Plymouth gunman

Back in the day I used to shoot at Bisley


An aside, you know the Bisley Logo is the top hat and the gundog. As you may have noticed the hat has a bullet hole in. Way back (moved to its current location in mid 19th century) when Bisley used to have its home on Wimbledon Common someone put a bullet through the hat of the local MP. That was the catalyst to move to the current location and the source of the logo.

There are some great clay ranges there
. At the theoretical maximum travel range (which can be as great as 275m) the pellets would just feel like raindrops.

The Met, Beds,Herts and Bucks & Surrey police all say a minimum of 300m from the firing point for a clay range and a maximum size of 7.5 shot for that
 
Forgive my ignorance but 7.5 what? If mm, that's a pretty large chunk of lead!

No, shotgun shot is given a nominal size...the size of each piece of shot gets bigger so

number 9 is 2mm
number 8 is 2.2mm
number 7.5 is 2.3mm
number 7 is 2.4 mm

etc

all the way up to AAA which is 5.1mm and the largest you can buy on a UK SGC. You can get bigger but its not common and would need an FAC in the UK
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
What Paul is enunciating is a view about the perceived dangers of firearms in the hands of private individuals. It is certainly the case that people having guns in their possession for other than essential purposes are regarded with suspicion by many people in Britain.

There have been four major incidents of "spree shootings" in Britain since 1987...

19th August 1987, Michael Ryan (16 dead, 15 injured)
13th March 1996, Thomas Hamilton (17 dead, 15 injured)
2nd June 2010, Derrick Bird (12 dead, 11 injured)
12th August 2021, Jake Davison (5 dead, 2 injured)

So far as I've been able to establish, each murderer had previously come to the attention of the police and each held a firearms certificate at the time of the attack. After each of the first three attacks, the then current governments moved to tighten the regulations still further without, it seems, attaining the intended result.

So it seems to me that Paul is advocating a not unreasonable opinion and one with which many others probably agree.

So compared to road traffic accidents involving licenced drivers and cars and other vehicles which they usually store at home WHILST EVERY KILLING OF AN INNOCENT OTHER IS ALWAYS A TRAGEDY we don't seem to care too much about people mowing down pedstrians with cars do we?
 
But I don’t think it will, aside from the fact that it is impossible to “remove all guns from society”. E.g. :


He didn’t kill anyone I think but it would be easy to equal the toll of Hamilton, above, in these circumstances.

As I said earlier, it’s next to impossible to prevent “madmen” from doing mad things occasionally.

And for every gun held on licence by a sporting user who has been investigated and approved by the police, there are how many unauthorised guns held by criminal types?
 
No, shotgun shot is given a nominal size...the size of each piece of shot gets bigger so

number 9 is 2mm
number 8 is 2.2mm
number 7.5 is 2.3mm
number 7 is 2.4 mm

etc

all the way up to AAA which is 5.1mm and the largest you can buy on a UK SGC. You can get bigger but its not common and would need an FAC in the UK


I have a vague recollection that a shotgun's size (e.g. 12 bore) is something to do with the weight of a solid ball that fits the barrel.
 
I have a vague recollection that a shotgun's size (e.g. 12 bore) is something to do with the weight of a solid ball that fits the barrel.

yep- the gauge relate to the number of equal sized balls 1lb of lead would make that would fit in the bore of the barrel - except a 410 which is .41/inch at the muzzle (they seem to mostly be used as a children's gun nowadays)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I have a vague recollection that a shotgun's size (e.g. 12 bore) is something to do with the weight of a solid ball that fits the barrel.
Yes. Archaic and strange, but maybe the only way of doing it at the time . . .

Take exactly 1 pound of lead, make 10 round balls out of it and then make a barrel that will take one of those balls with a perfect sliding fit, and that's a 10 bore.
Take exactly 1 pound of lead, make 12 round balls out of it and then make a barrel that will take one of those balls with a perfect sliding fit, and that's a 12 bore.

Etc etc. The only anomaly that I know of is .410 (tiny) which has a barrel width of .41 of an inch and which we'd expect to be called a 56 bore (or something like that anyway:) )

Post crossed with
yep- the gauge relate to the number of equal sized balls 1lb of lead would make that would fit in the bore of the barrel - except a 410 which is .41/inch at the muzzle (they seem to mostly be used as a children's gun nowadays)
I have a Chinese friend who can just about manage a .410. They shoot just as far as the standard 12 bore but have a lot fewer pellets and are much tighter choked, so accuracy needs to be around 120% better.
 
Since this thread has gone from massacre to lead shot sizes we could extend it to shot manufacture. I used to see the old shot tower every day from the train going into Charing Cross station in the 1950s.

The train of course was on the Hungerford bridge … and so links to the Hungerford Massacre cited earlier by @AndrewFlannigan :( .

 
we don't seem to care too much about people mowing down pedstrians with cars do we?
I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly get angry about the avoidable death and injury on the roads, as I do about any unnecessary harm to any other person.

I find it very wrong that some people try to deflect criticism, from those who want to toughen the gun laws, by suggesting that the critics don't care about road deaths or other awful events.
 
The gun laws don't really need to be toughened, just to be properly administered. Had they been properly implemented, the most recent murders wouldn't have happened.
 
As I wrote earlier, the best strategy for shooting enthusiasts is to be seen to come up with measures which at least increase the apparent security surrounding their sport, rather than copying the NRA and attempting to block progress. While that works in the U.S., it won't go down well with the gun averse British.
My bold
I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly get angry about the avoidable death and injury on the roads, as I do about any unnecessary harm to any other person.

I find it very wrong that some people try to deflect criticism, from those who want to toughen the gun laws, by suggesting that the critics don't care about road deaths or other awful events.
Some of your comments are pretty close to being insulting to some members. Maybe best not exhibit your apparent anger while posting ;) Several members have taken time to explain the current system and facts about guns and I haven’t read anything which can be compared with the NRA in the US nor any suggestions to block progress. To the contrary, as has been spelled out here, gun owners are the most pro-active people on gun safety because they understand the dangers.
 
Since this thread has gone from massacre to lead shot sizes we could extend it to shot manufacture. I used to see the old shot tower every day from the train going into Charing Cross station in the 1950s.

The train of course was on the Hungerford bridge … and so links to the Hungerford Massacre cited earlier by @AndrewFlannigan :( .



Well, fair enough, but this is out of focus:) There used to be a shot tower in Angel Road, Edmonton, a long time ago.

According to Private Eye, Jake Davison liked the political views of Godfrey Bloom and Nigel Farage on social media. Maybe, in addition to his other problems, Davison had suffered a head injury . . .

Back on topic, this is a horrific avoidable tragedy. There's nothing even remotely funny about it and we can only hope that all of the police forces get their act together in the future, but maybe it's OK to laugh at Farage . . .
 
The gun laws don't really need to be toughened, just to be properly administered. Had they been properly implemented, the most recent murders wouldn't have happened.
There’s always room for improvement in any human activity but I don’t think “improperly administered” applies to gun laws generally and maybe not in this case. We don’t know yet but it is likely that errors were made by those applying the procedures which are always going to be possible.

We don’t have a national police force so even though the laws may be the same in England (& Wales I presume, in this case) the application is going to vary locally to some degree.

I suppose we could have it regulated at a national level, something like the DVLA (which works so flawlessly :( ). If there were any problems it could then be privatised and the politicians could escape any responsibility.
 
Some of your comments are pretty close to being insulting to some members.
I have posted nothing intended to be insulting to anyone. If you believe I have done so, then I ask that you report the posts you think insulting to the moderators and they can steer me right.

On the other hand, I have been on the receiving end of some remarkably aggressive posts...
 
I have posted nothing intended to be insulting to anyone. If you believe I have done so, then I ask that you report the posts you think insulting to the moderators and they can steer me right.

On the other hand, I have been on the receiving end of some remarkably aggressive posts...
I don’t report post except spam. I have been following this thread and haven’t seen any “remarkably aggressive posts” but perhaps they’ve been deleted though I think Chris said none had been :(.
Anyway, I’m not doing to get into an pointless argument with you about it, you’re generally reasonable in your comments but I just think, as I’ve already said, that IMHO you have come close to doing what you accuse others of. Unfortunately it’s a subject that people get worked up about, maybe influenced by reporting from the US. But it’s nothing like the US where people are in some danger of being shot by police at every traffic stop or home visit etc even before you consider the armed citizens and the criminals :(.
 
I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly get angry about the avoidable death and injury on the roads, as I do about any unnecessary harm to any other person.

I find it very wrong that some people try to deflect criticism, from those who want to toughen the gun laws, by suggesting that the critics don't care about road deaths or other awful events.
Andrew if you mean me, honestly I carry this old fella's frustration that so many lives are lost in RTAs day after day and nothing seems to change. I don't seek to play down the tragedy or seriousness of the Plymouth murders.
 
There’s always room for improvement in any human activity but I don’t think “improperly administered” applies to gun laws generally and maybe not in this case. We don’t know yet but it is likely that errors were made by those applying the procedures which are always going to be possible.

We don’t have a national police force so even though the laws may be the same in England (& Wales I presume, in this case) the application is going to vary locally to some degree.

I suppose we could have it regulated at a national level, something like the DVLA (which works so flawlessly :( ). If there were any problems it could then be privatised and the politicians could escape any responsibility.

The fact is that every Police Authority has access to national guidance on firearms licensing; guidance which it can choose to follow or not. Administratively it is not often a uniform service but is carried out by clerical/administrative staff (nothing wrong with that per se) and the service may or may not be adequately resourced. It certainly isn't perfect.
 
you’re generally reasonable in your comments but I just think, as I’ve already said, that IMHO you have come close to doing what you accuse others of
Thank you. I try to be reasonable and polite at all times.

I've very carefully reread everything I've written in this thread and I simply can't see anywhere I have come close to the line, let alone overstepped it. Where I have felt moved to comment on other peoples' posts I've been very careful to depersonalise those comments.
 
I don't seek to play down the tragedy or seriousness of the Plymouth murders.
I never intended to imply that you did. On the contrary, I took your comments as agreeing with mine.
 
Last edited:
yep- the gauge relate to the number of equal sized balls 1lb of lead would make that would fit in the bore of the barrel - except a 410 which is .41/inch at the muzzle (they seem to mostly be used as a children's gun nowadays)
And the 9mm (No 3), often chamberd in Garden Guns.
 
I find it very wrong that some people try to deflect criticism, from those who want to toughen the gun laws

You‘ve changed your tune a bit haven’t you?

From wholesale confiscation of all guns to a far more moderate “toughen the gun laws”.

Whereas taking away all private guns

Even though more than one poster has already advised that the laws are tough enough, the system failed in this instance, not the laws.
 
You‘ve changed your tune a bit haven’t you? From wholesale confiscation of all guns to a far more moderate “toughen the gun laws”.
If you reread my posting I wrote: "In my opinion, if taking away all private firearms will save 49 lives, I think it's worth serious consideration." That's quite different from what you're claiming I wrote.

In general terms, I think we should all take the trouble to read each others posts carefully before replying to what the person didn't write.
 
If you reread my posting I wrote: "In my opinion, if taking away all private firearms will save 49 lives, I think it's worth serious consideration." That's quite different from what you're claiming I wrote.

In general terms, I think we should all take the trouble to read each others posts carefully before replying to what the person didn't write.

No guarantee it would. Some may choose to keep illegally. Plus, if someone is hellbent on committing this kind of thing they will buy a gun illegally or just drive their car down a busy street. Granted its harder but the numbers so low as it is.
 
If you reread my posting I wrote: "In my opinion, if taking away all private firearms will save 49 lives, I think it's worth serious consideration." That's quite different from what you're claiming I wrote.

?? the quote @Dave * used said
Whereas taking away all private guns will inconvenience around 570,000 people (according to this page: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ificates-england-wales-2019-2020-hosb1820.pdf )
 
If you reread my posting I wrote: "In my opinion, if taking away all private firearms will save 49 lives, I think it's worth serious consideration." That's quite different from what you're claiming I wrote.
Sorry, but your bold is what we used to call a distinction without a difference. Yes, you didn’t actually write “ban all guns” but what you are saying is no different :(. Had you written if … would rather than if … will it may have been different :(.

49 lives over about 40 years is pretty minuscule, particularly given the erratic distribution. If it were the same number but at a rate of 1 per year it might look different. It would be interesting to reflect on how many lives might be saved if an equivalent amount of energy was devoted to saving lives in other areas.
 
No guarantee it would.
I agree. There are no guarantees in any of these things. On the other hand, how much should we value someone's life against inconveniencing others? I believe this is the same question that should be asked regarding all aspects of safety versus convenience.
 
No guarantee it would. Some may choose to keep illegally. Plus, if someone is hellbent on committing this kind of thing they will buy a gun illegally or just drive their car down a busy street. Granted its harder but the numbers so low as it is.
Yes. Nobody can know how many illegals guns there are, but I've seen a police estimate of around half a million, and we need to be aware that criminals seem to be able to buy them quite easily.
And we also need to be aware that very nearly all gun crime involves illegal guns.
And we also need to be aware that nothing whatever that successive governments have done over the years has reduced the amount of gun crime in any way, which supports my argument (and that of many others) that making life even more difficult for legitimate shooters won't do anything to improve public safety.

So, where do all of these illegal guns come from? Ignoring for the moment the ones that are smuggled into the country, adapted from airguns or blank firers, made with a 3D printer or on a lathe, I know of a couple of different origins. Firstly, there are "war souvenirs" brought back by servicemen. I remember that my own father had a Lee Enfield rifle when I was a small child, He had been a sniper in the British army and I don't think that he could have held it legally because he had left the army before I was born. I've no idea what happened to it. And when he died and I cleared out his home I found a fully functional British army revolver. He wasn't an officer and would not have been issued with it, so I can only guess where that came from. And that doesn't even count as a gun because it has an obsolete calibre, .455.

And when I was at school in the 1950's there were plenty of guns, of all sorts, I even remember one kid taking a handgun to school and showing off with it, it was pretty common back then.. What happened to all those old guns which, unless allowed to rust away, will still be fully functional?

And then there are the shotguns, which this thread is concerned with. When I bought my first shotgun I bought it by mail order from Littlewoods, anyone could have one back then and the only licence needed was bought from the post office and cost the equivalent of 50p - just like a dog licence, no record or who had bought it. I think that actual shotgun certificates were introduced in 1986. They didn't include a photograph, we just walked into the police station and filled in a form. I remember the desk Sgt asking me whether I had been in trouble with the police and when I said "No" he stamped the form, signed it and handed it to me . . . So, did everyone who held a shotgun before that get a certificate? I doubt it, many wouldn't have known, pre-internet, that certificates had been introduced and many wouldn't have bothered anyway. Many of those people will be dead now, what happened to their guns? Back then, they didn't even have to be locked up.

And I remember a registered firearms dealer friend telling me that every now and again he would find all sorts of guns dumped on his doorstep. Presumably, they were from people who held them illegally and who didn't want to bother going to the police with them, but there is an obvious risk that criminals may check gunshop doorways before the dealers arrive at work.

I heard something on the news last night to the effect that Home Secretary Priti Patel has announced some new rule, I don't know what it is yet but I doubt whether even a competent Home Secretary could come up with something that's actually useful so quickly, but it may make her popular with the ignorant.

The only change that I would personally make is to completely ban all imitation firearms, including the airsoft and pellet air pistols that are almost exact copies of real guns - if a criminal points one of these at anyone (including a gun expert) it's impossible to tell them apart from the real thing. Why are they allowed to look real?
 
Sorry, but your bold is what we used to call a distinction without a difference. Yes, you didn’t actually write “ban all guns” but what you are saying is no different.
I simply can't agree with what you wrote there.

I've made my position clear but I'll re-iterate it in different words: if the choice lies between the pleasure of a minority and the safety of all, then the pleasure of the minority must be curtailed. The word "if" is the key. Find safer ways that allow shooting enthusiasts to pursue their sport and I will support them. The argument that nothing needs to change is not one that I will support.
 
I heard something on the news last night to the effect that Home Secretary Priti Patel has announced some new rule, I don't know what it is yet but I doubt whether even a competent Home Secretary could come up with something that's actually useful so quickly, but it may make her popular with the ignorant.

I don't believe she's announced anything new - more that exisiting medical checks will become tighter. May be wrong though
 
I don't believe she's announced anything new - more that exisiting medical checks will become tighter. May be wrong though

Not sure if this is what you are thinking of ?

 
In general terms, I think we should all take the trouble to read each others posts carefully before replying to what the person didn't write.

Excellent idea, you really should do that.

Then you might even get the correct statement from the quote I posted…

;)
 
Not sure if this is what you are thinking of ?

Oh that’ll go well. It sounds OK doesn’t it and so passed the “politician‘s yardstick” but how would it work in practice? There are 14 doctors in my GP practice and it’s pot luck which one you see so none of them know you very well. So what will they do? Call you in for a 10 min psychological assessment? Are GPs qualified to do that” Will they be covered by their insurance if they get it wrong or for litigation?

I expect it will be a question about if the applicant is being treated for certain specified conditions or receiving specified drugs which is probably what the police can currently ask them.
 
Oh that’ll go well. It sounds OK doesn’t it and so passed the “politician‘s yardstick” but how would it work in practice? There are 14 doctors in my GP practice and it’s pot luck which one you see so none of them know you very well. So what will they do? Call you in for a 10 min psychological assessment? Are GPs qualified to do that” Will they be covered by their insurance if they get it wrong or for litigation?

I expect it will be a question about if the applicant is being treated for certain specified conditions or receiving specified drugs which is probably what the police can currently ask them.

You put that far better then I could.
I expect it will be a private consultation which the applicant has to pay for, but as you say none of the doctors at my surgery
know very much about me, been twice in the last year and seen a different doctor each time, prior to that not seen one for a very long time. My medical records just give a brief reason for visit,
If they are going down that route they need to nominate people with the right professional knowledge
 
Oh that’ll go well. It sounds OK doesn’t it and so passed the “politician‘s yardstick” but how would it work in practice? There are 14 doctors in my GP practice and it’s pot luck which one you see so none of them know you very well. So what will they do? Call you in for a 10 min psychological assessment? Are GPs qualified to do that” Will they be covered by their insurance if they get it wrong or for litigation?

I expect it will be a question about if the applicant is being treated for certain specified conditions or receiving specified drugs which is probably what the police can currently ask them.
The other thing that often happens ( the BMA say this is an acceptable response) is GPS refuse to provide info because of their own moral objections to firearms.
 
You put that far better then I could.
I expect it will be a private consultation which the applicant has to pay for, but as you say none of the doctors at my surgery
know very much about me, been twice in the last year and seen a different doctor each time, prior to that not seen one for a very long time. My medical records just give a brief reason for visit,
If they are going down that route they need to nominate people with the right professional knowledge
My medicalrecord is full of inaccuracies, none of them too important and they don’t relate to mental health but… .
 
Back
Top