Canada Ban

[ordnance]

7 minutes ago, Scully said:

So the definition also applies to governments too. It's all down to ones perspective of course; one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist. 

Who oversees these militias,  what accountability, who finances them,  what is their policy on people disobey them, they kneecapped and worse here. They use their firearms to intimidate people and governments to force their views. Governments are voted into power by the people, militias are self appointed thugs. 

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

Who oversees these militias,  what accountability, who finances them,  what is their policy on people disobey them, they kneecapped and worse here. They use their firearms to intimidate people and governments to force their views. Governments are voted into power by the people, militias are self appointed thugs. 

 

Right back at you. 🙂 Who overseas these governments? What accountability, who finances them? History has well documented their policies for people who disobey them also. History has also well documented those times Governments have been known to use their firearms to intimidate people to force their views. Governments are indeed voted into power, and we don't have to look too far back into history to recall how that has gone at times. Militias don't have the monopoly on thuggery either, and some are simply self appointed gangsters and racketeers, as we all well know, which brings us bang up to date. 

[NoBodyImportant]

3 hours ago, ordnance said:

Who oversees these militias,  what accountability, who finances them,  what is their policy on people disobey them, they kneecapped and worse here. They use their firearms to intimidate people and governments to force their views. Governments are voted into power by the people, militias are self appointed thugs. 

 

The militia is to secure the right of the free state.  They are for when voting doesn’t work.  They were written  into our constitution in a system of checks and balances.  In America we are 50 individual states and the forefathers wanted it that way.   I am a Carolinian first, American second.  

[fse10]

My god, with some of the posts on here we don;t need any antis as we are doing their job for them.  Nothing wrong with owning an AR style gun just for the fun of shooting it. Isn't that why we shoot because we enjoy it & it can be fun to punch paper as quick as you can pull the trigger.

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, fse10 said:

My god, with some of the posts on here we don;t need any antis as we are doing their job for them.  Nothing wrong with owning an AR style gun just for the fun of shooting it. Isn't that why we shoot because we enjoy it & it can be fun to punch paper as quick as you can pull the trigger.

I disagree. I have a friend who's a furious vegan, anti-gun anti-fishing, anti-fieldsports. Except she's slightly less anti-gun and anti fishing after I took the time to show her a few posts from here and fishing forums where upstanding members have been railing against dreadful gun safety they've seen, some serious level of ecological preservation that's kicking around. She was impressed that people from the gun community did care about that sort of thing and are prepared to voice those opinions publicly even if it meant disagreeing with other gun owners. Being able to police ourselves and criticise other shooters makes us able to distinguish ourselves us from the crazy fools who end up going nuts with an AR-15 and killing a load of people. We need to be able to disagree; it shows we're not going to be blind to the dangers of gun ownership for the wrong people.

[ordnance]

 

Quote

The militia is to secure the right of the free state.  They are for when voting doesn’t work.  They were written  into our constitution in a system of checks and balances.  In America we are 50 individual states and the forefathers wanted it that way.   I am a Carolinian first, American second.  

What do you mean when voting doesn’t work, do you mean when some don't like the outcome of a democratic vote, and decisions made by a government or state. They are using  intimation to try and get their way, even if the majority of a state disagree with them. 

Quote

Armed protestors unleashed chaos on the Michigan Capitol building. ... There are a lot of militia, KKK groups, ####s with guns in this stat

e.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by ordnance

[Houseplant]

3 hours ago, fse10 said:

My god, with some of the posts on here we don;t need any antis as we are doing their job for them.  Nothing wrong with owning an AR style gun just for the fun of shooting it. Isn't that why we shoot because we enjoy it & it can be fun to punch paper as quick as you can pull the trigger.

I think it's an interesting discussion. NoBodyImportant represents the mainstream, or at least a large minority view of gun ownership in the USA. A country where guns can legally be owned for self-defence against individuals and their own government. That's just a fact, nothing illegal is being discussed. Admittedly, it's a very different view from most of the rest of the world, but worth discussion in context of Canada, their neighbour banning semi-automatic rifles.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

I disagree. I have a friend who's a furious vegan, anti-gun anti-fishing, anti-fieldsports. Except she's slightly less anti-gun and anti fishing after I took the time to show her a few posts from here and fishing forums where upstanding members have been railing against dreadful gun safety they've seen, some serious level of ecological preservation that's kicking around. She was impressed that people from the gun community did care about that sort of thing and are prepared to voice those opinions publicly even if it meant disagreeing with other gun owners. Being able to police ourselves and criticise other shooters makes us able to distinguish ourselves us from the crazy fools who end up going nuts with an AR-15 and killing a load of people. We need to be able to disagree; it shows we're not going to be blind to the dangers of gun ownership for the wrong people.

I'm not too sure where we're going with this, but we don't 'police' each other. I've no doubt there are some who wish they could, but the choice or responsibility of who is suitable for firearms ownership is down to the actual police. The choice of which firearms they then buy is down to that individual and what is available, which is as it should be.

The difference between an AR15 lookalike of whatever calibre, and that of a standard rifle in the same calibre is purely cosmetic, and whether we like it or not there are those who like the AR15 look, and that doesn't make them wannabes or walts anymore than you or me. If we start campaigning for the sale of such firearms to be banned, where does that leave us? 'You shouldn't be allowed to own one of those!" 'What do you want one of those for?' 'It's not right that people should be allowed to own one of those' or 'It's not right that people should have guns'. Sound familiar? Where do we draw the line? As I asked before, if it's a question of firepower, or magazine capacity, would you be happy if we were only allowed single shot firearms? 

Someone expressed concern for the mindset of someone who would choose an AR15 lookalike, but as I said, there are many whom express concern for the mindset of those of us who kill wildlife for recreation. People had been shooting the semi auto version of the service rifle of the day without concern since the NRA was formed, until Ryan got his hands on an AK47. I seriously doubt it was the rifle alone which turned him into a nutter; if it was we're in big trouble. How do you distinguish between those suitable to own firearms and those not suited? The firearms they would choose if asked? The type of clothes they wear or the sort of books they read or films they watch? 

Of course as a community UK shooters would and do condemn the shootings mentioned in this thread, but are we seriously suggesting that individual did what he did because of the availability of fully automatic or semi automatic assault rifles? Are we suggesting he wouldn't have done what he did with a double barrelled shotgun, or a pump, or a handgun? 'But look at the casualties they inflicted,' I hear someone cry! 'They couldn't have killed so many with a semi auto' or a pump action or whatever!' And you're probably right, but that would be of no consolation at all if it had taken place in a classroom full of kids. But if it's a numbers game we're all concerned about, then tell me again.....would you be happy to give up all your guns to make way for single barrelled single shot firearms? It's not easy is it? 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Scully

[chrisjpainter]

44 minutes ago, Scully said:

I'm not too sure where we're going with this, but we don't 'police' each other. I've no doubt there are some who wish they could, but the choice or responsibility of who is suitable for firearms ownership is down to the actual police. The choice of which firearms they then buy is down to that individual and what is available, which is as it should be.

The difference between an AR15 lookalike of whatever calibre, and that of a standard rifle in the same calibre is purely cosmetic, and whether we like it or not there are those who like the AR15 look, and that doesn't make them wannabes or walts anymore than you or me. If we start campaigning for the sale of such firearms to be banned, where does that leave us? 'You shouldn't be allowed to own one of those!" 'What do you want one of those for?' 'It's not right that people should be allowed to own one of those' or 'It's not right that people should have guns'. Sound familiar? Where do we draw the line? As I asked before, if it's a question of firepower, or magazine capacity, would you be happy if we were only allowed single shot firearms? 

Someone expressed concern for the mindset of someone who would choose an AR15 lookalike, but as I said, there are many whom express concern for the mindset of those of us who kill wildlife for recreation. People had been shooting the semi auto version of the service rifle of the day without concern since the NRA was formed, until Ryan got his hands on an AK47. I seriously doubt it was the rifle alone which turned him into a nutter; if it was we're in big trouble. How do you distinguish between those suitable to own firearms and those not suited? The firearms they would choose if asked? The type of clothes they wear or the sort of books they read or films they watch? 

Of course as a community UK shooters would and do condemn the shootings mentioned in this thread, but are we seriously suggesting that individual did what he did because of the availability of fully automatic or semi automatic assault rifles? Are we suggesting he wouldn't have done what he did with a double barrelled shotgun, or a pump, or a handgun? 'But look at the casualties they inflicted,' I hear someone cry! 'They couldn't have killed so many with a semi auto' or a pump action or whatever!' And you're probably right, but that would be of no consolation at all if it had taken place in a classroom full of kids. But if it's a numbers game we're all concerned about, then tell me again.....would you be happy to give up all your guns to make way for single barrelled single shot firearms? It's not easy is it? 

By police, I meant more in terms of our reactions to shootings, as you also point out later on. I also agree that weapons shouldn't be banned purely on the way they look - although I hate them as I said earlier I prefer a traditional look anyway, to keep that difference between something that looks like either a weapon or a toy. The trouble is, personally I would be happy enough with single-shot firearms - but principally because it wouldn't affect my shooting anyway. I appreciate that it would be a huge wrench for many - and as you point out illogical for them to lose them when they are obviously entirely safe with such weapons. Then someone comes along and says, 'Why do you need so many rifles? Look at the Las Vegas shooting, fewer guns owned means fewer people killed by you if you go mad with one.' And you can bet your bottom dollar they're not going to be interested in a detailed, logical response as to what each calibre is for and why they're specialised. 

Something else you can't control is people change. Someone who's perfectly safe with a gun now might not be in ten years' time and you can't ban something based on what they might be like, based on the tiny proportion of shooters who do break down and become a threat. 

The weapons alone don't create the monster, but they give them the ability to maximise their intentions. Like you say, all arguments we've heard before. 

[Wymondley]

13 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

 but principally because it wouldn't affect my shooting anyway. 

And I'm afraid that is the attitude that will be the end of all shooting.

 

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, Wymondley said:

And I'm afraid that is the attitude that will be the end of all shooting.

 

No not really. I was answering Scully's question of whether I'd be happy to lose everything except single shot firearms. He asked whether it'd be easy for me. I simply yes, it's easy for me because it doesn't affect my shooting - it's easy to give up something I don't have anyway! But I wouldn't be prepared to fight for the cause of someone's right to own an assault rifle. Right now, I think we have all the legislation we need. The things I'd like to be banned are already banned - but I don't want to see it taken any further. So I'd happily campaign against further restrictions even if they didn't directly affect me. It's been 10 years since the Cumbria Shootings, but neither the CZ452 nor the 12g shotgun have been banned since. There was no knee-jerk reaction that led to banning of firearms, perhaps indicative of the fact that the law's about where it should be as a compromise, but will never keep us 100% safe from anyone going mad with a gun.

What you're saying is that as soon as you start to ban some firearms, inevitably all firearms will be banned because the slippery slope's started? Keeping it in this country for the time being, there's a whole plethora of ludicrous weapons that are simply not useful/practicable/acceptable (but could be fun to play with for the right people) that are banned. If there is one, then that's the start of the slippery slope, surely? 

The banning of shooting could very easily come from the non shooting fraternity slamming those who shoot for recalcitrance over what is deemed appropriate for a hunting firearm. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by chrisjpainter

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, Wymondley said:

And I'm afraid that is the attitude that will be the end of all shooting.

+1

Fact is we in this country are already on a slippery slope. Any attempt to curb our freedoms, must be resisted by a unified voice, calmly explaining the facts and lobbying politicians on the quiet.  An NRA-style organisation would be counter productive in the UK and only serve to entrench attitudes. 

Frankly I'm disappointed that some on here are opposed to being allowed to own something because of the way it looks.  Very I'm-alright-jack with my SxS, and incredibly myopic.

[Mentalmac]

Wow, what a thread - glad I had a few glasses of vino before reading. 

My thoughts: 

I don’t see why we would need assault rifles outside of military use. If it stops mad people gunning down kids in schools etc... by not having the aesthetics of an assault rifle but you can still have a normal rifle to use for hunting, then grow up and just get over it. Yes, you’ve been let down by the minorities but that is life. 

I’m not one to be a judgemental person really, however I must admit, the ‘Walt’ culture is huge. I live in Colchester which is a big garrison town (and where you get sent if you’re a naughty soldier...). Each year there is a race between the Para’s and us Civillians were we have to ‘TAB’ 10 miles (trousers and boots and a 25lb Bergen). I got involved as it was on my doorstep and being a endurance runner I enjoyed it and then did a version of the ‘Fandance’ (over Pen Y Fan, that the SAS do in training...) and ended up being able to do it a whisker slower than the SAS. 

What stopped me carrying on doing those events was the groups of middle aged men with Jarhead haircuts, Combat95 outfits and ex issue kit and using army phrases - such as a guy saying “I go ‘Clean fatigue’ three times a week’ and I said “so you just run three times a week?” Ergh, wallys. 

They are all imitating that they are ex service but most haven’t done a day. Seemingly the sort of guys who you see on crime watch for stealing used undiepants, and exactly the sort who should never be allow an assault weapons system.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Mentalmac said:

Wow, what a thread - glad I had a few glasses of vino before reading. 

My thoughts: 

I don’t see why we would need assault rifles outside of military use. If it stops mad people gunning down kids in schools etc... by not having the aesthetics of an assault rifle but you can still have a normal rifle to use for hunting, then grow up and just get over it. Yes, you’ve been let down by the minorities but that is life. 

I’m not one to be a judgemental person really, however I must admit, the ‘Walt’ culture is huge. I live in Colchester which is a big garrison town (and where you get sent if you’re a naughty soldier...). Each year there is a race between the Para’s and us Civillians were we have to ‘TAB’ 10 miles (trousers and boots and a 25lb Bergen). I got involved as it was on my doorstep and being a endurance runner I enjoyed it and then did a version of the ‘Fandance’ (over Pen Y Fan, that the SAS do in training...) and ended up being able to do it a whisker slower than the SAS. 

What stopped me carrying on doing those events was the groups of middle aged men with Jarhead haircuts, Combat95 outfits and ex issue kit and using army phrases - such as a guy saying “I go ‘Clean fatigue’ three times a week’ and I said “so you just run three times a week?” Ergh, wallys. 

They are all imitating that they are ex service but most haven’t done a day. Seemingly the sort of guys who you see on crime watch for stealing used undiepants, and exactly the sort who should never be allow an assault weapons system.

No, you certainly don’t come across as being judgemental at all! 😂

Im pretty sure no one has suggested we should be allowed ‘assault rifles’, and I’m not sure what makes a rifle an ‘assault’ type if it isn’t a full auto capability, and if so then we don’t have them anyway. If it’s a semi auto capacity then we own many of them, from rifles to shotguns. Or is it just it’s appearance?

There is no difference between ANY semi automatic shotgun, whether S1 or S2 ( apart from its magazine capacity ) and a SPAS 12, but for some reason the latter causes all manner of bed wetting, simply because of its appearance. Weird eh! 
You made judgments on others because of the way they act, and state none should be allowed an ‘assault weapons system’ ( you sound just like a wannabe ) but none of them will be, even if they applied for one, ( have they ?) because we don’t have such a thing in this country available to civilians . What we do have, are people like you who enjoy killing stuff for entertainment whilst making references to your participation in military type endurance trials ‘ a whisker slower than the SAS’. Do you realise just how many military terms and phrases you’ve used in your post in an attempt to impress us? And you own guns? How ironic. 
 

[Mentalmac]

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

No, you certainly don’t come across as being judgemental at all! 😂

Im pretty sure no one has suggested we should be allowed ‘assault rifles’, and I’m not sure what makes a rifle an ‘assault’ type if it isn’t a full auto capability, and if so then we don’t have them anyway. If it’s a semi auto capacity then we own many of them, from rifles to shotguns. Or is it just it’s appearance?

There is no difference between ANY semi automatic shotgun, whether S1 or S2 ( apart from its magazine capacity ) and a SPAS 12, but for some reason the latter causes all manner of bed wetting, simply because of its appearance. Weird eh! 
You made judgments on others because of the way they act, and state none should be allowed an ‘assault weapons system’ ( you sound just like a wannabe ) but none of them will be, even if they applied for one, ( have they ?) because we don’t have such a thing in this country available to civilians . What we do have, are people like you who enjoy killing stuff for entertainment whilst making references to your participation in military type endurance trials ‘ a whisker slower than the SAS’. Do you realise just how many military terms and phrases you’ve used in your post in an attempt to impress us? And you own guns? How ironic. 
 

Baited hook caught 😂. 

I am judgemental as I have first hand experience of the Rambo wannabes. 
I wasn’t using lots of military jargon to impress you, just to add a little seasoning to my rather annoying piece 🤣. 
 

If you turn up to shoot vermin or otherwise looking like you have just come back from Gulf War 1, with an assault rifle - I’d think you wouldn’t be mentally stable enough to have a gun. 

[ordnance]

Quote

chrisjpainter The banning of shooting could very easily come from the non shooting fraternity slamming those who shoot for recalcitrance over what is deemed appropriate for a hunting firearm. 

Or from the non shooting fraternity slamming those who shoot animals with hunting firearms. 

 

Quote

Mentalmac If you turn up to shoot vermin or otherwise looking like you have just come back from Gulf War 1, with an assault rifle - I’d think you wouldn’t be mentally stable enough to have a gun. 

Or maybe wearing a combat jacket etc,  like you are in your photo. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by ordnance

[enfieldspares]

Quote

I am not sure what clubs you go to, but you would not be allowed camouflage trousers, camouflage jacket at clubs here

And what else is a tweed cap, jacket and plus fours but that?

Edited May 4, 2020 by enfieldspares

[ordnance]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

And what else is a tweed cap, jacket and plus fours but that?

Yeah, they would be laughed off the range wearing that. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by ordnance

[zipdog]

On 01/05/2020 at 20:30, MirokuMK70 said:

An absolute myth. The cartridge was not designed to wound. The smaller calibres were developed following ww2 when studies showed most small arm engagements took place at relatively  short range, that larger high powered rounds were 'overkill' at those ranges and problematic through automatic weapons. The added advantage was allowing a soldier to carry more ammunition into battle. The only reason the high velocity small calibres weren't  more widely introduced in the 50s prior to 5.56 was the usa's insistence on a full power cartridge (7.62) for the nato standard. 

Not quite a myth but you are correct. As you say the cartridge was not designed to wound, it offered many advantages which made it a contender, mainly reduced cost, weight and flatter tragedy within 200m and people soon realised that if the trade off for this was it wounded a few more rather than killing, well that was maybe an advantage too, or certainly good enough. 

Military tactics changed throughout and after WW2. The old top brass, slow to change, still insisted on high energy calibers. The more modern thinkers  realised that you didn’t have to kill more enemy soldiers then your own losses to win a battle. You could control a battlefield simply by firing more lead at them than they was firing at you.

Accuracy and hit to kill rations became second to gaining what became known as fire supremacy. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by zipdog

[ordnance]

Quote

Not quite a myth but you are correct. As you say the cartridge was not designed to wound, it offered many advantages which made it a contender, mainly reduced cost, weight and flatter tragedy within 200m and people soon realised that if the trade off for this was it wounded a few more rather than killing, well that was maybe an advantage too, or certainly good enough. 

Good enough if the guy you just wounded, doesn't  kill you. 

[Scully]

10 hours ago, Mentalmac said:

Baited hook caught 😂. 

I am judgemental as I have first hand experience of the Rambo wannabes. 
I wasn’t using lots of military jargon to impress you, just to add a little seasoning to my rather annoying piece 🤣. 
 

If you turn up to shoot vermin or otherwise looking like you have just come back from Gulf War 1, with an assault rifle - I’d think you wouldn’t be mentally stable enough to have a gun. 

Mmmm. Don’t worry, you didn’t impress me. I think your posts say much more about you than those you’re judging; I wonder what they think of you?  

[DUNKS]

On a much lighter note on Militia. Many years ago "early 1950s" I was onboard a Royal Navy Frigate on a showing the flag cruise of the Southern states of America. coming into harbour "I think it was Brownsville Texas"  We for some reason fired a salute with our four inch guns. Some bright spark ashore panicked and called out the Militia

We all thought they were just putting on a show but these guys were serious. About 20 of them with various weapons, they even had a canon. Threatening us from the jetty. Was all put to rights in the end but they were a comic lot up against four four inch guns. A couple of 40mm Bofors and two 20mm anti aircraft guns, 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by DUNKS

[enfieldspares]

16 hours ago, ordnance said:

Yeah, they would be laughed off the range wearing that. 

Would I be OK though with my two chickens? LOL!

[Mentalmac]

13 hours ago, Scully said:

Mmmm. Don’t worry, you didn’t impress me. I think your posts say much more about you than those you’re judging; I wonder what they think of you?  

Will you be impressed if I say some nice things about assault rifles? 
 

Incidentally, you say my posts say more about me etc... are you referring to just this thread or are you judging me based on my post history overall? 
 

Besides, lighten up - it’s not good to get all stressed out over a topic on an Internet forum. 

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, Mentalmac said:

Will you be impressed if I say some nice things about assault rifles? 
 

Incidentally, you say my posts say more about me etc... are you referring to just this thread or are you judging me based on my post history overall? 
 

Besides, lighten up - it’s not good to get all stressed out over a topic on an Internet forum. 

Not really. I’m rather indifferent regarding assault rifles, although I can appreciate how much fun they can be. 

Just your posts in this thread, I’m not aware of any posts you’ve made in other threads. 

Believe me, I’m not stressed at all. 🙂