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

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?

Really - you're suggesting a total ban, based on a few deaths in another country and the occaisional one in this. Few of those deaths are caused by licenced gun holders.
Deaths as shown in the pretty picture above are mostly from illness. If we look at accidental deaths, then you'll see there's far more deaths than those attributed to weapons, yet you're calling for a total ban on guns, affecting nearly 900,000 people.

655 deaths from falling down steps, shall we ban any buildings over one story?

So rather than a knee jerk 'ban them, ban them' reaction I was trying to add some balance.
 
  • 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?

Isn't it to put some of the anti gun pinko speak into a bit of perspective?
 
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?
Why don't we ban cars then? They're the biggest killers of 17-25 year olds in the uk and worldwide. Gunshot wounds don't even make the list.

Then I'll add kitchen knives to the ban list...

Soon we'll all be walking home from work looking forward to eating our dinner with our hands.

Really, let's apply common sense! To say you'd like a total ban is rediculous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Since you mentioned US, the US figures are here:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Not how the figures are falling. Did you also know that 2/3rds of all gun related deaths in the US are suicides? Source: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls

According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2009 there were an estimated 310 million firearms in the United States (not including weapons on military bases), of which 114 million were handguns, 110 million were rifles, and 86 million were shotguns. The current population of the United States, according to the Census, is around 314 million.

Source: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...un-control-offers-no-cure-all-in-america?lite
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Sorry back to stats (had to drive home :) )

So 12996 in 2010 deaths through firearms, yet there are nearly ten times as many accidental deaths, 39% (or 36,836 which is roughly 3 times ) of which are suggested as easily preventable Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6317a1.htm and

So, there's an interesting source for stats for the US in 2010, Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

Mortality
All unintentional injury deaths
  • Number of deaths: 120,859
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 39.1
Unintentional fall deaths
  • Number of deaths: 26,009
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
  • Number of deaths: 33,687
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
Unintentional poisoning deaths
  • Number of deaths: 33,041
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All homicides
  • Number of deaths: 16,259
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.3
Firearm homicides
  • Number of deaths: 11,078
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

All suicides
  • Number of deaths: 38,364
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4
Firearm suicides
  • Number of deaths: 19,392
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.3
Suffocation suicides
  • Number of deaths: 9,493
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.1
Poisoning suicides
  • Number of deaths: 6,599
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1


So simply a ban on guns in the us might cut the deaths but it would be a drop in the ocean compared to other causes. Simply banning the guns doesn't take away the availability to those likely to use them, although I will concede will remove the availability to family members.

As an aside, some of the measures to reduce fatalities are surprisingly easy. There's been a push across the US for school playground to be open outside school hours, I know they've done this in San Francisco, which has led to a reduction in traffic related injuries and deaths to children.

310 million firearms in the US for around 30,000 deaths (homicides and suicides).

So I suggested your solution to ban all guns was a knee jerk and emotive reaction not based on facts.

Over to you Mr Bump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Horses + guns = cowboys, Ban them all !

Acutely I'm not anti-gun, anti-cowboy, or anti-horses.

I used to be a member of the Aldershot Rifle & Pistol Club years ago and had a Ruger GP100 an ex RUC revolver. I also had a 9mm Browning and used to compete regularly at Bisley. I enjoyed the completions and did quite well in them. I also used to reload my own ammunition. After Dumblane. I relinquished them to Farnham Police Station and that was the end of that hobby. The only reminder I have from that chapter is one old ammunition safe where I now keep my back-up drives containing my photographs.
 
Unintentional poisoning deaths
  • Number of deaths: 33,041
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7.
Interesting Stats :thumbs:
Just wondering if that is accidental self administering
Or accidentally poisoning someone? :D

. After Dumblane. I relinquished them to Farnham Police Station and that was the end of that hobby.
As we were saying at the time, in our club.
Because we are such a law abiding group,
we just handed them over without the slightest protest.
Can you imagine any other country doing the same?

The only reminder I have from that chapter is one old ammunition safe where I now keep my back-up drives containing my photographs.
I use mine as a fire-proof safe too :)
What I found curious, they paided out compensation on a wide (holster) belt.
But wouldn't cough up for my ammo master press, or dies,
on the grounds that it could be used for loading rifle ammo,
WTF I said I don't have a pistol calibre rifle.
 
I had forgotten about the belt, think I handed something in but got back far more than I had paid for it. I acutely did very well on compensation.
 
I had forgotten about the belt, think I handed something in but got back far more than I had paid for it. I acutely did very well on compensation.
For a fiver, the owner of the (my) range (& gun shop)
Would give out an official price for guns accessories etc,
for you to present.
The fire arms officer at the time was an avid pistol shooter too,
as was as much p***ed off with the ban as the rest of us,
and never once queried the "values" :D

Although I also made a nice profit, it wasn't really the point though :(

C'est la vie
 
It literally was an open chequebook. The thing is as we know most shootings have been done by illegally owned handguns and modified replicas and deactivations. It was the licensed firearm holders who were targeted and bad press did a lot to harm legitimate gun owners.
 
The yanks constantly refer to guns as tools.

yep there are certainly a lot of tools over there alright :-)
 
What about the sporting field, a sport which is an Olympic sport? That serves a purpose for me and millions of others.

I suppose it was a bit of a blanket statement. Actually, I think the situation we have here is o.k. as it is. At least we are nowhere near the point of no return which the US passed many years ago.

However, for target shooting, I'm sure the technology is available to produce a non projectile gun substitute with sensors to detect the aim and perhaps with pneumatics to make it feel right.

Technology managed to convince the masses to abandon film in favour of something almost as good so an artificial gun should be easy!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you could, the technology's there but I think it would take a bit of getting used to. I acutely used to like the smell of cordite and smoke haze, I also had a degree of control over the ammunition I used to reload by the amount of powder, type of percussion caps, casing and head it was a balance between to little and too much. That was almost a second hobby, The combination of the noise of the firing pin striking the percussion cap, which in turn caused the powder to burn, the gas to expand in the cartridge case and force the bullet head out and the subsequent grouping was also an indication of a good batch of ammunition. By adapting a similar shooting style and refining the amount of powder used it could improve your shooting / grouping and therefore score more points. It sounds daft but when the gun fired you could tell if the ammunition you've made was either right or wrong. Whether, you could capture the sounds and smells with pneumatic shooting I don't know but that's all part of the sport.

I didn't really like digital photography at first. The quality wasn't there and it was very expensive in the beginning. I didn't like the fake electronic shutter noise either, but I guess it's just something people adapt too and things improve and evolve . I just wouldn't have the time anyway these days to go down that route.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that people got used to the idea of fencing as a a sword fighting substitute without the need for plunging a blade into someone to win so perhaps target shooting without a projectile is a possibility.


Steve.
 
I was thinking that people got used to the idea of fencing as a a sword fighting substitute without the need for plunging a blade into someone to win so perhaps target shooting without a projectile is a possibility.


Steve.

I totally understood your point. That's a very good analogy.
 
I was thinking that people got used to the idea of fencing as a a sword fighting substitute without the need for plunging a blade into someone to win so perhaps target shooting without a projectile is a possibility.


Steve.
I disagree, I don't think it could ever properly replicate it, and it kind of already exists, laser tag!

And with target shooting, you're not shooting people, so the fencing analogy doesn't quite work. Neither does the digital vs analogue photography analogy. There's nothing 'fake' about digital, youre still projecting an image onto a flat surface that records the image as the light hits a sensitive medium, which reacts. Its only the medium that changed, everything else remains the same.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it was a bit of a blanket statement. Actually, I think the situation we have here is o.k. as it is. At least we are nowhere near the point of no return which the US passed many years ago.

However, for target shooting, I'm sure the technology is available to produce a non projectile gun substitute with sensors to detect the aim and perhaps with pneumatics to make it feel right.

Technology managed to convince the masses to abandon film in favour of something almost as good so an artificial gun should be easy!


Steve.

The technology is there to make false robotic dogs, perhaps we should get them in place rather than real live ones.

Robotic guns would be easier, laser based, but what of wind movement etc to be counter acted by adjusting sights, a whole art form lost forever.
 
Shooting someone's pets a bit harsh but totally up for deer, wildcat etc shooting. It's fun.

And thereby lies the problem - killing a living creature is "fun". Casual sadism?
 
just a quick recap why i posted in this thread .
jim said
"And I agree re .22 rounds, I'd rather be shot by a 9mm or 557 round, at least they'll pass straight through rather than bounce around and turn your insides to mush like a .22."
he actualy meant a 9mm or a 5.56mm round as he corrected in a later post .
i had the audacity to disagree with both statements
1 that anyone would rather be shot with either a 9mm or a 5.56mm round and
2 that a .22 round bounces around ( inside a body or head ) and turns insides to mush.
in his last post with reference to me he put a link to some information that would prove his point ,,,,so my answers will come from that site that he linked to .
he then went on to say
"A .22 will enter the skull (for example) but it won't have the power to exit the other side, it'll simply bounce around inside causing havok, shredding the brain and /or organs depending where it hits, where as a more potent round will pass straight through, giving you a better chance if survival (yes, people can survive a through and through head shot!). Same for chest cavities. Anyone who knows anything about firearms knows this, simple physics."
well this depends on a number of factors ,,,the type of .22 round ,the distance it is fired from and where in the head or body it hits ,jim used skull in his for example ,,,
a .22 long rifle when fired with the muzzle in contact with the head according the the link says
"the bullet often exits the skull , though it may be found underneath the scalp,adjacent to the exit in the bone" it doed not say if fired from a rifle or a pistol
it then goes on to say
" at distant range .22 lr bullets penetrating the head can produce linear fractures of the skull whether the weapon used is a handgun or a rifle "
now i will put my hands up ( well maybe just one ) and say ,that my understanding was that in general a .22 would enter the head ,take its course through the soft matter and then stop fairly quickly ,maybe on the other side of the skull ,,,but according to the link
"in many handgun wounds of the head ,the bullet is retained either in the cranial cavity or beneath the scalp" and " as the calibre of a bullet increases the likleyhood of it perforating ( exiting ) also increases ,"
therefore a .22 is more likely to stay in the head ,and i agree .
there is a table that shows that out of 60 homicides ,which are generaly more distant shots. 6.6 percent of the bullets exited the head .
it also goes on to say
"as a general rule ,internal ricochet is more commonly associated with lead bullets and bullets of small calibre .Thus ricochet within the cranial cavity occurs most commonly with .22 lead bullets "
so i concede that this is in line with jims version ,although it dosent say anywhere that the round flies about in the skull like a silver ball in a pinball machine with tommy on the side buttons .
jim also says that a 9mm will pass straight through ,again more likely that a round from a handgun will stay in the head but does depend on other factors .
so on the issue of the .22 round ,,,i would say that my version is nearer to the truth than jims ,,,,although the bullet does enter and move around or ricochet in the skull it is limited to a degree
now on to the round that jim would rather get hit by ( as opposed to a 22 )
the 5.56 mm is a .223 derived round ,,,been around for a long time , but according to wikkiwotsit used by nato since 1980 ,,it wasnt designed to kill and maim as jim tells us in his history lesson,( but im sure he'ill say its a fact ) find byker28i's post for its history .
cavitation ,,,or temporary cavity ,,,when a bullet is travelling around 2700 and above ,and it hits soft tissue it leaves a shockwave behind it ,the tissue undulates or wobbles open and shut after the bullet has passed through ,this temporary cavity or hole can be as much as 11 to 12,5 times the size of the bullet diameter, and

so a 5.56mm bullet for a very short time ( 5 to 10 msecs ) puts a hole of around 60 mm through the ( in jims example brain ) this in turn creates a lot of pressure in the skull which will fracture and break the bone the chances of survival are ,,,,,,fairly unlikely ,,,,so why jim would prefer to get hit by a 5.56 instead of a .22 is totaly ridiculous ( although we both did agree that we would rather not get hit by anything )
i still stand by my original post .
"Sorry donut, you know nothing about firearms, best not comment anymore if you're going to make remarks like that."
as for jim making the above statement ,,,,,,
i have three shotguns ,a 45-70 martini henry ,two airguns ,and a .44 revolver ,used to have a .22 rimfire on an open certificate .
 
@donut ....that was a QUICK recap? :lol:
 
And thereby lies the problem - killing a living creature is "fun". Casual sadism?
Each to their own. Personally I'm not OK with killing deer and have never done so (other than humane destruction where a poacher has left one suffering, or when I've found one injured from another cause. When I see deer I watch them, and enjoy watching them - but I accept that some people have a very real problem with destruction caused by deer, and may have a real need to reduce their numbers. I do have the means to shoot deer humanely, 2 very powerful centrefire rifles, I just don't want to.

Pests, including and especially foxes, I don't shoot them for fun, I shoot them because I have a very real need to do so. I find it satisfying that I can reduce the amount of damage they do, and reduce the livestock losses they cause, but I do it because it's necessary, not for any kind of enjoyment.

For people who consider that hunting animals is cruel (and many do think that) I'm personally not happy about shooting rabbits with airguns, I use either a .22 or .17 rimfire instead, it's humane. But, as long as a humane tool is used, I think that people should consider whether an animal that lives its natural life and is then killed instantly by a high powered rifle has a much better life (and death) than a farmed animal that ends up in a slaughterhouse. I know enough about farmed animals, and their deaths, not to buy chicken.
just a quick recap why i posted in this thread .
jim said
"And I agree re .22 rounds, I'd rather be shot by a 9mm or 557 round, at least they'll pass straight through rather than bounce around and turn your insides to mush like a .22."
he actualy meant a 9mm or a 5.56mm round as he corrected in a later post .
i had the audacity to disagree with both statements
1 that anyone would rather be shot with either a 9mm or a 5.56mm round and
2 that a .22 round bounces around ( inside a body or head ) and turns insides to mush.
in his last post with reference to me he put a link to some information that would prove his point ,,,,so my answers will come from that site that he linked to .
he then went on to say
"A .22 will enter the skull (for example) but it won't have the power to exit the other side, it'll simply bounce around inside causing havok, shredding the brain and /or organs depending where it hits, where as a more potent round will pass straight through, giving you a better chance if survival (yes, people can survive a through and through head shot!). Same for chest cavities. Anyone who knows anything about firearms knows this, simple physics."
well this depends on a number of factors ,,,the type of .22 round ,the distance it is fired from and where in the head or body it hits ,jim used skull in his for example ,,,
a .22 long rifle when fired with the muzzle in contact with the head according the the link says
"the bullet often exits the skull , though it may be found underneath the scalp,adjacent to the exit in the bone" it doed not say if fired from a rifle or a pistol
it then goes on to say
" at distant range .22 lr bullets penetrating the head can produce linear fractures of the skull whether the weapon used is a handgun or a rifle "
now i will put my hands up ( well maybe just one ) and say ,that my understanding was that in general a .22 would enter the head ,take its course through the soft matter and then stop fairly quickly ,maybe on the other side of the skull ,,,but according to the link
"in many handgun wounds of the head ,the bullet is retained either in the cranial cavity or beneath the scalp" and " as the calibre of a bullet increases the likleyhood of it perforating ( exiting ) also increases ,"
therefore a .22 is more likely to stay in the head ,and i agree .
there is a table that shows that out of 60 homicides ,which are generaly more distant shots. 6.6 percent of the bullets exited the head .
it also goes on to say
"as a general rule ,internal ricochet is more commonly associated with lead bullets and bullets of small calibre .Thus ricochet within the cranial cavity occurs most commonly with .22 lead bullets "
so i concede that this is in line with jims version ,although it dosent say anywhere that the round flies about in the skull like a silver ball in a pinball machine with tommy on the side buttons .
jim also says that a 9mm will pass straight through ,again more likely that a round from a handgun will stay in the head but does depend on other factors .
so on the issue of the .22 round ,,,i would say that my version is nearer to the truth than jims ,,,,although the bullet does enter and move around or ricochet in the skull it is limited to a degree
now on to the round that jim would rather get hit by ( as opposed to a 22 )
the 5.56 mm is a .223 derived round ,,,been around for a long time , but according to wikkiwotsit used by nato since 1980 ,,it wasnt designed to kill and maim as jim tells us in his history lesson,( but im sure he'ill say its a fact ) find byker28i's post for its history .
cavitation ,,,or temporary cavity ,,,when a bullet is travelling around 2700 and above ,and it hits soft tissue it leaves a shockwave behind it ,the tissue undulates or wobbles open and shut after the bullet has passed through ,this temporary cavity or hole can be as much as 11 to 12,5 times the size of the bullet diameter, and

so a 5.56mm bullet for a very short time ( 5 to 10 msecs ) puts a hole of around 60 mm through the ( in jims example brain ) this in turn creates a lot of pressure in the skull which will fracture and break the bone the chances of survival are ,,,,,,fairly unlikely ,,,,so why jim would prefer to get hit by a 5.56 instead of a .22 is totaly ridiculous ( although we both did agree that we would rather not get hit by anything )
i still stand by my original post .
"Sorry donut, you know nothing about firearms, best not comment anymore if you're going to make remarks like that."
as for jim making the above statement ,,,,,,
i have three shotguns ,a 45-70 martini henry ,two airguns ,and a .44 revolver ,used to have a .22 rimfire on an open certificate .
Some fair points here. But bear in mind that military weapons use jacketed ammo (usually full metal jacket) that retains its form pretty well when passing through a body. Civilian hunting bullets are soft, they break apart, deform and cause massive damage. That report, interesting as it is, is concerned with bullet injuries in the USA, not here, and there they use a lot of different types of ammo. In this country, in the unlikely event of being shot with say a .223 rifle round, it's odds on that the bullet would expand and cause devastating injuries. This is far less likely in the USA. Effectively, civilian ammunition, designed for hunting animals, is far more dangerous to humans than military ammunition.

But we're talking rifle rounds here, people shot in the UK are nearly always the victims of criminals, and I don't personally know of any cases where criminals have used high powered hunting rifles as weapons, they usually use shotguns, handguns or modified starting pistols etc, firing low powered ammo. Nearly all pistols use very low powered ammunition (compared to rifle ammunition). And don't have the barrel length to get maximum efficiency from that ammunition anyway.
 
yes agree slightly off topic , but jim used 5.56 nato round as his example ,,,the earlier 55grn put through a 1 in 14 inch twist was very unstable and started to tumble very soon after hitting someone,they then changed to the 62 grn put through a 1in7 or a 1 in 9 twist ,which resulted in less internal damage as it didnt start to tumble so quick .but its also the temporary cavity that causes horrendous injury ,,,,even if the bullet dosent fragment ,,,,although it says in the link
"military bullets by virtue of their fmj's ,tend to pass through the body intact thus producing less extensive injuries than hunting ammunition ."
it then goes on to say
" one noteable exeption to the aforementioned observations with regard to bullet breakup in fmj bullets is the 5.56x45 (.223) cartridge

and while im here ,,,is there some strange kind of inverse square law at work here,,,,,when you double the bullet weight it doubles the kinetic energy ,,,,,but if you double the velocity ,it quadruples the kinetic energy ,,,,,just sayin :D
 
I hope this thread is not going to to go down the route of Trigonometric identity otherwise it will be tedium beyond belief......
 
Back
Top