the Hungerford Massacre

[Mungler]

37 minutes ago, Scully said:

I knew it was going to get round to this, so I'll stick my two pennarth worth in before it's locked, or completely deleted for what ever reason the airgun licensing thread was. I really really really don't care how the rest of the country see us; if you're shooting live quarry, then there are those who regard it as fine, but equally there are those who regard it as killing for fun; the fact being none of us NEED to do it, we do it because we get enjoyment from it. You can dress it up anyway you choose, and deceive yourself as much as you want, but that's why you're doing it....for leisure. I don't think anyone who shoots any living creature for 'sport' is in any position to criticise anyone who merely wants to shoot targets; whether it's wheelbarrows or paper bullseyes. 

Those of us who shoot live quarry as a leisure activity couldn't do anything to appease those who just can't conceive that there are people amongst us capable of such things. I really really couldn't care less what they think. 

I'm all for winning the battles I can, but most shooters seem to regard those of us most likely to let rip with a full mag' into a wheelbarrow as some kind of threat, but there's nothing to stop me doing that with my self loader or pump, but strangely it's something I've never done.  Regardless of whether it shows a massive lack of self awareness ( which I dispute ) on my part, I'd still argue, as someone who has been deemed fit to own S1 firearms, that I should therefore be deemed fit to choose an AK47 if I so wished. The fact I don't wish to own one is neither here nor there. I wasn't anymore responsible for the deaths of those at Hungerford than I was for those at Dunblane, yet I was made to feel so by association, by the general public, the media, the politicians, the police and yes, fellow shooters who regarded us types as Walts.  I really really couldn't care less what the general public think of me. 

Following the shootings in Cumbria, we were very very lucky to survive, but those amongst us who for some implausible reason, appear to be claiming the moral high ground over others, should keep in mind that there is absolutely nothing in place to prevent another happening tomorrow with any of the 'sporting' firearms some are keen to point out that they own, and we are currently deemed fit to possess. Let's face it, those precious  'sporting' firearms that some feel justified in owning, are all that are legally left to own. I doubt we'll be so lucky next time.  

 

 

 

Take a breath, it’s not about moral high ground; I’m not sure how you even got there. 

There are a ‘minority’ within the country who are totally anti field sports but the majority are broadly supportive which is why we have laws that allow us to shoot.

However, it is when we lose the support of the majority we lose; if the majority say ‘no’ then we do have to listen, pay attention to their views and strike a balance - we can’t ignore them or that and carry on regardless.

Whilst I don’t think the handgun ban has achieved much as the bad chaps still use them, I agree that there should be a ban on semi auto assault rifles and I’m in the majority on that one.

This thread started with the critique that Hungerford shouldn’t be mentioned or discussed at all on a Shooting forum because it’s detrimental to Shooting and shooters. I disagree, it happened, we can’t ignore that it happened or the consequences. It’s probably better for Shooting that we acknowledge and concede the battles that can’t be won and fight that ones that can.

Given what’s happened and continues to happen in the US with assault rifles I cannot see a set a circumstances where AK47’s come back on the menu nor could I see any plausible argument that they should - indeed, if a genie granted you a wish and you could wish for the legalisation of semi automatic assault rifles tomorrow would you do it? I wouldn’t but that’s my view, nothing more, nothing less.

And as for locking this thread, why? Is any of this that contentious? 

 

 

[ordnance]

There is no need for any body in this country needing an assault rifle or any Calibre larger than 30 calibre . Unless they go abroad to shoot big dangerous game . 

18 hours ago, Harnser said:

The trouble is there are lots of people who have tickets and have legal guns on them and hardly ever shoot them . Gun nuts . This was more prevalent when we had hand guns . Lots of gun nuts in those days . The club that I belonged to reckoned that less than half the membership actually shot their hand guns on the range .  There is no need for any body in this country needing an assault rifle or any Calibre larger than 30 calibre . Unless they go abroad to shoot big dangerous game . 

Harnser

What do you define as a gun nut. ? I am not sure how often someone shoots has anything to do with a persons suitability to own firearms.  

[Duckandswing]

Shall I tell you what I sometimes wish.

I wish I could shoot a lever action winchester.

I wish I could shoot a colt 1911.

I wish I could shoot a Thomson m1a1.

I wish I could shoot a single action army.

Etc etc etc

I can’t in this country. So I shoot my shotguns.

I do this safely. I would shoot the above safely. I’d even shoot them at a range and hand them over afterwards for safe storage. I can’t though.

 

I don’t need to shoot anything, but I love it. It really is that simple.

i also collect militaria and the like.

I don’t know what that makes me? A gun nut? I’m not entirely sure.

I am with Scully on this. Why can we not have what we want? 

 

[rimmie]

3 minutes ago, Duckandswing said:

Shall I tell you what I sometimes wish.

I wish I could shoot a lever action winchester.

I wish I could shoot a colt 1911.

I wish I could shoot a Thomson m1a1.

I wish I could shoot a single action army.

Etc etc etc

I can’t in this country. So I shoot my shotguns.

I do this safely. I would shoot the above safely. I’d even shoot them at a range and hand them over afterwards for safe storage. I can’t though.

 

I don’t need to shoot anything, but I love it. It really is that simple.

i also collect militaria and the like.

I don’t know what that makes me? A gun nut? I’m not entirely sure.

I am with Scully on this. Why can we not have what we want? 

 

You can shoot a lever action very easily with a FAC. And a single action army, all be it in black powder. 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

 

Take a breath, it’s not about moral high ground; I’m not sure how you even got there. 

There are a ‘minority’ within the country who are totally anti field sports but the majority are broadly supportive which is why we have laws that allow us to shoot.

However, it is when we lose the support of the majority we lose; if the majority say ‘no’ then we do have to listen, pay attention to their views and strike a balance - we can’t ignore them or that and carry on regardless.

Whilst I don’t think the handgun ban has achieved much as the bad chaps still use them, I agree that there should be a ban on semi auto assault rifles and I’m in the majority on that one.

This thread started with the critique that Hungerford shouldn’t be mentioned or discussed at all on a Shooting forum because it’s detrimental to Shooting and shooters. I disagree, it happened, we can’t ignore that it happened or the consequences. It’s probably better for Shooting that we acknowledge and concede the battles that can’t be won and fight that ones that can.

Given what’s happened and continues to happen in the US with assault rifles I cannot see a set a circumstances where AK47’s come back on the menu nor could I see any plausible argument that they should - indeed, if a genie granted you a wish and you could wish for the legalisation of semi automatic assault rifles tomorrow would you do it? I wouldn’t but that’s my view, nothing more, nothing less.

And as for locking this thread, why? Is any of this that contentious? 

 

 

Admittedly the moral high ground sentence wasn’t aimed directly at you, but there are those in this thread, who in the past, have claimed it by dint of stating their firearms are only used for ‘sporting purposes’, as if the rest of us used ours for any other purpose.

I’d vote for the reintroduction of CF self loaders tomorrow ( and handguns ) genie or otherwise, and I couldn’t care less what the publics perception of that is. Of course no civilian  ‘needs’ an assault rifle and armour piercing ammo, but what constitutes an ‘assault rifle’? It’s appearance? It’s design? It’s function? Is an AK47 or M16 platform derivative in .22rf an assault rifle? The only thing which makes a self loader an assault rifle in the US, is a military calibre/design and ( specifically ) magazine capacity.

There are many examples of civilian self loading CF rifles, and most of the main manufacturers have included them in their catalogues at one time or another, all of which have a ‘sporting’  purpose. None have military capacity magazines. 

I could achieve an impressive rate of fire with my T3 and a bag full of magazines if I chose to; no one seems to question this. 

A BP revolver and a bag full of loaded cylinders, in experienced hands can achieve an impressive rate of fire, all of which is perfectly legal.

Yes, we do have to listen when the majority vote, but that doesn’t mean I am willing to accept it, nor does it mean I’ll stop fighting against it. Nor does it stop me being annoyed at such times when logic and common sense is replaced for nothing more than political expediency, and even more so when that lack of logic and common sense is aimed at shooters, ( with at times a large dose of derision ) from other shooters. 

Differing opinions I have no problem with, but they have to have their basis in logic and common sense, and I can see both in an ‘assault’ rifle ban, but not a self loading CF ban. 

[Westley]

22 hours ago, Walker570 said:

Don't need to watch as I remember it well.  Back then all force firearms units where on demand from regular officers where ever they may be.  Operational units did not come into force until much later.  I remember discussing what our reaction time would have been when on our next training day and ..yes... it was over an hour.

+ 1 to that !

[rimmie]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

There is no need for any body in this country needing an assault rifle or any Calibre larger than 30 calibre . Unless they go abroad to shoot big dangerous game . 

What do you define as a gun nut. ? I am not sure how often someone shoots has anything to do with a persons suitability to own firearms.  

And it’s this type of attitude that’s let’s types of firearms get banned. It’s the “I only shoot a shotgun, so don’t care about rifles” or “I only shoot prone rifle, so I don’t care about semi auto or lever actions” 

 

we are all shooters, we should have the right to shoot what we like (with in reason)

just because you don’t shot/like a certain discipline, you should still be backing it. 

 

Nobody  needs a car that can go 200 mph when the limit is 70 mph. 

[Scully]

To be fair I think the top line in the post you've quoted by Ordnance was a quotation from another poster rather than being a statement by him.

I was most definitely a 'gun nut' back in the days of handguns, ( still am...I love guns ) as were most of my friends, but rather than hardly ever shoot them, we had ALL ours out on range days! 'Swaps' was the name of the game and we had some great days. We must have got through some ammunition! 

I can't think of one of those club members who isn't still shooting today ( with the exception of those whom have since died ) so I'm assuming they're still 'gun nuts'. 

[Houseplant]

It’s funny, I could go and buy an AR15 right now, or any large calibre rifle I fancied and no one would bat an eyelid, but I have zero interest in such things. My 7mm08 bolt action is more than enough gun for the foreseeable future and I find semi-automatic rifles deeply unappealing.

[Graham M]

3 hours ago, Duckandswing said:

Shall I tell you what I sometimes wish.

I wish I could shoot a lever action Winchester.

I wish I could shoot a colt 1911.

I wish I could shoot a Thomson m1a1.

I wish I could shoot a single action army.

Etc etc etc

I can’t in this country. So I shoot my shotguns.

I do this safely. I would shoot the above safely. I’d even shoot them at a range and hand them over afterwards for safe storage. I can’t though.

 

I don’t need to shoot anything, but I love it. It really is that simple.

i also collect militaria and the like.

I don’t know what that makes me? A gun nut? I’m not entirely sure.

I am with Scully on this. Why can we not have what we want? 

 

Don't know where you get these thoughts from.

I own a Winchester Legacy U/L

I am in the process of getting a variation for a .44Cal 1858 pistol

I shoot prone match rifle and wear a funny coat.

I shoot deer with a BIG rifle .

I shoot foxes with a BIG rifle  

I have a Marlin 39A

A .17Hmr 

etc,etc,etc

Does that make me a gun nut???

 

No, it makes me someone who enjoys different aspects of shooting sports using different tools for each part of that particular sport.

 

We only need a .22 Hornet for foxes, so let's ban all other .22 CF rifles.

We only need a .308 for deer so let's ban everything else.

 

Just because someone chooses to be different doesn't make them dangerous. And when someone turns up at the local range wearing full cammo and a knife strapped to their leg, it usually turns out to be a bloody air gunner who is a Rambo wannabee.

 

[Walker570]

As above, could not have put it better.  As the old saying goes, "it is the nut behind the wheel" and in virtually all cases of the illegal use of legally held guns it has been the fault of the police force issuing the license to do the job properly and some of this is down to there not being a local Bobby these days who knew his parishoners.  I go back to the times when it was the local Bobby who made the Licensing visits on his patch and submitted the report.   BUT fortunately these incidents are few and far between and I'm afraid it is impossible to legislate against the occasional bad egg.  Look at the incident yesterday when the airport worker stole the aircraft a situation impossible to predict but no reason to clamp down on the movements of ALL airport workers as a result.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Walker570

[Whitester]

On 10 August 2018 at 21:54, ordnance said:

If you want to go down that road, of all the people that have firearms shotguns etc how many really need them. 

Err I do. I need a shotgun for pigeons and clays, I need an hmr for rabbits and I need a 243 for fox, muntjac and roe???

[oldypigeonpopper]

On 11/08/2018 at 09:50, Houseplant said:

Do you NEED to shoot a deer though? I'm just playing devils advocate. Like many people I don't need to shoot any animals or targets, or indeed own any guns. I should imagine that very few do. 

hello, this is by and large a shooting forum?????

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, having lived very close to Hungerford at the time there has alway been a lot of speculation on the TRUTH of this tragic event,

[ordnance]

3 hours ago, Whitester said:

Err I do. I need a shotgun for pigeons and clays, I need an hmr for rabbits and I need a 243 for fox, muntjac and roe???

You don't need it as you don't need to go hunting or clay pigeon shooting. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

5 minutes ago, ordnance said:

You don't need it as you don't need to go hunting or clay pigeon shooting. 

hello, if your against any form of shooting why are you on this forum????

[ordnance]

3 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

hello, if your against any form of shooting why are you on this forum????

Hello i am not against any form of shooting.  Just pointing out few need firearms, just wanting them is good enough for me. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

Hello i am not against any form of shooting.  Just pointing out few need firearms, just wanting them is good enough for me. 

hello, thankyou for your reply

[Whitester]

21 hours ago, ordnance said:

You don't need it as you don't need to go hunting or clay pigeon shooting. 

But I do go clay pigeon shooting and hunting therefore I have a need for it.  That's like saying that you don't need shoes because we were all born with feet. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Whitester

[Graham M]

21 hours ago, ordnance said:

You don't need it as you don't need to go hunting or clay pigeon shooting. 

That logic could be applied to everything in life.

You don't NEED a car because you could walk or catch the bus.

You don't NEED a TV 

You don't NEED clothes 

etc,etc,etc.

And if HM government took your stance we would all be in trouble, as we would be told that we don't NEED to shoot at all.

 

[Rewulf]

On 11/08/2018 at 19:53, Duckandswing said:

Shall I tell you what I sometimes wish.

I wish I could shoot a lever action winchester.

I wish I could shoot a colt 1911.

I wish I could shoot a Thomson m1a1.

I wish I could shoot a single action army.

Etc etc etc

I can’t in this country. So I shoot my shotguns.

I do this safely. I would shoot the above safely. I’d even shoot them at a range and hand them over afterwards for safe storage. I can’t though.

 

 

As has been mentioned, owning and using a lever action 'winchester ' style rifle  in up to .44 magnum is no issue, you will need club membership, as it is rare for it to be used on land.
You can own and shoot a 1911(and other historical handguns ) in this country at certain sec 7 clubs, you cant take it home though.

The Thompson can be used in France, you can use a French club on a day trip, various firearms clubs liase with the French on this.

Single action black powder pistols are pretty common here, I have a Rem 1858, ****** to clean afterwards , but good fun.
There are LBPs in everything from .22lr to .44 mag, Westlake do some .357 nitro revolvers, that are pretty much like shooting a 'real' centre fire revolver.

On 11/08/2018 at 18:01, Mungler said:

 

There are a ‘minority’ within the country who are totally anti field sports but the majority are broadly supportive which is why we have laws that allow us to shoot.

However, it is when we lose the support of the majority we lose; if the majority say ‘no’ then we do have to listen, pay attention to their views and strike a balance - we can’t ignore them or that and carry on regardless.

Whilst I don’t think the handgun ban has achieved much as the bad chaps still use them, I agree that there should be a ban on semi auto assault rifles and I’m in the majority on that one.

 

Given what’s happened and continues to happen in the US with assault rifles I cannot see a set a circumstances where AK47’s come back on the menu nor could I see any plausible argument that they should - indeed, if a genie granted you a wish and you could wish for the legalisation of semi automatic assault rifles tomorrow would you do it? I wouldn’t but that’s my view, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Personally, I think you have it the wrong way round.
I believe we dont have majority support, if it were put to a vote, most people in this country would vote to ban all private guns, unless your job specifically needed one , farmers , pest controllers ect.
Clays could still be shot , and game days ect , but the guns would be hired at the grounds.
Why ? Because the general public think guns are bad/dangerous/kill people, its ignorance.
Part of that majority are just plain anti blood sports, and have a pretty big voice, fox hunting  anyone?
Its the minority who are pro gun.
Lets hope we never have that vote.

'You dont need anything bigger than .30 cal'
Why is that?
Is it because once you go over that it becomes 'more' lethal ?
Its more powerful yes, but does one kill you more than the other if the shot is put in a critical area at 500 yards ?

Finally 'assault rifles' 
By definition an assault rifle is a rifle capable of firing a military level rifle round in both semi auto, AND full auto/burst.
There are no assault rifles in general (legal) private ownership in this country.
A military looking rifle doesnt make it an assault rifle, you can trick a 10/22 to look military, its the same gun underneath, there are 'tactical' centrefires in all popular hunting calibres, generally speaking it doesnt turn you into a homicidal maniac, owning and using one.

[motty]

2 hours ago, Graham M said:

That logic could be applied to everything in life.

You don't NEED a car because you could walk or catch the bus.

You don't NEED a TV 

You don't NEED clothes 

etc,etc,etc.

And if HM government took your stance we would all be in trouble, as we would be told that we don't NEED to shoot at all.

 

I believe his stance is 100% pro gun. He is merely pointing out that we don't NEED to own guns. You're right in saying there are many things we don't need.Primarily, food and water is what we NEED.

I don't need to shoot thousands of pigeons a year, but I want to continue doing so.

[islandgun]

27 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

As has been mentioned, owning and using a lever action 'winchester ' style rifle  in up to .44 magnum is no issue, you will need club membership, as it is rare for it to be used on land.
You can own and shoot a 1911(and other historical handguns ) in this country at certain sec 7 clubs, you cant take it home though.

The Thompson can be used in France, you can use a French club on a day trip, various firearms clubs liase with the French on this.

Single action black powder pistols are pretty common here, I have a Rem 1858, ****** to clean afterwards , but good fun.
There are LBPs in everything from .22lr to .44 mag, Westlake do some .357 nitro revolvers, that are pretty much like shooting a 'real' centre fire revolver.

Personally, I think you have it the wrong way round.
I believe we dont have majority support, if it were put to a vote, most people in this country would vote to ban all private guns, unless your job specifically needed one , farmers , pest controllers ect.
Clays could still be shot , and game days ect , but the guns would be hired at the grounds.
Why ? Because the general public think guns are bad/dangerous/kill people, its ignorance.
Part of that majority are just plain anti blood sports, and have a pretty big voice, fox hunting  anyone?
Its the minority who are pro gun.
Lets hope we never have that vote.

'You dont need anything bigger than .30 cal'
Why is that?
Is it because once you go over that it becomes 'more' lethal ?
Its more powerful yes, but does one kill you more than the other if the shot is put in a critical area at 500 yards ?

Finally 'assault rifles' 
By definition an assault rifle is a rifle capable of firing a military level rifle round in both semi auto, AND full auto/burst.
There are no assault rifles in general (legal) private ownership in this country.
A military looking rifle doesnt make it an assault rifle, you can trick a 10/22 to look military, its the same gun underneath, there are 'tactical' centrefires in all popular hunting calibres, generally speaking it doesnt turn you into a homicidal maniac, owning and using one.

Highlighted area says it for me,  the majority would happily support a ban on guns without much persuasion. which is why i think we need to be careful how we put ourselves across,  illegal guns or heaps of unwanted pheasants will only be fuel for those that want a total ban. This is my opinion and not popular i know, but i would like my children to have the option to pursue shooting one day

[demonwolf444]

The public perception argument is in my mind a ridiculous one. - I don't own any military guns or have any interest in doing so.

The public is so uninformed about legal gun ownership and your average man in the street's knowledge of guns if your lucky might be shooting an air rifle as a kid.

I remember when derek bird  ( I think from memory ) went on a rampage and the witnesses were quite convinced he was using a "sniper rifle", the media also enjoyed using the same description.. when if memory serves it was a some kind of  CZ .22 rimfire, with a scope and moderator; so a gun resembling what a fair few members here have.

Of course the media was never going to describe it as a legally held gun that really quite common in the UK and is owned by many people in the UK for pest control. Its not quite as snappy as "sniper rifle" and lets face it once someone's gone nuts and is shooting at random, no body cares if its an airgun or a center fire rifle we would all just rather it wasn't happening.

Such events are horrific, but we cant legislate for people who have clearly gone insane. What we have in the UK is a generally work able body of legislation that strikes a balance between public safety and allowing people to pursue lawful activities. No systems without its faults but on the whole it works well and has been working well for some time.

Frankly i don't think owning a gun with a black stock or a wood stock is any more or less of a risk factor then the color of your car or the size of your carving knife.

Its a risk that anyone might go nutty tomorrow. Proportionately, the risk of a firearms owner going nutty has to be lower because there are less gun owners than non gun owners, and even that small risk is somewhat mitigated by the legislation we all abide by and the checks made on us all as gun owners.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Such wisdom on young shoulders, very well put James.