[Closed] The Gun Shop

England had Dunblane

Geography fail.

Hungerford is in England.

What i don't understand, it is one thing to own a gun for supposed self defence, it is another thing to own an AR15 assault rifle,

How else are you going to defend yourself from someone with an AK?

perchypanther - Member
England had Dunblane
Geography fail.

Hungerford is in England.

I knew what i meant....

 

jimjam - Member
What i don't understand, it is one thing to own a gun for supposed self defence, it is another thing to own an AR15 assault rifle,
How else are you going to defend yourself from someone with an AK?

I think the idea is that if they didn't allow the sale of assault rifles and their ilk in the first place, that the other person wouldn't have the Ak47 either?

Or if they are deemed necessary for sporting usage, why can they not be restricted to single shot, where they must be left and locked up at the range?

I think the idea is

It was a joke. I was joking. And also trying to be clever.

Hungerford is in England.

I knew what i meant....

jimjam - Member
I think the idea is
It was a joke. I was joking. And also trying to be clever.

I hoped it was, but you might have been one of those sneeky 'merikans coming over here and taking our women and using our forums........

Because, like it or not, self defence isn't the reason for the second amendment, whereas limiting government power is

Amusing.

scud

I hoped it was, but you might have been one of those sneeky 'merikans coming over here and taking our women and using our forums........

If I was you would have already known about it - with bells on. On one of the mainly american forums I frequent this kind of debate is non existent. It could never even happen. The pro gun people, even the moderate ones are literally off the chart in every way compared to the average European. They aren't even remotely concerned with the wheres and hows of "bad guys" terrorists or mentally unstable people getting access to guns because they themselves have their guns.

The gun isn't the problem, it's the solution.

I was in business in Charlotte NC this summer. There was a gun range next to the hotel where I was staying. I haven't fired a gun for 30 years since I left the RAF but I enjoyed it as a skill so spent an hour on the range with a couple of hand guns. Good fun, but I wouldn't want one at home. A hammer is too dangerous for a clutz like me.

I thought the program was quite interesting. The paranoia of people coming in was to me in some respects understandable giving the general background new reports that were presented in the show. Being worried about such social issues is one thing, the aspect I was surprised at was the short-snap decisions of ' [i]I'm going to buy a gun today[/i]' regardless. The staff would ask why do you want a gun, and their rationale for answers were based simply on what they saw on the news that morning.

I'd be more impressed if the answers came back as being along the lines of [i]I've considered for a while...blah blah blah [/i]. You could even see the staff pull slight quizzical faces at some of the answers as to why they want a gun.

Another concern from the program was that people were leaving the shop with only the smallest amount of weapon handling/training. The manner in which some of the people were handling the gun was quite alarming, and for that to transfer out into the public space is likely only going to lead to missed shots and unintended targets being hit.

I personally believe that if someone wants to use/own a gun for sport/target type activity, then that is OK and that issues come from society attitudes and behaviours of their use, rather than the physical gun itself.

Similarly, with cars/motorbikes, they are items that can when used incorrectly take life, but when used correctly are fine to have.

Its a sad inditement on society to see the average person be so frightened of what might happen when going about their business that they see the need to carry a gun on them with an expectation of using it.

[url=

[/url] has got it right maybe

I'm extremely pro gun and have spent a lot of time in the states and like it there. I felt safer walking through the bronx than I sometimes do through Birmingham.

The statement made during the program... Something along the lines of 'The gun is just a machine, a very efficient killing machine' is very true.

It's the nut behind the butt that is the problem. There needs to be more done using technology to develop weapons, especially pistols to limit functionality when not in the owners hands. That would stop the numerous dogs and children from shooting their parents as well as a big chunk of the gang shootings but you will never stop the crazy people.

Even someone with mild depression - is it a good idea to sell them a gun?

No, probably not. But only because I don't think it's a good idea to sell anyone, with or without mild depression, a gun in the unrestricted way the Americans do it.

Anything else you think people with mild depression should be prevented from doing? Operating heavy machinery? Driving a motor vehicle? Buying alcohol? Buying paracetemol? Entering tall buildings? Being allowed out in the community without a chaperone?

Saw this on my FB - prize offered by local gun shop. Matching coffee cup and glock.

[img] ?oh=593d82e488c625897f06e7506f5a0a4b&oe=58945215[/img]

The program did give quite a clear insight into the mentality of people feeling the need to own a gun, both customers and shop staff. Americans have been brought up on a diet of fear and paranoia since independence, reaching a peak during the Cold War years. Now that fear has transferred from "Commies" to anything from the Police to terrorists. It must be sh1t feeling that scared all the time, as witnessed in the young mother indoctrinating her children to kill.

The death statistics comparisons are meaningless if you (as most do) include suicides in gun deaths.

But even leaving statistics aside, the idea that there are a lot of guns around and that the police are too far away to protect you IF something happens is frankly a strong motivator. So its really hard to imagine a situation where the law abiding would give up their guns knowing that the criminals would not.

It's not quite so hard to imagine a situation where there are greater checks on people getting some types of guns in the first place. But even that comes up against the idea that even small changes now will lead to more and more restrictions in the future until "they come and take all your guns away".

Its unhelpful to the "anti gun" side that there is a shedload of historical evidence from europe (and the UK) where, over many years, thats exactly what happened.

We may think (with hindsight) that thats a good thing? But some might suggest that the situation in the UK, where a law abiding person can be arrested and convicted for having a small swiss army knife in their pocket, or threatened with jail for attacking a burglar, is an example of exactly the sort of society that people in the US dont want to end up living in?

Even in threads on here about self defence and the law in the UK, its obvious that many "average" people feel the law (and its interpretation by the authorities) is considerably more restrictive than fairness and good sense should make it. We voted ourselves over many years into a position where the people to whom we've given power over our lives and freedom are often seen as too ignorant and careless of our own rights, and have taken away our ability to defend ourselves (with even non lethal weapons), and then not kept up the side of the bargain where they are meant to keep us and our property safe.

Maybe Americans think that price is too high? Maybe they look at us and think that thats not where they want to end up?

edlong

No, probably not. But only because I don't think it's a good idea to sell anyone, with or without mild depression, a gun in the unrestricted way the Americans do it.

And yet you're critical of me, for criticizing Americans when they won't allow mental health to be a determining factor when it comes to who can or can't buy a gun. Perhaps by bringing up mental health I've triggered you in some way and you feel compelled to argue a point when the point I'm making is pretty obviously not intended to target or discriminate against people with mental health issues.

Anything else you think people with mild depression should be prevented from doing? Operating heavy machinery? Driving a motor vehicle? Buying alcohol? Buying paracetemol? Entering tall buildings? Being allowed out in the community without a chaperone?

Since the thread is about a Gun Shop, and more broadly gun ownership I don't really see what your point is, other than to somehow insinuate that I'm being irrational or discriminatory. Remember, a gun is tool designed to kill humans and it's the most popular method of suicide in the states.

To shoot someone dead with a gun takes the flex of a finger from 50m away

Unless you were holding a high power rifle with a decent scope on top , in a prone position, I think I would take my chances.
I'd wager you wouldn't hit a barn door at that distance using a handgun

'The gun is just a machine, a very efficient killing machine' is very true.

It's the nut behind the butt that is the problem.

Its not that surprising that folk who buy a thing use it for its designed purpose

Its fair to say it takes both a gun and someone willing to use it - lets ignore the vast number of accidents here - but it clearly easier to remove the gun than the culture.

Nations rise and fall. The USA is falling, their gun sales is a symptom. As is Trumpism.

Unless you were holding a high power rifle with a decent scope on top , in a prone position, I think I would take my chances.

Lots of people can do it standing with a rifle, with iron sights having just sprinted 10m whilst wearing a respirator

Pistols are an area weapon at 50m, rifles of any description aren't

Yes , but you are talking about a trained operative.
I'm talking about Mary Jane Rottencrotch who has bought one for home defence

Yes , but you are talking about a trained operative.

Operative! LOL!

Trained, yes, Neanderthal man can be trained

Mac 10 for home defence . Spray and pray

Anything else you think people with mild depression should be prevented from doing? Operating heavy machinery? Driving a motor vehicle? Buying alcohol? Buying paracetemol? Entering tall buildings? Being allowed out in the community without a chaperone?

Since the thread is about a Gun Shop, and more broadly gun ownership I don't really see what your point is, other than to somehow insinuate that I'm being irrational or discriminatory. Remember, a gun is tool designed to kill humans and it's the most popular method of suicide in the states.

Jimjam, I think Edlong was making a point about the deep-seated reasons behind why some gun owners fight against restrictions (note that I said 'some' - there are many that are just stupid and just want them for the sake of them). The thing that really worries them is that their fundamental freedoms are being eroded in many quarters. America is very different to the UK culturally, and I think a few posts have touched on this. It is important to understand this.

The mental health check requirement is a good example exposing the fear Americans have of 'where will it stop?' Like I said, many gun owners aren't afraid of their gun rights being restricted, they are afraid of their rights in general being eroded. Who makes the decision that you are unfit, in whatever way, to do x or y? It's one thing I hated about the UK and something I feel is unique about the US. Of course, it won't last and is being eroded by both major political parties over here no matter what either of them pretend.

See eat_the_pudding's post for a good somethingion at the end - there is a price to pay and many Americans don't want to end up like the UK or many European countries.

As a disclaimer, I am British but also gained US Citizenship this year. I own guns and enjoy shooting them, even some competition (IDPA). I also have a concealed carry permit. I do not in any way, shape or form think my guns are going to magically save me from being attacked. I am not scared if I don't have a gun on me. I have seen the classic Jim Jeffries gun rant and think it is both hilarious and accurate - there isn't really an excuse for guns - 'we just like 'em'. 'Hang on, Mr criminal, I'm unlocking my gun safe...' So true.

As an aside, let's look at the armed forces a second. They have guns for the purpose of both offense and defense. Yet they lock them up when they are off duty and many active duty personnel are not allowed to carry even when working. Most gun owners don't even realize this, especially the wannabe Rambo type.

Another aside, one of the biggest issues we have is gun theft. If people weren't so bloody stupid and careless, hundreds of thousands of guns would not be in the hands of criminals (you know, those who do most of the shooting).

I don't normally post unless I have something to offer and I don't really like painting a target on myself (pun intended), but I just wanted to offer some perspective from the other side. This is a huge area of debate and there are sides to the arguments that I don't have time to even scratch the surface of. I stayed out of the 'American Flag/National Anthem' thread because it made me sad/angry at a lot of the name calling and disrespect and didn't want to be in the middle of it.

My mother-in-law is in her 70s and a proud American. She is a former special needs teacher, anti-gun, pro-Obama and worked hard her whole life to better her community. She stands to the national anthem, sometimes with a tear in her eye. I love her to bits, don't agree with all her politics, but can't argue that her American pride is anything but genuine, heartfelt and truly because she loves the nation. Not all Americans are idiots.

Heard an interesting talk the other day - all about police and guns. Even trained police (in US) often get shot as may not read signals fast enough that someone about to draw and shoot. If police get it wrong what are chances of guy in street saving themselves?!

This collection is for home dee-fence apparently.
better locks on your windows just isn't as sexy as an M-16

Then you'd be dead. Doubly so if you lived anywhere remote or rural. How many people here keep a cricket bat or something somewhere in the house or the ubiquitous maglite torch in the car for self defense?

Re. those numbers of guns in circulation figures. According to Washington Post [url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/ ]Gun Ownership[/url] 36% of the US population own a gun. Well, I say a gun - apparently on average 8 guns.

Population is about 320 million, so thats about 115 million gun owners each with an average of 8 guns. That's almost a billion.

Unless you were holding a high power rifle with a decent scope on top , in a prone position, I think I would take my chances.

Sorry but 50m is bugger all for an air rifle (sub 12fpe) never mind any sort of powder burner. Can get roughly 3" groups at that range with a springer and I'm hardly Carlos the Jackal. I know for a fact I could do better with a semi auto rifle (from cadets before anyone asks).

As said its fear that drives people, from the completely paranoid to the folk protecting themselves in an escalating arms race.

I should add that although a gun (as a concept) is primarily designed to kill its not what it is necessarily used for. This is where so many anti gun campaigners lose the plot. You only have to look closer to home to see how ridiculous comparable legislation is (licence for air weapon in scotland, section 1 for >12fpe in UK but anyone can pick up a 38fpe draw crossbow by mail order!). Its unfortunate that, as with many things, so often sensible debate is stifled by frothing rhetoric on both sides.

frothing rhetoric

Not on this website, reasoned debate only here 😉

the situation in the UK, where a law abiding person can be arrested and convicted for having a small swiss army knife in their pocket,

No, they can't.

(licence for air weapon in scotland, section 1 for >12fpe in UK but anyone can pick up a 38fpe draw crossbow by mail order!)

I've often wondered about this. You very rarely hear about bow / crossbow crimes, given how freely available they are (other than the occasional halfwit shooting a dog or something). I suppose concealability is an issue, it's not going to be weapon of choice for your average scrote but it'd be a pretty effective tool for armed robbery. Maybe people just don't take them seriously?

I was burgled years ago, and had a bow and arrows stolen. I tried to explain this to the police but couldn't get it through to them that a potentially lethal weapon had been stolen, they totally didn't care. I suppose they thought the arrows had suckers on the end.

(I'm not familiar with crossbow draw weights, what's fpe?)

Foot pound energy. Archaic crap that converts to joules somewhere along the line.

Gotcha (not that I'm much nearer). I was wondering how that compared to bow weight, typically crossbows are higher power than regular bows.

Bow weight is measured in pounds at a measured draw length, as the farther you draw it the more weight you're pulling. So mine's "38@28" - at a 28 inch draw you're holding 38lbs. IIRC, you add or remove 2lbs for every inch you draw over or under (though thinking about it, surely that varies with draw weight? Anyway).

Yeah I'm not entirely sure to be honest, fpe will be a combination of your released speed (as measured through a chronoscope) plus the weight of the projectile to make a measurement of kinetic energy. Your draw weight will be derived from this final figure.

Either way though, the law is an ass.

Cougar - Moderator
Bow weight is measured in pounds at a measured draw length, as the farther you draw it the more weight you're pulling. So mine's "38@28" - at a 28 inch draw you're holding 38lbs. IIRC, you add or remove 2lbs for every inch you draw over or under (though thinking about it, surely that varies with draw weight?

My own bow specs -

Draw Weight: 185 lbs
Speed: 365+ fps
Power Stroke: 14"
Bow Weight 6.20 lbs
Compact Design: 19" Uncocked and 15.5" Cocked

Its frightening how far a field tip can penetrate 😯

Traditional bows work differently to xbows, the weight of the bow is one factor but the limb design matters, the energy released into the arrow with a hex 7 border recurve is different to that of a longbow. The designs also need the limb speed to be controlled by arrow weight etc etc

The other factor with bows is that anything over 40# is likely to be too much for most as a first timer, with compounds they are at risk of hurting themselves more than anyone else.

[i]Guns aren't the problem. [i]

What? A gun is a tool designed to kill people. No gun no accidental death, no gun no spontaneous suicide, no gun no need to buy a gun because your neighbour has a gun...

Sorry but the argument 'that guns don't hurt people it's the people behind them' is just dumb...

If your arguing guns don't kill people, it's the people behind them then why own one? The sole purpose of a gun is to kill...its not a friggin fairy cake...

A gun is an inanimate object, as is a sword or a spear or a car or ad infinitum

Irrelevant lazybiker...how many children accidentally die from knife wounds, spear wounds, ad wounds or gun wounds...a cigarette is an inanimate object but it's banned...a banana is an inanimate object but how many people die from banana wounds...such a silly argument saying it's an inanimate object..

such a silly argument saying it's an inanimate object..

Aside from the actual fact it's an inanimate object..are you using that in defence of gun ownership or are you just saying a fact about the gun? Because that argument is used in defence of gun ownership and that's when I'm saying it's a dumb argument. Which it is...I guess it the use of dumb arguments that have accounted for thousands of unnecessary deaths across the US...

I guess behind every unnecessary death there's a necessary person..

It isn't possible to uninvent the inanimate object, so the best we can do is limit its circulation.

Sorry but 50m is bugger all for an air rifle (sub 12fpe) never mind any sort of powder burner. Can get roughly 3" groups at that range with a springer and I'm hardly Carlos the Jackal. I know for a fact I could do better with a semi auto rifle (from cadets before anyone asks).

But it's not is it . I'm not questioning your shooting ability, I'll take you at your word, but there are guys out there every weekend , shooting PCP air rifles with decent glass on the top who are missing 3" wide targets. Most people would struggle to see a 3" target at 50 metres let alone hit it
Add in recoil from a rifle and adrenaline surging through your veins and I reckon most would struggle to hit a 3 ft target.
Last time I was on holiday abroad, I entered the air rifle contest, which happened to be your typical 4" target, set at a huge 7m distance. There were plenty who missed it altogether . These are the type of people buying these weapons

I guess you could put all gun owners through basic marksman training...the one day concealed carry course is just ridiculous.The police chief in the program questioned the ability of some gun owners to put rounds where it matters when it matters.

The police chief in the program questioned the ability of some gun owners to put rounds where it matters when it matters

In the black guy at a routine stop?

the energy released into the arrow with a hex 7 border recurve

Hex 7? Wassat?

But it's not is it . I'm not questioning your shooting ability, I'll take you at your word, but there are guys out there every weekend , shooting PCP air rifles with decent glass on the top who are missing 3" wide targets. Most people would struggle to see a 3" target at 50 metres let alone hit it
Add in recoil from a rifle and adrenaline surging through your veins and I reckon most would struggle to hit a 3 ft target.
Last time I was on holiday abroad, I entered the air rifle contest, which happened to be your typical 4" target, set at a huge 7m distance. There were plenty who missed it altogether . These are the type of people buying these weapons

But it's not really a 3" target is it? A human body is a lot bigger and the hit doesn't need to be clean.

I do take what you're saying and agree that under stressful conditions the chances are you're going to be hitting either nothing or something/one else. If you're a calm, considered shooter out for "lots of fun*" though this changes somewhat.

This competition - pistols or rifles? Not that it matters much you've made your point.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) ]* quoted from this[/url]

"Sorry but the argument 'that guns don't hurt people it's the people behind them' is just dumb..."
Nope. That statement is. I know where lots of firearms are. None of them have ever so much as growled at me.

Thing is.... why do people rant on so much about firearms yet happily condone millions more people, even in this country, owning a much more lethal weapon?
The private car. Same thing applies but many times over.

The anti gun brigade have no valid argument unless they are anti other things that could be used to hurt people, especially those that are more common and as easy to hurt others with.
Same attitude as "you don't pay car tax"
Not a bloody clue.

This competition - pistols or rifles?

Rifles...

Just read that link. That's pretty harrowing.

I'm currently watching it on catchup..

I'll be honest - I don't geddit...
They all live in fear of someone coming into their homes - statistically, this is likely to be a minuscule event, right?
And they all 'want to protect their families' from people with guns.
By buying a gun.

Oh..kay...

And this is this thing - if someone pulls a gun on you, and don't shoot you, then you're alive. If they shoot you, you're shot...
If they DON'T shot you, and you then pull a gun (whilst it's pointing at you), most certainly they'll NOW shoot you...right?

Like the lady in the beginning in the 'road rage' incident. She didn't get shot. She had a gun pointed at her.
IF that were to happen, and she then pulled a gun..clearly you'll NOW get shot.

Like I said.. I don' geddit...

Afraid of people with guns? Get more guns...

DrP

Yeah, someone mentioned Port Arthur a few pages back and I found that. Makes me glad we have the controls that we do, even if they are absurd in specific instances.

Matt - really? That's the best argument you can come up with?

2 things:

1. The level of fear in that program is off the chart & the problem is it's self-propagating.

2. Mattscm....

Youre comparing the car to a gun.....?

Why not throw, kitchen knives, baseball bars, chain saws, brooks, a pilllow, slippery floors & fruit dropping off trees into the mix whilst you're at it....

Guns have a lethality in their very design - i.e. They shoot stuff at high velocities often with no other purpose than to maim, injure & kill. The last time I checked cars were designed to get from A to B..

the rented apartment where he lives and shares with two others, he has 17 handguns, 3 assault rifles (one fitted with a thermal scope) two combat shotguns and a hunting rifle. This collection is for home dee-fence apparently

What happens when someone breaks in and either steals them or worse lies in wait to attack him?

its a god given right - and no logic will overcome that

Now I'm not a militant atheist - but even I have a problem with that concept justifying anything.

amongst kids from less advantaged backgrounds, where there is a far greater sense of dog eat dog and the struggle for 'survival'.

When people feel they are competing for resources - conflict increases and compassion decreases, so that is easy to understand.

I'm extremely pro gun and have spent a lot of time in the states and like it there. I felt safer walking through the bronx than I sometimes do through Birmingham.

Now, I'm sorry dude but this is nuts! I live in far from the richest area in Brum and go through most of it very regularly to see friends etc... After over 30 years in the area, I've never been mugged or attacked on the street. I am glad you cannot own an automatic or handgun if this is how you think. The level of danger you are worried about is very, very unusual.

What scares me is the delusion some people have relating to weapon proficiency. The hours I have to put in on the range to remain proficient is ridiculous.

So when I hear the Americans talk about keeping them for home/self defence I cringe. We do specific under-stress serials to ensure that we respond swiftly and decisively to ensure maximum effective rounds on target.

It would genuinely scare me being surrounded by civilians packing heat thinking they're competent and drilled enough to draw a weapon under stress and to engage a target without hitting anyone else. Terrifying.

"I'm extremely pro gun and have spent a lot of time in the states and like it there. I felt safer walking through the bronx than I sometimes do through Birmingham."

Missed this. Really?

Maybe you mean we early hours of Sat morning in the centre?

I've been in Birmingham. Plus Manchester and London in the small hours, including Brixton etc years ago. I never felt scared but maybe that's because I grew up in such areas. This afternoon I was sat in a packed sauna in Moss side Manchester. Saying that doesn't explain Bronx.

why do people rant on so much about firearms yet happily condone millions more people, even in this country, owning a much more lethal weapon?
The private car.

Because guns' raison d'etre is to kill people whereas cars is to move people from place to place. Not really a difficult comparison.

Because guns' raison d'etre is to kill people whereas cars is to move people from place to place. Not really a difficult comparison.

Well, that's not true is it - an F-Class target rifles raison d'etre is shooting targets accurately and at a great distance, a deer rifles raison d'etre is killing deer, and a double barrel shotguns raison d'etre is shooting birds - I could also point out that in many countries, there are big animals that eat people, hence people regularly carry guns for anything BUT killing people.

If we go back to the car example, who [b]needs[/b] a 150mph speed demon car or motorbike to get from place to place? Do cars need to do 0-60 in five seconds? Of course not, whats wrong with the bus/bike/horse and cart? People buy them because they are [b]fun[/b] - bloody good fun at times, used sensibly and in in the appropriate place, and bloody dangerous when used irresponsibly or inappropriately

Just like guns

Unfortunately the weapon of choice in America is a handgun or assault rifle. Designed for...?

So Nifan ...what your saying is your happy for all the innocent dead kids and adults in America because having a gun is fun...so it's worth it...yeah love your argument...let's all get guns and make us happy!!!..

weapon of choice in America is a handgun or assault rifle.

Look how popular the Subaru WRX and Honda fireblade are.

So Nifan ...what your saying is your happy for all the innocent dead kids and adults in America because having a gun is fun.

Should all cars in the U.K. be limited to 40 MPH maximum, or are all the innocent dead kids and adults an acceptable price because getting somewhere a bit quicker is convenient?

If we go back to the car example, who needs a 150mph speed demon car or motorbike to get from place to place? Do cars need to do 0-60 in five seconds? Of course not, whats wrong with the bus/bike/horse and cart? People buy them because they are fun - bloody good fun at times, used sensibly and in in the appropriate place, and bloody dangerous when used irresponsibly or inappropriately

Just like guns

Yeah....

But,

Cars are designed to transport people & stuff..

Most guns (like nearly all) are designed to kill stuff that's alive..

I grant you that some guns have a specific intent in their design i.e. target shooting.....but I doubt a Desert Eagle or an M16 were ever designed to do anything else other than hurt someone.

A bit different from your Ford Mondeo or your T5 van I think you'll find, which as I understand it were never designed for close protection or combat..

Look how popular the Subaru WRX and Honda fireblade are.

Whats that got to do with ownership of an assault rifle??

Your getting your facts mixed up @nifan..... 😀

Most guns (like nearly all) are designed to kill stuff that's alive..

Ford Mondeo or your T5 van I think you'll find, which as I understand it were never designed for close protection or combat..

Mondeo 1.5 ecoboost top speed, 133 MPH -[b] why?[/b]
T5 102 HP top speed 98 MPH, 150HP top speed 112 MPH -[b] why?[/b]

Whats that got to do with ownership of an assault rifle??

They are to 'practical motoring' - (i.e. 'Transporting people and stuff' as you justify cars as being designed for) what the assault rifle is to civilian shooting

Totally unnecessary but bloody good fun

That poor kid & his girlfriend in the car..

That wasn't self-defence, that was murder, an execution almost..

4 times at point blank range at a target that was sat down.....FFS......

I heard the arguments of the gun shop owner, he was so blasé about it, so everyday yadda yadda yadda......

If that officer had been a little bit cooler headed that kid might still be alive (In all likelihood 1 shot at that range would probably have killed the boy).

Breaks my heart & makes me very grateful that I live in a country where the police aren't armed & we have good gun controls.

FYI I was in the Army for 10 years, I've held a firearm & shotgun licence both of which I'be given up as I just don't see the need, thankfully, for someone like myself to have access to such weaponry.

Mondeo 1.5 ecoboost top speed, 133 MPH - why?
T5 102 HP top speed 98 MPH, 150HP top speed 112 MPH - why?

what the assault rifle is to civilian shooting

Now you're just talking sh1te.

You're trying to argue that a Mondeo & an M16 are the same in terms of purpose.

Utter bollox.

If that officer had been a little bit cooler headed that kid might still be alive

I suppose the officer pulled the trigger out of fear..

The interesting thing about top speed is that it is related to the engine power that increases the 'driveability' of the vehicle at lower speeds and with heavier loads. A GPS limiter could reduce the available top speed and reduce misuse and some potential for lethality.

Could you do similar with guns to reduce their lethality [i][b]in designed use[/i][/b]?

jamj1974

The interesting thing about top speed is that it is related to the engine power

I would have thought it was related to gearing and aerodynamics.

A GPS limiter could reduce the available top speed and reduce misuse and some potential for lethality.

What is statistically more dangerous, driving over the limit in a 30mph / 40mph zone or on a motorway? I would have thought speeding in urban / built up areas is considerably more lethal for other road users. Just guessing mind you.

Guns can't really be power limited as their intended use (and therefore design) are governed by simple laws of physics as related to the projected range.

Cars, yes, can be tuned for better acceleration and power with a cap on top speed. Jimjam, yes, top speed is restricted by power. Otherwise you could just fit a silly top gear and set world land speed records in FIAT Pandas (silly comparison yes but same point).

AFAIK M16's are not permitted firearms since they are full auto. You'll be confusing them with AR15's (though we're really just arguing semantics, the outcome is little different or more likely worse with a controlled semi auto).

Guns can't really be power limited as their intended use (and therefore design) are governed by simple laws of physics as related to the projected range.

Indeed. My point entirely.

I would have thought it was related to gearing and aerodynamics.

Partly!

Breaks my heart & makes me very grateful that I live in a country where the police aren't armed & we have good gun controls

What country is that then? Some little island somewhere where they drive round on mobility scooters and everyone leaves their doors unlocked?

And as for guns being power limited well the licensing system in this country does have bearings on muzzle energy as each caliber is limited by how much it can take in CUP (units of pressure) and its muzzle velocity and kinetic energy, in fact you have minimum energy/bullet weight requirements for shooting deer (varies slightly in Scotland) to stop people trying to shoot them with .22 rim fire and to make sure there is enough energy to kill not maim. You can't simply get an FAC and buy a 30-06 to plink cans in your back garden.

If the car licensing system was run on similar principles then there would be less road deaths as speed would be taken out of the equation. Want a 300bhp car that's only for use at approved ranges (tracks) no problem. 40hp 60mph limited (20 in gps activated urban areas) you can have that too, but not the 180mph nob-motor.

If the car licensing system was run on similar principles then there would be less road deaths as speed would be taken out of the equation.

Blimey - just think if UK driving licences were really on the same principles as FAC 😯

Nicked for drunk and disorderly, well, you're clearly a potential drink-driving risk, bye bye driving licence (to put this in context, people done for drink driving have lost their gun licences on this principle)
Assault/violent behaviour - intemperate behaviour and road rage risk, lose your licence
Speeding offences? Five years mandatory sentence
Replacement licence with two witnesses as to your behaviour and attitude every five years

And all that on top of having to prove good reason to own a car in the first place!

As usual the best way to deflect criticism of gun ownership is to dive straight into road traffic. If you fixed road safety would you accept strict gun control? Probably not. It's all just to divert from the argument that guns and gun owners in the US are responsible for a serious amount of totally unnecessary death. Cars should be treated the same way at times with safety protocols etc. thankfully the world isn't binary and we can look at the 2 issues separately.

How about some simple common sense rules that allow for the ownership of certain weapons but they must be held in a range and not taken out of them (same as if you want to drive like a racing driver go to the track with your car on a trailer) have a transport system if you want your guns moved.

But back to simple things if you have such little trust in your democracy (the one that gets held up as the best in the world when suited) that you need to have a Plan B that involves an armed uprising then you have something wrong.
If you feel the need to arm yourself for self defence purposes then your law enforcement have got something wrong.

The stats speak for themselves, unfortunately the gun lobby's cash shouts loudly and some people can't work out what is actually sensible.
I think it was the point where Academics were considering leaving the Uni of Texas as it had been told it had to allow concealed carry - sounds like a recipe for disaster given the rollercoaster of emotions students tend to go through would you want to be failing a kid who could be armed?

back to simple things if you have such little trust in your democracy (the one that gets held up as the best in the world when suited) that you need to have a Plan B that involves an armed uprising then you have something wrong.

Maybe it's the best democracy precisely because they can have an armed uprising. Power remains vested in the people.

They got the idea from us remember.

Maybe it's the best democracy precisely because they can have an armed uprising. Power remains vested in the people.