Gun control

Agenda-driven journalism rears its ugly head again at ABC. It seems ABC recently commissioned a poll whose result doesn’t fit ABC’s pre-written story, so they spike the poll and release their story with faked anti-gun polling data. And mainstream media wonders why they aren’t trusted? At least the American public understands what is going on…

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070424.asp#1

SD of the .50 BMG is 0.383, much above the .30 at around .270. These numbers are a moot as they assume all other factors are equal. The amount of propellent behind the .50 BMG dwarfs that of the .30 cal. It is for that reason that .22’s don’t have the same punch as larger .cal with similar SD;s.

The reason the BMG is more of a threat to aircraft is the range at which it can reach a target. The effective range of the .50 is 7400 yds while the .30 cal is less than 2000 yds.

The .50 BMG is a weapon that has little practical use in the hands of a civilian but it’s destructive power greatly exceeds that every other weapon out there.

While momentum is retained at longer distances, the ability to hit a target is seriously degraded due to inherent dispersion of the rifle/ammo, wind drift and rainbow-like trajectory. Beyond 1500 yards, it is pretty difficult to hit a target in less than prefect conditions. Up to that range, a hunting rifle is perfectly capable of perforating a target. A 0.30″ hole in a target is just as bad as a 0.50″ hole. My point is that 50BMG rifles in law-abiding civilian hands pose no greater risk than hunting rifles. Slide down the slippery slope of emotion-driven legislation where facts and logic are never considered.:rolleyes:

I have to agree with your sentiments…but I won’t elaborate on them here.
It seems to me that because you questioned as to why anyone would want to own an automatic rifle, you had the question of liberty thrown back at you.

Yes, of course – it’s the natural response. Kev’s questions seemed to me to be crass and prejudicial. I pointed out that it’s not merely a matter of utility, but one of political liberty. It’s fundamental.

I am beginning to form the opinion that we don’t have the “liberty” to hold an opinion if it differs from that of the gun lobby.
I suppose I’d better just keep my opinions to myself.

You’re perfectly entitled to an opinion – one of the reasons I detest the anti-gun “control” types so much is because their police-state ideas on firearms ownership are all too often part of a more widely illiberal attitude that seems as happy to control people’s opinions as much as their right to own weapons…
But I’m sure you (& Kev I hope) would be the first to agree that opinions offered without consideration of the evidence, indeed offered without seeming to care about the existence of evidence at all, are not worth very much. I really don’t see the point of contributing to a debate on a complex, serious issue, without first reading what others have written and taking on board the considered, detailed, often well informed arguments they’ve presented. This is actually central to the question of “gun control” in this country and elsewhere: while legislation on such important matters ought to be based on diligent examination of the evidence and a deep respect for liberties that might be curtailed, this has hardly ever been the case. Most of our tangled web of firearms legislation is the result of secret deliberations, knee-jerk political gesturing – and the thoughtless expression of “opinions” by all sorts of commentators who don’t know a damn thing about the issue, and apparently don’t care that they don’t know.
hps (aka the “gun lobby” (sic) – a secretive body of heavily armed fanatics plotting to take over the world…)

Hi Kev….

I have to agree with your sentiments…but I won’t elaborate on them here.

It seems to me that because you questioned as to why anyone would want to own an automatic rifle, you had the question of liberty thrown back at you.

I am beginning to form the opinion that we don’t have the “liberty” to hold an opinion if it differs from that of the gun lobby.

I suppose I’d better just keep my opinions to myself.

The ability to penetrate is a function of sectional density (projectile weight divided by cross-sectional area). SD is why a .22 can penetrate some bullet-proof vests while a .45 cannot. And why a 250 lb SDB can penetrate a hardened aircraft shelter and 1000 lb GBU-16 or GBU-32 cannot. SD makes sabot tank gun rounds work too.

SD of the .50 BMG is 0.383, much above the .30 at around .270. These numbers are a moot as they assume all other factors are equal. The amount of propellent behind the .50 BMG dwarfs that of the .30 cal. It is for that reason that .22’s don’t have the same punch as larger .cal with similar SD;s.

The reason the BMG is more of a threat to aircraft is the range at which it can reach a target. The effective range of the .50 is 7400 yds while the .30 cal is less than 2000 yds.

The .50 BMG is a weapon that has little practical use in the hands of a civilian but it’s destructive power greatly exceeds that every other weapon out there.

My sincerest apologies for entering your personal intellectual domain. I realise now it was unforgiveable of me to hold an opinion. I shall now return to the Teletubby forum minding that the door doesn’t bang me in the a*se as I leave.

Regards,

kev35

If you knew me you would know that that proposal was made very much tongue in cheek.

But I don’t know you. And people have all sorts of weird ideas about firearms, usually based on ignorance.

I still can’t understand why anyone would want to own an automatic rifle. I don’t see the purpose. Please enlighten me….
Is it an image thing, for example, my gun’s bigger than yours so I’m a better man?
Is it so you can expend vast quantities of ammunition at a faster rate?
Is it some kind of strange psychological thing?

The tone of these questions is wholly tendentious – unless you’re being tongue in cheek? The answer for most people is, none of the above. And the more important answer is, none of anyone else’s damn business. Again, if you’d read the thread you’d have answered most of your own questions including this. You make it perfectly clear that you don’t like automatic rifles and don’t see why others should own them – but your personal prejudices should not, of course, have anything to do with someone else’s choice to own such a rifle. In a free society, that is.

But do you really believe that making guns available to the vast majority of the public has no bearing on the prevalence of gun crime?

It’s not what I believe, but what the evidence shows, that matters. Again, you haven’t read the thread, so we’re going over basic stuff: before we had any serious gun control in this country, for instance, very many more people owned guns, and there was hardly any gun crime, whereas now we have some of the most stringent gun controls in the world, yet gun crime has escalated enormously. Don’t you see the answer to your question implicit here?

Gun crime is a problem, so surely one way of lessening the problem is to limit the availability of guns. The laws regarding slavery were abolished in the United States, why not change the law on gun ownership? It could be done if the will was there.

See the preceding four pages or so… Limiting gun ownership by the decent majority has virtually no impact at all on gun ownership by criminals. This is not opinion, it’s demonstrable historical fact. So “changing the law on gun ownership” (nb remember my reference to 20,000+ gun laws in the USA…) would be completely futile as well as unworkable and disastrously divisive if attempted.
Sorry, I just don’t think you’ve considered the subject carefully, and you really ought to make the effort to read the considerable amount of information in this thread before passing comment.
hps

If you knew me you would know that that proposal was made very much tongue in cheek.

I still can’t understand why anyone would want to own an automatic rifle. I don’t see the purpose. Please enlighten me….

Is it an image thing, for example, my gun’s bigger than yours so I’m a better man?

Is it so you can expend vast quantities of ammunition at a faster rate?

Is it some kind of strange psychological thing?

You do make some interesting points. But do you really believe that making guns available to the vast majority of the public has no bearing on the prevalence of gun crime? A burglar watches a house in the US and ensures no-one is in. Doesn’t he have a good chance of getting away with at least a handgun as well as jewellery/DVD/cash/whatever?

As to this comment……

“”why people are allowed to buy automatic rifles etc” is, for anyone both reasonably knowledgeable about politics and concerned with liberty, the wrong thing to ask – rather, one has to ask why NOT, and have a damn good set of reasons…”

Gun crime is a problem, so surely one way of lessening the problem is to limit the availability of guns. The laws regarding slavery were abolished in the United States, why not change the law on gun ownership? It could be done if the will was there.

Regards,

kev35

Is what I’ve suggested any more ludicrous than allowing/encouraging people to commit murder in the way this happened in Virginia?
No one ever answers the question as to why people are allowed to buy automatic rifles etc? Why would you want one? Unless it’s so you can put even bigger holes in a passing deer/prairie dog/roadside sign/university/high school student* (*Delete as applicable).
And should I ever become Prime Minister, please mind the door of the departure lounge doesn’t bang you on the a*se on the way out.

Well, you’re clearly not one of nature’s gentlemen, and your political sensibilities are a bit of a blunt instrument…
A quick check reveals that you admit to not having read the thread, which helps to explain what you say, without excusing it. If you were to spend a few minutes reading, you might wish to amend both your crass “radical proposal” and your fresh remarks. In sum:
– “allowing/encouraging people to commit murder” involves a large number of complex factors, and is not like mending a pair of broken spectacles with elastoplast: your bizarre suggestions about massive state bureaucracies, “banning” guns etc do not even begin to address the complexity of the issue
– “why people are allowed to buy automatic rifles etc” is, for anyone both reasonably knowledgeable about politics and concerned with liberty, the wrong thing to ask – rather, one has to ask why NOT, and have a damn good set of reasons…
hps

Is what I’ve suggested any more ludicrous than allowing/encouraging people to commit murder in the way this happened in Virginia?

No one ever answers the question as to why people are allowed to buy automatic rifles etc? Why would you want one? Unless it’s so you can put even bigger holes in a passing deer/prairie dog/roadside sign/university/high school student* (*Delete as applicable).

And should I ever become Prime Minister, please mind the door of the departure lounge doesn’t bang you on the a*se on the way out.

Toodle pip old chap.

kev35

.. no one fired back during the Virginia shooting. In a Country where the majority of the population are entitled to own a gun, and where a large number of the population take advantage of that entitlement (some by owning several guns) it does seem somewhat striking that this should be the case.

I’m afraid you’re making the same mistake as most media pundits & politicians do in this country, whenever they feel the urge to compare UK with those gun-happy psychos across the Atlantic – as they love to think of our American cousins. The USA has a great deal of “gun control”, and something over 20,000 firearms laws, but the situation varies hugely within different jurisdictions. Around 40 states have “shall grant” laws that say a law-abiding citizen who meets certain requirements must be granted a permit to carry a weapon; these states have often seen a significant fall in the frequency of certain types of crime such as muggings, after passing a “shall grant” law. Not sure if Virginia is among them,, but crucially, Virginia’s universities are “gun free zones” – they forbid anyone to carry a gun. Naturally, this affects only the law-abiding, not nutters like Cho, so your proposal would fall at the first fence.

So, how about a radical solution?
At age 18, issue every American citizen with a sidearm and give them the training to use the weapon safely and ensure they have annual checks on both the weapon and their competence to own it.

Sorry, laughably unrealistic! Would entail an enormous bureaucracy, and (see above) the USA is a federation of states, so getting this agreed nationwide would be impossible given the vast variations; in fact, any attempt to impose this might start another civil war, with one lot violently resisting the imposition of this huge federal gun-control bureaucracy, and others violently objecting to attempts to make them use handguns at all!

Restrict the ownership of rifles to those who require them for work rather than sport. For example, farmers. Hunting rifles only to be loaned to those who undertake properly licensed, organised hunts.

You have an authoritarian turn of mind, don’t you… “Require” – ? Who is to define this? Policians, civil servants, police officers – ? Where are rifles to be “loaned” from? Police headquarters armouries? The cops are pretty hopeless at administering Firearm Certificates already, and the mind boggles at the poor duffers trying to issue rifles… But this suggestion is a grotesque police-state fantasy anyway.

Ban the use and ownership of all weapons which would fall into the same category as automatic rifles(?) e.g., AK47, Uzi etc., etc. As these are the weapons of choice for those wishing to use guns for nefarious purposes, any one found in posession of such a weapon should face the death penalty.

Ah, “ban”… Where have I heard that word before? Read some history – just a few bits of recent history will do, you don’t need to look at medieval attempts by monarchs to stop the peasants from owning weaponry. Bans don’t work – they penalise the law-abiding without affecting criminals one damn bit. Prohibiting alcohol in the USA produced massive almost universal flouting of the law, and promoted violent crime & corruption. Automatic weapons of the type you mention (which are far from the “weapons of choice” of criminals BTW – those are handguns, always have been) were “banned” in the UK in 1936 for no good reason. They weren’t used then by Brit criminals – but these days any lowlife drug-dealing tosser can acquire an Uzi or an AK by visiting the right pub…

By doing this, American citizens would maintain the right to bear arms but would limit the potential for the odd psychopath to commit such horrors as those seen last week.

Utter nonsense! If psychos want to kill people they will, alas, find a way, with or without hugely restrictive laws such as you propose.

In a Country where the Law is so useless that gun crime is commonplace,…

Again, see above – the US varies greatly both in its firearms legislation and the frequency of different types of crime.In general, those areas with the most restrictions on legitimate ownership of guns (NYC, Washington DC, etc) are the places with lots of violent armed crime; places with far fewer such restrictions (Vermont, New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, etc etc) tend to enjoy much lower violent crime stats, and are often on a similar level to gun-controlled Britain in this respect. Until our gov’t actually banned civilians here from owning handguns, it was actually no easier to own a handgun legitimately in NYC than it was here! They’d had the Sullivan Act since before WW1 – though of course this never stopped bad guys from using handguns, in fact it encouraged them because they were less likely to meet an armed citizen – just like Virginia’s universities…

So if you’re going to propose any more “radical” measures, perhaps you should read up on the subject a little. And I do hope you’re not standing for Parliament – I’d find that scary.
hps

Memories not too good at the moment and I’m not feeling well anyway so am not going back through the thread to find out who said what. But if I remember correctly, someone made an interesting point about the fact that no one fired back during the Virginia shooting. In a Country where the majority of the population are entitled to own a gun, and where a large number of the population take advantage of that entitlement (some by owning several guns) it does seem somewhat striking that this should be the case.

So, how about a radical solution?

At age 18, issue every American citizen with a sidearm and give them the training to use the weapon safely and ensure they have annual checks on both the weapon and their competence to own it.

Restrict the ownership of rifles to those who require them for work rather than sport. For example, farmers. Hunting rifles only to be loaned to those who undertake properly licensed, organised hunts.

Ban the use and ownership of all weapons which would fall into the same category as automatic rifles(?) e.g., AK47, Uzi etc., etc. As these are the weapons of choice for those wishing to use guns for nefarious purposes, any one found in posession of such a weapon should face the death penalty.

By doing this, American citizens would maintain the right to bear arms but would limit the potential for the odd psychopath to commit such horrors as those seen last week. In a Country where the Law is so useless that gun crime is commonplace, I can understand why people might want a weapon for their own protection, but if the measures above were adopted, or something like them, then maybe, just maybe, the situation might improve.

As for the UK, I agree that the ban appears to have prevented anymore Hungerford or Dunblane’s. I also think that the death penalty should be imposed in the UK for anyone carrying or using weapons for nefarious purposes.

Regards,

kev35

I haven’t bothered to read all this thread, but here’s an interesting one.
For a few nights, we’ve had a gang of kids sitting at the end of the road talking, they are not foul mouthed, abusive or causing any trouble, on the other hand, trying to get to sleep is a pain as they go on talking loudly till 1:00am.
So how do you deal with this, if I go out and try to have a reasonable conversation with them, how do I know that they are not going to take it the wrong way and pull out a weapon, knife or otherwise. The police around here are pathetic, but on the other hand, I don’t think that a police involvement will do any good anyway, as they could’nt be bothered.
So, what do I do, ignore it, wander down the road with my Lee Enfield and Masai sword down the back of my trousers, or accept the fact that they are not prepared to blow me away and are nice chaps really. It’s a hard decision, you don’t know what you are facing anymore, even the girls amongst them could have knives. The world is full of lunatics, possibly including me because I tend to stand up for myself, but at what price.

Equal regards to yourself for your last.

Precisely my point John, and I think that of several others who are of the same heart here, these bans, to be credible, must do something to reduce the level of firearms related violence in the UK otherwise they were just the panacea (to borrow entirely the correct word from HPSauce) to the ‘righteous indignation’ all ‘right-thinking’ citizens displayed following Dunblane. Essentially you were literally criminalised, for possessing a firearm, for no more reason than a PR gimmick for the Govt. to prove it was doing ‘something’ in the wake of Dunblane.

I am sorry to me that is plain and simple victimisation of a minority and a blame shifting exercise that far too many folks bought in to. Simply put Thomas Hamilton should not have had 4 handguns and 743 rounds of ready ammunition that day as the Police had already a significant dossier on his suspect behaviour and actually has advocated the revocation of his license. Had they been more intent on their jobs and not on the ‘possible’ waste of funds trying to get his license revoked he, Hamilton, would have been aware of the scrutiny he was under and very likely dug himself a deep hole to get lost in.

To be honest I can only recall two incidents of the misuse of legal firearms in the UK in my 33 years. One in 1987 and one 9 years later in 1996. Downplaying the significance or sickness of either incident is obviously reprehensible and I wouldnt attempt to do so, however, such a very low frequency of events was not indicative of a massive subculture of Rambo-wannabe’s or psychotic cases in the UK smallbore or fullbore shooting fraternity. The use of illegal firearms in the commissioning of crime, by comparison, in this country is daily…not something with a 9 year interval. More people die through the criminal use of illegal fireams in this country than ever have from legal ones. The governments actions though target the legal gun owner….thats what make the ban invalid…the injustice that legal shooters have been stigmatised on the strength of no credible evidence and to provide convenient scapegoats for the inadequacies of the local Constabulary.

The point is that a Sports Car is not required to travel via road in the UK. A high performance car requires greater skill to be handled properly than a normal runabout. When handled recklessly a high performance car is a very dangerous piece of kit yet an 18 year old can go out a buy a Mitsubishi Evo straight after passing his driving test and kill himself and three friends on the first bend he comes at. Thats not illegal. Purchasing a Ruger .22 semiautomatic target pistol, keeping it at home in a police-verified secure gun safe, for the sole use of going down to the local range to pursue a skillful and demanding sport is not only illegal but marks you as a danger to society for even considering it. To my mind there is a sincere intellectual disconnect there!.

I am sad to say that you have little trouble with communication from my standpoint. Sad that is because the lack of response you describe to what is seemingly, an irreversable decline in the interest in our basic and fundamental freedoms. Not only ours but those of our kids. I, for one, am trying to teach the values of personal responsibility to my 11 year old, yet, I find myself more and more having to tell her that we are constrained in what we can say and do to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities and I can see her looking at me like I’m mental. Frankly I am at a loss to see how this is going to get any better.

Steve
I just wanted to say that I do feel the bans did stop more potential incidences of gun crime of a certain type and even though I believe the govt had to act due to the position of the public at large , I think they probably would have anyway given the prior event at Hungerford.
The other thing i wanted to pick up on and maybe its just me but I didnt see it as loosing a fundamental freedom , I didnt see owning a handgun as being a fundamental right I saw it as being a privalege , handgun ownership in the UK was a tiny percentage of the population and maybe as such always vulnerable to being swallowed up.

Regards
John

and

I appreciate that you’re not a rabid antigunner, and not just trying to be perverse or contrary, but I confess I’m puzzled by what you say. I don’t know what part of the country you’re in, or what your shooting club background is/was, but your experience is utterly at variance with mine. I did not speak to one member of my clubs at the time, or other shooting people I met (and have met since) who professed to understand the ban and accept it as you do. Ten years on, everyone I know in shooting remains angry, disgusted, cynical about politics and the news media, and unapologetic about their love of guns & shooting.
I suppose I’ve met one or two gun owners I found a bit weird, but nothing like the seemingly significant numbers of people with mental problems (are you a health professional? I wonder how qualified you are to judge mental states – ?) you claim to have encountered.
As soon as I heard about Dunblane I had a feeling that this would mean the end of our handguns, but even I was taken aback by the wave of hysteria, rabid lying, crude anti-shooter propaganda and political dishonesty that followed in 1996/97. I’ve always been interested in politics, but it’s highly instructive when you’re part of a minority that suddenly finds itself being persecuted by politicians of whom Dr Goebbels would have been proud. I never for one minute felt I should be glad about giving up my freedom to own a handgun, and I don’t think you should either.
hps

my parents were avid smallbore rifle shooters and prominant committe members of a rifle club , I grew up around “shooters” at the time of the bans I was a committe member of different but large rifle and pistol club in the se and I can recall many conversations along the lines of ” that person shoudnt really hld an FAC ” . I have never been a health professional but have had a keen interest in psych and mental health for 20+ years , I do however not profess to have any superior knowledge on the subject over and above a well read layman.
Maybe you are correct and I am more forgiving of the ban than many and I could perfectly accept as fact what you say about shooters anger over the ban , moreso i would expect this and know this to be true in other areas of the country .
Like you “we” in my circles knew there would be severe ramifictions for handgun shooters following Dunblane and indeed a ban would be most likely given the events of Hungerford , as you say the public backlash was unprecidented ( the petition was huge IIRC) and at times yes I felt victimised and yes no doubt the public feeling had to be apeased and that must have weighed heavy on the govts decision .
I ask you this , what else could have been done instead of the ban ? yes after the fact much was know about Hamilton and yet nothing done and maybe I am in a minority here amongt shooters but doesnt the stopping of another and in my view very real potential tragedy outweigh the small number of handgun shooters .
When we talk about the losses of our “freedoms” we think of not only our own personal rights and freedoms , we think of the freedoms we have living in a society more than that we accept there are aspects to living in a society that as individuals we dont like but can do nothing about as its a majority decision , its at times like these we take one for the team or join a new team , as you have already said we as shooters were a minority and we wernt only persecuted by the politicians ,there was a groundswell of feeling so great the majority won out,.

Regards
John

I appreciate you writing a well balance post without the childishness.

Equal regards to yourself for your last.

its just the ones mentioned were the main primers for the bans. I agree there have been many incidents that could have and should have warranted more respect and who knows why they dont, maybe its the scale of certain events , maybe its simply the scale of the publics outcry as happened at Dunblane and without doubt had a influence on the ban.

Precisely my point John, and I think that of several others who are of the same heart here, these bans, to be credible, must do something to reduce the level of firearms related violence in the UK otherwise they were just the panacea (to borrow entirely the correct word from HPSauce) to the ‘righteous indignation’ all ‘right-thinking’ citizens displayed following Dunblane. Essentially you were literally criminalised, for possessing a firearm, for no more reason than a PR gimmick for the Govt. to prove it was doing ‘something’ in the wake of Dunblane.

I am sorry to me that is plain and simple victimisation of a minority and a blame shifting exercise that far too many folks bought in to. Simply put Thomas Hamilton should not have had 4 handguns and 743 rounds of ready ammunition that day as the Police had already a significant dossier on his suspect behaviour and actually has advocated the revocation of his license. Had they been more intent on their jobs and not on the ‘possible’ waste of funds trying to get his license revoked he, Hamilton, would have been aware of the scrutiny he was under and very likely dug himself a deep hole to get lost in.

but does that in itself make the firearms bans any more or less valid and yes I too felt the stigma from having an interest in a shooting hobby.

To be honest I can only recall two incidents of the misuse of legal firearms in the UK in my 33 years. One in 1987 and one 9 years later in 1996. Downplaying the significance or sickness of either incident is obviously reprehensible and I wouldnt attempt to do so, however, such a very low frequency of events was not indicative of a massive subculture of Rambo-wannabe’s or psychotic cases in the UK smallbore or fullbore shooting fraternity. The use of illegal firearms in the commissioning of crime, by comparison, in this country is daily…not something with a 9 year interval. More people die through the criminal use of illegal fireams in this country than ever have from legal ones. The governments actions though target the legal gun owner….thats what make the ban invalid…the injustice that legal shooters have been stigmatised on the strength of no credible evidence and to provide convenient scapegoats for the inadequacies of the local Constabulary.

See I dont get the analagies between saying car owners dont need to do 100mph so why should they be allowed the potential to break the law and kill someone speeding when I cant have a gun , sorry I’m not trying to be funny or argumentative but I just never have grasped that one and again how does it make the gun bans any more or less valid ? Or is it about fundamental freedom?

The point is that a Sports Car is not required to travel via road in the UK. A high performance car requires greater skill to be handled properly than a normal runabout. When handled recklessly a high performance car is a very dangerous piece of kit yet an 18 year old can go out a buy a Mitsubishi Evo straight after passing his driving test and kill himself and three friends on the first bend he comes at. Thats not illegal. Purchasing a Ruger .22 semiautomatic target pistol, keeping it at home in a police-verified secure gun safe, for the sole use of going down to the local range to pursue a skillful and demanding sport is not only illegal but marks you as a danger to society for even considering it. To my mind there is a sincere intellectual disconnect there!.

I would like to say I’m trying hard not to come across as argumentative and appologise if I do , I find it hard to communicate effectively at times and I really dont know how best to describe the mood of the time from what I saw , all I can really say is there were a number who wanted to protest and fight the ban but there were more that could not put hand on heart and say they didnt see the potential for more tragedies.

I am sad to say that you have little trouble with communication from my standpoint. Sad that is because the lack of response you describe to what is seemingly, an irreversable decline in the interest in our basic and fundamental freedoms. Not only ours but those of our kids. I, for one, am trying to teach the values of personal responsibility to my 11 year old, yet, I find myself more and more having to tell her that we are constrained in what we can say and do to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities and I can see her looking at me like I’m mental. Frankly I am at a loss to see how this is going to get any better.

…My main reasoning behind gladly giving up a hobby / sport that I enjoyed so much and supporting the ban was because of seeing on an almost daily basis ,numbers of people with clearly identifyable mental health issues that legally held firearms and honestly thinking it to be an unnaceptable risk.

and

..there were a number who wanted to protest and fight the ban but there were more that could not put hand on heart and say they didnt see the potential for more tragedies.

I appreciate that you’re not a rabid antigunner, and not just trying to be perverse or contrary, but I confess I’m puzzled by what you say. I don’t know what part of the country you’re in, or what your shooting club background is/was, but your experience is utterly at variance with mine. I did not speak to one member of my clubs at the time, or other shooting people I met (and have met since) who professed to understand the ban and accept it as you do. Ten years on, everyone I know in shooting remains angry, disgusted, cynical about politics and the news media, and unapologetic about their love of guns & shooting.
I suppose I’ve met one or two gun owners I found a bit weird, but nothing like the seemingly significant numbers of people with mental problems (are you a health professional? I wonder how qualified you are to judge mental states – ?) you claim to have encountered.
As soon as I heard about Dunblane I had a feeling that this would mean the end of our handguns, but even I was taken aback by the wave of hysteria, rabid lying, crude anti-shooter propaganda and political dishonesty that followed in 1996/97. I’ve always been interested in politics, but it’s highly instructive when you’re part of a minority that suddenly finds itself being persecuted by politicians of whom Dr Goebbels would have been proud. I never for one minute felt I should be glad about giving up my freedom to own a handgun, and I don’t think you should either.
hps

John,

Your point is both clear and well made and it echoes the similarly veined posting made by lovemigs. You are both stating that the attrocities in the recent issue and Hungerford and Dunblane were all committed with legal weapons and therefore removal of legal weapons would, and has, forestalled any further repetiton of such a horrific event.

The only problem with that is that you are cherry-picking ‘attrocities’ to suit your argument. The incident in Jan 2003, in Birmingham, when 2 teenage girls were killed and 2 others wounded was no less tragic than Dunblane yet seemingly because it was in an inner city, not some middle class redoubt, it doesnt seem to count…as if its not as shocking so nothing need be done about it?.

Gun crime with illegally held weapons is responsible for many times more deaths and injuries than Hungerford and Dunblane put together yet the actions taken by the government do nothing to tackle illegal gun ownership and do everything to place suspicion on any person who happens to find sporting interest in a firearm.

The correct analogy here is the same as any time a carload of teenagers fatally wraps a Golf GTI or Subaru Impreza around a tree or some innocent child is killed on a crossing by a speeding motorist. The cry goes out, from ‘Concerned of Cheshire’ as to why we need to have cars that go 100mph plus or have great big 4×4 Jeeps used by mums on the school run.

The reality is that there is no need for a car to do 101mph in the UK and the only British people I can conceive of needing a 4×4 on the school run live on the Outer Hebrides, the Highlands of Scotland or on the Falkland Islands. It is also the reality that in the cases above the car is not the issue….its the manner in which its being driven and ‘Concerned of Cheshire’ is barking up the wrong tree in every important respect.

There is no fundamental difference between the availability of barely-road-legal rally car clones like Mitsibushi Evo’s or 200mph Porsche super cars and firearms. Both, in the publics hands, are intended for sporting purposes and both are entirely unecessary in everyday life. I used to enjoy going for track days at Oulton Park with friends driving Skylines, DIMMA’d Peugeots and Caterhams because there, on the track, I could drive like I would never dare to on the public roads. I also liked, on the rare occaision, to do a little smallbore target shooting at the local gun club when I was invited. One is now legal and one isnt and there is absolutely no logical justification for the difference.

Hi Steve
I appreciate you writing a well balance post without the childishness.

I am honesty not cherry picking attrocities to suit , its just the ones mentioned were the main primers for the bans. I agree there have been many incidents that could have and should have warranted more respect and who knows why they dont, maybe its the scale of certain events , maybe its simply the scale of the publics outcry as happened at Dunblane and without doubt had a influence on the ban.

I agree 100% that there doesnt appear to be any effective measures against the illegal guns and yes they do account for more killing , but does that in itself make the firearms bans any more or less valid and yes I too felt the stigma from having an interest in a shooting hobby.

See I dont get the analagies between saying car owners dont need to do 100mph so why should they be allowed the potential to break the law and kill someone speeding when I cant have a gun , sorry I’m not trying to be funny or argumentative but I just never have grasped that one and again how does it make the gun bans any more or less valid ? Or is it about fundamental freedom ?

The point about the smallbore rifles is interesting and indeed some of the previous handgun shooters turned to other firearms , shotguns , black powder and interestingly enough many bought semi automatic small bore (.22) rifles , I also recall not much fuss being made about the inconcistency of being alowed some guns and not others for fear of a total blanket sport shooting ban.

I would like to say I’m trying hard not to come across as argumentative and appologise if I do , I find it hard to communicate effectively at times and I really dont know how best to describe the mood of the time from what I saw , all I can really say is there were a number who wanted to protest and fight the ban but there were more that could not put hand on heart and say they didnt see the potential for more tragedies.

Regards
John

Its what might be termed self evident , The gun controls put in place mean there will never be another massacre by a “nut” legally using the banned types of firearm , it could be no other way unless the ban was lifted , ergo the gun control measures were effective.It is now a matter for the justice system to do something about the illegal firearms issue.

So what you are saying is that as a result of the handgun people can no longer legally break the law?:rolleyes:

Basically people are no longer able to use legal handguns to commit crime, however they are perfectly free to commit crime will illegal handguns.:rolleyes:

Its my understanding that law abiding citizens have a right to carry a firearm in the state of Virginia where the recent massacre happened ?.

Technically in any state in the US it is legal to openly carry a legally held firearm. In practice it would lead you into endles hassles with cops and local laws and people who try to enforce laws they don’t even fully understand. The big difference is open and concealed carry. In Vermont , for example every citizen has the right to carry a concealed weapon without any special permit. Few do, but some certainly. I would. In most states this is not the case without lots of hassle and providing good reason. If only 10% of the population carried a concealed weapon and knew how and were willing to use them, I think that criminals would not be so eager to walk into a convenience store and wave a gun around.
Also the reluctance of people to use a weapon in self defense because of fear of legal repercussions plays a role. I’m sure people have died because of it.

I cant agree with your third point ,as far as I remember proof was required and I dont say most people handed in their guns and took the fair compensation offered because of some alledged Govt propaganda , I say it because thats what I saw , also very few firearms went abroad though I do know some that went to France.

All you had to say was you tossed it into the ocean. It would be up to the police to prove otherwise. This has been done on a few occasions and it held up in court. No authority can demand of anyone to prove a negative – logically or legally. But only some people had the guts to stannd up and do it.