well its definitely each to their own.

Ive had firearms since i was 15 so thats over 15 years now. A firearm in the right hands is no more dangerous than a lolly stick in a professionals hands.

and thats the point, anything can be used as a weapon whether your trained to use them or not, trying not to be pedantic but how many threads do we have about people using their cars to run cyclists off the road? and how many threads do we have about cyclists coming across people shooting in the countryside?

For what its worth If their was the option to carry Leaglly in the UK I would. but thats my personal preference.

They banned hand guns from License holders and for what? Dunblane, yes a tragedy but the guy didn’t use a handgun at all, and how many target shooters are involved in gang crime? not many…

I don’t see why people should have to defend themselves for the sport or hobbies they have!

ready to be flamed

A firearm in the right hands is no more dangerous than a lolly stick in a professionals hands.

I suspect that even the most professional mercenary/ninja would struggle to kill someone 20 yards away using a lolly stick.

For what its worth If their was the option to carry Leaglly in the UK I would.

Yep. Escalation. If guns were freely available and other people were carrying them it starts to make sense to carry one yourself “for defense”.

But what makes much much more sense is not allowing our society to get into that situation in the first place!

I don’t see why people should have to defend themselves for the sport or hobbies they have!

I’ve got no problem with target shooting – done a fair bit myself. That’s a quite a step away from carrying a concealed sub-machine gun whilst walking the dog!

i think a lot of this is out of context as usual with a firearms discussion.

I don’t think i’d carry a sub machine gun for walking the dog, if i carried it would be on the pre tense that if i can’t do the job with 1-2 rounds then it aint worth doing.

Back to the question – Winchester – has no one else seen True Grit.

5thElefant – Member

Same could be said of beer. Or pies.

It’s very rare to kill someone else with your pie habit. I hear Binners did once but it’s all a bit awkward.

outspoken – Member

A firearm in the right hands is no more dangerous than a lolly stick in a professionals hands.

Hmm. But going back up the page a bit, in the US you’re 4 times more likely to be killed during a crime if you’re carrying a weapon. Now that doesn’t mean just having one is dangerous but that’s a strong correlation between having one, and being tempted to use it in the heat of the moment, with the best intentions. The hard reality is, the number of times it’ll be useful to have one are lower than the number of times it’ll be dangerous, and they’re both tiny compare to the number of times it’ll just be a waste of time and an inconvenience.

Don’t get me wrong, I really like guns- shooting is fun, and satisfying, but a good one’s a lovely mechanism as well- pleasing like a watch or a bike mech. But most people have no reason to carry one other than “because I can”

Incidentally:

Dunblane, yes a tragedy but the guy didn’t use a handgun at all, and how many target shooters are involved in gang crime?

According to Wiki:

Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers, all legally held. He was carrying 743 cartridges, and fired his weapons 109 times.

Those certainly look like “handguns” to me.

And the subsequent gun control legislation specifically DIDN’T ban .22 calibre single-shot pistols of the type used by target shooters.

That didn’t happen until the Labour government got in.

Its the “concealed carry” bit that gives the game away. (If it means what I think it means).

If you want to carry a gun to avoid become a crime victim surely the best way is to carry it openly. All the bad guys will see it and leave you alone.

If they can’t see it, what is to stop them starting on you anyway? You then have to draw your gun to either frighten them off, or shoot them dead.

So these guys don’t really want to avoid trouble. They want to get into a situation where they can “legitimately” draw a gun and shoot a (probably) unarmed crack-head.

Don’t believe what you read on Wiki, the files are still not available for general release.

Don’t believe what you read on Wiki, the files are still not available for general release.

Eh????

Are you suggesting there was some kind of cover up and he was actually using some other weapons other than the ones extensively reported?? Perhaps lolly sticks??

Here is an excerpt from the Hansard, 14th March 1996:

..will he ensure that Lord Cullen’s inquiry will be a full investigation of how on earth an infamous character such as Thomas Hamilton could apparently obtain a firearms certificate that apparently enabled him to carry four lethal handguns and how, according to some reports, he was apparently running a gun club at some stage?

And here is a quote from The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School (aka the Cullen Report):

..having entered the school with 4 handguns and 743 rounds of ammunition, Thomas Hamilton fired 105 rounds with a 9 mm Browning self-loading pistol over a space of about 3-4 minutes before committing suicide with one shot from a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver.

Are those “files” official enough for you??

There is more in The firearms, ammunition and other equipment carried by Thomas Hamilton section of the report, if you care to read it.

Nope not official enough.

Not suggesting anything was covered up, it was a tragic event by anyones standards and making it seem less tragic than it was only ruins the memories of those who suffered at the hands of a truly horrible human being.

This is one of those threads that quickly spirals into a mess of opinions

Nope not official enough.

What is more official than The Hansard and the findings of the public inquiry???

Not suggesting anything was covered up

So you apparently think that 16 young children and 1 teacher were murdered by something other than a handgun – which was kept secret and deliberately misreported to parliament, the judiciary and the public – but it wasn’t a cover up.

Okay then…

Ah, but the Autopsy report says that Hamilton was shot with a .38 calibre bullet – not 9mm or .357 magnum!

(the gun nuts should be able to quickly work out the problem with that conspiracy theory!)

Its the “concealed carry” bit that gives the game away. (If it means what I think it means).
If you want to carry a gun to avoid become a crime victim surely the best way is to carry it openly. All the bad guys will see it and leave you alone.

But the deterrent effect works better when potential robber doesn’t know who might be carrying a gun at any time!

.380 is equivalent to 9mm.

Almost – .38 special and .357 Magnum actually use the same bullet, indeed .38 Spec cartridge is the same parent case and can be fired from a .357 mag chambered pistol.

nifan beat me to it…

If you are still in some doubt outspoken, then here is a link to the complete 3376 page transcript of the public inquiry, as published by the Scottish Government, which includes multiple detailed testimonies covering the firearms used, the varieties of ammunition, the magazines and the modifications to the weapons.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2001/01/7951/File-1

e.g. Malcolm Chisholm, Tayside police Scenes of Crime Officer and Firearms Examiner testifying:

“The first item was a swing-out cylinder, six-chamber, single or double action, revolver of American manufacturer (Marcas Registradas – Smith and Wesson model 19-4) chambered for .357 Smith and Wesson, centre-fire, Magnum cartridges and bearing the serial number 48K8754.
…
The second item was a swing-out cylinder, six-chamber, single or double action revolver of American manufacture Marcas Registradas – Smith and Wesson model 19-7, chambered for .357 Smith and Wesson, centre-fire, Magnum cartridges and bearing the serial number BSR4422.
..
The third item was a self-loading magazine-fed pistol of Belgian manufacture (Fabrique Nationale – Herstal Browning hi-power) chambered for 9 mm Luger centre-fire cartridges and bearing the serial number 245PZ42837 (the letters PZ in the serial number denote the year of manufacture as being 1981). This was a custom-build, competition target pistol, having an extended barrel with a barrel weight fixed to the extended barrel cover for balance.
…
The fourth item was a self-loading magazine-fed pistol of Belgian manufacture (Fabrique Nationale – Herstal Browning hi-power) chambered for 9 mm Luger centre-fire cartridges and bearing the serial number 245PZ69756 (year of manufacture 1981).

If you are still in some doubt outspoken, then here is a link to the complete 3376 page transcript of the public inquiry, as published by the Scottish Government, which includes multiple detailed testimonies covering the firearms used, the varieties of ammunition, the magazines and the modifications to the weapons.

Yeah, but that’s just what they want you to think man! Wake up SHEEPLE!

Guns don’t kill people, people do. So what if, like, it was a gun that,like, went into the school and, like, fired a load of people at those kids, eh? Eh?

Think about it!

I ****ing love you Bails.

I have to add to this in a pedantic way…

This:

Is not a sub-machine gun. It’s a short barrelled rifle (SBR). Sub-machine guns are normally chambered in a pistol calbre (9x19mm, .45ACP, etc) rather than the 5.56×45 that the example above is using.

Sorry, carry on with the argument. I feel better now.

I ****ing love you Bails

😆

Thanks babe!

To counter-pedant willard, the references to “a sub-machine gun for walking the dog” were in relation to that Magpul FMG-9 video (which torsoinalake posted just before that image) where the guys says “it’s a flashlight.. you’re out walking the the dog, taking the garbage out, getting the mail.. any problems occur, anything you need immediate action with… *click* “

NSFW but very relevant.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II[/video]

Touche GrahamS, touche. It is nice to work with a pedant of such quality.

I think you will find that the word is touché 😉

Where I live now, I can go out and buy a handgun, not register it and carry it, visible in a holster, on the street. That’s because there is no law saying I can’t carry, therefore I can carry.
Yet, in a metropolitan area with 1.25m people, I have seen this once in 8 months.
Most Americans care not for guns. A minority of those that do apply the ‘n+1’ rule we have for bikes to their hobby.

Coming back to the statistics,

In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 14.6
per 100,000, compared to 1.9 for whites, 2.7 for American
Indians and Alaska Natives, and 1.0 for Asians and Pacific
Islanders (figure 5).

UK had 33 firearms homicides in 2010 giving a rate of 0.04 per 100,000

Its definitely more dangerous (in terms of firearms deaths) to live in the USA instead of the UK but the risk is still low.

the risk is still low.

Those figures look kind of high to me.

They suggest that black Americans are significantly more likely to be murdered by firearm than be killed in a car crash.

And yet there are a lot of traffic laws.

It also shows that even if you are in a the lower risk “white American” group you are still about 47 times more at risk than the UK average.

Its definitely more dangerous (in terms of firearms deaths) to live in the USA instead of the UK

Roughly 4 times as likely to be murdered in the US (4.7) as in the UK (1.2).
But both are hugely safer than places like Honduras (91.6), which coincidentally has the same firearm ownership rate as the UK.

Roughly 4 times as likely to be murdered in the US (4.7) as in the UK (1.2).

Wonder what that figure looks like once you account for race and age groups?

I mean – I’ve got this lot In my cupboard, but I’ve not shot anyone (yet)

Wonder what that figure looks like once you account for race and age groups?

Does it make a difference? 😕

The common argument seems to be, we don’t need to make any laws it is just young black kids that are dying, us middle-aged white guys are relatively safe.

Ninfan, what do you shoot with the 10/22?

@ninfan, what wood’s that bottom one, black ash?

Northwind, think you’ll find its a laminate…

like this…

Outspoken – mainly target at the club – bit of Rabbit but I usually use the .17 HMR for them.

The 10/22 is bloody amazing fun on the running boar target at Bisley!

Northwind, yes its a laminate (one of the OE Ruger ones)

The common argument seems to be, we don’t need to make any laws it is just young black kids that are dying, us middle-aged white guys are relatively safe.

I think its more that making laws which increase the regulation of legally held guns owned predominantly by middle aged white guys doesn’t have much of an effect on reducing the death rate amongst young black kids with illegal ones – if you want to do that then you need to take a long look at some pretty deep and complex social issues, rather than the panacea delivered by ever more stringent laws (Just like the proper enforcement of the existing laws would have likely prevented Dunblane and Hungerford)

I was going to say your cabinet looks more geared towards Rabbit.

I love my .17HMR

but i also use the 10/22 with a mod as well for rabbit

Yes, 10/22 with mod and subtonics is great fun – that red dot is good, but the parallax problem is too big, so you end up with a different MPI every time you change cheek weld.

might get a laser instead

Yes. HMR is a bloody great round

The other two are a .243 BSA and a .308 Tikka (mod not shown)

Don’t like laser at all, used to use red dot a lot on my under lever, now i keep matching optics on both the .22 and .44 for ease of use. Just trained my self to acquire the cross hairs quicker for the turning targets!

Have a .223 Remmy as well for Target and Fox.

The whole race thing is just odd to me…

It’s just and indication of what type of peoe live in the area where it happens really. Its not as if middle aged white men are impervious to bullets, go join a gang in LA and see if you last longer than the others…

I think its more that making laws which increase the regulation of legally held guns owned predominantly by middle aged white guys doesn’t have much of an effect on reducing the death rate amongst young black kids with illegal ones

The thing is that, in the case of America, the “young black kids” are armed with legal guns (or at least guns that were stolen from legal owners).

To be clear I’ve got nothing against hunting or target rifles, particularly low-capacity bolt-action ones. They have a clear purpose that isn’t killing people. And I don’t think banning them would achieve much.

The same can’t really be said for assault rifles, sub-machine guns or semi-automatic pistols.

Someone buying a MAC-10 for instance (before they were banned) wasn’t getting it to hunt rabbits.

ninfan – Member

Northwind, yes its a laminate (one of the OE Ruger ones)

That is bloomin lovely, cheers.