New consultation

[mossberg-operator]

It is called salami tactic. They will come for all firearms eventually. Logic doesn't apply in this. Why don't they enforce existing legislation?

[scobydog]

Done, what a waste of time, effort and money by the Government.

[king cj]

Done

[neutron619]

Done as carefully as I could.

 

It occurred to me when I was filling it in (and I put this in too) that the trained British Tommy of 1917 fired 10 aimed shots a minute with a bolt action rifle, thumb and forefinger on the bolt, middle finger on the trigger, and this often resulted in 10 dead enemy soldiers. On the other hand, the modern British squaddy, firing 30 rounds on semi- or full-automatic in 5 seconds or so, often hits nothing at all. In terms of risk to the public, I'd say there's an argument that a competent user of a bolt action rifle, inclined to commit mass murder, could be a lot more dangerous than someone just letting off rounds with what they're calling "rapid fire". Obviously I've never been in that kind of situation (thankfully) and recent events of Las Vegas come to mind, but I found it hard to see that the risk was substantially higher, if you allow for the fact that someone's deranged enough to do that sort of thing in the first place.

 

On a slightly less serious note, I suggested in the last section about "any comments with regard to the Equalities Act 2010?" that .50 calibre rifle owners, legitimate users of corrosive substances and cutlers should be afforded protected minority status under the provisions of an updated Equalities Act - they appear to need all the help they can get.

 

Edit: finally - whilst I couldn't fit it into my answers, it says in the consultation that to be effective at the lowest cost, banning .50 cal needs to prevent 1 homicide per year. Has anyone ever been murdered with a Section 1 .50 cal in this country? I highly doubt it - someone with a bit of space left might like to raise this question. By their own standard, the legislation isn't worth the effort.

Edited October 15, 2017 by neutron619

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Edit: finally - whilst I couldn't fit it into my answers, it says in the consultation that to be effective at the lowest cost, banning .50 cal needs to prevent 1 homicide per year. Has anyone ever been murdered with a Section 1 .50 cal in this country? I highly doubt it - someone with a bit of space left might like to raise this question. By their own standard, the legislation isn't worth the effort.

 

A couple of occasions in Northern Ireland when a belt fed heavy machine gun was fired at the same time as a large calibre sniping rifle to cover the report.

[ordnance]

 

A couple of occasions in Northern Ireland when a belt fed heavy machine gun was fired at the same time as a large calibre sniping rifle to cover the report.

Yes but they were illegal firearms, banning a type of firearm will not stop people getting them illegally. Its more to do with the police and government not wanting certain firearms in civilian ownership, the terrorist threat just gives them a excuse.

[king cj]

A terrorist threat pretty much entirely made by our own governments foreign policy over the last decades. And they don't trust us!

[Dave-G]

Done - with this in the firearms section reasoning:

 

No.

 

There has been no recorded loss of life, nor life changing, nor threatening crimes using the above listed weapon types to my knowledge. If you want this type of public consultation to carry any effective future integrity you should at least base the consultation on events that have actually occured, rather than simply looking for something that sounds good to dim witted liberals and the media.

 

 

This was my reply in the knife section - relating to the above:

 

Yes.

 

I have no examples but it seems to carry some merit. It's interesting that you invite evidence, scale, nature and likely impact in this section yet ask for nothing similar in your puerile section regarding firearms that have not even one credible incidence of any kind committed by members of the public.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I think it is also worth noting that a knife, a bottle of acid or a handgun are all concealable, a .5" sniping rifle is not.

[Flyboy1950]

I too have filled in the "consultation" raising previously mentioned points.

Also disagreed with people not being able to get posted "Street legal knives" and possessing "prohibited items(as deemed by our lords and masters)" within their own homes

Lately it seems as if the press is full of knife crime but how much of this is carried out with hunting/skinning blades?

My guess is the majority is carried out by the cheap and cheerful 6" kitchen knife, available from all good supermarkets, hardware stores and cooking utensil outlets, to name just a few! No mention of axes ,swords or machetes.

Must be strenuously resisted by all people with more than a dash of common sense, they (the powers that be) think we are all stupid, and we will be proven so once again if good people do nothing!