RC45 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 They don't have to relax the rules too much. Why not 300mm barrel and lose the bar at the back. I am quite happy with LBR, I doubt whether there is any of the organisations pushing for anything like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC45 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 That LBP looks very much like the Ivor Johnson job thats on sale ATM I am told a 2 year waiting list. Looks great Will be interested I have a .22 LBP slot (NOTE LBP NOT LBR I am give the choice) This Government can still repeal that waste of space ACT ******** to what some **** did and What some ***** think If Sir this And Lord that can have them so can bloody I. And let look again LBP and LBRs just like ANY gun can be cut down for Illegal use. Let this government and the wasters at the GCN ban them all it doesn't protect them. And that is a Observation NOT any type of threat or Intention But I can see someone going mad about losing there guns and taking it out on them-The Illegal guns WILL ALWAYS be around full stop end of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterzone2 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 What with the what I stated was an observation based on information received from mainly police officers what is the old saying "he who has nothing to lose has nothing to fear" My point some like bird, Hamilton, or the other guy has to hand in their firearms what is there to stop them from acquiring an Illegal firearm(s) and taking their anger out on those who causes them to lose them? By FACT it is not hard to get ANY illegal firearm(s) Including those banned back in 1935 (fully auto) those can be found to day for about the same cost as my legal one. 70+ years ago fully auto went section5 and that hasn't worked Kray brothers proved that Gun Control does not work period end of we need a government who have the brains to see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC45 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 So you think by BANNING everything, no-one will ever come to any harm? I suppose you will want to ban Baseball bats next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterzone2 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) No what I am saying is BY banning legal firearms the threat WILL still be there SO banning is pointless It goes for firearms drugs and god know what else FACT bans do not and have never worked. I have a LEGAL section 1 SPAS 12 It is safely locked away and as sporting equipment is a threat to no one-no different to a golf club So If Gill Andrews whatever gets her way she has not won I can still get a SPAS M16 92F whatever for the right amount of cash and the right words in the right places. If I am correct certain drugs were banned (legal in some cases for medical use) smack, E, Coke Illegal BUT you can find it one any street corner. Banning does not work it will not work so who bother us? Edited February 2, 2011 by masterzone2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_0787 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Although it would be nice, there's more chance of plaiting snot! We as shooters are an insignificant number compared to the average joe 'anti everything' brigade. Imagine how it would read in the papers. Page 1- government to relax gun control, Page 2- shooting in nottingham. It's been too long and too many kids have been shot. Sad case of a knee jerk ban, but its happened. As was said before, we would be better campaigning against steel shot implementation for all disciplines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterzone2 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 That would be shot with Illegal pistols If the Antis are too stupid to see and understand that then maybe we should lock them all up in 6x8 padded rooms for their own safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week. read the rest here. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece Edited February 14, 2011 by markbivvy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat g Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 I would'nt hold your breath on any Government scrapping any previous act. The 1988 and 1997 firearms amendment acts were the result of knee jerk reactions by an ill informed government that had no effect what so ever on gun crime way back then or now. It left a bitter taste in my mouth and that of every other shooter in the country. I lost my SLR and my Ruger mini 14 in 1988 and my S&W 686 and Berreta 92f in 1997 and on each occasion i was left well out of pocket I sincerely hope that they do scrap the 1997 act as i'm with you on this one. I would love to get back into proper pistol shooting. Great fun. Funnily enough though lbr shooting has never appealed to me. Trying to relive "the good old days" perhaps i dont know. We can live in hope though ATB Pat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigeon Popper Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. - Cesare Beccaria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterzone2 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 So history has proven that in the days when law abiding Armed civilians had arms for self-defence crime was very few and very far between. now its the other way round. However I have only ever read laws which prevent you from acquiring a firearms for self-defence yet to see the one that reads you cannot. Its the same with handguns they are not banned far from it in fact it just the target shooting reason was removed from the good reason list-so if for example you got a .357 self loading pistol for humane dispatch then you could claim X rounds a year on the range to ensure the pistol is firing correctly, that you are fully familiarized with the controls etc. and seeing as there were some 40000 handgun owners pre 97- now in 2011 there are 65000+ for sec5 reasons would seam a TOTAL contradiction if they didn't put target shooting back on the good reason list for at least the .22 (ALL versions) and the written reason I got back for the handgun restriction in the 1st place was to ensure an event like Dumblane could not happen again with legal handguns-any one else seeing the problem with that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Just to point out the Conservatives didn't win the election and firearms may well have been part of the Con-Lib coalition debate, if we did have a conservative government with a strong majority we might have half a chance of seeing some reasonable firearms reform. Hopefully we will sees steps in the right direction soon but i doubt it, why do anything that's right when you can do something popular. I am sure that if you have a good enough reason to own a Uzi in the UK you can I am sure there a few closely coupled to the military (but private) training providers that train close protection and others (anti kidknapping etc) in the UK. The thing that really got me is there are Military (indoor) ranges all over the UK surely the MOD could have made a fortune out of a system that allowed certain PAID up, licensed and extra qualified shooters keep guns in their armouries (no one suggests firearms being stolen from military bases but could easily happen) or do "shooting UK" just not get on with the MOD thus sending or pistol shooters overseas to train? Cadet forces who are civilian use military ranges and store their firearms on military sites? Why not Pistol shooters? 20 year old but interesting article! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pistolpacking-mps-seek-targets-1565303.html Edited February 22, 2011 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I can't believe I missed this thread; it ticks so many boxes. I genuinely didn't see it before posting on the "Humane dispatch" thread. Handgun-repeat-thread-predictable-tastic. It's good to see that there's still a bitter and unhealthy interest in handguns and possible loopholes a decade on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 It's good to see that there's still a bitter and unhealthy interest in handguns and possible loopholes a decade on... 'Unhealthy' Mung? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Most obsessions are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Good man mungler,spoken like a true anti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 ah well I'll join the anti ranks as well along with a fair few that just get a little concerned about people who fantasise about having hand guns "for protection" and plinking with. Funny how most who go down the humane despatch argument want a gun rather than a captive bolt which is far less sexy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Good to have you on board alex,you can count yourself among the vast majority of the british public who are as concerned as you about ANYONE having an interest in guns and shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Of course, I'm an anti because I happen to think that there is a small minority who are genuinely clinically obsessed by having their handguns taken away, and that that is not healthy. This and other forums are littered with handgun ban threads working up and into bizarre and contrived discussions about getting a handgun for humane dispatch. It's all been done so many times before. So, yes I must be an anti to express a teensy bit of concern. This article sums it up completely for me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8039602/Show-off-surgeon-banned-from-owning-guns-as-risk-to-public.html with this extract: In the run up to his licences being revoked he had applied for a 6mm semi automatic pistol- to humanely dispatch injured sheep or lambs despite not having any. There's a few on here who would appear to want a handgun to humanely dispatch livestock they don't have.... but no, that's not me worrying that there are some nut nuts about, that's me being an "anti" Edited February 23, 2011 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Without wanting to open up a huge debate (argument) about this... It all boils down to different people enjoying different things.... I was a competitive pistol shooter in the 80s & early 90s (practical & police) There is nothing that can replace the disciplines I was involved in and I very much miss the excitement & adrenaline rush competing in those disciplines at a relatively high level brought. A few of my gun club members travel to NI 4 times a year to compete still and I'm seriously considering going with them.. There is nothing wrong or unhealthy about missing something one used to love passionately. From some of the comments there are shooters who think that pistols are bad and other types of gun (very probably the ones they use) are good... If shotguns had been outlawed 15 years ago would you now think they were bad? I really am confused about this... shooting is shooting in whatever guise it may take... clays, target rifle, wildfowling, pigeons, practical shotgun, PISTOL SHOOTING..... to a shooter, they are all valid shooting disciplines. I watched Lock n Load last night, it was all about ammunition.... the slow motion footage of FMJ, Expanding and fragmenting ammo going into ballistics gell and then a leg of beef had my jaw on the floor... the first thought (honestly..) that went through my mind was, christ... what the hell am I doing playing with this stuff!!! Then I calmed down and became rational about it... Handguns are no more evil/dangerous in the hands of law abiding citizens than rifles, shotguns, compound bows, catapults, pea shooters (oh... forgot... they banned those!) and it astonishes me that anyone who shoots has the hypocracy to critiscise someone else who shoots just because of the type of gun they wish to use... they are all the same... metal pipe that fires a bullet or shot... VERY SIMPLES Edited February 23, 2011 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Exactly what he said I also used to shoot Police Pistol etc. in the early 80's and 90's, my favourite was my S&W 29 6 1/2" .44 magnum, loaded down it was an absolute joy to shoot, I also had a 9mm Beretta 92F but just couldn't get on with it. Now 20yrs later and returning to the sport I've put a .44 LBR on my FAC, not quite the same as my S&W but it's something I enjoy doing, no obsession or strange reasons, I just enjoy shooting handguns Edited February 23, 2011 by phaedra1106 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Do you think it's a good idea people who just want a handgun applying for one on the basis of "humane dispatch" in circumstances where they have no livestock to humanely dispatch i.e. it's a sham. Following on, given the strict licensing conditions we have in this country, precisely what will those people be doing with their humane dispatch pistols? You couldn't use one at a range (beyond zero-ing) nor could you use one outside unless you are walloping something from point blank, else (1) it would be a breach of the licensing condition and (2) you would actually be better served using a rifle. So what's the point beyond a mental attraction and obsession? What about fully automatic rifles - yeah I would fancy one of those, but honestly what would I or could I do with it? If it was legal for me to have one and shoot up wheel barrows on my farm, yes I would be all over it. It's not, so I don't worry about it and don't think of a million ways how I could *lie* to my FEO and think of a trumped up reason why I might need one. Edited February 23, 2011 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Of course, I'm an anti because I happen to think that there is a small minority who are genuinely clinically obsessed by having their handguns taken away, and that that is not healthy. This and other forums are littered with handgun ban threads working up and into bizarre and contrived discussions about getting a handgun for humane dispatch. It's all been done so many times before. So, yes I must be an anti to express a teensy bit of concern. This article sums it up completely for me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8039602/Show-off-surgeon-banned-from-owning-guns-as-risk-to-public.html with this extract: In the run up to his licences being revoked he had applied for a 6mm semi automatic pistol- to humanely dispatch injured sheep or lambs despite not having any. There's a few on here who would appear to want a handgun to humanely dispatch livestock they don't have.... but no, that's not me worrying that there are some nut nuts about, that's me being an "anti" Mungler... I reckon at least 50% of those that join gun clubs do so, not because they want to shoot and have a genuine interest in firearms but because they want to own a gun (mainly down to Hollywood!) but it would then be unfair to tar all gun club members with the same brush because of this..... It's not just handguns that give these guys a h*** *n... it's any type of firearm, shotties, rifles etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Do you think it's a good idea people who just want a handgun applying for one on the basis of "humane dispatch" in circumstances where they have no livestock to humanely dispatch i.e. it's a sham. Following on, given the strict licensing conditions we have in this country, precisely what will those people be doing with their humane dispatch pistols? You couldn't use one at a range (beyond zero-ing) nor could you use one outside unless you are walloping something from point blank, else (1) it would be a breach of the licensing condition and (2) you would actually be better served using a rifle. So what's the point beyond a mental attraction and obsession? What about fully automatic rifles - yeah I would fancy one of those, but honestly what would I or could I do with it? If it was legal for me to have one and shoot up wheel barrows on my farm, yes I would be all over it. It's not, so I don't worry about it and don't think of a million ways how I could *lie* to my FEO and think of a trumped up reason why I might need one. I was typing while you posting so missed that one.... Ok Mung... I think we are coming at this from different angles... I understand your point now which I fully agree with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I will tell you what ? there are a few on here that I wouldnt want to see have a hand gun . Harnser . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.