You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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 - MemberSame 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 - MemberA 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?
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre ]According to Wiki[/url]:
Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School [b]armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers, all legally held.[/b] He was carrying 743 cartridges, and fired his weapons 109 times.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
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 [i]other[/i] weapons other than the ones extensively reported?? Perhaps lolly sticks??
Here is an excerpt from [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960314/debtext/60314-07.htm#%22column_1115 ]the Hansard, 14th March 1996[/url]:
..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 [b]enabled him to carry four lethal handguns[/b] and how, according to some reports, he was apparently running a gun club at some stage?
And here is a quote from [url= http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dun01.htm ]The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School (aka the Cullen Report)[/url]:
..having entered the school with 4 handguns and 743 rounds of ammunition, Thomas Hamilton fired 105 rounds with a [b]9 mm Browning self-loading pistol[/b] over a space of about 3-4 minutes before committing suicide with one shot from a [b].357 Smith & Wesson revolver[/b].
Are those "files" official enough for you??
There is more in [url= http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dun03b.htm ]The firearms, ammunition and other equipment carried by Thomas Hamilton section of the report[/url], 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 [i]more[/i] 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 [i]something other than a handgun[/i] - 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 [i]still[/i] 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:
[img] 
[/img]
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 5.56x45 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 [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_FMG-9 ]Magpul FMG-9[/url] video (which torsoinalake posted just before that image) where the guys says [i]"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* "[/i]
NSFW but very relevant.
Touche GrahamS, touche. It is nice to work with a pedant of such quality.
I think you will find that the word is [i]touché[/i] 😉
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 [url= http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf ]statistics[/url],
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 [url= http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom ]33 [/url]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 [i]high[/i] 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.
Roughly 4 times as likely to be murdered in the US (4.7) as in the UK (1.2).Its definitely more dangerous [s](in terms of firearms deaths)[/s] to live in the USA instead of the UK
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)
[img] 
[/img]
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?
Northwind, think you'll find its a laminate...
like this...
[img] 
[/img]
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 [i]legal[/i] 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 - MemberNorthwind, yes its a laminate (one of the OE Ruger ones)
That is bloomin lovely, cheers.
Someone buying a MAC-10 for instance (before they were banned) wasn't getting it to hunt rabbits.
You can still buy fully automatic weapons in the US, you just need a licence, not unlike we have. There are thousands in circulation.
Have a google and see how many murders have been committed with legally held automatic weapons. Ever. I think it's 2.
You including semi-automatics in that 5thElefant?
No, that's just fully auto - assault rifles, sub-machineguns and machineguns.
I don't see the need for automatic weapons outside of the military what so ever.
You're hardly going to fill a deer you want to eat full of 50 bullets or need it to 'protect' your home
People go to the range and shoot stuff, making lots of noise and making things blow up.
It's an odd and expensive hobby, but we all have those one way or another.
No, that's just fully auto - assault rifles, sub-machineguns and machineguns.
So in your "2 deaths. Ever" you are counting incidents like:
Aurora: 12 dead, 70 injured. Weapons included a
Smith & Wesson M&P15 assault rifle with 100-round magazine.
But not Sandy Hook school (28 dead) because the Bushmaster M4 and other weapons he used were [i]only[/i] semi-automatic. This apparently doesn't qualify as an "assault rifle":
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Source: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
So in your "2 deaths. Ever" you are counting incidents like
Nope, just a response to what I quoted:
Someone buying a MAC-10 for instance (before they were banned) wasn't getting it to hunt rabbits.
Your mass shooting graph would look different if they banned everything but shotguns. There'd be one big column labeled shotgun with the same grand total.
Derrick Bird killed 12 with a bolt action .22 and a shotgun
All the rifles in my photo above are potentially far more 'lethal'
The point about 'high capacity magazines' is just as pointless - magazines are, by their very nature, removable and replaceable, a 5 round mag swaps for a 30 round mag and suddenly you've got a 'lethal killing machine' - anyone with some glue and a bit of perspex can make a 'high capacity magazine' if they wanted to.
Nope, just a response to what I quoted:
So if we accept that only 2 deaths have occurred from fully-automatic machine guns then doesn't that suggest that laws heavily restricting their sale have been pretty effective?
In fact it turns out that the States with the tightest gun control have the fewest firearm deaths. Who would have guessed?
[img] 
[/img]
Source: http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
There'd be one big column labeled shotgun with the same grand total.
I disagree. Purely because many of those killings involved the culprits firing hundreds of shots. That's not something you can easily do with a double-barrel shotgun. Even a pump-action holds a fairly limited rounds and is time consuming to reload.
What gun for mtb-ing?
Hmm...choices choices...
Either the 12-gauge auto-loader, or the .45 long slide, with laser sighting, or thePhased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range. However,if they're not available I'll stick with the trusty ol' Uzi nine millimeter. 😉
10/22's look awful with clear banana clips.
Derrick Bird killed 12 with a bolt action .22 and a shotgun
And we remember that incident and Dunblane because they are very unusual here, thanks to our tight gun control.
Meantime in the US there have been at least 61 mass shootings since 1982.
I doubt anyone remembers all of those. 🙁
So if we accept that only 2 deaths have occurred from fully-automatic machine guns then doesn't that suggest that laws heavily restricting their sale have been pretty effective?
Yeah, sure. Availability is certainly a big factor. Nature of the gun isn't, and more importantly cost. Fully automatic weapons are expensive because they're supply is restricted.
I disagree. Purely because many of those killings involved the culprits firing hundreds of shots. That's not something you can easily do with a double-barrel shotgun. Even a pump-action holds a fairly limited rounds and is time consuming to reload
I doubt that's true.
The last spree here was, as ninfan said, sporting guns and previous to that I believe it was a revolver (an unpopular choice on your graph). A gun is a gun.
10/22's look awful with clear banana clips.
The only thing those mags are good for is plinking!
only ever use modified 10 shot mags!
Meantime in the US there have been at least 61 mass shootings since 1982.
Yes, but perhaps there are deeper issues rooted in American society causing that than simple gun ownership - things like poverty, alienation, crime etc? As nicely covered in 'bowling for Columbine
At the same time we in the UK stare agog at the american 'guns secure our freedom' outlook, but its very easy to forget where much of american society comes from - a great, great many people fled to America to escape victimisation at home, they saw governments that repressed and murdered those unable to defend themselves on a mass scale. For them this isn't an abstract, its a real living memory, for a great many more it is the stories they heard at their parents and grandparents fireside - and when you put that in place you begin to understand a psyche that vows 'governments should be afraid of their people'!
A gun is a gun.
Indeed and some guns are better for killing lots of folks - was there another design reason for the ability to fire lots of shots that I have overlooked?
but perhaps there are deeper issues rooted in American society causing that than simple gun ownership - things like poverty, alienation, crime etc
You have gone all bleeding heart liberal now dude 😉
For them this isn't an abstract, its a real living memory
Its a bit longer ago than that. I dont think they really do have the guns because they think the govt might attack them and if they do they are the kind of paranoid loons who should not have access to guns 😛
Americas relationship with guns is a complex one for sure but lots of guns sure aint helping.
...when you put that in place you begin to understand a psyche that vows 'governments should be afraid of their people'!
As you say there are histories that explain some of America's obsession with guns, going right back to the fundamental "right to bear arms" argument. I get that. That doesn't make it right or helpful.
We have a fair number of refugees from modern war zones and oppressive regimes in the UK. We don't give them special dispensation to keep assault rifles.
Moreover the US government has access to the biggest military machine in the world. Planes, tanks, drones, missiles, aircraft carriers, chemical weapons, nukes... would they ever really be afraid of the people? It's not a battle that the people would ever win by firepower.
would they ever really be afraid of the people? It's not a battle that the people would ever win by firepower.
I've spoken to a couple of people over here who really truly believe that their government is kept in check because the American people are armed.
I backed out of the room, smiling and not breaking eye contact.
TooTall - Member
would they ever really be afraid of the people? It's not a battle that the people would ever win by firepower.I've spoken to a couple of people over here who really truly believe that their government is kept in check because the American people are armed.
I backed out of the room, smiling and not breaking eye contact.
I think that pretty much sums the whole thing up, there is no [i]logical[/i] reason for modern america to be full of guns. But it makes them all feel special by some divine right and they are in control of their country not the politicians.
Rather them than us. I'd rather be aware of the fact our country is run by tossers and owning a gun isn't going to do squat about it...
I've got this lot In my cupboard, but I've not shot anyone (yet)
As an FAC holder this is a [u]very[/u] unwise statement. About as wise as telling someone at an airport you haven't got a bomb ha ha. We might take it as a joke someone else might think it shows a level of consideration for the act.
Also why are all your rifles out of the cabinet at the same time?
You can take all of your firearms out of your cabinet at once you know. He could have just cleaned all of them, or be selling one.
Next you'll be trying to tell me off for not keeping the bolts separate... 🙄
The more paranoia that we, as a responsible and mature 'shooting community' show about possibly, theoretically bringing 'them' down on us, and driving our sport into the sphere of some secret underground shady dirty secret that we can't tell anyone about or act normally over, the worse it gets for us, and the more silly pretend rules get 'made up' by people (like needing to keep bolts separate, or having more than one out the cabinet!)
Why oh why would you not be allowed all of your guns out of the cabinet at once?
Back to the OP. I'd have one of these below (and the bike). Equally effective at seeing off Bears, Bosche or Bandits, what what?
Not convinced about his choice of tyres though. And am I much mistaken, or are those hub gears? Must be one of those new Nicolais...
[img] 
?w=950[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
For those of you who are pedantically questioning the viability of carrying, retrieving and letting fly with, your gun before the forces of oultlaw/bears/the Bosche can relieve you of your velocipede and have it away on their toes, I will point out that the Enduro Rider in my historically accurate picture is pulling a manual whilst simultaneously giving the Bosche a lead lobotomy. I think we can all agree that that puts that argument to bed, lock, stock and one smoking barrel.. 8)
Some people are trying to keep these old skills alive (but a bit slower on the draw)I will point out that the Enduro Rider in my historically accurate picture is pulling a manual whilst simultaneously giving the Bosche a lead lobotomy
[img]
[/img]
That's an ergonomic disaster, fixed years ago.
[img] 
[/img]