Jump to content

stuartyboy

Members
  • Content Count

    332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stuartyboy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

923 profile views
  1. I've the same issue. Have tried 2 different custom made crossover stocks, shooting left handed, various aiming aids such as luminous add on beads, etc etc. I couldn't independantly close my left eye. The best solution I've found is a well fitting gun and a small piece of tape over the left lens of shooting glasses. If I tried that at the start, I wouldve saved a fortune.
  2. Priority is to speak to your neighbours, however hard tgat may be. They may not appreciate the upset and harm it's causing. If they enjoy feeding birds, point out how crows will predate and drive away the song birds. Suggest they feed the smaller birds by using cage feeders that exclude the crows and pigeons. Only if it can't be resolved peacefully report to the council.
  3. Think the total is 567 as per the 7 shot since Walker570 tally of 560. Total 567
  4. Bought my wife the i10 6 years ago as a runabout. Most reliable and trouble/stress free car ever had.
  5. I'm going to bow out of this topic. Feel like I will be repeating myself again and again, and tbh , don't have time. All the best and happy shooting with whatever your into
  6. I agree with you both, yes its the person that can be the problem not the gun. But I stand by that I have a line that I think is acceptable to me and the public regarding what guns are acceptable or required. Same question to you as to Scully. Where's your line? Fully auto guns, SAM missiles etc? As if ìts the person and not the weapon, you shouldn't have an issue. And if you do, you have the same line as me. Just that mines set a bit lower.
  7. Of course banning a certain type of firearm will prevent a mass shooting by that type of gun held by a certificate holder. I'm not going to go over and over the same points but will say this again, I totally understand your salient point which is, that it's the person not the gun who's responsible. I agree with that. Its just that at the moment I can accept the benefits of what we currently have firearms wise, outweigh the potential risks of what we have. I just can't accept that the benefits of handguns etc outweighs the risk posed by them. It's just my personal opinion. Where's your level of comfort sit at for private gun ownership? Fully auto guns? hand grenades? RPGs etc? Don't take this to be flippant, it's not meant to. But if you solely argue it's not the type of gun but the person, surely you would have to argue for any type of gun/weapon to be owned?
  8. It was easy to 'shaft us UK gun owner's' A mad man walked into a primary school and murdered 16 5 and 6 year olds and their teacher. The ban had nothing to do with the shooting community opposing a ban or not. Probably 99% of the population of the UK was calling for it. And understandably after what had just happened. It is a shame that people lost their hobby but this was nothing compared to what the parents lost. We where never going to come back from that.
  9. I agree with you. But at some point you have to risk manage. You reach a level of risk that you are comfortable with. Its like cars. They maim, kill and poison thousands but the public accept that we need them. Its a risk we all accept. Regarding levels of comfort/risk with firearms, people are all different. Majority of folk would be happy with no privately owned guns in the UK. Some on here would be happy with full auto guns. It's all down to individual preference. I'm comfortable with the guns available to us. Yes you could ban ALL guns and that would stop legally held guns being used in shootings but to me that is disproportionate to the risk posed by what's legally held now. Yes the guns we have can kill, but we weigh up the risk of that happening to the importance and need for these guns. At the moment I think the UK has it reasonably well balanced with the need to protect the public and individuals right to own a gun. It's not perfect, but it's not too bad. And the public seem to be happy with it at the moment. This could change any time though. To me, part of our fight is public perception. I can't justify to others the need for some guns, therefore I understand when they are banned/or calls for them to be banned. I understand what you are saying about clay shooting and shotguns but again, to me, the advantages of clay shooting outweighs the risk.
  10. Yes, you're right. But there is a need for .22s, shotgun, bolt actions and that is wildlife management and all the benefits that brings. But the need for target shooting with a handgun or semi auto CF is not there in the public opinion. And as I've said frequently, I can understand that therefore I can empathise with them. But I understand the need for .22s etc so can't empathise with any calls to ban them.
  11. A legimate use, yes. But not a good enough reason for the public to support handguns being allowed back in mainland UK. Obviously the laws in NI are different regarding handguns, and rightly so to suit their needs. 100 yards is still a very limited range against a rifle with a good shot behind it
  12. But none of what you say is logical regarding your initial post! Read it again; you state that by banning the relevant guns there have been no more shootings with these type of legally held firearms, which is true. Therefore, ( using that same logic ) if the guns Bird used were banned then there would be no more shootings with those type of legally held firearms also. So why do you think they shouldn't be banned if other types are? I just can't understand your logic. Scully, I apologise if I'm not coming across clear. Handguns and CF semi autos where banned due to being used in horrible circumstances. This created the public appetite for banning them. They where also banned due to their lethality. In these cases, the muzzle energy and fast reloading of box magazines containing large amounts of ammunition meant the weapons where deemed to be especially lethal. Now, my point is that I can sympathise with the decisions to ban them. This is because I can empathise with people who challenge the right for others to own them. I can argue all day long about the need to have a .22 for vermin. I can argue all day long for the need to have a shotgun for sport/game/vermin. I can argue all day long for the need for a .243 for deer fox etc. I can argue and hold my ground and have anti shooters understand why some folk possess these guns. But I can't argue for semi auto centerfire rifles or handguns in this country. Yes, rifles could be handy for fox etc but not enough to justify them. Non shooters just don't accept that the need for some to shoot at targets outweighs the perceived risk to them. Even if their fears are unfounded. Most reactions are along the lines of 'Why do they need big guns to shoot a target, why not use an Airgun' Basically, sympathised with banning what's been banned due to what I perceive to be lack of real need for them and the massive potential lethality with them. Realised that's not going to be popular in a shooting forum but it's just my opinion.
  13. I'm not calling for a ban on any type of firearms. However I'm sympathetic to why folk are and do call for a ban on guns/some guns after such tragic events. Fact is, there's a massive amount of difference between the limited range of a .22 or shotgun compared against a semi auto CF rifle. Also a semi auto CF rifle or handgun is much easier to load and fire quickly. I think we were fortunate after Bird in not to have more restrictions imposed on .22 and shotguns. But if, heaven forbid, similar happens again. We will not be as fortunate. I'm not sympathetic with a ban on these guns as, if I'm honest, I can see a legimate need for them. I can't with handguns or semi auto CF rifles. I know, it's the old 'United we stand, divided we fall' but I honestly can't come up with an argument to support handguns etc when faced with people who strongly oppose them. But I can argue a case for sporting rifles and shotguns.
×
×
  • Create New...