Guns

[Kent]

Cause gun and knife crime is on the rise in London, yeah? Hell, even I thought it was.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6571189.stm
Gun/knife crime down 11% in London.

Do I even need to comment on "statistics"?

To all those raised with guns, good for you. You know how to treat guns, fire guns, store guns and maintain guns.
But teh same can be said to all those that drove up driving their dad's weekend driver from a young-ish age. You know how to act.

There's alot of people that haven't had those oppurtunities. I haven't had either, and I think it's fair to say most people haven't either. These people do not[/n] know how to treat guns, and when given a gun often think they do.

Why is someone being given a gun?
None the less, someone who doesn't know the first thing about them?
Even more so, someone dumb enough not to know the shootie-end from the holdie-end?

In regards to "An armed society is a polite society". How many times have you accidentally pissed someone off? You don't mean to do it, technically you haven't been impolite. I mean, all you could've done is gone a date with a girl who's fancied by someone who's a tad obsessive. That person could be a complete runt, who's got no chance of 'getting even', untill you stick a 9mm in his hands. But wait, in an armed society you'd have agun aswell so we'd go all "Old west" and have a shoot-out? No, because you can't and won't be watching your back all the time.

So you propose the defense to psycological disorders is to disarm the nut-job and worry about covering your back?
I could swear that you're using an argument catered to your goal with absolutely no consideration for the possiblity that society doesn't work as simply as you've put it.

I mean, what? The nut-job can't get a hammer or a rock to get you when you turn away? Come on man, you've got to do better than that. 👎

I do not believe that gun control for law abiding citizens is the complete answer.

I don't think it's any part of the answer... Rather, I view it as a way for people with psychological power issues to lash out on society in a way they percieve to be attacking a criminal element even though they never actually affect criminals.
(btw, the way to start what you've been talking about is to apply gun control that already exist to criminals that already exist)

Of course, American needs to deal with the illegal import/trading first, and I realise that is difficult, but things can be done.

Things could be done about your grammar and you don't seem to do anything about that... Why is that? (sorry but there's a point to that)
It's easier to point out a problem than it is to fix one.

Gun amnesty's, more undercover work, reduce sales of de-activated guns that could be re-activated.

Let's label these suggestions as what they are... "Dis-armament." (minus the generalized "more undercover work")
None of what you've suggested actually attacks crime (it's all reactionary activities aimed at legal gun owners).

That's a fair point. But, you don't break into a house that looks secure. Double glazing, sturdy doors, fenced off back gardens.

Individual criminals all react different ways... Some buglars (as you have it) would rather break into a secure location, I mean "what do they have to be secure about?"
I thought the rich people were the ones with gates, fences, big locks, and sturdy doors.
(not to say deturance is impossble... "Hardening" a target is a common suggestion in sociology when addressing crime prevention)

Anotehr point I'd liek to make is that by legalising guns you make more guns available to the black market.

I can understand the way you would make come to that conclusion. However, I believe you are wrong...
Legalising anything will eliminate the black market for that item, as the black market is the illegal market.

If a mugger knows say, an elderly women has a gun, he doesn't need to even let that gun become part of the equation. He mererely needs to striker her from behind, hell even from the front and she'll have no chance to getting that gun out. Then all he has to do is steel her purse, do a quick pat down and make off with her cash, and a gun.

Sounds like you've done that before.
Just kidding with you about that but to address the point...
Why does that little old woman have a gun?
Why does the mugger know this woman has a gun?

You propose a hypothetical cicumstance in which an elderly woman holds a gun and no chance to defend herself.

Just as easily as you propose that, I could propose the possibility that...

Granny can actually lift the 3lb. pistol... Boom.. Mugger is dead and wishing he hadn't picked on an old woman who he knew had a pistol.

Or maybe granny gets the gun on him as a completely unprepared chump (since he didn't know, and certainly didn't expect granny to turn around with a gun).

So where does that sort of argument lead? Nowhere!

Finally, my point...
You are exploiting stereotypes, using rediculus foundations for scenerios, and completely ignoring the possiblity that you don't know everything about the world. (not everyone is as smart or dumb as you think they are... Likewise for criminals, likewise for innocence or being naive, etc etc... ) (and I'm not saying I know everything either)

I find it hard to hold a debate with you because of the way you argue- not what you argue.

Were you to provide solid examples and give credit where credit is due- I might consider your argument slightly persuassive.

As is though, I see your view as highly subjective. It's almost as if you're just worried about people being able to control something you can't.
Seems like you've got pent up anger about it as well.

Hopefully in time you will learn to address your fears of guns (as it is not good to live in fear).

Come to think of it... I think some people may buy guns for that very reason... Funny how that sort of thing happens huh?

 

[Gil]

If you look around in any other threads where I have advocated gun ownership, you will note that I advocate proper training on the use of that weapon, and the knowing the laws applicable to your state of residence about the "justifiable" use of a firearm.

It is imperative that you know how to work with your tools before you embark on a project.
A gun is a tool.
For the record, the "holdie end" is the one without the hole in the distal end.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I see I've waded into a discussion where I have little chance of 'winning'.

Point is that a mugger is less likely to try to hit you on the back of the head if he knows you have a gun. One slip up and he could be dead. Those are high stakes, it will make muggers thing twice. Even if it's a relatively easy thing to do, the stakes are as high as they come. If the mugger knows that the person is unarmed, he doesn't risk nearly as much.

Again, he risks his life to do so. Whereas if he knows that she is unarmed he risks almost nothing.

I still don't believe the argument that a gun is useful merely because it is there.

Yes, one slip-up and he get a bullet in his back, perhaps. Simply by making a point of getting that gun straight away he covers himself. Unless of course you bring in the variable of a passer by, but that is a problem in an armed, or unarmed society.

And the Home Office's own figures show a rise in the use of firearms used in robberies in the country as a whole. The UK is more than just London and crime figures for the capitol alone do not always show the true picture.

Source - http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paFiguresThurs18Crimefiguresud2Substitute&show_article=1

That's fair enough. But the point I was trying to make is that if you were to read the news on a regular basis you would probably think that gun crime was a growing problem in London.

And just as people require testing and licensing to be able to drive a car I would fully support the same approach to gun ownership. The logic being applied here would suggest that because not all people drive cars legally then cars are the fault and should be banned (as that's the same logic as saying that if anyone could behave irresponsibly with a gun then all guns should be banned).

I understand your logic. However, an illegally owned/driven car can be noticed and removed before harm is done. I realise this is not always the case (a friend of mine was recentley hit off his motorbike by a drink-driver who has no issurance). But an illegally owned gun will probably only be discovered once the damage is done.

I would love to see you provide some detailed statistics proving this.

Lets look at the two years after the handgun ban in the UK (following Dunblane), in which the use of guns in crime rose by 40%...

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

...that's after 160,000 legaly held guns were handed in by owners (including people I know) and then destroyed...

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/164402.stm

...what its not difficult to do is find details on an increase in black-market weapons since legal guns were banned...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/02/08/sohoey08.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1400685.ece


...so before making such a bold claim I would like to see some proof that legalising guns would lead to an increase in the black-market for firearms. Simply put the figures since the handgun ban do not back up such a claim, nor does simple logic, a criminal will obtain a gun regardless of if guns can be legally held by the public or not.

My logic being that if guns are legalized then there re simply more guns available to the criminal. Be it through theft or fraudulent purchase, or even legal purchase.

In regards to the statistics you have provided articles from sources I myself trust, and to be perfectley honest I lack the time to be checking the net for solid counter arguments.

Do I even need to comment on "statistics"?

Because of course every statistic is twisted if it is provided by the goverment. I understand goverment "spin", but to throw out statistics simply because you don't like who made them is poor form.

Why is someone being given a gun?
None the less, someone who doesn't know the first thing about them?
Even more so, someone dumb enough not to know the shootie-end from the holdie-end?

What exactly is your point?

In regards to knowing the shootie-end form the holdie-end, What about correcting handling of the gun while firing? I'd have thought recoil was a problem for the untrained.

So you propose the defense to psycological disorders is to disarm the nut-job and worry about covering your back?
I could swear that you're using an argument catered to your goal with absolutely no consideration for the possiblity that society doesn't work as simply as you've put it.

I mean, what? The nut-job can't get a hammer or a rock to get you when you turn away? Come on man, you've got to do better than that. 👎

There's a difference between someone coming at you with a gun and someone with a hammer. For a start if the first blow wouldn't always be deadly with a hammer or a rock and if you were in a crowd, even a smaller one, I would hope the attacker would be restrained before the chance arises to finish you off.

In an armed society you could be dead before everyone arounds you even knows what's happening. Sure, you're attacker could be shot to pieces aswell, but you'd be dead first.

Individual criminals all react different ways... Some buglars (as you have it) would rather break into a secure location, I mean "what do they have to be secure about?"
I thought the rich people were the ones with gates, fences, big locks, and sturdy doors.
(not to say deturance is impossble... "Hardening" a target is a common suggestion in sociology when addressing crime prevention)

American security must be bad if you consider a fence, big locks and a sturdy door high security.

Subtle thinks like double glazing and a fenced off harden will make a target look harder without making you look well-off and a good target. Sturdy doors shouldn't look sturdy to the outside world, but simply not flimsy.

I can understand the way you would make come to that conclusion. However, I believe you are wrong...
Legalising anything will eliminate the black market for that item, as the black market is the illegal market.

That's a very naive way to look at it.

Cigarettes are legal in the UK, yet there is a rather large black market for them due to their cost. Yes, it is a goverment induced cost, but that does not justify a black market surely.

If the UK became an armed society, does that mean that everyone should be allowed a gun? The convicted criminal? The insane? The underage? No. So surely a blackmarket would survive to supply these people, the most dangerous of people.

Sounds like you've done that before.
Just kidding with you about that but to address the point...
Why does that little old woman have a gun?
Why does the mugger know this woman has a gun?

a) Because she feels safer knowing she has a gun.
b) He doesn't, but as said previous, "and armed society is a polite society," so one must assume everyone has a gun.

Just as easily as you propose that, I could propose the possibility that...

Granny can actually lift the 3lb. pistol... Boom.. Mugger is dead and wishing he hadn't picked on an old woman who he knew had a pistol.

Or maybe granny gets the gun on him as a completely unprepared chump (since he didn't know, and certainly didn't expect granny to turn around with a gun).

It's not about the granny knowing how to use the gun, it's about her having the oppurtunity to use it.

And when a society gets to the point that a granny pulls a gun on, and possibnly even shoots, anyone that walks behind her on the pavement I'd be very concerned.

Finally, my point...
You are exploiting stereotypes, using rediculus foundations for scenerios, and completely ignoring the possiblity that you don't know everything about the world. (not everyone is as smart or dumb as you think they are... Likewise for criminals, likewise for innocence or being naive, etc etc... ) (and I'm not saying I know everything either)

Yes, I'm formulating scenarios that help my casue, but I'm no different to several other members in that respect. Like the assumption that if students at VT has been armed they would have surely fought back.

I find it hard to hold a debate with you because of the way you argue- not what you argue.

The feeling is entirely mutual.

As is though, I see your view as highly subjective. It's almost as if you're just worried about people being able to control something you can't.

I don't understand. Do you mean control the legaslation of guns, or the actual use of a gun?

Seems like you've got pent up anger about it as well.

I do feel very strongly about the subject, but not angry.

I live on the very fringe of a small city. There is little to no gun crime except for the occasional shotgun incident.
Three incidents in a year, population approx 225,000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/4618087.stm
One within 5-10 minutes drive of my house.

However, I belive that if guns were legalisd there would be an increase in my area, maybe not in the rest of the area, but inevitably, there would be an increase in Swansea.

Hopefully in time you will learn to address your fears of guns (as it is not good to live in fear).

I will openly admit to having a fear of guns. Just like I will always have a fear of the car that drives too quickly along the road. But please don't get the impression I live my life in fear, I merely have an idea of what can and cannot harm me.

If you look around in any other threads where I have advocated gun ownership, you will note that I advocate proper training on the use of that weapon, and the knowing the laws applicable to your state of residence about the "justifiable" use of a firearm.

It is imperative that you know how to work with your tools before you embark on a project.
A gun is a tool.
For the record, the "holdie end" is the one without the hole in the distal end.

I understand the argument that supports correct training, but it's experience that people need more than anything. Just look at the accident rates of new drivers.


N.b.

Things could be done about your grammar and you don't seem to do anything about that... Why is that? (sorry but there's a point to that)

Well done 👍 You've pointed out that my grammar is poor, but at the same time read my name incorrectley. I am indeed ExigeExcel and not exigeracer

And finally, I will gladly read you replies, however it has taken me the best part of 40 minutes to reply to the above arguments, time I don't really have.

 

[Sureboss]

I have to say that the above part is quite telling, you have no direct experience of guns, nor have you even been in an environment in which guns are treated with respect and good gun safety was the norm.

I have, growing up with them. Respectfully this smacks of a personal fear of something you do not know, guns do not automatically mean danger any more than a car automatically means danger. Yet both can be lethal in the wrong (untrained and uneducated) hands.

In regard to the police not being armed and citizens being able to legally own guns? What do you think currently happens in the UK with shotgun ownership? What about the UK prior to the ban on handguns? Who do you think checked and monitored these (then) legally owned guns? The police did, and when I did legally own guns (mainly shotguns) I never meet a police officer who had a problem with it. The police don't have an issue with legally owned guns, the have a fear of illegally owned guns, and banning legal ownership has done nothing to change that at all.

As for the Police in the UK being unarmed, well that may be the case for beat officers in the UK, but the Police Service of Northern Ireland (part of the UK) are armed as standard, officers on airport duty have been armed for years now (well prior to 9/11 as well) and the motorways of the UK are routinely patrolled by rapid response units that are armed with 9mm pistols and H&K MP5s. Sorry but the UK police are armed, just not in a publicly visible way or on the beat.



Regards

Scaff

I didn't know about that with the Northern Ireland police, though not too surprising with what's gone on their. I admit I haven't had a lot of experience with guns (minimal infact). I just don't think I could trust people that legally own guns to a) keep them from kids (some little brats around would go wafting it around) b) use them responsibily. I just don't trust the 'British public' enough. Heaven forbid a paper should ever do 'Name all the perverts in Britain' campaign again, like the NOTW did (was it them?).

 

[Josh]

I was given my first rifle at age 11. Took a Hunter's safety course at 12. Was given many guns between age 11 and 18 - at which point I started buying my own. I've had several different weapons training courses through the military - have a Small Arms Marksmanship Ribbon with a Bronze Service Star for qualifying expert with both the M16A2 and the M9. Own several guns to date - 30+ handguns, 11 rifles(mostly evil black "assault rifles" aka AR-15's, and an AR-50 .50cal), and 6 shotguns. My ammunition count is in the ten's of thousands of rounds. I own several NFA/Class III items - 2 SBR's(short barreled rifles), and 3 suppressor's(aka silencer's). No machine guns - as of yet. I compete regularly in IDPA, and other shooting competitions. I also have a concealed weapons permit for the state of SC and carry a heavily modified S&W M&P9c with a fullsize 17rd mag +1 in the chamber daily.

I love guns, and everything to do with guns. The thought of a gun ban makes me laugh. If a nation-wide gun ban ever does happen I'll be a criminal - because I'm not giving any of mine up. I'll never give up my right to defend the life of myself, my wife's, our daughter's, or anyone around me.

We flew an 18 year old Army kid (E-1, bottom of the totem-pole, so-to-speak) back in a box from Iraq to Dover AFB two days ago that died from a GSW to the head on the 17th. I also walked a friend home when we were 10 or 11 and walked into his house to find his parents dead - mom shot by dad, dad suicide. Of course this stuff sucks, but even if guns weren't around all 3 would still be dead, but from different weapons/tools.

I just ordered 2k rounds of Fed. LC XM193 for you anti-gun folks.

 

[ledhed]

Welcome Josh

I Think my Glock and its .45 cal rounds are a much better choice as a carry weapon .

Averthing else , I tend to aggree with . I carried 9mm and even with ++P 115 to 154 grains load , the only advantage was the magazine capacity.
I have had to use both rounds and I will tell you that there is a huge difference in stopping power . I never realized how much difference the bigger round makes although they both do the job ...a .22 will also if you place it right .
I just carry 4 mags now instead of the usual 3 .

 

[Josh]

I agree that .45acp has greater stopping power, but I like the greater magazine capacity - as you mentioned. I also have a Glock, but it's my gun I reach for when people want to come in the house uninvited. Glock G19 with a LWD threaded barrel, AAC Evolution 9mm supp(still waiting for the form 4's to get approved on that one, though.)., Crimson Trace lasergrip, a TLR-1 to light things up, and 124gr. +p Speer Gold Dots ready to go. It's a real efficient, quiet, setup I can use if needed and not wake up our daughter down the hall. About to order some 147gr Speer's to help quiet things down some more.

I'm thinking about getting a M&P40c for the wife. And maybe the new fullsize M&P in .45 for myself to play with at the range. If Smith & Wesson ever comes out with a M&P45 in a compact I will fall in love, and might just start carrying the .45.

 

[Kent]

Hypothetically speaking, if I just got done cleaning a gun (if I owned one) this is what it would have been... S&W 686-7 .357 magnum.

On the subject though, I get the feeling this is going no where. I say that because for each "tit" there is a "tat."

Without anything to say to each other besides a back and forth of hypotheticals, I'd have to say this thread is quickly killing itself.

IMO, the bottom line is this...

Abide the laws of your land.
Act appropriately when dealing with guns.
Do not handle or use guns if you do not know what you are doing.
Do not kill people or commit crimes with a gun (or any weapon).

Other than that, again IMO, the laws stand as is... The 2nd amendment protects my right to own a gun.

I love the sporting element of target shooting. 👍
I don't like the idea of using a gun for anything else but at the same time, living outside of New Orleans as I do, I'm comfortable knowing that my fate does not entirely rest in someone else's hands. 👍

As for exigeexcel,
I don't really see much point in trying to talk with you about this anymore... No matter what the point is or how it is stated you have a response that serves nothing more than the tit-for-tat part of this discussion.

To put it bluntly, I don't see anyone being able to make any progress with this subject.
No one is willing to see things from the other side (or atleast it seems that way).

So, until next time,
-

 

[Solid Lifters]

I carry a S&W 696 (.44S&W Special) with Magsafe 44 Special 55-grain Swat Load 94gr. 2,000 ft per second/488 ft-lbs from a 5" barrel (smaller numbers from my 3" 696.)Breaks apart in sheetrock. Best home or self defense load for my gun. I often carry handloads, but I'd never admit to it if I were involved in a shooting. Frontier brass and Hornady XTP 180gr. rated at +P+ which gives me about 1150fps. and 523ft-lbs. But, using handloads can get you in trouble with attorneys who'll go after you for making "super-duper-extra-cop-killer" bullets.

Fed. LC XM193 are a hot load. I have some SS-109 PMC ammo left, though I almost never shoot .223 anymore. I think it's pretty much redundant round. So many different calibers can do much better than it.

 

[Azuremen]

Kent, its the classic cause of left vs right "arguing." One guy uses the cold, logical argument, the other guy uses the emotion, people loving side. They can rarely see eye to eye.

Exige... you keep arguing things you don't seem to understand. One half decent hit in the head with a hammer and you are DEAD. Secondly, a gun shot has to be well placed to kill someone. You seem to think gun will instantly kill, while anything less takes multiple times. And yes, you may be dead if the attacker wants you dead, and yes, he will end up dead too, but most people value their life to some degree. The ones that don't are generally going to kill you if they really want regardless

Both of you seem to be forgetting citizen c in this granny thing. Mugger is gonna be a helluva alot more concerned about anyone else intervening in an armed society. Same reason why a robber will not hold up a convenience store - he has no idea if the guy standing by the beer is armed, or the person in line behind him, etc.

American security must be bad if you consider a fence, big locks and a sturdy door high security.

Subtle thinks like double glazing and a fenced off harden will make a target look harder without making you look well-off and a good target. Sturdy doors shouldn't look sturdy to the outside world, but simply not flimsy.

And whats with this? You realize criminals will typical go for the easier looking target, regardless? And what do you expect people to have, turrets and electric fence? Again, another argument that has no counter point to back it up.

About the illegal owned/driven cars being "easy" to remove... you clearly have no idea how many motorist here drive without insurance. Its more than enough to merit getting uninsured motorist insurance. I don't have the time to find the exact numbers though.

You have no reason to fear a gun - its a gun in the hands of a person that is dangerous you need to fear. This fear of yours is affecting how you rationalize things, and you lack of understanding on the matter is somewhat clear.

Final point I am going to address from you Exige, is proper training includes experience with using the fire arm, not sit down class room training.

A couple things worth noting - I am not a gun lover (currently don't even have one) and was never huge on shooting or hunting.

Thing to note on this "debate" - the people saying guns should be legal tend to be older and from the us... where as the ones arguing against guns tend to younger (teens) and living in the UK. So those that are arguing for guns tend to have a large amount MORE experience with guns than those that are anti guns. So I think a large part of this "debate" is coming down to experience and understanding of the situation.

 

[Scaff]

I didn't know about that with the Northern Ireland police, though not too surprising with what's gone on their. I admit I haven't had a lot of experience with guns (minimal infact). I just don't think I could trust people that legally own guns to a) keep them from kids (some little brats around would go wafting it around) b) use them responsibily. I just don't trust the 'British public' enough. Heaven forbid a paper should ever do 'Name all the perverts in Britain' campaign again, like the NOTW did (was it them?).

You seem to be unaware that members of the British public can currently legally own shotguns and rifles, and are doing so quite responsibly. They use them with respect and care, and educate their children to do so. You have no concept at all of how abhorant the thought of a kid getting hold of a gun when they have no idea about gun safety is to those who respect guns.

These people who you don't trust to own guns are not the ones using them to commit crimes in the UK. The vast majority of Farmers own shotguns, as do a huge number of clay pigeon and game shooters. Would you care to tell me that last time one of these people was responsible for an armed robbery or violent rampage? The answer is over a decade ago, yet legally owned guns that could do this are still present to a degree in the UK. The simple reasonm why shooters in the UK keep a low profile (and in competition we have some of the best in the world) is quite simply because of ill-informed, knee-jerk reactions such as this.

That's fair enough. But the point I was trying to make is that if you were to read the news on a regular basis you would probably think that gun crime was a growing problem in London.

Gun crime is a growing problem in every part of the country, the piece you linked to stated (correctly) that gun crime had dropped from a high in London (in 2001), however in the last decade gun crime in every part of the UK has grown. I provided a quote and source that cited exactly that. The ban on legally held handguns in the UK has not reduced the use of firearms in crimes in the UK, nor was it going to.

I understand your logic. However, an illegally owned/driven car can be noticed and removed before harm is done. I realise this is not always the case (a friend of mine was recentley hit off his motorbike by a drink-driver who has no issurance). But an illegally owned gun will probably only be discovered once the damage is done.

Are you kidding me, the number of illegally owned and driven cars in the UK is going through the roof. Un-insured cars, cars without MOT, cloned plates, un-roadworth cars, all these are on the increase. So no they are not easy to remove from the road and nor are they being removed from the road. As such I ask again, would you support a ban on legal car ownership because of the use of cars in criminal activity?

In regards to knowing the shootie-end form the holdie-end, What about correcting handling of the gun while firing? I'd have thought recoil was a problem for the untrained.

At what point have I advocated allowing the untrained and unlicensed to own guns? I've actually stated quite the opposite, and gun safety starts a long way back from pulling the trigger and dealing with the recoil. Those who own guns legally are not a bunch of loonies who want to drive around shooting rounds off in the air. Rather we are more than aware of the potential danger of a gun (much as a good driver should be) and treat they with the respect they deserve.

Cigarettes are legal in the UK, yet there is a rather large black market for them due to their cost. Yes, it is a goverment induced cost, but that does not justify a black market surely.

Black-markets exist for two main reasons, high-levels of tax or prohibition. In the UK, cigarettes, alcohol and petrol are examples that fall into the first category. Prohibited drugs (and alcohol in certain countries) fall into the latter.

Firearms will always have a black-market regardless of the legality of ownership, because certain members of society will not have access to they legally (due to age, criminal records, mental heath issues). Banning the legal ownership of guns does not in anyway change that, nor will it lead to a decrease in the use of illegally owned guns used in crimes.

If the UK became an armed society, does that mean that everyone should be allowed a gun? The convicted criminal? The insane? The underage? No. So surely a blackmarket would survive to supply these people, the most dangerous of people.

See my last point, if these people are prohibited from having a gun then the status of legally owned guns is a total irrelevances, they would obtain them anyway. Some black-markets can't be fully removed and these people will obtain guns anyway, and this will always be illegal. If this was not the case (and for your argument to hold any ground at all) then the use of firearms in crimes in the UK would have dropped in the decade since the ban, not increased.


The ban on legally owned handguns in the UK was totally daft, its had no effect on crime (other than to see it increase), has put people out of business and driven world class professionals to have to train abroad. You see one of the types of gun banned was any centre-fire pistol (later amended to any pistol), including single shot .22 match pistols. Now these look like this...

...the grip is normally custom fitted (making it very difficult to use by anyone but the owner), are often single shot and they require a great degree of practice to use effectively. Yet guns of this type were among the majority banned by the UK government. Yet the licensed owners had these guns registered and stored securely, as to do otherwise would be to risk losing both licence and gun.

However I could go out tomorrow and legally buy one of these

or these

http://www.xbows.co.uk/

I would not need a licence to do so, nor would I need to inform the police, yet with a similar level of practice it would be capable of causing as much if not more damage than the pistol above.

Again all legally owned by people in the UK as I write this, the vast, vast majority of whom are totally law abiding and use them for hunting and target practice.

Be it a pistol, rifle, shotgun, crossbow, bow, knife, rock, etc; the item itself is simply a tool. It takes intent to use them in an illegal manner. Banning the ownership of them to responsible people will in no way change that at all.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Stevisiov]

Reading through this thread I have somewhat changed my opinion as to how I voted in the poll. Originally I voted for I support the complete illegality of civilian ownership but reading what Scaff had to say has got me thinking, we have all seen on BBC news, pictures of all the guns confiscated in anti-gun raids, and raiding gangs houses. How many of those guns appear to have been purchased from legal channels, or even stolen from legal owners. There are wide selections of Uzi's, MP5's, 12 gauge shotguns, and various illegal looking handguns. All appear to be smuggled into the UK.

If this is the case then how would making all guns completely illegal change anything. If the law on guns in this country is kept strict, surely this would prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. Then it would be a case of trying to prevent guns being smuggled into the country which is the main reason why there are gun crimes in the UK

 

[Josh]

I carry a S&W 696 (.44S&W Special) with Magsafe 44 Special 55-grain Swat Load 94gr. 2,000 ft per second/488 ft-lbs from a 5" barrel (smaller numbers from my 3" 696.)Breaks apart in sheetrock. Best home or self defense load for my gun. I often carry handloads, but I'd never admit to it if I were involved in a shooting. Frontier brass and Hornady XTP 180gr. rated at +P+ which gives me about 1150fps. and 523ft-lbs. But, using handloads can get you in trouble with attorneys who'll go after you for making "super-duper-extra-cop-killer" bullets.

Fed. LC XM193 are a hot load. I have some SS-109 PMC ammo left, though I almost never shoot .223 anymore. I think it's pretty much redundant round. So many different calibers can do much better than it.

From what I've read you really shouldn't worry too much about using handloads in your carry gun. Well, some people say they aren't always as reliable as factory ammo, but I've never reloaded so I don't know. 99% of the people I've talked to say the shooting is either justified, or it's not - bottom line. If it's a justified self-defense shooting who cares what kind of bullets you have. That's why I just dumped $470 into having a gunsmith mod the hell out of my M&P9c that cost... right around $500 new. If a DA's case against me is based on what gun I used then it's a justified shoot and he really doesn't have **** else on me, and he's milking everything out that he can. And I've never read a case where handloads or guns with trigger jobs were brought up as a major issue. But, it's your ass - cover it how you see fit. Kinda like after going through all the proper steps I legally own suppressors, but you'll never see me carrying one - you know the DA would just be dying to make me out to look like a hired hitman out assasinating innocent people.

I wouldn't shoot .223 if it weren't for my AR's chambered in it. It's kind of like .22 in the fact that it's fun to shoot, but it's nowhere near as cheap!

 

[Solid Lifters]

From what I've read you really shouldn't worry too much about using handloads in your carry gun. Well, some people say they aren't always as reliable as factory ammo, but I've never reloaded so I don't know.

I've been reloading since I was 18. I've had two misfires. One, I forgot to put powder in a case. It happens, but never with ammo I make for self defense. I do small batches and inspect every single step carefully. I hand-prime each round. I use a single stage press which keeps things in check during every step.

The second misfire happened with a bunch of .45 ammo that some rounds wouldn't properly battery. I made them at a friends house on his Dillon press that at the time I wasn't familiar with, and was shooting a new round I never made before. A cheap 200gr. copper plated SWC that was crap. The overall length was too long and some rounds wouldn't chamber. I ran them through my progressive press and seated the bullets a little lower. They shot fine after that.

I'm confident and comfortable shooting my homemade rounds. I shoot them at least two times a year for practice and to get rid of old ammo. Never had a misfire. Over the years, we're talking several thousand rounds for my self defense loads and literally tens of thousands of rounds of plinking/target ammo. I've had more loading and extracting failures with factory ammo than with my reloads. Especially in semi-autos and my lever action rifles.

Handloads are safe. At least mine are.

 

[Gil]

Josh,
I would humbly suggest that you start reading any and all articles you can find written by Massad Ayoob. I would further suggest looking up Evan Marshall, Jan Liboural, and Ed Sanow.

Ayoob often is called in as an expert witness, in defense of those who have righteously had to shoot someone that tried to prey upon them. He is also the founder of LFI (Lethal Force Institute). A place that cops and civilians can go to get real world training on the use of a firearm as a defensive tool.
He has seen every kind of argument you can think of including having the model/name of the gun (i.e. Colt Cobra, Python, etc.) called into question because it sounded more lethal.
If the shooting is "by the book" handloads can be called into question, because "after all, wasn't store-bought, factory prepared ammo lethal enough for you, or did you have to make up some "witches brew" of ammo to make sure you killed whoever you shot?"

Marshall and Sanow co-authored what is considered to be the definitive work on "stopping power" of handgun bullets.

I used to read GWLE (Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement) fairly regularly. Ayoob has been a regular contributor for many years.

As for the argument on criminals: remember criminals are predators, and they are fundamentally lazy. They will usually go after the weakest target, that will take the least amount of effort. Knowing that the law-abiding citizenry is unarmed plays directly in favor of criminals looking to take any advantage.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I see Massad Ayoob all the time on Personal Defense. He's done a lot of investigating of both deadly police shootings (when cops are the victim) and when regular citizens are involved and they kill their attacker. He has some great advice, but not all of it needs to be followed.

Never has anyone been convicted because of the ammo they used. It's been brought up, but never was the deciding vote. Again, I'm not worried. If I get involved in a shooting, I'd simply say I buy my own ammo and I also make my own ammo. 99% of the time, I carry the Magsafe stuff. Now, that stuff sounds more deadly than the stuff I make. If I could, I'd never admit to making ammo for my guns. I wouldn't offer it.

I also would never admit if I had a bad day during the day of the shooting. That HAS made a deciding factor in some cases Massad has investigated. Also, drinking habits and neighbors opinion come in to play, also. Again, it's never just one thing.

Shooting and killing somebody is no easy thing to do. Even if it was justified. I know that very well from reading Massad and seeing him on TV. Overall, I'm going to do the one thing that makes me safe and to remain alive. If building my own ammo and using it in the firearm I'm most comfortable with is one of them, I'm going to do it.

 

[Josh]

Josh,
I would humbly suggest that you start reading any and all articles you can find written by Massad Ayoob. I would further suggest looking up Evan Marshall, Jan Liboural, and Ed Sanow.

Ayoob often is called in as an expert witness, in defense of those who have righteously had to shoot someone that tried to prey upon them. He is also the founder of LFI (Lethal Force Institute). A place that cops and civilians can go to get real world training on the use of a firearm as a defensive tool.
He has seen every kind of argument you can think of including having the model/name of the gun (i.e. Colt Cobra, Python, etc.) called into question because it sounded more lethal.
If the shooting is "by the book" handloads can be called into question, because "after all, wasn't store-bought, factory prepared ammo lethal enough for you, or did you have to make up some "witches brew" of ammo to make sure you killed whoever you shot?"

Marshall and Sanow co-authored what is considered to be the definitive work on "stopping power" of handgun bullets.

I used to read GWLE (Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement) fairly regularly. Ayoob has been a regular contributor for many years.

As for the argument on criminals: remember criminals are predators, and they are fundamentally lazy. They will usually go after the weakest target, that will take the least amount of effort. Knowing that the law-abiding citizenry is unarmed plays directly in favor of criminals looking to take any advantage.

I've read some of Ayoob's stuff, and like the majority of guys on the gun forums I visit decide to pass on his advice - mainly due to the fact that nobody has ever been convicted based on the ammo they used.

I personally want to carry the deadliest ammo I possibly can, that won't over penetrate(I'm not looking to hurt innocent bystanders). If I draw my gun, it's a last resort that I had to take in order to defend my life, or the life of someone around me. I'm not looking to scare someone, or hurt them. I'm looking to do what the military trained me and that's put two in the chest, and one in the head, and immedietely stop the threat for good. If my gun ever gets drawn someone is going to die - sadly.

If I ever get jailed because I used super duper people killer chest shredder bullets, it's going to suck, but at least I'd be alive you know? It's kind of like people who carry where it's illegal to do so... some people have that opinion that it's better to be caught with it, than without it.

On that note, I found a site yesterday that sells the good ole' original Black Talons in 9mm and .45acp(not sure on .40) - not the new Ranger SXT's, but the real stuff. I know there's much better ammunition out now, but the name Black Talon would sure get some prosecutor heart pumpin' huh?:-D

By the way, thanks for the names Gil - I'll be looking up Marshall, Liboural, and Sanow to read up on them. Thanks!

 

[ledhed]

I still have some black talons for .357 . But as you said there is MUCH better rounds being made. Since my dad did all the reloads and is a gunsmith I have been lazy ..and aside from helping out by resizing brass and seperating it ..throwing out the bad , keeping the good ..even once fired -twic.etc.
I have shot in PPC competitions and practice alone would bankrupt a person .
300 to 500 rounds per session plus. Thats alot of reloading and dear 'ol Dad had to chain me to the bech many times . I have had maybe three misfires over 18 years of using Dads reloads...all defective primers made by cci .
During the time I was an instructor we only used factory ammo .
Now for my home I use frangible ammo and a riot gun (12 guage #4 shot)
I dont want to kill my cat or dog or even my son or wife by having a round go through a wall or floor..and since I wear glasses at times now the shotgun is better ..the handgun is for extended wear contacts. Or if I am in that room when it is needed .
And altough I have seen pistol ranges ban the use of reloads for insurance reasons- they used to sell them -NO more. A member is allowed to use what he has brought with him . I have never seen a prosecution for their use civil or criminal.
If you are seriouse competion shooter you WILL reload your own ammo both for " match " grade and for practice .


Hey here's irony...I wanted to buy a crossbow after seeing what scaff posted ..looked like a fun cheap way to practice and learn a new skill .


They are banned where I live and totally illegal . !!!!!

WTF !

BUT even the english can buy one !!!! lol.. the worlds insane .

 

[Josh]

I've been looking into reloading lately. I shoot on average a couple thousand rounds a week in .223, and about the same in 9mm, and it's adding up painfully quick. Especially in the .223 when I purchase match grade ammo for it. I think I'm just nervous because I have no idea what to do and noone around to learn from. I'll probably take the plunge soon, though.

And I've found a lot of places crossbows are illegal to own or hunt with, unless you're handicapped. Kind of bizarre in my opinion.

 

[ledhed]

I've been looking into reloading lately. I shoot on average a couple thousand rounds a week in .223, and about the same in 9mm, and it's adding up painfully quick. Especially in the .223 when I purchase match grade ammo for it. I think I'm just nervous because I have no idea what to do and noone around to learn from. I'll probably take the plunge soon, though.

And I've found a lot of places crossbows are illegal to own or hunt with, unless you're handicapped. Kind of bizarre in my opinion.

No Second ammedment right to own one .

 

[Scaff]

Hey here's irony...I wanted to buy a crossbow after seeing what scaff posted ..looked like a fun cheap way to practice and learn a new skill .


They are banned where I live and totally illegal . !!!!!

WTF !

BUT even the english can buy one !!!! lol.. the worlds insane .

The world is indeed insane and the law often an ass (as they say).

I can't even begin to think about owning a handgun, yet I could buy a crossbow pistol for around $80 ($40) complete with string and bolts. With a full crossbow, composite or recurve costing little more, all with out a licence, I just need to be over 18.

I have to say its years since I used a bow (my uncle used to have a few) and it has got me thinking.

👍

Scaff

 

[Famine]

The world is indeed insane and the law often an ass (as they say).

I can't even begin to think about owning a handgun, yet I could buy a crossbow pistol for around $80 ($40) complete with string and bolts. With a full crossbow, composite or recurve costing little more, all with out a licence, I just need to be over 18.

I have to say its years since I used a bow (my uncle used to have a few) and it has got me thinking.

👍

Scaff

17...

(has not looked into this at all. No sir!)

 

[Joey D]

And I've found a lot of places crossbows are illegal to own or hunt with, unless you're handicapped. Kind of bizarre in my opinion.

That's how it is here in Michigan, to my knowledge you can own one and shoot it at a range, but unless you are handicapped you can't hunt with it. I'm with you though, that's a bit bizarre, I would love to go small game hunting with a crossbow, seems safer then trying to blast a squirrel with a .22 which if you miss the bullet can go a lot further then a bolt.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I've been looking into reloading lately. I shoot on average a couple thousand rounds a week in .223, and about the same in 9mm, and it's adding up painfully quick. Especially in the .223 when I purchase match grade ammo for it. I think I'm just nervous because I have no idea what to do and noone around to learn from. I'll probably take the plunge soon, though.

And I've found a lot of places crossbows are illegal to own or hunt with, unless you're handicapped. Kind of bizarre in my opinion.

I'm kind of surprised you haven't got into it yet. It's a whole lotta fun. As much as talking about firearms! It's really a fun hobby. Yes, I'd call it a hobby.

It's easy, yet complex. But, learning a few basic things, and you're hooked. For beginners such as yourself who want to get into it, I'd get the 6th edition of Hornady's Reloading Manual. There's a 7th edition out already, but I don't think it's as good. Plus, the 6th ed. will be a lot cheaper. Find it here... http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=111919

Oh, and for beginners, check out this place. It's really the best place to start. You'll see a lot and learn a lot and it has some of the best deals around for reloading items. Not always, but their deals, when they have them, are fantastic. Notice, it's the same place I linked above. It's called Midway USA. http://www.midwayusa.com/ Request a catalog; it's a great one.

A great second place, and what I think should be the only progressive press anybody in the hobby of reloading should get, Dillion Precision. They have a catalog (The Blue Press) you can request and it's always filled with advice and tips. A must get. EDIT: Forgot to post the link... http://dillonprecision.com/default.cfm?

Another place is Cabela's. But, I don't like them over the other two. It is a great source of info and products, though.

You sound like a dude who should get into this hobby. I'm telling you, it's a lot easier than it seems and a lot of fun! It's great to formulate and test which components make the most accurate ammo for your guns. Each gun, even same models, like different ammo and components.

Making light loads for the kids or wife, or friends who don't shoot well, is a great convenience. Trust me. I love .44 Special, and ammo for this caliber is unnecessarily expensive. I'd pay $25-$30 for a 50 round box of ammo, but instead pay about $5-$6 per 50 round box if I reload them my own. Plus, I can make .44 Special ammo a little hotter than normal, since factory .44 Special ammo is so anemic.

Problem is, starting off is so expensive. But, you're young and getting into now will save you a lot in the long run. I got started early, and I'm glad I did. Don't forget about eBay. A lot of great deals exist there, too.

 

[ledhed]

I use a 44.40 cal lever action for deer . I just like it ..its accurate within its limits and the deer drop dead .

I bought 50 rounds for practice and 50 for hunting ..$118 .49 inc. Tax

You KNOW I save my brass. And although my Dad doesn't have the die ..he has friends who do . But just cost of mats alone mean 15.00 for 50 rounds.

So I save the factory for hunting and use reloads for the range. I also bought 8000 rounds of surplus .303 for a song ...I use it at the range for my Vintage WWII enfield ..still stock just lovingly cared for. From the day it came out of cosmoline. My problem is finding box mags and stripper clips. The mags tend to suffer from fatigue..poor quality springs and bad metal .

Believe me 35.00 for factory federal ammo will make you look for bargains.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I use a 44.40 cal lever action for deer . I just like it ..its accurate within its limits and the deer drop dead .

I bought 50 rounds for practice and 50 for hunting ..$118 .49 inc. Tax

You KNOW I save my brass. And although my Dad doesn't have the die ..he has friends who do . But just cost of mats alone mean 15.00 for 50 rounds.

So I save the factory for hunting and use reloads for the range. I also bought 8000 rounds of surplus .303 for a song ...I use it at the range for my Vintage WWII enfield ..still stock just lovingly cared for. From the day it came out of cosmoline. My problem is finding box mags and stripper clips. The mags tend to suffer from fatigue..poor quality springs and bad metal .

Believe me 35.00 for factory federal ammo will make you look for bargains.

I think I might still have my .44-40 dies. If I do, I'll send them to your Pop. I don't need them. I don't reload or use the cartridge that much. I love the .44RemMag, though. I use that for boar hunting in my lever action Marlin. I love it.

The .44-40 is hard to reload for. You must use bullets no heavier than 200grs. because anything larger will crumple the delicate brass. Trust me, I can understand why .44-40 factory ammo is so expensive and comes with limited grain weights.

While it's nice to use .44-40 in cowboy action shooting, a sport I was seriously involved with and with this particular caliber, .44 Special, .44 Colt, .44 Russian and .44 RemMag is SO MUCH EASIER. But, I understand the fondness for this very traditional caliber. I wish I had the patients to deal with it.

 

[jammyozzy]

I bought 50 rounds for practice and 50 for hunting ..$118 .49 inc. Tax

$1.18 per round? That's insane! I thought £1 ($0.50~) per round for .300 Win Mag was nuts.

Good call on the Enfield by the way. 👍 I got to fire one a few times, I remember my first ever shot with that rifle was a perfect bullseye at 600 yds. 💡

.303 with a brass buttplate sure hurts 14-year old shoulders though.

 

[Gil]

I was reading an article in "Guns of the Old West" magazine. It is a magazine dedicated to Cowboy Action Shooting and the Winter 2007 issue has an article on the reloading of .44-40 ammo. It is about 25 column inches of the problems usually encountered and the fixes.

The magazine is put out Quarterly by Combat Handguns

Hope this helps you .44-40 fans out there.👍

 

[Jay]

The world is indeed insane and the law often an ass (as they say).

I can't even begin to think about owning a handgun, yet I could buy a crossbow pistol for around $80 ($40)

Here in Australia airsoft is completly banned to everyone but yet I could get a Large caliber rifle easily and a Handgun with some extra effort.

 

[Joey D]

Here in Australia airsoft is completly banned to everyone but yet I could get a Large caliber rifle easily and a Handgun with some extra effort.

That's actually kind of sad.