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

Personally, I don't want to either shoot anyone (or AT anyone) with any calibre gun whatever the propellant and projectile type! One of the few things I would want less than that is to be on the other end of the gun...
 
Not even if your life depended on it?
Dunno. I don't think that anyone can know what they would or could do until it actually happened, but my own view is that I've spent over 50 years with guns of pretty well all types, I pull the trigger at least 7000 times each year but it would go 100% against my instincts and training to ever point a gun at anyone, let alone pull the trigger.

I think, in reality, that I would probably do it if I absolutely had to but would hesitate for too long, and end up as the victim.
 
Not even if your life depended on it?

Even if my life depended on it, I wouldn't want to shoot anyone.
 
I was in Pristina, Kosovo in. 2000 (UNMIK) as part of a UN team of investigators, seconded by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Exhuming mass graves and photographing, recording and recovering evidence. It was truly horrific experience. whole villages were rounded up and marched out of their homes and villages. Many of the victims had black powder burns to the back of their heads indicating that they were shot at close gunpoint. Others were forced into rooms and executed by gunfire and grenades, their bodies burned to try to conceal identity and evidence. Even today I find it very hard to forget the sights and smells, Small or large calibre is irrelevant, totally irrelevant. It causes misery, hate and suffering. That is the important thing to remember.
 
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.

maybe you could point me in the direction of some of these widely reported "facts"
 
maybe you could point me in the direction of some of these widely reported "facts"

There are quite a few published court transcripts, professional medical and forensic journals detailing the damage caused by a .22 calibre round that has penetrated the head behind the ear and the damaged caused as it slows down and deflects of the bone damaging soft tissue as it tumbles around the head before coming to a stop. Professional journals are not always available online. I can't direct you to any certain links, if that's what your after it's not the sought of thing I bookmark. I'm not really sure why this is so important to you ( you asked twice !) morbid curiosity or you doubt what I'm saying. That's a rhetorical question that I don't need answering but good luck in your search.
 
Last edited:
There are quite a few published court transcripts, professional medical and forensic journals detailing the damage caused by a .22 calibre round that has penetrated the head behind the ear and the damaged caused as it slows down and deflects of the bone damaging soft tissue as it tumbles around the head before coming to a stop. Professional journals are not always available online. I can't direct you to any certain links, if that's what your after it's not the sought of thing I bookmark. I'm not really sure why this is so important to you ( you asked twice !) morbid curiosity or you doubt what I'm saying. That's a rhetorical question that I don't need answering but good luck in your search.

so they're not facts they're your opinion ,,,,,,
 
I think it's a joint effort.


Steve.
And your logic for that is...?
A gun is just a piece of mechanical engineering, it doesn't have a mind of its own, it isn't capable of making decisions.

Criminals can and do use a variety of different tools to harm others, and just about everything has been used as a weapon at some point.
The only thing that can be said against guns is that they allow criminals to kill efficiently.

To the people who seem to think that a .22 bullet is in some way less dangerous, all that I can say is that you are very, very wrong.

And let's define .22 anyway...
There's the airgun pellet, it can be fired at up to 6 ft lbs (legally) from an air pistol. Lightweight pellet from very low powered airgun, dangerous but very unlikely to be lethal.
The same pellet can be fired from an air rifle, power is now up to 12 ft lbs (legally). People have been killed by air rifles, even though the pellet only weighs about 15 grains.
Then there's the rimfire, available in both short and long versions.The short versions are the type that used to be at fairgrounds and in some revolvers, the bullet weights about 40 grains and has pretty low power, with perhaps no propellant at all in the cartridge, or perhaps just 1 gramme of propellant. Relatively low power but definately with lethal capability at close range
Then there's the LF (Long Rifle) version, the most common. Still with very little propellant, power ranges from around 100 ft pounds to around 150 ft lbs. No doubt whatever about its short range lethality. People have been killed at distances of about a mile, several times. One man barely survived a negligent shot at a distance of just over 2 miles, he was lucky to have his wife, a medical doctor, with him at the time.

And then there are a whole host of .22 centre fire rounds, these are several times more powerful than the rimfire versions.
 
The absence of any evidence is no evidence of absence. Edited to add this should of been posted up there ^^^
 
Last edited:
so they're not facts they're your opinion ,,,,,,
No, they are facts. As I have also stated.

Why can't you accept you're wrong?
 
Last edited:
its an odd one it seems like reading between the lines most people in America think having A (one) gun for home protection etc is a good thing.
However 90% want to see restrictions on how many and what types etc can ge held IE assault rifles and large capacity magazines.

In between you have the Pro Gun lobby propping up the other 10% with shed loads of coorporate cash as its not in the interest of the companies that make guns to see change.
 
its an odd one it seems like reading between the lines most people in America think having A (one) gun for home protection etc is a good thing.
However 90% want to see restrictions on how many and what types etc can ge held IE assault rifles and large capacity magazines.

In between you have the Pro Gun lobby propping up the other 10% with shed loads of coorporate cash as its not in the interest of the companies that make guns to see change.
I think it's worse than that.
I was talking to a guy who lives in Boston, which is a pretty tame place in the scheme of things. He told me that the people in Texas are just crazy about guns and don't hesitate to chase vehicles from his part of the world out of the state, shooting at them in the process, because they regard anyone from the east as Commie liberals - but he then went on to tell me that he has at least 3 handguns hidden in every room of his house, in case of home invasion, and another one in his car glove box.

And this guy is educated, a medical doctor.
 
I think it's worse than that.
I was talking to a guy who lives in Boston, which is a pretty tame place in the scheme of things. He told me that the people in Texas are just crazy about guns and don't hesitate to chase vehicles from his part of the world out of the state, shooting at them in the process, because they regard anyone from the east as Commie liberals - but he then went on to tell me that he has at least 3 handguns hidden in every room of his house, in case of home invasion, and another one in his car glove box.

And this guy is educated, a medical doctor.


Yeah i think your right and the diverse views even by people who do not reside there offer different thought.

my own thoughts are guns do not belong in the hands of civilians except pest control and farmers etc.
America has deep routed problems that will probably never get resolved and they will end up very much like South Africa where gated communities and armoured cars for whoever can afford it will be the norm in 10 years time.
 
Yeah i think your right and the diverse views even by people who do not reside there offer different thought.

my own thoughts are guns do not belong in the hands of civilians except pest control and farmers etc.
America has deep routed problems that will probably never get resolved and they will end up very much like South Africa where gated communities and armoured cars for whoever can afford it will be the norm in 10 years time.
Not just pest control and farmers.
Slaughtermen, target shooters, game shooters, clay pigeon shooters too.
Shooting may be much bigger than you think in the UK. According to this link in 2008/9 there were 1,801,465 shotguns and rifles in lawful possession of the public and held on the authority of 713,674 firearms and shotgun certificates. I say the public because these figures do not include the armed forces or the police.

The reason that most people don't know just how many of us there are is because most of us are out of sight, most of the time, shooting in woods, on farmland and in clubs. And because, as a sector, we are probably the most law abiding people around, and it's extremely rare for any of us to come to notice for the wrong reasons.
 
Personally and it is my own opinion I would like to see all non essential fireams banned and create a blanket rule in th UK.
 
Personally and it is my own opinion I would like to see all non essential fireams banned and create a blanket rule in th UK.

Same here. Other than pest control, they serve no purpose outside the military.


Steve.
 
Personally and it is my own opinion I would like to see all non essential fireams banned and create a blanket rule in th UK.
So that only the criminals have guns? And isn't my own use of guns essential? They are my sport and a central part of my social life.
Same here. Other than pest control, they serve no purpose outside the military.


Steve.
So you obviously don't know that sporting shooters play an essential, if occasional role that helps public safety? When you hear of a large, dangerous animal on the loose that ended up having to be shot by a "police marksman" do you really believe that it was a police "marksman" who actually shot it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I'd like to see a blanket dog ban, doesn't mean its gonna happen :D

maybe not but its your opinion and you are entitled to it.

thats the great thing about opinions :-)
 
Shooting someone's pets a bit harsh but totally up for deer, wildcat etc shooting. It's fun.

The "frog" hunters out here seem to shoot at anything that moves, including occasionally each other
 
So that only the criminals have guns? And isn't my own use of guns essential? They are my sport and a central part of my social life.

So you obviously don't know that sporting shooters play an essential, if occasional role that helps public safety? When you hear of a large, dangerous animal on the loose that ended up having to be shot by a "police marksman" do you really believe that it was a police "marksman" who actually shot it?

My brother, a retired Greater Manchester Constabulary police firearms officer and marksman would say yes :-) but I know it varies from force to force.
 
Same here. Other than pest control, they serve no purpose outside the military.


Steve.
What about the sporting field, a sport which is an Olympic sport? That serves a purpose for me and millions of others.
 
Personally I see Horses have no purpose other than to leave slippery mess on roads that are dangerous to motorcyclists, but I'm not calling for their ban.

As was said - there are nearly 900,000 valid licences held in this country with few problems from those licensed individuals, yet some would like all banned. There's far more deaths from smoking, vehicles, around 200 people drown - lets ban water.

Actually - let's stop making dramatic kneejerk statements and apply some thought. Lets actually look at the causes of death (I'll give you a hint - the top ten are all cancer related apart from dementia) and work on thos.

Factfile_deaths_large.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I think @Byker28i yours is more knee jerk than others opinion. The original post was pointing out real issues with gun ownership in the US.

People have pointed out a total ban on guns in civilian use is a good and proper idea one with with i agree.

If you don't agree then fine but your post above doesn't really d much to the origonal thread does it?
 
Personally I see Horses have no purpose other than to leave slippery mess on roads that are dangerous to motorcyclists, but I'm not calling for their ban.
Actually - let's stop making dramatic kneejerk statements and apply some thought.
Couldn't agree more with either statement :thumbs:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Horses are also delicious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Back
Top