GUNS

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by psd1

Your very brave posting that info up here...

Why? His job involves guarding a naval base if I'm guessing correctly. Nothing wrong with that.

Out of interest, did you know that submarine commanders are allowed to carry a handgun in public, on or off duty?

[Thrust]

I carry a 22 mm blackpowder Tanegashima matchlock. 20 gms of powder per charge.

[psd1]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

Why? His job involves guarding a naval base if I'm guessing correctly. Nothing wrong with that.

Out of interest, did you know that submarine commanders are allowed to carry a handgun in public, on or off duty?

Brave because even if it involves his job there are alot of folks that believe that there should be NO guns...even if protecting nuclear weapons or heads of state.

Why would a sub commander need a firearm off-duty? So they arent hijacked and forced to pilot their sub out to sea on a rogue mission?

[stu0x]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

Out of interest, did you know that submarine commanders are allowed to carry a handgun in public, on or off duty?

No they aren't

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by stu0x

No they aren't

Unless it's been changed in the last 6 months, they are.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by psd1

Brave because even if it involves his job there are alot of folks that believe that there should be NO guns...even if protecting nuclear weapons or heads of state.

Unfortunately pepper spray won't stop truck bombers. Not that they'd be able to breach any decent kind of nuclear containment anyway.

Originally Posted by psd1

Why would a sub commander need a firearm off-duty? So they arent hijacked and forced to pilot their sub out to sea on a rogue mission?

The reasons have probably changed over time. It used to be the only way of getting the crew back down the hatch. Nowadays the reason you suggest might be more likely but I'd imagine a hostage taker would go for the family anyway. Besides, the DCSA masts would likely be able to guide a rescue operation to the stolen submarine or, at worst, guide an MRA4 to the stolen submarine. The latter option being more costly.

One of the security questions at some naval bases actually asks people if they're carrying a gun for that very reason.

[Jim27]

<sigh>

I don't mean to be rude but there are many, many niaive people who happily jump on the anti-gun bandwagon.

Just like there are many, many niaive people who jump on the anti-high-performance-car bandwagon.

The facts are that even when guns were legal in the UK, 99.9% of gun crime was committed with unlicensed, unregistered firearms. These are still widely available today, thus the amnesty and subsequent criminalisation of handguns served no purpose whatsoever, other than to make political noise to try to curry voter favour by demonising a legitimate minority interest.

Both my Dad and I were keen gun enthusiasts and we had firearms in a secure storage chest and used them at a licensed target shooting range. Anyone who ever purchased a firearm legitimately will tell you that they were NOT cheap in anyway whatsoever. 15 years ago you would be paying several hundreds of pounds to buy a new one, if not into the thousands. The cost alone kept the undesirable element out of gun ownership.

The handgun represents a fascinating piece of engineering - truly awe-inspiring if you ever take the time to inspect and fire one. In my time I have been fortunate to get to fire some magnificent weapons - .357 Magnum, 9mm Beretta, .22 Ruger target pistol and rifle, .45 Smith & Wesson automatic, .22 Martini target rifle, and the SA80 (piece of cr4p, if you ask me ), amonst others. If you enjoy performance cars but more importantly enjoy the mechanical aspect - getting various pieces of high-tolerance engineering parts working together in a smooth, almost pristine symmetry, then you would have really appreciated the mechanical and engineering aspects, as well as the discipline/challenge, of owning and accurately shooting a firearm.

There are people on here shaking their heads and making judgements on the necessity and mentality of a niche interest. But the same people are interested in high-performance, precision engineered vehicles. Why? Because they are 'fun' to use (a very subjective concept) and they enjoy owning, maintaining and tinkering with them. It is EXACTLY the same with a firearm. But I'll ask you this - how many people have been killed in the UK by legally registered and licensed firearms? Then compare that to how many people have been killed by legally registered and licensed high-performance vehicles? I'll bet both bollocks and my left arm that I can guess which side of those particular scales will weigh the most.

"Oh but it's not the cars - it's the drivers that cause the accidents". Well you show me the last time a handgun got out of it's gun case, loaded itself, cocked itself, wandered out into town and shot someone all on it's own.

The biggest kick in the teeth? Well it's something most people know absolutely NOTHING about.

Each firearm can cost upwards of £1,000 new. My Dad had built his collection over a good 15-20 years and there was, from memory, something like a dozen firearms in the collection. Total value was somewhere in the region of £10,000. Remember that the amnesty that preceded the ban wasn't discretionary. You HAD to hand your weapons over.

Compensation? Well the Government offered £50 a gun. So my Dad go offered around £600 for a collection that was worth circa £10,000 and had taken hiom years to build. He was a collector. Not a madman, nor a 'gun-nut'. He appreciated the engineering just as much as the challenge of target shooting. He turned down the £50 per weapon offer (as people were entitled to do) and got shoved into the 'assessment process'. Which conveniently moved from one Government office to another etc. etc. and now no-one knows who should have dealt with it, all the records have been lost and he never received a penny. Not a single penny.

The Government made a big hoo-hah about collecting and destroying the guns. How many do you think were destroyed? Absolutely none. The good old British Government collected and catalogued millions of pounds worth of private property and then sold them in bulk lots primarily to third world countries.

How do we know this? Because every gun has a uinique serial number, and guns recovered in the UK from the criminal fraternity have been identified as ones handed over to the UK authorites by legitimate owners as part of the amnesty/ban years earlier. They have made their way back through Europe via the underworld black markets and back into the UK.

All the Government suceeded in doing was pushing millions of very well cared for, reliable weapons into the wrong hands. But they made a nice wedge of money from the sale of the guns, so goody for them, eh?

So next time you sit in your expensive, well-loved performance car just imagine for a moment if someone on the other side of the country ploughs one into a bus queue of kiddywinkies and the beardy-wierdies kick up such a stink about "unecessarily powerful vehicles" that the Governemnt caves in, criminalises them and you have to deliver your own car to the local authority and get offered £50 for it, irrespective of age, condition or value. You are told that it will be crushed "for the greater good of the country" and a few years later you see go on holiday to Africa and see the locals blatting around in your old car.

How would you feel?

[R33_GTS-t]

Banning guns doesn't stop people getting shot, it just stops the victims shooting back.

[Marky_GTSt]

There are only 2 reasons for a normal person to have a gun, one for enjoyment and sport, the other is for commiting crime, They took all the guns from the people who where licenced and safe and what does that leave ? Oh yea, lots of criminals who know full well when they break into your house theres a good chance you dont have a gun.

Anyone caught with an unregistered and unlicenced gun should be hung, no trial, no jury, NO excuses, just hang them up by the neck.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Marky_GTSt

There are only 2 reasons for a normal person to have a gun, one for enjoyment and sport, the other is for commiting crime, They took all the guns from the people who where licenced and safe and what does that leave ? Oh yea, lots of criminals who know full well when they break into your house theres a good chance you dont have a gun.

Anyone caught with an unregistered and unlicenced gun should be hung, no trial, no jury, NO excuses, just hang them up by the neck.

It'd be more poetic to shoot them.

[R33GTS]

Originally Posted by Chilli

R33GTS - think the kids may have stood a better chance of dodging rocks than bullets mate, put yourself in there place at the time - tell us what you'd prefer!
:

No offence intended to you chilli but thats a silly thing to say IMO. Maybe you missed the point of what i was trying to say. The weapon did't decide to kill those poor people it was the person who pulled the trigger, that was my point mate. I was't talking about the tragedy that happened, my mistake if i didt make that clear.

[R33_GTS-t]

If you banned everything unnecessary that might kill someone, all cars would be restricted to 70mph and 50bhp. Raquet and bat sports would be outlawed.... as would sky-diving, mountain climbing, drinking alcohol, smoking, eating takeaway, yardeyar........

[Darbo]

Jim27

gutted for your dad and you
was no need for that bs

i like guns
its only dickheeds that make em unsafe
Any normal gun enthusiast would never dream of committing a crime with one
just a shame that the countrys set up to raise ppls fear from none realisic threats

id like prisons to be built in siberia (or similar)to house all uk prisoners that are considered a threat
if your a dodgy barstid thats were u end up
it would cost less than keeping em in the uk aswell
and fek you no if you go there your ****ered
1 in 10 chance of survival should do the trick
and allow anyone(normal) to own a gun



my world i wish it was real

[stu0x]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

Unless it's been changed in the last 6 months, they are.

Absolute bollocks. Show me something that supercedes the Firearms Act.

[purpleskyline]

here we go again , ban this, i am a gun entusiast, been in the forces , have to have a firearm, dont want it but got to have it, wife knows how to use it, son since he was 11 knows how to use it,
dosent make me a crim, i still look like a scared cat when a car backfires.
but a freind i recently met and got to know has just been arrested, for drug dealing and having 20 firearms a rocket luancher.and 500 rounds of ammo
currently in strageways looking at 15 years serves him right.
was suposed to be handing my piece, this month, now been told family not safe, sell up move again,
i have been out of the forces since 92
how do you think my wife and son feel. just cos i did a job for my country.