Assault rifle ban.

[Petrochemist]

A.K.A. the FN-FAL (Fabrique Nationale Herstal-Fusil Automatique Léger) Made under licence in Britain as the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle from the early 1950s. I had an Airfix toy based on the FN that actually fired little grey plastic bullets!

Thanks funnily enough that designation immediately brings an image to my mind.

 

[AZ6]

Thanks funnily enough that designation immediately brings an image to my mind.

Is it a Viz character?

It is, isn't it?

Snek snek! Yip yip!

 

[Petrochemist]

Is it a Viz character?

It is, isn't it?

Snek snek! Yip yip!

Sorry don't really know Viz, so thats lost on me, but I do recognize the rifle from it's more specific designation.

 

[AZ6]

Oh.

 

[TCR4x4]

Az6, come over to the Forest of Dean and try and round the wild boar up to take them to slaughter... let’s see how far you get.

Some people need guns, not many, but some.
If the boar population was left uncontrolled there would be huge environmental, social and economic consequences. They do huge amounts of damage to land, can be very aggressive when stumbled upon and are a huge cause of vehicular accidents in the area.
There is no other way to control them apart from culling by licensed and trained people.

 

[AZ6]

Some people need guns, not many, but some.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying all along...

If the boar population was left uncontrolled there would be huge environmental, social and economic consequences. They do huge amounts of damage to land, can be very aggressive when stumbled upon and are a huge cause of vehicular accidents in the area.

This is all to do with Humans though, isn't it; destroying wild habitat. Human populations haven't exactly done the planet a favour, have they? I hardly think a few wild boar would cause as much environmental damage as Birmingham.

 

[boyfalldown]

You're the one making assumptions here. I know/knew several people who've owned firearms, and in my, and the opinion of several others, they really shouldn't have been allowed to. 3 were alcoholics, 2 regular cocaine users (not all GPs will know each persons habits unless they've been for help), 1 bloke had been convicted of violently abusing his partner. 1 was a proper gun nut who would happily own loads of full automatic assault weapons, if he could. It was, apparently, relatively 'easy' to obtain licences. Point is, as you well know, there are lots of people out there who own firearms legally, that really, really shouldn't. And how easy is it, for someone with a licence, to also own unlicensed weapons? There's plenty of illegally owned guns out there, you know this.

I've twice had guns pointed at me by farmers, whilst legally on a RoW, shouting at me to get off their land. Good chance those were both 'legally' owned. Wouldn't have made much difference had they shot me though, would it?

It needs saying. Thats b******t. There may have been in the past the odd person who slipped through the net but 7 people? Really? One of them convicted of violent abuse?, three alcoholics & two cocaine users. I know that the individual with domestic abuse convictions didn't get a licence and as for the others......mmmmmmm unlikely to say the least.

The two farmers, did you report it?

 

[AZ6]

It needs saying. Thats b******t.

It needs saying: you know nothing about any of those people and the individual situations. I do. But carry on believing what you want to anyway. Fact is the system isn't perfect, and there are insufficient resources to implement it as effectively as possible. With 6 of those 7 people, the issues that should clearly have excluded them from gun ownership weren't apparent, and wouldn't have been on any records or data (people tend to keep things like drug and alcohol addiction kind of private really, and if someone like a GP isn't aware of an issue, how can anybody know?). So far from slipping through a net; in those cases, the net wasn't there in the first place. As for the one person with a conviction; I have no idea why that person was allowed to continue to legally keep firearms. Perhaps that was an error of the system. My point was that no system can be perfect, hence the need perhaps for changes in our laws, still. But that's my opinion.

 

[boyfalldown]

It needs saying: you know nothing about any of those people and the individual situations. I do. But carry on believing what you want to anyway. Fact is the system isn't perfect, and there are insufficient resources to implement it as effectively as possible. With 6 of those 7 people, the issues that should clearly have excluded them from gun ownership weren't apparent, and wouldn't have been on any records or data (people tend to keep things like drug and alcohol addiction kind of private really, and if someone like a GP isn't aware of an issue, how can anybody know?). So far from slipping through a net; in those cases, the net wasn't there in the first place. As for the one person with a conviction; I have no idea why that person was allowed to continue to legally keep firearms. Perhaps that was an error of the system. My point was that no system can be perfect, hence the need perhaps for changes in our laws, still. But that's my opinion.

Still either they or you are talking rubbish.

 

[AZ6]

Still either they or you are talking rubbish.

No, it's just you imagining that.

 

[boyfalldown]

No, it's just you imagining that.

Hmmmmmmm ok then.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Just to clarify a point, as an American who grew up aroung guns.

An assault rifle, the sort that you can buy as a regular American citizen, is the exact same as a hunting rifle. It is not an automatic weapon, and it fires literally the same ammunition. The only difference is that it looks scary. It's had aesthetic things added, like a tactical rail for attaching grips and lights and stuff.
It still does the same damage, fires the same ammo, and holds the same number of rounds. Assault rifle just sounds scary.

Definitely if being on the recieving end of sustained fired even if only from a semiautomatisk weapon with recoil low enough to be kept on target, high magasine capacity and very Short reload times. Such a weapon is seriously more efficient in killing large numbers fast than a low capacity bolt action rifle, thats what these guns are made for from way back to the first stürmgewehr, the stg44 in WWII and thats why those are what is in service today and not hunting rifles. You may bring Up Snipers but that is a different type of operations.

 

[nilagin]

If a firearm is a necessary tool such as on a farm, someone should be allowed to keep a gun in the property. But is it really necessary for anyone else to keep a gun in the home?
On Friday evening there was an incident in our local area. Four people forced their way into someones home. The start of it can be seen in the video.

View: https://youtu.be/57qe3LAiQfE


Someone pretending to deliver a parcel, stormed into the house, followed by 3 accomplices. According to news reports, the assailants were only armed with a knife ( I have heard rumours of a machete though, but it could have been a large knife) I have no idea of what happened inside the house, perhaps some sort of struggle, but a man ( I assume the man that answered the door ended up in hospital with cut wounds to the head, an 11yr old boy in the property however, ended up being shot. The boy could end up with a life changing injury, my wife has heard the boy could end up losing his arm. The house owner has a firearm licence and kept guns in the property, it looks like the boy was shot with one of those guns. At the moment 3 of the 4 assailants have been arrested and charged with aggravated burglary.
The property is in a normal quiet road and not even in the most affluent part of the area, less than a couple of miles away and the houses are worth over £1million. So why did these 4 people single out this one property to rob.. To me it looks like they knew there was guns in the property and they wanted them.