By active political will the number of handguns can be cut out and the means of criminals to get their hands on them will be more difficoult and the number of people getting killed by so will also drop….

Whose “active political will”? What kind of mandate? Where does my “political will” come into it? What about my liberty to defend myself, family and property in the way I choose, a liberty I do not see as beholden to someone else’s perceived social utility? These seem fairly critical elements of the equation for anyone remotely interested in living in a free society.

Like I have said in the first topic over this matter, the purpose of criminology (is) to protect the law-obeying citicens from the negative effect of criminals..

Exactly so. Legislators and police should be seeking to control criminals, and the criminal use of firearms – not arbitrarily passing stupid, oppressive laws that both fail to protect the public, and diminish liberty.

If there are so simple and clear way to achieve better security, why attack against it by claiming it isent perfect, becouse it doesent take away all guns? Lot less is still lot better than the current situation, isent it?

Just like most politicians, you fail completely to distinguish between firearms held by upright citizens – the huge majority in any society – and those held by criminals. Surely there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate the futility of failing to understand this basic distinction. In the UK, before we had any significant gun-control laws, gun ownership was very widespread, and firearms crime was at a very low level: now, after successive Firearms Acts and a massive reduction in the legitimate ownership of guns by ordinary citizens, gun crime is at an all-time high! How can anyone possibly ignore or fail to understand the basic correlations illustrated here?
Your suggestions about cutting back firearms manufacture are unrealistic, even naive: there is an enormous quantity of firearms out there in criminal hands, and a good handgun or rifle lasts for decades. If we had some sort of omnipotent, all-seeing World State (which I would hope you don’t want) that could stop all handgun production tomorrow, there’d still be handguns around hundreds of years from now…
The State has them, criminals have them – I damn well want them too…
hps
nb When I was in Finland I was delighted to see ammo and handloading components on sale in department stores, in open serve-yourself trays – clearly the Finnish government isn’t as paranoid or easily manipulated by anti-gun neurotics as the UK government.

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.

Nothing personal directed at anyone in particular, but I fail to see the relevance of all this geeky ballistic stuff (which might be interesting in another context) to the matter of gun ownership by citizens, and “gun control” measures by government.
The point surely is that (a) any kind of projectile weapon can be used for good or ill, and people have been killed by air weapons; and (b) endless pernickety argument about differences between calibres is one of the hallmarks of gun-control measures by government – which are invariably a morass of obfuscation, irrationality, confusion and wild irrelevance. It’s a sad fact that the shooting world is riven by internal dissent, so that target shooters disdain “practical” shooters, air-rifle types think cartridge weapon fans are “cowboys” and so on; “which gun is most dangerous” stuff goes on all the time, with maddening predictability. Too many people are too stupid to see that this plays into the hands of the vicious control-freak protofascists who’d like to take away guns from everyone – except of course for agents of the State, and criminals. (They know that criminals don’t obey laws, and always acquire whatever guns they want without problems, but this doesn’t stop them from trying to prevent you & me from gun ownesrhip.)
I own a .223 rifle, which could kill someone very effectively at several hundred yards. This is not a problem, since like the vast majority of citizens I am not a psychopath or an idiot. Should I not, then, be permitted a 50-cal because I might take it into my head to shoot down police helicopters? B****hit! Either I’m a safe, normal person, or I’m not – if the former, I’m OK to own a weapon, full stop.
Let’s forget the ballistic distinctions – they’re a distracting irrelevance. Don’t play the government’s game for them.
hps

But by and large it does work. Sure, we have gun crime in the UK, and it may even be rising, although it’s still way below US levels. When nearly every other civilised country has tougher gun laws and lower gun crime rates than the US, surely you can’t deny the connection? And whilst I understand your argument about denying responsible gun owners, I’d suggest that’s the price you have to pay if you want to tackle this problem. And yes, of course the unbalanced or criminally minded will just disregard the law, but by limiting the amount of weapons in circulation at least you’d make it more difficult or expensive for them to get hold of one.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this is absolute nonsense. Like the majority of people, especially in the UK, you know far too little about firearms and, most critically, the history of firearms control, to have opinions that are worth anything.
Gun crime in the UK “may even be rising”? It’s laugh or cry time… Look, the facts are these: we’ve only had “serious” gun-control legislation for 87 years, since the radical (draconian, unprecedented) 1920 Act. Why then was this Act passed? Until that time, such diffident measures as the Pistols Act of 1903 had almost no effect on HM subjects’ freedom to visit the gun shop and buy whatever they wanted: firearms ownership was widespread (37,000 British handguns were submitted for proof at the Birmingham Proof House in 1902), a great many families had a revolver in the house, and this excited no concern. So when the Home Affairs Committee in 2000 cited the 1920 Act’s being based upon the Blackwell Committee’s report of 1918, reminding us that the latter recommended “stringent regulation” of the private possession of rifles, revolvers and pistols, it disingenuously failed to mention the modest criminal statistics underlying Blackwell’s recommendation. “It appears,” wrote Sir Ernley Blackwell, “that in the three years 1911-1913, firearms were used in the Metropolitan Police District by 100 persons of British nationality and by 23 aliens; while firearms were found in the possession of British subjects in 76 cases and of aliens in 27 cases…” Blackwell expressed concern at the many members of the criminal classes who had acquired skill at arms in the forces, at the proliferation of smallarms brought about by the war, at the possession of arms & ammunition by tribesmen in the Empire, and at “the anarchist or ‘intellectual’ malcontent of the great cities, whose weapons are the bomb and the automatic pistol…”
Blackwell’s views found a ready audience in the Cabinet of the day; one might speculate that the 1920 Act was based at least in part on ministers’ anxiety that my grandfathers and their chums, returning from the trenches with considerable experience of weaponry and a degree of distaste for their leaders, might emulate the Bolsheviks.
In fact my grandfathers simply went back to work like everyone else, and even the General Strike was characterised by generally good relations between strikers and the police.
But the Firearms Act of 1920 – draconian in its requirement for a police-approved Firearms Certificate for all those wishing to possess firearms, compared to the former regime – went through with little debate, and bureaucrats were all set to capitalise on the unprecedented new legislation: to build a great cityscape of legislative ziggurats upon green fields where government had not previously trodden.
Subsequently, successively more stringent (anti-) Firearms Acts have been enacted, all without any solid evidence whatsoever that they have had any effect on the incidence of armed crime!
In fact, armed crime has expanded frighteningly – e.g. crime where handguns were used had increased by some 30% during the three or four years following the atrociously cynical 1997 Act that was pushed through after Dunblane. I was one of the 56,000+ licenced owners of handguns who had their property made retrospectively illegal by the State. Every time something like Dunblane happens, they punish the people who didn’t do it…
It’s much easier for politicians to rush through some kind of bold palliative measure that seems, to the unthinking, to do some good, rather than act honestly and effectually, with honour. And most people in this country don’t own/don’t want to own guns, so they don’t give a toss. Such is democracy in 21st Century Britain. terrific – roll on the police state. Lots of my fellow citizens will apparently welcome it.
And you shouldn’t be so quick to draw facile conclusions about cause & effect: the US is a totally different society, and higher levels of violence in general. Armed crime in the US involving knives, e.g., outstrips all UK violence, guns included… OTOH there are far fewer “hot” burglaries in the US than in Britain! Why? Because US burglars don’t want to have to face an armed householder. Here, they could operate with impunity, because anyone rash enough to defend himself vigorously against a burglar or other criminal lowlife stand a good chance of being persecuted/prosecuted by the police…
Yours, given up on the political system – hps

Please note this is an opinion piece from MSNBC…a cable and internet part of the NBC television network.
Before you get too upset with his views, note the author’s background given at the end of the piece. He won the US equivalent of the VC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17972136/

Why would anyone “get upset” with his views, I wonder… Depressing to admit, he hits the nail on the head, as many people in UK would agree. That this episode should coincide with the 25th anniversary of victory in the Falklands underscores its shameful nature, which contrasts starkly with the vigorous no-nonsense success of the Royal Marines in Afghanistan the other day. Whether brought about by government-imposed rules of engagement, or by RN fuddled thinking, the capture of our people was shameful and their subsequent performance deeply discreditable. That the party included a woman was a handicap from the start, and any/every opponent we ever face in future will feel encouraged to stick two fingers up if we continue to put women in the front line. HMS Cornwall wasn’t the right sort of vessel to supervise the operation; she wasn’t close enough; she didn’t engage the enemy when they presented a threat to the boarding party. Why the f**k not? An absolute bl***y shambles, deeply humiliating for Britain’s armed forces.
hps

Are you trying to say that educating yourself on the technicalities of these machines is not germane to the discussion?

Er, no, but to save space I try to be succinct – just pointing out that if everyone posting here was required to have expert knowledge it would (a) render the whole thing pointless and (b) reduce posts by 95%.

Now WRT the political and financial situation and shenanigans during the late 1940s, during the 1950s and 60s and on into the 70s (and let’s face it carrying on even to this day) I am well aware of much of the detail here…
……I was well versed in these matters by the time I joined the RN …..
On balance the Vixen was a good aircraft,……. By which time the Javelin was beginning to look a little silly for attacking high flying Russian bombers …The Vixen would have been fine for a few years but …..If you haven’t already seen it I can recommend Tony Buttler’s British Secret Projects Jet Fighters Since 1950 for filling in some gaps.
The Gloster Javelin The RAF’s First Delta Wing Fighter Franks, Richard
ISBN: 1-905414-02-1
Sea Vixen De Havilland’s Ultimate Fighter Aircraft Franks, Richard
ISBN: 1-905414-04-8
de Havilland Twin-Booms Vampire, Venom and Sea Vixen, Barry Jones
ISBN: 1861266812
the last mentioned is riddled with errors, some howlers, in the Sea Vixen text, upon which I am more qualified to judge but errors in the Sea Venom section have also been spotted.
WRT Sea Vixen other book and journal sources have been cited here by myself and others but you may find the following web links useful:
http://www.condor49ers.org.uk/vixen.htm
http://www.vectorsite.net/avvamp_3.html
An interesting new site I have found which looks worth keeping an eye, particularly as it is being created by another ex Sea Vixen driver is:
http://www.seavixen.org/
Now as far as operations are concerned Sea Vixens were much in evidence in the Middle East and Far East during their period of service……..
If they had not been there, what then?

Many thanks – this is very interesting, and the links/references you provide are valuable – I’ll certainly consult them. And I hadn’t realised the extent to which Sea Vixens had actually seen active service. (Good job the Beira Patrol ones weren’t called upon to fight the Rhodesians – I can recall many half-jocular conversations among my father’s RAF contemporaries suggesting there would have been much reluctance to do so..) At the risk of seeming pernickety, though, you do appear to imply that Sea Vixens were never called upon to do much more than maintain local air superiority in what were little more than police actions: they never had their mettle tested against seriously capable contemporaries, MiGs etc. And what you say about the Javelin very much confirms its mediocre status as a fighter.
Will be delighted to be proved wrong, but it does look as if no-one is able to provide examples of Javelin/Sea Vixen in the sort of combat that would have tested their capabilities to the limit.
Regards, hps

Spotted being rolled out of hanger 5 today! looks great.

Excuse my ignorance, but where is this “hangar 5”? Quite like to see a Hastings again sometime – I flew in one in 1958, aged about 9, and the crew let me sit in the co-pilot’s seat. Is this an airworthy example? Are there any airworthy ones in fact?
hps

Please take the following in the manner intended – non inflammatory.

Certainly – and likewise for myself. If I ask questions it’s because I’m interested in hearing answers from those who might know.

I respectfully suggest that you fill in the gaps of your knowledge on these aircraft before posting further on this. Referances have already been posted in this forum as have links to more.

Well, if there were no gaps in my knowledge I wouldn’t need to post anything! And you’re not suggesting expert knowledge is a prerequisite for making comments? My queries about the usefulness of Sea Vixen & Javelin are based not on the technical-gubbins side – I’m not a technician – but on a certain knowledge of the political & economic realities behind post-WW2 aircraft production. And it’s a sad fact that Britain’s desperate economic condition in the 1940s, extending into the 1950s, coupled with sclerotic thinking among politicos and service chiefs alike, led to many of our indigenous designs being obsolescent even as they were in production. To an extent this even applies to one of my all-time favourite ‘planes, the lovely Hunter, built at the same time as other major players were making supersonic fighters, and only becoming useful after several marques…
So I was curious to see what proven qualities – if any, and emphasis on PROVEN – outweighed the undeniably duff aspects of both these aeroplanes, as opposed to the glamour, idiosyncratic styling, scarcity value etc etc, by which so many posters here appear to be captivated.

The Sea Vixen certainly was involved in offensive missions but in its secondary role of GA and I suspect that the Javelin was too, although I only have one work of reference for this a/c.
WRT the Sea Vixen’s primary role, as with so many other aircraft, the very fact that the prospective opposition chose not to mix-it demonstrates their effectiveness.

So which “offensive missions”? What “prospective opposition”? Don’t be coy!
Regards, hps