JonathanL Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 This topic highlights why shooting will die in the uk. A AWB in the USA will do nothing other than kill practical rifle comps, just like it did here. If you love our sport some of you need to think before you post, dumblane and hunger ford might not have affected your chosen type of shooting, but I can promise you with what guns are left it won't be long before they target you. Shooters are a small group of people, we need to stand together before they take all the guns away and we are forced to play golf :-( No it won't because it will be the same as the last one in that it will be a show of 'doing something' rather than actually doing anything. Nothing will, in fact, be 'banned'. What will happen is that, like last time they did this, they will 'ban' new guns being sold. Exisiting ones will not be and can still be freely sold. Moreoever, an 'assault weapon', like last time, will be defined upon totally arbitrary cosmetic features that won't make a jot of diofference to what you can buy in the real world. If they were to actually ban semi-auto rifles then you would have a point but they won't. The most drastic thing that will happen is a magazine restirction back to 10 rounds. Again, this won't make any difference as existing ones will still be able to be sold and a 10 round restriction is hardly much to worry about. It is, to be honest, pretty disgusting. This ban won't actually change anything (just like the last one didn't). The whole thing is being used by the Democrats as a cheap political shot on the back of lots of dead kids as they know full well that it wouldn't have made any difference had it already have been in force. It's all just so much window dressing. What the Americans should really being doing is addressing their pathetic health care system in regards to mental health treatment. That costs money though - pretending to ban some guns doesn't. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweedledee Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) No it won't because it will be the same as the last one in that it will be a show of 'doing something' rather than actually doing anything. Nothing will, in fact, be 'banned'. What will happen is that, like last time they did this, they will 'ban' new guns being sold. Exisiting ones will not be and can still be freely sold. Moreoever, an 'assault weapon', like last time, will be defined upon totally arbitrary cosmetic features that won't make a jot of diofference to what you can buy in the real world. If they were to actually ban semi-auto rifles then you would have a point but they won't. The most drastic thing that will happen is a magazine restirction back to 10 rounds. Again, this won't make any difference as existing ones will still be able to be sold and a 10 round restriction is hardly much to worry about. It is, to be honest, pretty disgusting. This ban won't actually change anything (just like the last one didn't). The whole thing is being used by the Democrats as a cheap political shot on the back of lots of dead kids as they know full well that it wouldn't have made any difference had it already have been in force. It's all just so much window dressing. What the Americans should really being doing is addressing their pathetic health care system in regards to mental health treatment. That costs money though - pretending to ban some guns doesn't. J. No it won't because it will be the same as the last one in that it will be a show of 'doing something' rather than actually doing anything. Nothing will, in fact, be 'banned'. What will happen is that, like last time they did this, they will 'ban' new guns being sold. Exisiting ones will not be and can still be freely sold. Moreoever, an 'assault weapon', like last time, will be defined upon totally arbitrary cosmetic features that won't make a jot of diofference to what you can buy in the real world. If they were to actually ban semi-auto rifles then you would have a point but they won't. The most drastic thing that will happen is a magazine restirction back to 10 rounds. Again, this won't make any difference as existing ones will still be able to be sold and a 10 round restriction is hardly much to worry about. It is, to be honest, pretty disgusting. This ban won't actually change anything (just like the last one didn't). The whole thing is being used by the Democrats as a cheap political shot on the back of lots of dead kids as they know full well that it wouldn't have made any difference had it already have been in force. It's all just so much window dressing. What the Americans should really being doing is addressing their pathetic health care system in regards to mental health treatment. That costs money though - pretending to ban some guns doesn't. J. Edited December 20, 2012 by tweedledee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One ! I wonder which dreamworld Sam Williams lives in? Kinda different story when its not a set up and the instructors/gunmen don't know who is armed and target them first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I wonder which dreamworld Sam Williams lives in? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-hJGppkOFA Kinda different story when its not a set up and the instructors/gunmen don't know who is armed and target them first An even better find... I did think, after watching the ABC vid that the gunman was immediately targetting the armed individual as soon as they entered the room and emptying a clip at them... to be fair, even a seasoned cop who puts hours of practice/training in every week would be unlikely to come out of that scenarioin one piece... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Because in every other example you gave there you stated the same thing... Just dawned on me, when 7/7 happened, we didn't blame the rucksacks did we? We blamed the terrorist. - rucksacks don't kill people, terrorists (people) kill people When the Barcelona bombings happened, we blamed neither the bombs nor the trains in which they went off. Bombs & trains don't kill people, terrorists (people) kill people When 9/11 happened, we didn't blame the planes did we? We blamed the terrorists. Planes don't kill people, terrorists (people) kill people Therefore, the same goes with that argument..... guns don't kill people, people kill people If what you are saying were in the correct context then we WOULD be blaming the bombs, trains, rucksacks & planes and NOT the people who perpetrated the acts! we also didn't need to ban bombs as they are already banned, we also don't need to stop unlicensed people flying planes as erm thats banned so the only one left is guns which the US reckon everyone is entitled access to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakari Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Those you tube clips on (Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One) are are complete load of old tosh..... I carried (mostly) concealed for many years and that just ain't how you do it. If done correctly, a handgun can be drawn and ready to use in a very fast and fluid movement and believe me, when people don't expect it as they don't with a concealed weapon, just the sight of it is pretty darn effective and attention getting. If carried in view so everyone can see the gun it's nowhere near as effective as when one just seems to appear out of nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 we also didn't need to ban bombs as they are already banned, we also don't need to stop unlicensed people flying planes as erm thats banned so the only one left is guns which the US reckon everyone is entitled access to not arguing with him Alex, just pointing out that his post completely contradicted itself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Those you tube clips on (Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One) are are complete load of old tosh..... I carried (mostly) concealed for many years and that just ain't how you do it. If done correctly, a handgun can be drawn and ready to use in a very fast and fluid movement and believe me, when people don't expect it as they don't with a concealed weapon, just the sight of it is pretty darn effective and attention getting. If carried in view so everyone can see the gun it's nowhere near as effective as when one just seems to appear out of nowhere. I quite agree. You don't set out to demonstrate something by using a test which is designed to fail. It was clearly obvious to anyone with a brain that the fact that the guy was given an oversized shirt was to prevent him from drawing the gun. And, yes, it did look like he was the intended target of the 'shooter' to begin with. Also, it appeared that the test was designed around someone carrying with an empty chamber which entailed operating the slide to chamber a round which, again, seemed to exist for no more reason than to slow him down by creating extra things to pre-occupy him. It serves no purpose carrying any auto-loading pistol like that and is even more redundant with a Glock as they were designed to be carried with a round in the chamber! Of course, if he'd managed to shoot the pretend assailant it would never have been broadcast. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fse10 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 No, you are mis-reading me. The only thing they can not be used for it target shooting. They can be possessed as tropies of war, for humane dispatch, for starting races at athletic meetings, under two exeptions contained in section 7 of the Act, and as exempt antiques. The point I was making is that, in effect,. nothing has changed apart from the fact that you cannot have a pistol for target shooting. Every deer stalker could get anauthority for am otherwise banned pistol tomorrow. If they did so then that would probably bring the numbers of private individuals owning them back up to the level it was prior to 1997. J. sorry thought the only thing you could own a long barrel pistol for was target shooting? Or am i mis-reading the post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fse10 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 You can in this part of the UK. And the isle of man i think as to why we on the main land should be classed as unfit to own target pistol's & not those still in parts of the uk i don't know O wait votes thats right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 And the isle of man i think as to why we on the main land should be classed as unfit to own target pistol's & not those still in parts of the uk i don't know O wait votes thats right! Quote Mo Mowlam MP. The Secretary of State took the view that sporting users of hand guns should also be enabled to retain their weapons, in view of "the excellent safety record of local target shooters and their clear commitment to maintaining the highest standards of personal behaviour and practice within their sport". This might be seen as an exceptional step, compared to the changes introduced elsewhere in the United Kingdom following Lord Cullen's report on the Dunblane shootings. The Ulster Rifle Association informed us that the handguns held in Northern Ireland for target shooting purposes are held under very strict controls and present no public safety concerns whatsoever. They were of the view that a prohibition on handguns would be disproportionate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxtond Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 And that's why the pistol ban makes no sense and needs to be challanged. But typical uk shooters have the view of meh no point it doesn't effect me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Politics in both Britain and the US has become a TV ratings game for professional politicians and placemen. Their primary motivation is re-election. They will use legislative power for that purpose before all else. That is why America can produce no sensible gun control while Britain effectively bans target shooting. It doesn't matter what works, its what persuades nervous and uninformed people to put crosses on ballot papers that gets passed. Edited December 20, 2012 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 This topic highlights why shooting will die in the uk. A AWB in the USA will do nothing other than kill practical rifle comps, just like it did here. If you love our sport some of you need to think before you post, dumblane and hunger ford might not have affected your chosen type of shooting, but I can promise you with what guns are left it won't be long before they target you. Shooters are a small group of people, we need to stand together before they take all the guns away and we are forced to play golf :-( I'm with you but it saddens me to see a number of people posting views that basically says sod you my little bit of sport is OK. Said it before and I'll say it again. Apathy WILL kill opur sport and probably in my lifetime too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 It doesn't matter what works, its what persuades nervous and uninformed people to put crosses on ballot papers that gets passed. Exactly. I think everyone can just about understand the parents,relatives,families and most of the general public crying out for a ban following the shootings at Dunblane,which is why there can be no place for emotion regarding legislative decisions.All politicians know this,but the cynical,egotistical and power hungry Blair knew that by having his photo taken with the leader of the snowdrop campaign and by promising to legislate not only against .22 rf handguns(which the Tories would allow) but also centre-fire, he was onto a sure-fire winner regarding votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Exactly. I think everyone can just about understand the parents,relatives,families and most of the general public crying out for a ban following the shootings at Dunblane,which is why there can be no place for emotion regarding legislative decisions.All politicians know this,but the cynical,egotistical and power hungry Blair knew that by having his photo taken with the leader of the snowdrop campaign and by promising to legislate not only against .22 rf handguns(which the Tories would allow) but also centre-fire, he was onto a sure-fire winner regarding votes. Yes, Blair. And when he'd done flashing his teeth for Snowdrop he took Britain into 5 wars which killed hundreds of thousands of people, and allowed his chancellor to raid the MOD's equipment budget while the men and women who depended on it were actually engaged in fighting his wars. Buying votes is always a squalid spectacle but it will never get lower than that. And now he's made himself fabulously wealthy by lecturing the rest of the world on how to live in peace. Ah yes, Blair. A pretty straight kinda guy.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Ah yes, Blair. A pretty straight kinda guy.............. I'm not particularly fond of any Politicians,but I'm quite surprised at just how much I actually despise that man.What was it someone once said of him; 'When you can fake sincerity,you've got it cracked.'?Something like that anyhow. My apologies for drifting off topic,but it's just the effect he has on me! Edited December 21, 2012 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakari Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Having watched the NRA's statement,, I have to say they gave a VERY good response and I can't find fault in anything they said........ Their suggestions are (to me at least) a bloody good idea! Here's a transcript: http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf As for Bliar and the rest of 'em, if I had my way, they'd all be on trial for treason, waging illegal war and genocide. Edited December 21, 2012 by shakari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 reading on a us forum, some one said the parents should pay. for armed guards,its for there saftey, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 reading on a us forum, some one said the parents should pay. for armed guards,its for there saftey, Whats to stop one of the armed guards going on a shooting spree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakari Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 If the US can afford all that foreign aid that achieves nothing, so many illegal & pointless wars and so many other pointless projects they can afford an armed cop in every school without batting an eyelid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 If armed guards at every school are required then something is clearly wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Whats to stop one of the armed guards going on a shooting spree. a good point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) armed cop in every school without batting an eyelid! Secure the schools and the the shooter will just go some were else there is a easy target. Edited December 21, 2012 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxtond Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Secure the schools and the the shooter will just go some wear else there is a easy target. hence the nra's plan to totally remove gun free zones 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.