give clay shooting a go if you ever have the chance, there's plenty of clay grounds around who'll do a days tutoring and shooting, and you dont have to have a license or and experiance with shotguns

In related news the 2012 London Olympics, organisers were obviously to afraid by piddly air pistols... so have replaced them with laser pistols

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/7959533/London-2012-Olympics-laser-guns-to-be-used-over-air-pistols-for-modern-pentathlon.html

yes, paranoia over guns has reduced the Olympics to shooting events like Pentathlon to little more than this:

What the hell is the freaking point in the Olympic shooting events now? If it is just simulated shooting then Quake-Con tournaments have more interest!

Saw this on the BBC site a few days back. It depressed me so much that I actually descended into a state of apathy about the entire 2012 Olympics. Lets face it, they're gona be shit.

First things first; please lets not turn this into a gun control thread...
(talks about gun control)

: /

Very well then, I'll make this a law enforcement issue.

Didn't that Cumbria gunman have a firearms license anyway? didn't he from the outside have completely clear mental health and no criminal record?

Didn't he drive RIGHT PAST a police station where not a single armed officer was around to confront him and they couldn't even follow him after he threatened them with his gun?

Clearly the issue here that our idealistic fantasy of unarmed police is anachronistic and has directly cost lives. We don't need traffic wardens with handcuffs, our police should be armed to DO THEIR JOB of protecting the public.

A few armed police over a massive area are useless.

Sorry, what I ment was lets not turn it into an argument about gun control. They get heated and are just silly. Of course the thread is about gun control, but I was suggesting that people say wether they thought the proposed legislation would have any positive/ negative effects, if it would reduce crime etc. Not that they argue about wether they support gun control or not. Does that make sense? Probably not. Sorry.

Yeah Bird did have a FAC. That's what makes the proposed law so pointless. He would have still managed to kill all those people if it had been in place or not. And yes I think he was of sound mind, but supposedly so are most of these murderers...

Agreed on the armed police thing. Maybe not to the extent of arming all officers, but I think it would certianly be a good idea for most police stations to have a couple of trained Firearms officers present, not carrying firearms, but with a small armoury at the station so they could quickly access guns if needs be rather than waiting for an armed response team to come from the nearest city.

Duno if that would work... What do you reckon?

I propose exponentially increasing the size and scope of the armed response units. Eventually to the point of COMPLETELY REPLACING the old and obsolete model of policing in the UK and take all their bad habits with them. Of course a few stragglers will remain, they can serve a superficial purpose, you know for a "police presence" of the "bobby walking the beat" ask for directions, photographs with tourists... frivolous stuff like that.

But if my home is broken into by some psycho with a weapon, if I can't use a weapon to fight back I expect the police to arrive with guns at the ready. I mean if he had just a knife... police would be fucked.

Truncheon vs knife

Knife... WINS!

I am aghast as some police officers objecting to armed officers as "ooooooh, it will end up like america!" as if the USA is somehow the exception? No! It is BRITAIN that is the exception! Almost every other country in the world sees the sense in arming their police. It is a matter of standards, unarmed police have no real power or responsibility. The way people interact with police in the UK... it's like school children misbehaving with a substitute teacher.

I half expect that the major reason for the government mandating shorter sentences (other than running out of money for prisons or some liberal pussyism) is lighter punishments mean suspects won't resist arrest as much.

Yeah, maybe respect for the Police would increase a bit if they had a 9mm on their hip Or maybe it would go the other way... hard to say. Either way, it would put the shits up potential miscreants and thats half the battle won already. Besides if bloody Sweden of all places has armed police, then why shouldnt we?

 

[Malyc]

Personally I thought the pre hungerford and dunblane laws were ok for the most part. Thorough background checks for mental health and criminal activity, belong to a shooters club or have the land to shoot on and have secure wall or floor mounted safe to carry the weapon and a seperate safe for ammo, to be checked every couple of years. All firearms & ammo purchases to be recorded. I think that is all that's necessary.

EDIT: On the home defence thing, it's never really been an issue, gun ownership is and always has been very low, even before the ban on handguns and semi auto rifles coming up against an armed householder has never been much of a worry. While you are allowed to use a firearm if you have one to hand it isn't like the US where you can blow away any intruder(as far as I can tell), shooting an unarmed burglar or one that is fleeing, or using excessive force (shooting several times) will probably get you in a lot of trouble.

Did you know we also have flying monkeys armed with assault rifles all over the country as well? That should be as believable as saying people in the US can use whatever force they feel like for whatever reason on their property. You can't actually believe that is true. What we are allowed to invite people into our homes then shot them if we don't like the comments they made about our table arrangements? Excessive force still exists over here.

And holy crap I am glad I don't live where you live if all those restrictions are perfectly acceptable to you.

Well, aren't you a charmer?

You seem to having difficulty with the meaning of the word 'intruder'.

You find a thorough background check, joining a shooters club and having to have a secure safes for guns and ammo to be unacceptable restrictions? Holy crap, I'm glad I don't live anywhere near you, although that has just as much to do with your manner.

As far as i know, it is only legal in Minnesota to shoot someone if they are posing a danger to your family: i.e. the intruder is armed. You absolutely CAN NOT shoot someone that is fleeing. That will cause the local police to do everything they can to lock you away for a good long time.
About the excessive force: pretty much every self defence training course that i've heard about tells you to keep putting rounds on target until they drop. I'll be honest, if someone were coming at me with a knife, firearm, baseball bat, or anything else that would hurt if I were hit with it, I'd put every round I needed to into them.

Thank you, that was very informative, I have also read posts on here that in some states you are advised to shoot to kill rather that wound as if you shoot to wound the victim can't have been enough of a threat. Any truth in that?

Not sure, as i only know Minnesota's laws, but if you are shooting til the intruder drops, you ARE shooting to kill, because a non vital shot is not likely to make them stop coming at you.

 

[jasoncyrus]

First things first; please lets not turn this into a gun control thread. They tend to be rather pointless affairs and just end up going around in circles. I know that it's probably inevitable that it will happen, but I wana get this off my chest

Now, for the wall o' text.

I've just found out about something that should concern all UK gun owners (I know theres barely any of you here though ) but feel free to give your views if you're not from the UK.

The Home Office is intending to make Shotguns require a Level 1 Firearms Certificate. This means that instead of a current normal Shotgun Certificate, you would now need a FAC to purchase a shotgun. These are far harder to aquire, and more expensive. This is in light (I assume) of the 2 recent gunman incidents we have had in the UK, in which several people were killed and injured.

This knee-jerk reaction could be damaging to shooters, sportsman, collecter, and the shooting industry as a whole. In addition, I doubt this change will have any effect in reducing the already low gun crime figures and will only punish those who obey the law. Instead it will cost time and money to put these changes into place, that could better be spent looking into illegal firearms in the country, not legal ones.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has asked shooters to email the Firearms Home Affairs Select Committee in protest of this, and as a keen shooter and firearms owner, I am doing so.

Just thought I'd see if you guys have any suggestions or ideas that I counld include in my email. I'm not asking you to write it for me, just for advice and suggestions if you want


The deadline is the 27th August 2010 (I know I've left it a bit last minute, i only found out about this crap yesterday evening!)

Here are some useful links.

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/496860/Shooting_groups_call_to_action_as_deadline_looms.html

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/firearms/the-home-affairs-committee-inquiry-into-firearms-control-2010--a-guide-for-submitting-evidence.cfm

If you want any more info, just ask

Also, I guess you could talk about wether or not you think this law will have any real effect if it comes to pass, and other such stuff

Umm there have actually been a lot more shotgun incidents that a couple.

Specifically I remember at least two where farmers have shot family members with their shotgun thinking they were intruders. The first was a 20+ son coming home at 3am from a night out. The second was a 5 year old son who was getting a glass of milk.

There have also been incidents where tresspassers were shot with the items aswell, (non violent tesspassers who couldve simply been arrested)

So to be honest, this is rather late in coming in it seems.

 

[Wadders]

Good, cant stand guns. Despicable things that were invented to kill, no practical use what so ever. May as well be called art and stuffed into museums.

A bit ironic that someone refers to something as having "no practical use what so ever" on a forum on a video gaming website.

Many venues of entertainment have "no practical use what so ever." And since when does personal distaste constitute a valid reason to make something illegal. As I mentioned just previously, for each person in the UK that dies at the end of a gun, 10 are killed in a drunk driving car accident.

Sure there are people around that consider alcohol to have no practical purpose and in reality it is a poison. The only "purpose" it specifically has is to kill. Yet many enjoy using it, and responsibly, and often enough without lethal consequences. The parallel is unmistakable. Clearly alcohol is more dangerous, claiming ten fold the lives. Perhaps someone dying in a car accident isn't as memorable as some ramdom guy going insane and shooting up the place, but they're every bit as dead.

So seriously, why all the gun hate? I'm going to wager that its because you've never properly learned to shoot, and have had little to no exposure with safe shooters. What you know is what you've seen on the TV, some random guy shooting up the place. Many of you are VERY familiar with alcohol I'm sure, even if you yourself don't drink, you have been around people who do.

So what we've come to is a place where the dangerous activities others enjoy should be strictly regulated, but stay away from the ones *I* enjoy. If you can't see how poor this is in practice, that is unfortunate.

It is sad that so many can't look past their own prejudices. Today the topic is guns, somewhat of a minority own and use them for enjoyment. Tomorrow it could be XXX activity that you enjoy, whatever that may be. Somewhat of a minority probably enjoys it as well, and for some reason XXX other group of people want it to go away because of XXX benefit to society. The pattern repeats itself over and over.

*hug*

Well said. Live and let live. Shooting is my hobby, I dont force other people to do it and if I'm unsafe and injure or kill myself whilst taking part in that hobby, then so be it, thats my fault and no-one elses.

Thats no reason for others to tell me my hobby should be taken away because it's dangerous. So is mountain biking, rock climbing, or any number of other passtimes. They are all choices, and we accept that they are dangerous. A lot of fear about guns comes from ignorance as you rightly say. People who have never been to a shoot or even held a gun are judging us on our choice of passtime.

This is a bit of an incoherant post, I just wanted to congratulate you for your post

First things first; please lets not turn this into a gun control thread. They tend to be rather pointless affairs and just end up going around in circles. I know that it's probably inevitable that it will happen, but I wana get this off my chest

Now, for the wall o' text.

I've just found out about something that should concern all UK gun owners (I know theres barely any of you here though ) but feel free to give your views if you're not from the UK.

The Home Office is intending to make Shotguns require a Level 1 Firearms Certificate. This means that instead of a current normal Shotgun Certificate, you would now need a FAC to purchase a shotgun. These are far harder to aquire, and more expensive. This is in light (I assume) of the 2 recent gunman incidents we have had in the UK, in which several people were killed and injured.

This knee-jerk reaction could be damaging to shooters, sportsman, collecter, and the shooting industry as a whole. In addition, I doubt this change will have any effect in reducing the already low gun crime figures and will only punish those who obey the law. Instead it will cost time and money to put these changes into place, that could better be spent looking into illegal firearms in the country, not legal ones.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has asked shooters to email the Firearms Home Affairs Select Committee in protest of this, and as a keen shooter and firearms owner, I am doing so.

Just thought I'd see if you guys have any suggestions or ideas that I counld include in my email. I'm not asking you to write it for me, just for advice and suggestions if you want


The deadline is the 27th August 2010 (I know I've left it a bit last minute, i only found out about this crap yesterday evening!)

Here are some useful links.

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/496860/Shooting_groups_call_to_action_as_deadline_looms.html

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/firearms/the-home-affairs-committee-inquiry-into-firearms-control-2010--a-guide-for-submitting-evidence.cfm

If you want any more info, just ask

Also, I guess you could talk about wether or not you think this law will have any real effect if it comes to pass, and other such stuff

Umm there have actually been a lot more shotgun incidents that a couple.

Specifically I remember at least two where farmers have shot family members with their shotgun thinking they were intruders. The first was a 20+ son coming home at 3am from a night out. The second was a 5 year old son who was getting a glass of milk.

There have also been incidents where tresspassers were shot with the items aswell, (non violent tesspassers who couldve simply been arrested)

So to be honest, this is rather late in coming in it seems.

But on every other day of the year, hundreds of thousands of legal firearms owners in the UK are not giving themselves and the shooting community a bad name by killing their relatives.

You cant legislate for individual stupidity, mental health, or accidents. Farmers kill themselves on other machinery and farm equipment too no doubt. It's a dangerous job.

 

[MagicMouse]

Good theres no reason for a well developed society to enable civilians access to firearms, as far as I can tell the laws not going to make it much harder for farmers to acquire them (who apart from hunters are the only people with valid reasons to be owning a shotgun in the first place.)

I guess that works, for you.

It is my belief that the people should not "be able to do what the Gov. enables them" But "Everything and anything that it doesn't forbid"

There are plenty of reasons for people to own guns, you just have no interest in them.

 

[manaman]

Personally I thought the pre hungerford and dunblane laws were ok for the most part. Thorough background checks for mental health and criminal activity, belong to a shooters club or have the land to shoot on and have secure wall or floor mounted safe to carry the weapon and a seperate safe for ammo, to be checked every couple of years. All firearms & ammo purchases to be recorded. I think that is all that's necessary.

EDIT: On the home defence thing, it's never really been an issue, gun ownership is and always has been very low, even before the ban on handguns and semi auto rifles coming up against an armed householder has never been much of a worry. While you are allowed to use a firearm if you have one to hand it isn't like the US where you can blow away any intruder(as far as I can tell), shooting an unarmed burglar or one that is fleeing, or using excessive force (shooting several times) will probably get you in a lot of trouble.

Did you know we also have flying monkeys armed with assault rifles all over the country as well? That should be as believable as saying people in the US can use whatever force they feel like for whatever reason on their property. You can't actually believe that is true. What we are allowed to invite people into our homes then shot them if we don't like the comments they made about our table arrangements? Excessive force still exists over here.

And holy crap I am glad I don't live where you live if all those restrictions are perfectly acceptable to you.

Well, aren't you a charmer?

You seem to having difficulty with the meaning of the word 'intruder'.

You find a thorough background check, joining a shooters club and having to have a secure safes for guns and ammo to be unacceptable restrictions? Holy crap, I'm glad I don't live anywhere near you, although that has just as much to do with your manner.

I get a bit put off by the fact that you find it so easy consider the entirety of the US bloodthirsty. No I wasn't thinking that was a conscious malicious act on your part, so I didn't respond in kind, but it does bring out a bit more the less friendly side of me.

To answer your questions I understand perfectly well that in this usage of the word an intruder is a person that enters property, or a building without permission of the owner. I was taking your statement to extremes to prove how faulty it was, after all how does someone after the fact know the difference between an intruder and a person invited inside?

As for restrictions, yes I find being forced to register at a gun club, having to follow specific highly restrictive transportation rules, and having to purchase two separate safes that are secured to the floor and then to submit to babysitting by the goverment on top of it to be restrictive. Background checks for guns, licenses to carry handguns, those types of restrictions I am perfectly okay with. Do I have gun safes? Yes, I actually have three of them, but none of them are mounted to the floor. I also have several guns in a few display cases, and I have an antique side by side 12ga shotgun mounted on a wall, it doesn't fire anymore but that doesn't matter.

It is; you can use force to defend yourself, but not excessive force. And excessive is a gray area.

Personally I think anyone who steps into your property with the intention of murder, theft or assault should not be allowed to leave. Except in a body bag. You put your hand in my pocket and you'll drag back a bloody stump.

In the US, this is generally the case with one key exception. Normally, one is expected to use the minimum amount of force required in order to get out of the situation safely and this is obviously quite variable and open to interpretation. That said, the US has a basic principle that a person should never have to retreat in their own home. The impact of this principle varies from state to state but in places like Texas, this essentially means once someone breaches your property with the intention of committing a crime, you can use lethal force to stop them. This generally only applies to one's house itself though it can be extended across the property so long as adequate, highly visible warnings are posted. Without such a warning, you are once again relegated to the "minimum force required to safely escape".

Actually Texas has one of the oldest retreat laws on the books. Several states have laws that in the event of an intruder you are to retreat to a safe room in the house and contact the police, you are not to confront the intruder if at all possible. The enforcement of the law varies by country (more rural counties ignore it, and more urbanized areas tend to ignore it unless things escalate). Texas is not traditionally an open carry state, the gun culture that many find stereotypical of Texas is not really present to any greater extent then most places, and if you shoot an unarmed intruder in the back there you are going to jail for excessive force just like anywhere. In fact during the short time Texas was a country they banned guns because of the large numbers of Mexicans still in the newly formed country after the war with Mexico, and they feared revolt destabilizing the new country.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Aw wow, the more you know... Wish I'd joined cadets, sounds liek a blast Ever shot a .22 semi automatic? My friend has and he loved it, I'd love to have a go with one just for shits and giggles

Give clay shooting a go if you ever have the chance, there's plenty of clay grounds around who'll do a days tutoring and shooting, and you dont have to have a license or and experiance with shotguns

The SA80 is semi automatic 5.56 and most 5.56 guns can fire the remington .223 rounds, this is probably the closest i have come to firing .22 semi auto. Things were always very controlled on the range in cadets though, if someone mucked around even a little, they weren't allowed back on the range. And yeah, cadets was awesome. I was in the air cadets though, we got to fly planes and stuff.
And I think I will have to that one day soon. Hopefully I'll get a pump action, those look like the most fun.

 

[jasoncyrus]

But on every other day of the year, hundreds of thousands of legal firearms owners in the UK are not giving themselves and the shooting community a bad name by killing their relatives.

You cant legislate for individual stupidity, mental health, or accidents. Farmers kill themselves on other machinery and farm equipment too no doubt. It's a dangerous job.

True there have been many deaths with farm machinery but thats more to genuine stupidity like not turning the machine off when they work on it.

But anyway, I don't really see the problem with having to get a higher rated certificate (aside from the cost, thats ridiculous for a piece of fricken paper).

 

[Wadders]

Aw wow, the more you know... Wish I'd joined cadets, sounds liek a blast Ever shot a .22 semi automatic? My friend has and he loved it, I'd love to have a go with one just for shits and giggles

Give clay shooting a go if you ever have the chance, there's plenty of clay grounds around who'll do a days tutoring and shooting, and you dont have to have a license or and experiance with shotguns

The SA80 is semi automatic 5.56 and most 5.56 guns can fire the remington .223 rounds, this is probably the closest i have come to firing .22 semi auto. Things were always very controlled on the range in cadets though, if someone mucked around even a little, they weren't allowed back on the range. And yeah, cadets was awesome. I was in the air cadets though, we got to fly planes and stuff.
And I think I will have to that one day soon. Hopefully I'll get a pump action, those look like the most fun.

Air Cadets?! Wow, I know 2 twin brothers who were air cadets and they loved it too. They used to use L81's I think, big ol' 7.62mm target rifles. Damn I'm jealous of you guys now. Glad they stand no nonsense on the range too, safety first!

Pump action eh? Hmm... I must admit they're not that much use for clays or birds, what with having to rack the slide between shots it slows down a possible follow up shot to a missed bird or a second clay. Plus if you went to a game shoot with one you'd be laughed back to your car, such is the shotgun snobbery present in those circles.

I must admit I was tempted to go for a semi-auto shotgun as they are soo much fun to fire, but I've since leaned to love the class of the Over/ Under

 

[MartialArc]

But anyway, I don't really see the problem with having to get a higher rated certificate (aside from the cost, thats ridiculous for a piece of fricken paper).

For sure, there obviously needs to be some level of control. You have to register your car but nobody complains. I'm not too sure on law in the UK, but having to register, sure. Background check, sure. Psych eval? Maybe pushing it a bit there. Having to give a need? Ridiculous. Lots of money? Pure and utter bullshit.

It happens in the US as well though. Folks pushing an agenda at any cost. Can't get something banned all together? Legislate gobs and gobs of minor restrictions to just increase the difficulty and expense.

Somewhere there is a line between control for the sake of sensible control, and control as an attempt to eliminate an activity.

If you have to give a valid reason as to *why* you want a gun, imo you have drifted beyond reasonable control, unless your willing to hear "cuz I want one" as a reason.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Air Cadets?! Wow, I know 2 twin brothers who were air cadets and they loved it too. They used to use L81's I think, big ol' 7.62mm target rifles. Damn I'm jealous of you guys now. Glad they stand no nonsense on the range too, safety first!

Pump action eh? Hmm... I must admit they're not that much use for clays or birds, what with having to rack the slide between shots it slows down a possible follow up shot to a missed bird or a second clay. Plus if you went to a game shoot with one you'd be laughed back to your car, such is the shotgun snobbery present in those circles.

I must admit I was tempted to go for a semi-auto shotgun as they are soo much fun to fire, but I've since leaned to love the class of the Over/ Under

Its been my experience with gun owners that they are some of the most responsible people in the country and i think its great the way cadets tries to keep that up. And when i was in there, got a ride in a hawk fast jet (thats the plane the red arrows use)
Honestly, my knowledge of shotguns is completely inadequate XD I just think ump actions look like fun to use =D
But, my pride as a marksman demands i use what is most appropriate.
I'm definitely going to look into finding one of these places that lets me shoot without any shotgun experience.
Now i shall have to bid you goodnight. I'm leaving for leeds festival in 6 hours =D

 

[kintaris]

I don't think this change will make any difference to the rate of gun crime in the country, as everyone knows our form-filling bureaucracy has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If a maniac wants a gun, he'll get one eventually. The appearance of multiple maniacs (hot on the heels of one another, as though one got the idea from the other through the mass media) is a larger concern than the guns, especially when guns are actually still fairly rare in this country. Besides, take all the maniacs' guns, he'll make bombs out of household ingredients instead.

Not entirely sure if that is truly what's going on here, though. I mean, if this was a kneejerk reaction by the authorities to the recent tragedies, why exactly are shotguns being specifically targeted in such an arbitrary way?

I'm sorry for those of you who are inconvenienced by this extra bit of law, but we are all inconvenienced by extra bits of law designed to reassure a paranoid public at least once a week anyway. See travel regulations, or even the Hazard Perception test.

I don't think we should all have guns in the household, but at the same time the amount of guns currently legally in the country doesn't keep me up at night. The only guns I've ever seen have been in the hands of competent owners using them for business or professional sport.

 

[Wadders]

Air Cadets?! Wow, I know 2 twin brothers who were air cadets and they loved it too. They used to use L81's I think, big ol' 7.62mm target rifles. Damn I'm jealous of you guys now. Glad they stand no nonsense on the range too, safety first!

Pump action eh? Hmm... I must admit they're not that much use for clays or birds, what with having to rack the slide between shots it slows down a possible follow up shot to a missed bird or a second clay. Plus if you went to a game shoot with one you'd be laughed back to your car, such is the shotgun snobbery present in those circles.

I must admit I was tempted to go for a semi-auto shotgun as they are soo much fun to fire, but I've since leaned to love the class of the Over/ Under

Its been my experience with gun owners that they are some of the most responsible people in the country and i think its great the way cadets tries to keep that up. And when i was in there, got a ride in a hawk fast jet (thats the plane the red arrows use)
Honestly, my knowledge of shotguns is completely inadequate XD I just think ump actions look like fun to use =D
But, my pride as a marksman demands i use what is most appropriate.
I'm definitely going to look into finding one of these places that lets me shoot without any shotgun experience.
Now i shall have to bid you goodnight. I'm leaving for leeds festival in 6 hours =D

Good night sir, been good talkng to you

And enjoy Leeds, you lucky lucky person, the line up looks fantastic! I on the otherhand, have another lovely day of working in a warehouse to look forward too But only for a few more days, then back to uni

 

[jasoncyrus]

But anyway, I don't really see the problem with having to get a higher rated certificate (aside from the cost, thats ridiculous for a piece of fricken paper).

For sure, there obviously needs to be some level of control. You have to register your car but nobody complains. I'm not too sure on law in the UK, but having to register, sure. Background check, sure. Psych eval? Maybe pushing it a bit there. Having to give a need? Ridiculous. Lots of money? Pure and utter bullshit.

It happens in the US as well though. Folks pushing an agenda at any cost. Can't get something banned all together? Legislate gobs and gobs of minor restrictions to just increase the difficulty and expense.

Somewhere there is a line between control for the sake of sensible control, and control as an attempt to eliminate an activity.

If you have to give a valid reason as to *why* you want a gun, imo you have drifted beyond reasonable control, unless your willing to hear "cuz I want one" as a reason.

To be honest, the "Why do you need such and such" should be the first question on any liscence. Just to throw people off balance. Especially with extremely dangerous things such as guns whos sole purpose is to destroy things.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I get a bit put off by the fact that you find it so easy consider the entirety of the US bloodthirsty. No I wasn't thinking that was a conscious malicious act on your part, so I didn't respond in kind, but it does bring out a bit more the less friendly side of me.

To answer your questions I understand perfectly well that in this usage of the word an intruder is a person that enters property, or a building without permission of the owner. I was taking your statement to extremes to prove how faulty it was, after all how does someone after the fact know the difference between an intruder and a person invited inside?

As for restrictions, yes I find being forced to register at a gun club, having to follow specific highly restrictive transportation rules, and having to purchase two separate safes that are secured to the floor and then to submit to babysitting by the goverment on top of it to be restrictive. Background checks for guns, licenses to carry handguns, those types of restrictions I am perfectly okay with. Do I have gun safes? Yes, I actually have three of them, but none of them are mounted to the floor. I also have several guns in a few display cases, and I have an antique side by side 12ga shotgun mounted on a wall, it doesn't fire anymore but that doesn't matter.

And I get a bit put off by deliberately snarky comments like yours.

I am also well aware that you can't just blow away anyone for any reason, however:

Here in Ohio(and in many, many other states) we have what's called the Castle Doctrine. It states that if someone breaks into my home(and has now been extended to vehicles as well) and they give me a legitimate reason to fear for my life, or that of my family, I have the right to put them down for good, and can suffer no legal consequences from it(aside from the intruders family trying to wrongfully sue).

So, if someone breaks into my house brandishing an ice cream scoop, and I have a legitimate fear of being killed by it, I have the right to blow him away.

That is what I was getting at. You seem to have read my comment and instantly assumed the worst on every level. Do you go around looking for things to be offended by? I have noticed a tendency for people to suddenly get ultra defensive and see insults or attacks where there are none when it comes to gun control. It makes you look paranoid.


You find it that restrictive that you have to come out with the old 'holy crap, glad I don't live in your country' routine? You don't like those restrictions, fine but again the manner in which you say it basically makes me feel like responding with the old...'holy crap glad I don't live in your country with its 2-3x as many murders'

 

[MartialArc]

But anyway, I don't really see the problem with having to get a higher rated certificate (aside from the cost, thats ridiculous for a piece of fricken paper).

For sure, there obviously needs to be some level of control. You have to register your car but nobody complains. I'm not too sure on law in the UK, but having to register, sure. Background check, sure. Psych eval? Maybe pushing it a bit there. Having to give a need? Ridiculous. Lots of money? Pure and utter bullshit.

It happens in the US as well though. Folks pushing an agenda at any cost. Can't get something banned all together? Legislate gobs and gobs of minor restrictions to just increase the difficulty and expense.

Somewhere there is a line between control for the sake of sensible control, and control as an attempt to eliminate an activity.

If you have to give a valid reason as to *why* you want a gun, imo you have drifted beyond reasonable control, unless your willing to hear "cuz I want one" as a reason.

To be honest, the "Why do you need such and such" should be the first question on any liscence. Just to throw people off balance. Especially with extremely dangerous things such as guns whos sole purpose is to destroy things.

No. No. No. You don't need a reason to exercise a privilege. If someone is going to go through the hassle of the background check, and whatever hoops you set in front of them, that is enough. Short of the guy saying "I want this gun so I can go on a rampage and kill people" it's not anybodies business. And as mental soundness is already a consideration in gun ownership, that is covered.

Nobody "needs" a gun, just like nobody "needs" any other recreational item. You don't "need" that video game, that icecream cone, or that margarita. You don't "need" 95% of your possessions to be sure. Doesn't mean they should be withheld.