Firearms/reaction of politicians in the aftermath of (undeniably horrible) events

[rawfish111]

this really makes me boil,as sapper says you cant legislate against a madman,nutter whatever you want to call them,they tighten gun laws and yet gun crime goes up...by folk who have no intention of legally owning a firearm and we get the thumb screws tightend a bit more

Exactly!

[rawfish111]

This is a subject that may bring out strong feelings so let's keep an eye on language folks

Agreed hence the NICELY folks

friendly forum lets stay that way!

[midas]

This is a subject that may bring out strong feelings so let's keep an eye on language folks

As most firearms holders a sensible n level headed,people!.I do not think you need to worry about language!

[Silverback]

As most firearms holders a sensible n level headed,people!.I do not think you need to worry about language!

There has been one edit already....Please do as you are asked

[headshot]

appoligies,i did hyphonate the word as i dident want to offend...i dident mean to offend...kev

[happybonzo]

Firstly
. Assault type rifles banned (except that they are not totally)

Don't you mean semi auto loading rifles above .22 in caliber? - just for the sake of accuracy (no pun intended )

And let's not forget the Mad Minute. Great fun to do if you've got some spare cash to convert into smoke and bruised shoulders -

Mad minute was a pre-World War I term used by British Army riflemen during training at the Hythe School of Musketry to describe scoring a minimum of 15 hits onto a 12" round target[citation needed] at 300 yards (270 m) within one minute using a bolt-action rifle (usually a Lee-Enfield or Lee-Metford rifle). It was not uncommon during the First World War for riflemen to greatly exceed this score. Many riflemen could average 30 plus shots. The record, set in 1914 by Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall, was 38 hits.[1] During the Battle of Mons, there were numerous German accounts of coming up against what they believed was machine gun fire when in fact it was squads of riflemen firing at this rate.[2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

[Humakt]

I always find myself pulled both ways with gun ownership issues. And I just can't find a middle ground in myself.
On the one hand I fully endorse the sentiments that personal responsibility is paramount, that I am only a criminal when I have committed a crime. Therefore, until I have proved myself unreliable, I should be allowed to own a firearm.

But also I can't reconcile a need for a civilian to own a handgun (which is easily concealable) or a self-loading weapon. Or, indeed, any weapon that fires a solid cartridge. Shotguns, for pest control, I can understand - for those who have a need and means. Actually, any kind of firearm I can understand the need for ownership, if a real need can be proven (and I don't see 'because I want to do target shooting with it' as a legitimate need for a gun).

I appreciate the argument that says banning weapons merely takes them out of the hands of responsible users and keeps them in the hands of criminals, but when wasn't that the case? Laws exist for the good of all and must be applied equally. It's too late to say that 'at the time of FAC application' that person was deemed responsible after they've gone and killed however many people. Stories of seemingly responsible, and legitimate, people opening fire do crop up, quite often. Banning certain weapons may just keep guns out of hands of people who may stray in a fit of pique and do something they, and the person/s they shoot, regret.
Honest, and law-abiding, Phil, who lives in a semi-detached house in the suburbs, just doesn't need a handgun or rifle. And that cry of 'yeah, but it's my right!' always comes across as petulent and immature. It is equally so the right of someone who, however unlikely, may find themselves at the wrong end of that barrel because , either the gun was stolen and sold on the black market, or the owner had a moment of weakness, to live a full and healthy life. It may indeed be your right to have a gun if you so wish. But because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Maybe it's the responsible thing to not have a gun.

But don't get me wrong, because I see the corollary of that as well - that personal responsibility and freedom I referred to at the beginning.

Truth is, I can't see why so many people want or need a gun. I do see legitimate needs, and I have no problem with that. There is also a lot of talk in the bushcraft fraternity about gun ownership. I realise that a lot of that is because there is a higher proportion of people whose livelihoods is made by being outdoors (on farms and country estates, for example) and I do agree there may be a genuine need in those cases for shotguns for pest control or rifles for game culls. I have no problem with that. But I also suspect that a lot of bushcrafters think they should have guns because it's part of the image (to be the hunter, or the wilderness tracker).

I hold the defence that 'guns don't kill people it's people who kill people' and 'I carry a handgun for my own security' to be the self-evident nonsense they are, and if either of those two ridiculous positions needs defending or explaining then I can't be bothered - you won't hear what I have to say anyway.

Ultimately, I just can't call it. Half of me thinks we should be allowed to own a gun until we prove ourselves irresponsible, But half of thinks that's complete nonsense and that guns just aren't needed by the overwhelming majority, even amongst those who already have them, and that more guns means more chance of something happening regardless - in America (and Switzerland!) there is high gun ownership per capita than here in the UK and both countries have a higher per capita gun crime. Even amongst legal and legitimate owners. But maybe those unfortunate incidents are a price worth paying for 'freedom'?

[FishyFolk]

Target shooting is one of the largest sports in the world, and has been on the olympic programme since the beginning. So owning a gun or 20, also pistols and revolvers for that purpose is a perfectly legit reson for owning one. The other legit reason is hunting. I see no other reasons for having a gun,-* here in Norway that is. And those reasons, sport and hunting are the only reasons that will land you a licence to purchase a gun here.

Semi-auto rifles are no different in firepower than their bolt-action cousins. And many hunters would not be able to use a bolt action rifle safely due to handicaps. They also have other traits that benefits hunting.

And for the life of me I can understand why a person who lives in a town can't own guns. There are shooting ranges in towns (again, sport is a legit reason to won a gun), and going hunting, is a matter of taking the car out for a drive and you are in the country side, with a hunting licence that you buy at the post office here in Norway where 300 000 people buy a hunting licence each year.

A gun is just a tool, like an axe or a knife.

[Humakt]

Target shooting is one of the largest sports in the world, and has been on the olympic programme since the beginning.

Still not entirely convinced. So what if it's on the Olympic programme? That doesn't carve anything in stone.
Sorry to take it to extremes, but the Romans had gladiatorial fights to the death. We don't see that as a reason to continue it. My point being, tastes and attitudes change. I don't see target shooting as legitimate. That said, personally, I also find boxing abhorrent and it still saddens and dumbfounds me that we see two people, in a ring, trying to beat each other to unconciousness, as entertainment.

So I couldn't care less if target shooting, or synchronised swimming, or whatever is in the Olympics - that's no excuse.

[headshot]

Sorry im keeping out of this thread as i thought it was supposed to be sensible