.17 hummer Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 This is Taken from Franks post It says it all really :thumbs: ................ Darragh was among 180 children in the playground when he fell to the ground after being struck by the bullet. Police believe it was a stray bullet from someone out shooting for vermin on nearby land. Officers have seized at least ten .22 rifles in an attempt to identify the owner of the weapon responsible and are also studying a list of registered firearm holders. ................................................................................ ...................................... ................We are human and therefore do and will **** up once in a while and hopefully when not out with a rifle in hand ................Why take the chance or increase the risk ! Dan ........your opinion is based on circumstances that won't be encountered over here ,but your still entitled to it Imo your right m8 they wont be encountered in in england, but even in oz , which is as vast as canada i still wouldnt shoot a rifle in the air. look , i seem to be the unluckiest $%^7 in the world and even 100 miles from the nearest tarmac road, i had visions of firing the 6.5 at a cat and it passing through the cat, then travelling god knows how far and hitting the only bloke for three hundred miles!!!! who had just stopped for a pee . i know nttf flock is an experienced shooter and thats why i said its his call, but the main point on this forum, which is host to a great many not so experienced shots, and a few antis, is that in the main, you should not shoot a rifle in the air. cheers dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadeye ive Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Dan ........your opinion is based on circumstances that won't be encountered over here ,but your still entitled to it Imo Whoops :thumbs: :blink: It was nttf i was refering to as he his also called Dan ...........By no means was it yourself .17 hummer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.17 hummer Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Dan ........your opinion is based on circumstances that won't be encountered over here ,but your still entitled to it Imo Whoops It was nttf i was refering to as he his also called Dan ...........By no means was it yourself .17 hummer no probs ive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 I really don't believe I'm reading some of this :< NO shot is 100% safe, there's always a risk. .22rf is solid lead and, therefore will deform on impact but not fragment. Ergo, if it passes through or clips something it will tumble and lose energy and still be lethal at quite a distance. BUT what if it doesn't??:lol:?? and kills someone at over a mile? Every shot should be risk assessed and any possible risk minimised. Shooting upwards with the side of a bloody great hill as a backstop IS acceptable. Shooting up into a tree where you can't possibly risk assess where the bullet may end up if something goes tits up is a totally irresponsible and an unacceptable risk even if you've got a few miles of nothing behind it. Even though there may be no possible chance of a human being in the line of fire, what about the off chance of injuring an animal that will then die slowly and inhumanely? It may be acceptable in Canada, but so is Celine Dione Someone said they'd do it in a country where it was legal. So if it's legal ignoring common sense is acceptable? Shooting up into a tree is a disaster waiting to happen. Someone else asked for statistics. Do you honestly want to wait for a death to be published before believing it happens? That's like what the local councils do when saying that they won't put traffic calming measures in a place because not enough people have been killed. And believe me, they've said it. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 I like the bit about common sense - a rare commodity that you can't buy and can't get a GCSE in (mind you, you might be able to buy a GCSE in common sense off the internet from the Karachi institute of higher education [or will swap for colour television]). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new to the flock Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Dave K I would like to thank you for letting me know that I am irresponsible and lacking in common scense NTTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 Population density link: http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/su...H/stats/den.htm UK ranked 33 Canada ranked 187 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 Dave K I would like to thank you for letting me know that I am irresponsible and lacking in common scense :( NTTF And also guilty of selective reading. But if the cap fits I'm sure you will willingly wear it Dave PS. I nptice there wasn't any comeback on the Celine Dione bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurcherboy Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 I feel awful now about shooting Possums with a .22 Ruger in New Zealand LB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 I really don't believe I'm reading some of this :< NO shot is 100% safe, there's always a risk. .22rf is solid lead and, therefore will deform on impact but not fragment. Ergo, if it passes through or clips something it will tumble and lose energy and still be lethal at quite a distance. BUT what if it doesn't??:lol:?? and kills someone at over a mile? Every shot should be risk assessed and any possible risk minimised. Shooting upwards with the side of a bloody great hill as a backstop IS acceptable. Shooting up into a tree where you can't possibly risk assess where the bullet may end up if something goes tits up is a totally irresponsible and an unacceptable risk even if you've got a few miles of nothing behind it. Even though there may be no possible chance of a human being in the line of fire, what about the off chance of injuring an animal that will then die slowly and inhumanely? It may be acceptable in Canada, but so is Celine Dione :( Someone said they'd do it in a country where it was legal. So if it's legal ignoring common sense is acceptable? Shooting up into a tree is a disaster waiting to happen. Someone else asked for statistics. Do you honestly want to wait for a death to be published before believing it happens? That's like what the local councils do when saying that they won't put traffic calming measures in a place because not enough people have been killed. And believe me, they've said it. :o Dave iam with you on this one i would also question the safety of the person who would even think this may be a viable shot what do you think is a safe shot????? i know for one i would not like to be anywhere near you when you are shooting as if you think shooting up in the air is safe do you also think a mole hill is a safe back drop???? and you all wonder why we have so many laws :( :( :( :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 In Canada it is not illegal, nor considered unsafe, to shoot a racoon in a tree, with the trunk as a back drop. There is no debate, that is a fact and that is what nttf stated. I am closing this thread as it is serving no useful purpose anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts