I say again, the destructive power of the BMG round is largely associated with rounds such as The RAUFOSS, these are not available to civilians.

A further note on the .50BMG, most of its destructive potential comes from types of ammunition which are seriously unavailable to civilians.

First off it’s pretty safe to say that machineguns are not common in the US no matter what your news or MTV may portray. The cost alone keeps most folks from buying them as most fully automatic weapons start at about $10,000 and go up quickly from there. Even if you had the money availability is the next hurdle. The last hurdle is dealing with the government when purchasing a fully automatic weapon. Definitely not a quick process.

Hunting rifles are a lot different than pistols. Hunting rifles are a lot more powerful than even the largest caliber handgun. One would be hard pressed to shoot someone or something beyond 100 yards with a handgun while any rifle is deadly accurate out to 1000 or more feet (some out to 1000 yards). Just look at your average rifle casing compared to a handgun casing. The rifle casing is carrying a lot more powder.

I always find it odd that “hunting” rifles get little attention when it comes to the gun control issue. Pound for pound they are a lot more deadly (in range and power) than say shotguns or handguns.

That makes the fact that the .50BMG is one of the current anti-gun lobby major targets. Despite the reality that there is not a single recorded case of one being used for a murder.

“Why thankyou 😀 ” :diablo:

Like I said.:rolleyes:

Go fan your own flame matey ! :rolleyes:

Great contribution to the thread.:rolleyes:

Yeah OK Sealord,you win. Let’s just overturn the ban and let everyone apply for gun licences again, while we’re at it let’s overturn the smoking bans as well and let everyone be subjected to passive smoking again.:mad:

Oh how wrong I was to question your infinite wisdom..:rolleyes:

Why thankyou.:D

By the way it is still legal to smoke in the UK.;)

My heart bleeds for the Olympic pistol shooting team, really ! :rolleyes: Ask Dr Mick North who lost his only daughter in the Dunblane shooting ? He spoke of people like you who arrogantly defended their “rights” to own and shoot with hand guns, whilst reminding them he had been deprived of the “right” to bring up his child. Of course I expect you’d consider that the knee jerk reaction of an emotive, lily livered leftie !

I do believe Dunblane would NOT have happened if the madman did not have a cache of guns in his posession. He may have tried something else but I doubt it personally, he had guns, he was in a gun club, he liked shooting guns and he was deluded and paranoid.

Whether or not he may have purchased a gun illegally is another matter, the fact is he held legally owned guns and that is why the controls were put into place.

And yes, illegally held guns have increased since the mid 90’s, that is because they were previously legal and now they are not. There was a gun amnesty of course when the effects of the Cullen Report were made law, not everyone handed theirs in presumably ?

As for that report being a knee-jerk reaction, I think you’ll find it only came about after a sustained period of lobbying and pressure from the Snowdrop Campaign, a movement set up by the families of Thomas Hamilton’s victims. It did not happen overnight and most certainly put forward some pretty convincing arguments for gun controls.

You can hide behind Dunblane all you like. The fact is that it has already been proved that the hand-gun ban in the UK has failed. Hand-gun posession and gun related crimes are on the rise despite the ban.

You should have read the home office report I posted earlier before you posted. Then you would not post rubbish like this….

“And yes, illegally held guns have increased since the mid 90’s, that is because they were previously legal and now they are not. There was a gun amnesty of course when the effects of the Cullen Report were made law, not everyone handed theirs in presumably ?”

What happens in an illegal sense cannot be compared to what happens in a legal sense. Crime is crime and the criminals will always indulge in illegal activity, as is their want.

I am talking about negating the risk of another Dunblane or Hungerford happening again by reducing the risk, i.e reducing the availability of hand-guns, which after much debate our goverment decided that there was no real reason for legally owning one in the UK.

Accuse me of having mis-placed emotions if you like, accuse the parents of the children massacred by Thomas Hamilton in primary school gym session of that too if you dare.

I do dare. The handgun ban the UK was one of the most irrational pieces of legislation ever passed. There was very little debate as it was put through on a tide of emotional anguish. You might want to ask the British olympic pistol shooting team.:mad:

You have still yet to explain how the hand-gun ban has worked, the number of handguns in the UK are increasing which means that availability is increasing.

Do you honestly think that if Thomas Hamilton had not had handgus legally he would just have said ‘oh well never mind I wont bother killing people after all.’ Fact is that gun control does not work and that has been proved in this thread.

Do you seriously think that your average criminal is going to say ‘hmmmmm that guy looks a bit dodgy I wont sell him a gun.’