The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man witha gun

See what I mean?
Popcorn.
 
Re Byker - No I read that, but 5.56 was just what NATO decided to use, it was around before then?

Anyway I'm bored discussing this with donut now, it's going around in circles.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
No I read that, but 5.56 was just what NATO decided to use, it was around before then?
Click to expand...

Really came about as part of a competition, the uk tried 4.89 (but based on the 5.56 cartridge in case they lost). The 5.56 came out of the us .223 and the M16. As I said it was designed to standardise across the forces.

Early SA80's were terrible weapons, only good after HK significantly modified them.
 
so you say that it was designed with a high chance of maiming ,,,,,,but then you also say the round was about before then , ( the remi .223 ) so you are saying that remington set out to design a round that would stand a high chance of maimimg someone just in case nato ( and many other countries ) decided to make it the round of their choice nearly twenty years later ,,
and after googling ( like you told me ) i see that the preceding m193 round was used but stopped being used
" The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that many[8] consider it to be inhumane.[9][10] Instead, the Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization."
and third time lucky maybe ,,,,,,,where did i say anything about exploding heads ,,,,,,,,,
and it was you that brought up calibre size not me ,,,,,,,,
 
donut said:
so you say that it was designed with a high chance of maiming ,,,,,,but then you also say the round was about before then , ( the remi .223 ) so you are saying that remington set out to design a round that would stand a high chance of maimimg someone just in case nato ( and many other countries ) decided to make it the round of their choice nearly twenty years later ,,
and after googling ( like you told me ) i see that the preceding m193 round was used but stopped being used
" The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that many[8] consider it to be inhumane.[9][10] Instead, the Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization."
and third time lucky maybe ,,,,,,,where did i say anything about exploding heads ,,,,,,,,,
and it was you that brought up calibre size not me ,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...
A bit of history, if it really matters to you...
The very first hand held firearms were a smaller version of cannon, and the thoughts behind them was to have a portable cannon that could kill people. The end result was a musket, firing what, by today's standards, what a very large lead ball designed to kill rather than maim - although back then it was pretty well the same thing, due to lack of medical support for wounded soldiers.

Personally I have a Martini Henry rifle, .577/.455 calibre, dating back to 1873. This fired a massive lead bullet, I think it weighs about 455 grain, about 10 times the weight of a modern .22 rimfire in long rifle. Wildly inaccurate at a distance, but given the weight of the bullet, it wouldn't matter where an enemy soldier was actually hit.

After a while, dum dum bullets were introduced, these were designed to inflict maximum damage. These were outlawed in (I think) 1899. By this time, various governments had worked out that battlefield soldiers were able to condition themselves to ignore dead comrades but were demoralised by the sight and sound of wounded ones, also it took 4 men to carry away a wounded soldier, plus of course there was hospital care needed.. and so wounding took priority over clean killing. The British Army Lee Enfield .303 bullets (which were actually .311) were big, slow moving and heavy and were made even worse by having a boat tail design that caused them to tumble and cause even worse injuries once they had entered someone's body. They were clearly inhumane, but not actually illegal and anyway the army had 53 million of them in stock...

Since then, the progression has been towards smaller, faster and lighter bullets, partly to save weight, partly to save costs and partly to maim rather than kill outright. If a soldier is hit on the battlefield then he is out of the fight (unless his name is John Wayne of course) so it doesn't much matter what calibre of bullet hits him, or how hard.

Many military weapons today use a 'short' cartridge that does the job without using excessive power. Looking at American forums, very high powered rifles, including .5 calibre, seem to be popular with Americans. In this country, we tend to use only what is actually needed for specific species, this is probably due in part to the need to have 'good reason' to have a specific calibre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
viv1969 said:
You'll have to be quick!
Click to expand...
yeah getting past those lights at morrisons can be a bit of a pain ,,,,,,
anyway Gary ,,,,i sometimes shoot a 45-70 MH ,,,,,,,cant see anything after the first bang because of the smoke ,,,,
i really cant believe that the 556 was designed to maim ,,,it was around a long time before it was taken up by the military even if it was a remington 223 with less clout behind it ,,,,,,
and you never answered my question about what i had said that was wrong .
 
I'd like to shoot someone who tried to rob me.
Click to expand...

Really? Firstly, thankfully, relaxing gun laws is never going to happen. Secondly even if a Government was stupid enough to do so, and hadn't learned from the mess the US have made of of it, then there's still the law as it stands on self defence. In most robbery cases, no weapon of any sort is used, so in most case you'd be using disproportionate force, and do life for it.

Its a quicker death than getting stabbed. It levels the field. If someone breaks into your house, you can shoot them dead. I don't see the issue?
Click to expand...

When will people learn, it aint like John Wayne, leaping off his nag, drawing his colt and blazing away at the guy in the black hat, who clutches his chest, says "He got me maaaa" and falls to the ground as the credits roll.

you would be lucky to die instantly, much more likely to lay there in agony for 20 minutes waiting for an ambulance, if you are lucky. Just like the 3 gunshot victims I've been on scene at. Knife wounds are generally superficial, might hurt a but, but less likely to cause major harm. Again, I'm speaking from experience of life, not the Saturday matinée. As for point 2, see my first point.

The reason why we wont have any relaxing of gun laws is encapsulated by your 2 posts.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I agree with what you say, but you also can't deny Cobra is also right!
Also you have to ask, if guns weren't available, would they simply use another weapon? Look at the recent mass stabbings in China. Agreed, not on the same scale, but...
Click to expand...
Agreed Jim, anyone that is pre-disposed to "mass murder" will find a way.

shapeshifter said:
A typical NRA statement that is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm neither American or a member of the NRA.
Just someone that used to enjoy punching holes in cardboard targets, and loading their own ammo
to get the most from it
shapeshifter said:
Tell that to the Families of the children at Dunblane.Simple no guns no one gets shot.That is a fact.
Click to expand...
One mad man with a gun that should have been refused a licence in the first place,
Hillsborough, they should have banned football in the same knee-jerk re-action.
Far more people died there than at Dunblane
Car ploughs into bus queue killing several children.
Why didn't they ban buses?
Simple reason, knee jerk reaction as an election was imminent,
and it was an emotive vote winner.
And shooters were a soft touch.

shapeshifter said:
What the hell does some sick idiot want to buy stuff like that for.
Click to expand...
Sick idiot? thanks.


shapeshifter said:
They must have been watching to many Rambo films:nailbiting:.That's a lot of the problem!
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is violent films and computer games should be banned now then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
Ignore it cobra, you get these willfully belligerant anti gun types. Guns are great.
Click to expand...
As long as they are treated with respect and used in the proper manner,
then of course they are :)

You can't legislate against idiots, and like anything else,
only become dangerous when in the wrong hands :)
 
Cobra said:
Agreed Jim, anyone that is pre-disposed to "mass murder" will find a way.
Click to expand...

Except of course it is far more difficult to stab 16 children to death and one adult. If Hamilton did not have the guns then I doubt he could have murdered so many. Same with Ryan and Bird for that matter. Whilst your correct guns alone do not kill people they do facilitate and magnify violent crimes.
 
Cobra said:
As long as they are treated with respect and used in the proper manner,
then of course they are :)

You can't legislate against idiots, and like anything else,
only become dangerous when in the wrong hands :)
Click to expand...

Which is why they should be regulated, but not totally off limits.

That would be like banning all Rotweillers because a child got attacked by one...oh wait a minute. The dangerous dog owners get to keep these dogs and potentially lethal animals can be owned without pretty much ANY regulation, but guns can't be.

Why is that, politics. No one would elect a person who would make dog ownership more difficult, not in dog mad Britian, but because shooting is a minority interest its easier to wipe out that entire interest and look good that you've done something about public safety.
 
jakeblu said:
Except of course it is far more difficult to stab 16 children to death and one adult. If Hamilton did not have the guns then I doubt he could have murdered so many. Same with Ryan and Bird for that matter. Whilst your correct guns alone do not kill people they do facilitate and magnify violent crimes.
Click to expand...
I don't know who "bird" is
But Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton were both predisposed to
"psychotic episodes"
The police were fully aware of this, and yet let them both have a licence.
The "system" failed us all, gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

As for "other methods" he ( Hamilton) could have just as easily ploughed a 4x4into a bus queue full of school children,
and Ryan driven down the high street in a 4x4.

Would these have then been banned had they done so?
I doubt it, as I said above it was (The ban) a political fuelled decision on the brink of a general election.
They (both the leading parties) totally ignored the Cullen report that cost the country over a million pounds and
went for the "soft target"
That is the law abiding gun owners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
Why is that, politics. No one would elect a person who would make dog ownership more difficult, not in dog mad Britian, but because shooting is a minority interest its easier to wipe out that entire interest and look good that you've done something about public safety.
Click to expand...
Perfect :thumbs:
 
My views on gun ownership and its regulation have changed somewhat.

I do, like Michael Moor, think americans would find ways to slaughter each other whatever.

I also still don't quite understand why the banning of handguns here resulted in potentially legitimate owners having to give them up, while bans don't really effect criminals because they are, err, criminals.
 
Cobra said:
I don't know who "bird" is
Click to expand...
Bird was the one in Cumbria, taxi driver I think.
Cobra said:
As for "other methods" he ( Hamilton) could have just as easily ploughed a 4x4into a bus queue full of school children,
and Ryan driven down the high street in a 4x4.
Click to expand...
Except it generally doesn't work like that does it if he had driven a 4x4 into a bus queue of children its unlikely he would have killed as many. Also ask yourself this, its not only gun owners who are prone to psychotic episodes but with murder en masse the gun is almost the exclusive tool especially where large numbers are concerned.
 
@Cobra not sure what was going on in the quotes in post 95, I only said the first one!
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
Except it generally doesn't work like that does it if he had driven a 4x4 into a bus queue of children its unlikely he would have killed as many.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I have no intention of wanting to find out either,
But I bet that the end result would not be pretty :(

jakeblu said:
Also ask yourself this, its not only gun owners who are prone to psychotic episodes but with murder en masse the gun is almost the exclusive tool especially where large numbers are concerned.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that gun owners were predisposed to psychotic episodes,
I said they both "known" BEFORE their licences were granted / re-newed.
As Jim said above a mass murderer will find away.

I would take a wild guess that explosives are a banned substance, for us mere mortals,
but look at the damage suicide bombers can do.
Both Hamilton and Ryan were on suicide missions.
They couldn't have possibly have thought otherwise.
 
16 at dumblain killed
16 at hungerford killed
And similar numbers wound at both.


2003/04 149 people killed (of which 2 were caused by a gun / firearm)
2004/05 1165 people were killed (8 of which were caused by a gun/ firearm)
and up to date
People killed 2012 / 2013 91 of which 5 were caused by a gun / firearm)

As above people will always find ways to kill people if they are
"that way" inclined
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
The Ryan mass murders gave the government the excuse to ban semi automatic rifles and introduce controls on shotguns. He was driving an Astra car, but for some reason they didn't ban Astra's or control their ownership.
The Hamilton mass murders gave the government the excuse to (virtually) ban handguns.
The Bird mass murders gave the government the excuse to add more hurdles to the certification process.

All of these have made life more difficult for legitimate shooters, all of whom are positively vetted by the police before they can possess any form of firearm, and have done nothing to improve public safety.

The way to improve public safety is for the police to actually do their job properly - Ryan should never have been granted a certificate in the first place, and should never have been granted the variation that allowed him to have a semi auto rifle, he had no good reason for having one and the police ignored a very negative reference from his shooting club secretary. Hamilton hadn't bought any ammo for his handguns, or even attended a shooting club, for 12 years and so no longer had a good reason. Also, the police were fully aware of his unhealthy interest in young boys, and there had been a lot of complaints about his conduct. A police Sgt, to be fair, wanted to refuse renewal of his certificates but was overuled by his 'superior'.
Bird had convictions for theft, handling stolen property and drunk driving, any one of which was enough to refuse him. He had also been involved in an assault and had been arrested on suspicion of sex offences, not the sort of person who would normally be expected to be granted a certificate. There is probably more known about him, but a large part of his file mysteriously went missing before the investigating police force could gain access to the file.

People like me, with a totally clean record and who are almost obsessive about firearm safety and security, don't want untrustworthy people to have access to guns, and although some of the legislation is just crazy and irrelevant to the real world, we go along with it on the grounds of public safety. Unfortunately, governments will almost certainly make it more and more difficult, and more and more expensive, until the only people who have guns are criminals. And our shooting organisations are part of the problem instead of being part of the solution, so shooters are very likely to become an extinct species sometime fairly soon.

But even that has to be better than the lunacy that is the USA

P.S. ST4, you'll never get your chance to shoot a burglar, your driving record would/should stop any application for a certificate dead:)
 
Cobra said:
@odd jim Jim, having read back through, I only quoted you as the first
:)
Click to expand...
Strange, its fine on desk top but on the app it says me for the rest too!
 
ST4 said:
Would a motoring criminal record stop an application for a gun licence? If I had a criminal record for assault/robbery I'd get it?
Click to expand...

Now you are just being moronic.
 
ST4 said:
Would a motoring criminal record stop an application for a gun licence?
Click to expand...

I don't know... but more importantly, you would have to show a good reason for owning it and "so I can shoot a burglar coming into my house" isn't one!


Steve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
Would a motoring criminal record stop an application for a gun licence? If I had a criminal record for assault/robbery I'd get it?
Click to expand...
The police have discretion in these things, but the basis of firearms licensing is that licenses are only issued to responsible people, and a criminal conviction for dangerous driving isn't an indicator of a responsible attitude.

I know someone who did something similar, he already had a S.2 certificate and it was revoked immediately. Someone else was convicted of drunk driving and the police seized his guns as soon as he got back from the Court. A friend with 9 points on his licence was clearly told by his Firearms Enquiry Officer that if he got any more points he would lose more than his driving licence. And these were all people who had already been granted a certificate so, in a sense, had already been approved.

I don't know... but more importantly, you would have to show a good reason for owning it and "so I can shoot a burglar coming into my house" isn't one!
Click to expand...
A good reason is only needed for S.1 firearms, no reason is needed for shotguns - but that reason would stop anyone getting one, I'm glad to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Tigger.ufo said:
Now you are just being moronic.
Click to expand...
A little courtesy never went amiss. It was an honest question looking for an honest answer. Stop trolling.

I've not actually seen first hand any ramifications of having a "criminal" record. I've still got my job, other than declaring it in our annual screening I've not had to do anything other than take trains or lifts rather than drive myself. Other than retaking my test and an insurance loading I don't see how this record would impact me. The punishment is minor as the offence was relatively minor.

I guess if I wanted to resume target shooting or get a shot gun to shoot wildlife for fun and to eat I'd see it kick in, thanks to the courteous post below yours, but not thanks to your trolling rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
donut said:
so its not the bullet size but the velocity of the round you dont want to get hit by? and you really are talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] about the .22 .
Click to expand...

Your completely wrong about this. There are plenty of stated court cases where a .22 has been placed behind the ear and the trigger pulled, .22 has long been considered the choice for a hit man in that the bullet causes maximum damage to the soft tissue. Not a pleasant thought, but the facts are out there and have been widely reported on from criminal trials.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Your completely wrong about this. There are plenty of stated court cases where a .22 has been placed behind the ear and the trigger pulled, .22 has long been considered the choice for a hit man in that the bullet causes maximum damage to the soft tissue. Not a pleasant thought, but the facts are out there and have been widely reported on from criminal trials.
Click to expand...

the bullet dosent fly around in the head like a pea in a tin can shaken up and down and round and round ,,,,
when you say it causes maximum damage ,,,,compared to what ? a 9mm a 5.56 ? no , i suspect the reason hit men use it ( if they all do ,but i expect many others use other calibres ) is most likely beacause its small light and easy to conceal ,,,and of course a .22 is going to kill someone the same as any other method ,,,,,there are no degrees of deadness as far as i am aware .
maybe you can point me in the direction of these widely reported " facts "
 
Byker28i said:
Availability 0f 1 .22 is probably a factor as well.
Click to expand...
I would suspect the "quietness" of a .22 sub-sonic at point blank range also is a factor.
 
winchester subsonics ,,,,little hollow point 40 grains @1040 fps ,,,,my favourite ,,,,not like them smelly greasy ely's

as an afterthought ,have we got any assassins on here who could let us know :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top