loriusgarrulus Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 +1 I dont believe normal members of the public should be able to own military grade weapons or stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition.. no problem with hunting/target rifles but weapons designed to fire 100s of rounds a minute on full auto need banning to members of the public.. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuffy Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 +1 I dont believe normal members of the public should be able to own military grade weapons or stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition.. no problem with hunting/target rifles but weapons designed to fire 100s of rounds a minute on full auto need banning to members of the public.. You can't own these weapons here . What goes on across the pond is their business . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retsdon Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 In theory there are restrictions on fully auto weapons anywhere in the States. In practice, pretty much anyone can mod their rifle for the price of an aftermarket trigger kit. https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/new-trigger-makes-ar-15s-nearly-full-auto/ https://tacconusa.com/products/view.php?id=45 ....and it's all perfectly legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 In theory there are restrictions on fully auto weapons anywhere in the States. In practice, pretty much anyone can mod their rifle for the price of an aftermarket trigger kit. https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/new-trigger-makes-ar-15s-nearly-full-auto/ https://tacconusa.com/products/view.php?id=45 ....and it's all perfectly legal. Its not making it full auto, it just gives a shorter trigger reset allowing faster trigger pull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonepark Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 It's not the tool, it's the person. Apparently the man involved had a pilots license and 2 light aircraft. He could have probably as easily loaded one up to its max limit with fuel and more internally and kamikazed into the crowd with a very similar effect. Would there then be a similar call to restrict the private ownership of light aircraft as there is no requirement to own one personally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Sounds to me like a lone gunman, I.S. already on the bandwagon claiming responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 +1 I dont believe normal members of the public should be able to own military grade weapons or stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition.. no problem with hunting/target rifles but weapons designed to fire 100s of rounds a minute on full auto need banning to members of the public.. Why just auto weapons, it could be argued that any firearm ownership, be that in the USA or the UK, other than for farmers and the like should be banned. Is there really any need for people to keep and use firearms for a hobby. Why I could ask is there, in the UK, such a growing popularity in semi auto AR lookalike black rifles, after all, such a military looking weapon is not necessary to kill a rabbit, should these be banned. But as Stonepark quite rightly said, it's people that kill and deranged people will find any method, be that a white van, an airplane or a homemade bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retsdon Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Its not making it full auto, it just gives a shorter trigger reset allowing faster trigger pull. Well, technically yes. But in reality the trigger is being pulled by the recoil of the previous round. Did you watch the video? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Sounds to me like a lone gunman, I.S. already on the bandwagon claiming responsibility. hello, stated a 64 year old male from Nevada on latest news, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) Well, technically yes. But in reality the trigger is being pulled by the recoil of the previous round. Did you watch the video? No its not the trigger is being pulled by the shooter so its semi/ auto, you can see him pulling the trigger watch his finger. Did you watch the video. ? Edited October 2, 2017 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retsdon Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 No its not the trigger is being pulled by the shooter, you can see him pulling the trigger watch his finger. Fair enough. I'll stand corrected. Nonetheless,these aftermarket triggers can put out rates of fire of 400 rpm and that's not a great deal slower than a bren gun! https://www.google.com.sa/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=%23&ved=0ahUKEwjB3I_80tLWAhWgOsAKHZOEAD4Qxa8BCC0wBQ&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blade Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Like the old saying Guns don't kill people People with guns kill people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Fair enough. I'll stand corrected. Nonetheless,these aftermarket triggers can put out rates of fire of 400 rpm and that's not a great deal slower than a bren gun! https://www.google.com.sa/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=%23&ved=0ahUKEwjB3I_80tLWAhWgOsAKHZOEAD4Qxa8BCC0wBQ&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov Or you could bump fire it. How to Bumpfire an AK47 / AR15 Rifle - YouTube Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) As usual a lot of people are completely missing the point. It's no good saying "guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people" and just leaving it at that. It's an absolute dereliction of responsibility. By that rationale if all planes were grounded nobody would die in an air crash. The CAA, FAA and NTSB et al are there to make sure flying is as safe as it can be. Isn't it too much to ask that the same can't be applied to firearms? What about a more accurate quote, "guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people because a flawed political system allows unreasonable pressure to be put on ANY politician that wants to be elected to allow almost anyone unbridled access to firearms." QED. Edited October 2, 2017 by Thunderbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 guns do not kill people that is a fact a gun is a machine it does not think the bullet fired from a gun kills the action of the human kills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 guns do not kill people that is a fact a gun is a machine it does not think the bullet fired from a gun kills the action of the human kills Yep, I'm aware of all that, but using that as the argument as a justification for uncontrolled access to firearms does not make any sense. Here's why; You can't chuck a load of live hand grenades into a toddler's pen as toys, and then after the inevitable carnage blame the toddlers, not the system that allowed them the grenades in the first place. Some might think that's a bizarre analogy, but is it? There might be a few toddlers who may take very seriously their hand-grenade-owning responsibility, even the majority might, but still, is it wise to give hand grenades to toddlers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Yep, I'm aware of all that, but using that as the argument as a justification for uncontrolled access to firearms does not make any sense. Here's why; You can't chuck a load of live hand grenades into a toddler's pen as toys, and then after the inevitable carnage blame the toddlers, not the system that allowed them the grenades in the first place. Some might think that's a bizarre analogy, but is it? There might be a few toddlers who may take very seriously their hand-grenade-owning responsibility, even the majority might, but still, is it wise to give hand grenades to toddlers? Not a bad analogy at all really. Too many of the American gun owning public seem to have the mentality of a toddler. Maybe that's why there are so many accidental deaths over there? The old saying of 10 pint hats and 2 pint heads comes to mind. It's a bloody awful thing to have happened though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Shameful comment. My thoughts are with all the people injured and killed. Its not the fairies that vote in the people who make laws that says that any nutter can buy a fully automatic gun it is these people who got shot I'm sorry but if they have not got the gumption to do something about it that is there fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Yep, I'm aware of all that, but using that as the argument as a justification for uncontrolled access to firearms does not make any sense. Here's why; You can't chuck a load of live hand grenades into a toddler's pen as toys, and then after the inevitable carnage blame the toddlers, not the system that allowed them the grenades in the first place. Some might think that's a bizarre analogy, but is it? There might be a few toddlers who may take very seriously their hand-grenade-owning responsibility, even the majority might, but still, is it wise to give hand grenades to toddlers? if I chucked live hand grenades into a playpen then any legal system in the world would not blame the children I never used the word "uncontrolled" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) I have to say that I have little sympathy for for the American people who got shot... 58 dead and over 500 injured. I wonder what the dead and injured children, pacifists, pensioners etc make of your comment (and some of the other comments on here). Tasteless has found new meaning. I do wonder what the commentary would have been if this wasnt a Country and Western event (with the gun slinging pro-Trump overtone), but say an American Muslim prayer meeting, a national spelling bee event or a pregnant women against abortion rally. . Edited October 2, 2017 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 58 dead and over 500 injured. I wonder what the dead and injured children, pacifists, pensioners etc make of your comment (and some of the other comments on here). Tasteless has found new meaning. I do wonder what the commentary would have been if this wasnt a Country and Western event (with the gun slinging pro-Trump overtone), but say an American Muslim rally, a national spelling bee event or a pregnant women against abortion rally. . + 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) if I chucked live hand grenades into a playpen then any legal system in the world would not blame the children I never used the word "uncontrolled" . I didnt actually say that you did. I called you out on using the same old tired and worn out argument that has long since moved into the not fit for purpose category. And because you cant ban people youve really only got one choice left; to try to do something to control their access to guns, or to not. Edited October 2, 2017 by Thunderbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 . I didnt actually say that you did. I called you out on using the same old tired and worn out argument that has long since moved into the not fit for purpose category. you called me out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 you called me out Well your sexual preference is your own affair but out of respect for the victims you should get back on topic 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) Its the classic issue of if we started afresh, we wouldnt be starting here. Alcohol and cigarettes would be Class B and illegal and anything other than to 5 shots and bolt action would be a no no. Im sure the Yanks know this (we know it when it comes to booze and fags) but the screw them, what did they expect stuff is a touch heavy. Im sure most of the USA knows that they need firearm control but how? Anyone want to have a go getting fags and booze banned... Alcohol kills more than terrorism and domestic shootings every year but you wouldnt go shoving it down the throat of someone dying from liver cancer nor would you berate anyone who unsuccessfully campaigned to ban the sale of alcohol for not getting it done. . Edited October 2, 2017 by Mungler 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.