Just seen the reports on TV.
Nasty.
Hope all members here are unaffected.
|
|
Yes what a waste of life the papers of today have it plastered all over the front page.
|
|
I really hope things dont get too radical, and bring in tougher gun laws.
|
Like new laws really helped after hungerford, dunblane etc?
Nutters will be nutters, whether they have access to guns, knives, samurai swords etc etc etc...
|
|
What gun has he used can't see in the metro today?
|
|
.22 and a shotgun, both licensed to him.
|
|
Shotgun and .22 sporting rifle
|
>>Nutters will be nutters, whether they have access to guns, knives, samurai swords etc etc etc...>>
As someone who watched this unfold throughout yesterday from around midday on rolling news TV, one of the key points that arose was that the man involved was NOT a previously known or recognised "nutter".
He was certainly well known and generally respected and the majority of the community are in deep shock that he resorted to such inexplicable behaviour.
The only apparent clue to this, so far, is that he was said to have been involved in a long argument with at least two of his fellow taxi drivers the previous evening.
But what made him flip to such a staggering degree may well never be discovered.
Last edited by: Stuartli on Thu 3 Jun 10 at 09:18
|
>> The only apparent clue to this, so far, is that he was said to have
>> been involved in a long argument with at least two of his fellow taxi drivers
>> the previous evening.
>>
>> But what made him flip to such a staggering degree may well never be discovered.
And the hint of a family dispute over an inheritance. Still hardly enough to go loopy.
|
...And the hint of a family dispute over an inheritance...
And something about some money in his bank acocunt "which I could end up going to jail for" he apparently told a friend.
|
|
still not "lets start a masacre" stuff tho is it.
|
>> >>Nutters will be nutters, whether they have access to guns, knives, samurai swords etc etc
>> etc...>>
>> But what made him flip to such a staggering degree may well never be discovered.
>>
Precisely my point - the guy flipped, and went on the rampage. Could have been with anything. So any calls for a further restriction on firearms won't and can't prevent this happening again... even if they banned all guns from private hands.
|
>> But what made him flip to such a staggering degree may well never be discovered.
It is most unfortunate, if reports I have read are true ones, that he was turned away from his local hospital just before this tragic event, having gone there for help with his mental state.
|
>> Like new laws really helped after hungerford, dunblane etc?
>> Nutters will be nutters, whether they have access to guns, knives, samurai swords etc etc
>> etc...
There is very little chance of somebody with a knife killing 12 people and injuring 25. Guns significantly magnify the damage that an individual can inflict.
Not saying that they should be banned (more than they are now) just that we need to accept that events such as those yesterday will happen. If we want to defend the right of a taxi driver to have a shotgun and a rifle then we need to accept the occasional slaughter as an inevitable side effect.
You can never really say whether the new laws helped after Hungerford and Dunblane, but they certainly stopped the guy yesterday having access to more powerful weapons.
|
Sky News is reporting that Derrick Bird had used a .22 rifle and a shotgun - he had held a shotgun licence legally for the past 20 years.
Some possible clues to his actions could be in this story, although it's still too early to take a positive line:
tinyurl.com/2b4fq7n
|
And this is why I despise newspaper Journalists,
"With a shotgun and high-powered rifle"
A .22 rifle is not high powered. Thats why its still allowed to own and license one.
|
>> A .22 rifle is not high powered.
S'pose it does emphasize that it wasn't a .22 air rifle, which is what you tend to associate with .22 calibre.
|
>> >> A .22 rifle is not high powered.
>>
>> S'pose it does emphasize that it wasn't a .22 air rifle, which is what you
>> tend to associate with .22 calibre.
the use of the words "Air rifle" does that.
Its been written that way to be deliberately sensationalist, to impart more drama into the story. The fact that its a lie does not seem to occurr to the journalist who wrote this.
they are utterly reprehensible. Not to be trusted under any circumstances,
|
..the fact that it is a lie...
Garbage, Zero.
It is not a lie, it is purely a matter of opinion.
An opinion you don't share, but so what?
And as I say lower down, if you were shot with one, you might think it was high powered.
|
|
I can tell you are a journo Ifi, Mistruths are a matter of opinion in your game.
|
Mistruths because the moron reporter/sub doesn't have the knowledge to write accurately most of the time...?
I recall a piece where ordnance had been changed to ordInance throughout...
|
>>Some possible clues to his actions could be in this story, although it's still too early to take a positive line<<
So, he didn't 'flip' then, b'cos according to that article, he sed "'There's going to be a rampage tomorrow.'"
It was premeditated = he was a Psychopath.
|
...high-powered rifle...
I'm no expert, but presumably it has enough power to kill a person, as opposed to an air rifle which could kill a pigeon but would only wound a person.
Calling this rifle 'high-powered' is a matter of opinion, which doesn't really have a place in a hard news story.
But on t'other hand, it's hardly a reason to despise all newspaper journalists.
Sloppy reporting, yes, but despicable? I don't think so.
|
>> I'm no expert, but presumably it has enough power to kill a person, as opposed
>> to an air rifle which could kill a pigeon but would only wound a person.
Air rifles kill people. The high power ones have been banned.
>> Calling this rifle 'high-powered' is a matter of opinion, which doesn't really have a place
>> in a hard news story.
Its not a matter of opinion. Its been published as a matter of fact.
|
>> >> I'm no expert, but presumably (a .22) has enough power to kill a person, as
>> >> opposed to an air rifle which could kill a pigeon but would only wound
>>
>> Air rifles kill people. The high power ones have been banned.
To be accurate, for air rifles over a certain "power" you need to have a Firearms Certificate, which means you must take the actions required to obtain one, and the guns need to be detailed on it.
>> >> Calling this rifle 'high-powered' is a matter of opinion, which doesn't really have a
>> >> place in a hard news story.
>>
>> Its not a matter of opinion. Its been published as a matter of fact.
A "high powered" rifle might be a a centrefire one, as you may be aware - I would not say that a .22 rimfire is particularly "powerful", although it's lethal, of course. A shotgun would be more dangerous within range, IMO.
There's information for anyone interested on the BASC website, e.g.: bit.ly/95F96R
and elsewhere.
|
I too watched the story unfold on the 24 hour news channels.
The shootings started around 10:30. The police, from Cumbria and surrounding forces knew who had started the spree and the vehicle he was travelling in. Yet it continued until 1.40 when he the killer was found dead.
Surely the amount of police firearms teams and the use of helicopters could have prevented some of the deaths or injured in that time.
If you see the route he took, I can't see why any helicopter could not have tracked him down in time to prevent some of his actions.
Have the police service not learned anything from Hungerford. They must use that scenario in police firearm training today, so why wasn't their measures used to full capacity.
Watching the police, camera action programmes, they seem proficient in tailing "joy" riders from the sky yet when we need protecting like in this case they fail miserably.
They didn't even bring him down. He put a stop to the killing by ending his own life.
|
>>The police, from Cumbria and surrounding forces knew who had started the spree and the vehicle he was travelling in.>>
Apart from the fact that Cumbria is not noted for such incidents i.e. using firearms, it is a rather isolated area of the UK and the Cumbrian police force is comparatively small.
It brought in help as quickly as possible from neighbouring forces such as Lancashire, including helicopters.
A running local newsaper commentary on the incident can be found at:
tinyurl.com/346byyu
|
|
Cumbria Police have no aircraft, they share the use with other Forces as far as Northumbria I believe.
|
>> Watching the police, camera action programmes, they seem proficient in tailing "joy" riders from the
>> sky yet when we need protecting like in this case they fail miserably.
>> They didn't even bring him down. He put a stop to the killing by ending
>> his own life.
So, you are saying that because the police can follow a joyrider once they have pinpointed them, they should be able to pinpoint a gunman's car quickly. How do those two things tie up?
Nobody knows what went on here, certainly not just from watching Sky News. It might be prudent to wait until a well informed inquiry reviews the facts, rather than trying to piece together things that we saw on the TV.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 3 Jun 10 at 11:00
|
|
According to the DT, a 'firearms expert' said a .22 can take down a man at 2 miles. Yeah right. Here we go again, time for another knee jerk reaction. I remember the last time this happened, and it was the tories that knee-jerked that time as well.
|
|
i think .22 is entry level gun ownership stuff used by lampers to kill associated lamping stuff?
|
>> According to the DT, a 'firearms expert' said a .22 can take down a man
>> at 2 miles.
A firearms expert told The Daily Telegraph: “If you have no criminal record, there is no reason you can’t have a rifle that can drop someone at a distance of two miles”.
So I don't think the expert was talking about a .22 to be fair.
|
>> A firearms expert told The Daily Telegraph: “If you have no criminal record, there is
>> no reason you can’t have a rifle that can drop someone at a distance of
>> two miles”.
I don't think that's true either. If you don't have a criminal record and aren't mad then there is no reason you cannot have a shotgun.
To own a rifle my understanding is that you need to have land where you use it. Farmers and landowners may have them quite readily; taxi drivers tend not to.
|
>> To own a rifle my understanding is that you need to have land where you
>> use it. Farmers and landowners may have them quite readily; taxi drivers tend not to.
Land or (target) Rifle Club.
Target Rifle is a difficult discipline in which to reach the top, and is taken by participants quite seriously.
Re land, you don't have to own it. If you shoot on it, you have to have the landowner's permission, the land has to be inspected for suitability by Firearms Licencing, you can only have a rifle appropriate for what you want to do if the land is suitable for it.
From reports, it appears that this man had a "sporting rifle", i.e. a .22 rimfire carbine or repeating rifle (not automatic).
|
>> According to the DT, a 'firearms expert' said a .22 can take down a man
>> at 2 miles.
The article you refer to is at, I think: bit.ly/9iIGc8
From that article:
"A firearms expert told The Daily Telegraph: “If you have no criminal record, there is no reason you can’t have a rifle that can drop someone at a distance of two miles”"
Not quite so expert. There are reasons why not - for one, you have to show a legitimate use - which could be shooting game, or using it at a rifle club, for instance.
He didn't mention a .22 (of which there are various types), or any calibre/type of ammunition. There are certainly rifles you can get which are lethal at two miles, but pinpoint accuracy is impossible at that range.
"Mike Eveleigh, a former firearms licensing officer, speaking on the Today programme, said Britain's restrictions on gun licensing were too complicated.
He said: "The way the restrictions work mean that the police have to do a hell of a lot of work to try and work through these difficult, complex licensing restrictions."
That is why the police do have experts; "Firearms Licencing officers", who are IME very good.
"It's always possible [that some guns slip through the net] but I don't know, we don't know yet where this is going to go, we've got to find out what actually happened here in Cumbria."
"I don't know". Some expert.
>> Yeah right. Here we go again, time for another knee jerk reaction.
I hope not.
|
>> "A firearms expert told The Daily Telegraph: “If you have no criminal record, there is
>> no reason you can’t have a rifle that can drop someone at a distance of
>> two miles”"
>>
>> He didn't mention a .22 (of which there are various types), or any calibre/type of
>> ammunition. There are certainly rifles you can get which are lethal at two miles, but
>> pinpoint accuracy is impossible at that range.
Quite so. Let me attempt to draw this little sub-discussion on killing people at 2 miles to a close, with this little factoid:
"The longest recorded sniper kill ever is by Craig Harrison of the Household Cavalry, with a shot from 2,707 yards (1.54 miles)."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills
So, over 110 years since the first sniper unit was formed, and after countless wars, the most skilled snipers in the world, with the very best equipment have never recorded a kill anywhere near 2 miles away.
I respectfully suggest that the Daily Telegraph should try to find a new firearms expert.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 3 Jun 10 at 13:29
|
|
Unclear to me whether he had a licence for the rifle.
|
Is it that easy to buy a shotgun second hand?
A gun shop won't sell one without a license but seen guns (air rifle)on a carboot sale.
Without saying where and how is that easy to get hold of weapons?
|
|
Excellent reporting from the World @ One today - little intervention from the female presenter to first hand accounts from people who saw stuff or suffered as a consequence.
|
Without being disrespectful to any of those involved, on the reports they are saying that there are hundreds of police / detectives etc drafted in to deal with this.
I would be curious to know from the legal point of view if
a. will this be investigated to the same degree as any other murder , bearing in mind it appears "pretty obvious" what has happened and who caused it.
b. and if the answer to that is yes, then why is that amount of resources being applied to something that has happened and by all accounts there is no one going to be able to be brought to trial for it.
As I said, not meaning to be disrespectful, just curious as to how this investigation will pan out and what outcome will be.
|
|
I suppose they have to match all 30 crime scenes to the two firearms to eliminate the extreme possibility that he was not acting alone or someone else took advantage of the "spree" (as the USA call these things) etc etc..
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10227429.stm
Seems the PM doesn't want a knee-jerk reaction. Good test for HMG, the other mob drafted a law for every occasion, usually so badly written that they were unenforceable in any rational way.
|
>>
>> As I said, not meaning to be disrespectful, just curious as to how this investigation
>> will pan out and what outcome will be.
>>
In my experience, most public bodies and functions are now run according to set rulebooks. The employees do not appear to have any discretion to use common sense, they have to follow rigid tickbox procedures.
|
>> The employees do not appear to have any discretion to use common sense, they have
>> to follow rigid tickbox procedures.
>>
p.s. that also explians why the Police were unable to use discretion to purchase tents to cover the bodies lying in the streets. Usual procedure is to use a big tent to cover the scene and hide the view from public/press, but in a low crime area like Cumbria the Police obviously do not stock enough tents for a big massacre like this.
|
As far as I know the weapons haven't been identified publicly. They are said to be a .22 rifle and 'a shotgun'.
The commonest sort of .22 rifle is used for rabbits, rats etc. It fires .22 Long Rifle ammunition, so-called, which can be very accurate to 100 yards or so but fires its bullet at subsonic speed, making it suitable for use with a silencer. The small size of the bullet and low muzzle velocity mean that the weapon isn't accurate over very long ranges, and won't kill a large animal (e.g. a human being) unless it hits a vital spot. Hollow-point or dumdum bullets are often used to increase the shock of impact and kill rabbits wherever they are hit.
Bigger or faster projectiles can kill through shock even when they don't hit heart, brain or major blood vessels.
There are however high-velocity .22 weapons that use a pointed, jacketed bullet and a magnum cartridge. They are relatively rare and more difficult to get a permit for.
Witnesses to the murder seem to have been impressed by the telescopic sight on the rifle.
|
...will this be investigated to the same degree as any other murder...
There is not quite the same impetus once it is confirmed that only one person is responsible and that person is dead.
However, there are inquests to be held, including one on the gunman.
The coroner will want a fulsome account of what happened, which can only be produced by a thorough police investigation.
So I think the shootings will be investigated almost to the same degree as any other murder.
Perhaps members of the Car4Play Constabulary would care to comment on that aspect.
|
Is there really a necessity for over half a million people in the UK to own a shotgun? Whilst agreeing that there should be no rush to further legislation I find it difficult to believe that there is a real need for so many potentially lethal weapons.
|
...is there really a necessity for over half a million people in the UK to own a shotgun?...
Good question.
While yesterday's events were truly extraordinary, I'm surprised we don't have more incidents of guns being misused in domestic arguments and suchlike.
|
Most of what has been discussed here about (particularly) the .22 Rimfire is not helpful from folk with limited or little knowledge. Some are near the mark, but most are not.
Death from a projectile such as a .22 is possible at 2 miles from 'carry over' at a steep trajectory and there are many well documented cases of this.
A sniper shooting someone at 1.54 miles is a lucky so and so. Try and take a head shot on anything at 600yds and you will have my deepest admiration, if of course you achieve your aim.
Best most folk, but not one or two, stick to cars.
M
|
>> Most of what has been discussed here about (particularly) the .22 Rimfire is not helpful
>> from folk with limited or little knowledge.
What's your average this year, then, and with what? I won't ask what league or competition.
>> Some are near the mark, but most are not.
Ha. ha.
97ish, if you want to know.
|
>> A sniper shooting someone at 1.54 miles is a lucky so and so.
I think the luck came more from having perfect conditions allowing him to shoot and then adjust and shoot again, while having all factors consistent.
Obviously it wasn't a first shot, several placement shots first, but he did reproduce it, by killing a second soldier in the same location.
Repetitive reproduction of shots at such a range wouldn't be possible without perfect conditions. But that was the luck rather than it jut being a lucky shot.
People do kill at long ranges with random shots, as you say, I remember reading of one case where a woman was killed in a covered stadium with a handgun shot into the air some distance from the stadium.
Being able to "take somebody out" from 2 miles away though is impossible, unless you factor in that kind of freakish result. There are only 5 recorded sniper kills of over a mile, I believe.
|
>> Is there really a necessity for over half a million people in the UK to
>> own a shotgun? Whilst agreeing that there should be no rush to further legislation I
>> find it difficult to believe that there is a real need for so many potentially
>> lethal weapons.
>>
Go back to your knitting or whatever your current hobby is.
M
|
Not a particularly useful or intelligent response to a question that is undoubtedly going to be asked by many people in the coming weeks.
|
>> Not a particularly useful or intelligent response
Perhaps not, but you can see what he means. Every time anything bad involving a firearm happens the knitting fraternity set up a concerted yipping about banning all firearms. As a result even a respectable, well-heeled person has to jump through dozens of hoops to get hold of the most useless handgun, let alone something interesting like a Mauser (always fancied one of those).
The last government was only too happy to go along with that sort of thing, and the carphounds banned fox hunting as well. I'm afraid their attitudes are near-universal these days, and the new govt won't be much better.
They'll be banning cars next, or havinng a legal governed maximum of 112 mph as they do in Japan. Makes you want to cry.
|
Well perhaps the knitting fraternity have as much right to have a say as to the hunting and shooting crowd. The 60 year old woman shot dead whilst delivering catalogues didn't have much of a say.
I'm not totally against gun ownership. Back in the 70s I was a member of a rifle club and used to to own own No. 4 Lee Enfiield, but even then I used to worry about the motives of some of the other club members who seemed to have more of a fascination for weaponry that a genuine interest in target shooting. I gave up the shooting as a result of worsening eyesight although its still good enough for knitting.
The question I asked does seem to need a response. Are there a half million people in the UK who have need to own a shotgun? The perpetrator of the recent murders seems a case in point. On the face of it a taxi driver living in a small terrace house in a small town hardly seems to have need of such a weapon.
|
|
You can legislate against privately owned firearms but you can't legislate against Lunatics.
|
>> The question I asked does seem to need a response. Are there a half million
>> people in the UK who have need to own a shotgun?
I'm sure there are. There're a lot of farmers, clay pigeon people, etc. The numbers will add up fairly quickly.
>> On the face of it a taxi driver
>> living in a small terrace house in a small town hardly seems to have need
Perhaps he was a clay shooter, or part time vermin controller. A farm was mentioned in Reports - perhaps he used it there "for the pot".
>> of such a weapon.
I dislike that term. Shotguns, etc., are just guns. Knives are knives. Cricket bats are cricket bats. It's only when they're used in a particular manner, or when there's no other reason for their existence (e.g. tactical nuclear devices) that they become weapons.
|
>> A farm was mentioned in Reports
I think his (now deceased) brother lived on a farm. There's the land that helped get the licence for a gun.
And in this particular instance, if he didn't have a gun... he probably had a farmer for a brother who had a gun for legitimate reasons and he could have gained access to that.
It's all a terrible tragedy isn't it. And nobody will ever understand why it happened.
|
I have no feelings either way regarding guns, Some people need them, others, like me, have little interest.
The potential is there within every one of us to snap like this guy. When that certain thing pings in your brain then you are helpless to resist it.
Fortunately it doesn't ping in the vast majority of us and most victims are able to control themselves to a large extent.
He could just as easily used his Picasso to kill a dozen people...a bus queue, drive up a busy pavement at speed, endless methods of inflicting harm.
It's a massive tragedy for everone involved, including his family.
Ted
|
>>- silence of the cams>>
A sensible and relevant comment.
|
>> perhaps the knitting fraternity have as much right to have a say
I didn't mean to include you in the knitting fraternity CGN. Sorry you thought I did.
Farmers and the like just use firearms as tools. But I agree that there is a sort of ambivalence about people who like weapons. I know this because I like them myself. They are among the purest, most ambiguous and dangerous precision machines. They are measuring machines. Napoleon, a distinguished mathematician, was an artillery officer at the beginning of his career.
But the difference between passing daily fantasy and a fixed plan involving an actual firearm and an actual victim is very large indeed. Not even on the same continent for most people, ever. And the dark psychology of someone in a depersonalised state, dehumanising the madly hated first victim or two, then going overcentre and becoming a fox in a hen run, intoxicated with sick easy power, until psychically exhausted, with the suicide plan formulated early on... makes your blood run cold.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 3 Jun 10 at 23:41
|
I used to shoot in my younger days, and joined a gun club. Had many a fine day at Bisley using and handling all sorts of firearms. (Even a "will blow your head clean off" Magnum)
The gun club fraternity seemed to cleany split into two extremes with no middle ground.
The accurate and fussy people who could suspend breathing and do great impersonations of a dead log, and the guys who thought they were Wyatt Earp or Dangerous Dick Hed and lived in Dead Gultch Missouri.
I have also done a bit of rough and clay shooting. The shotgun is a whole different beast, and as said on here, is very much a tool (albeit a dangerous tool) of the country.
Its no suprise to see the "lets ban all guns" fraternity bleating, but I am pleased to see the "no knee jerk reaction" of many.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 4 Jun 10 at 09:33
|
If have been reading some interesting comments on a U.S. website regarding these shootings.
Some poster there believe that if more ordinary members of the public had been armed then they could have stopped Derrick Bird earlier; i.e. someone could have shot him on the street.
This is not an argument that I would accept and I suspect that it would not have much sympathy on this side of the pond.
Last edited by: Arctophile on Fri 4 Jun 10 at 09:49
|
yes that the constant fatuous justification the American Gun Lobby keep trotting out but funnily enough none of theses armed concerned citizens have ever managed to stop one of the frequent US gun masacres.
I like the way the gun lobby twisted the constitution and the right to raise militia into the right to bear personal weapons.
I dont trust any comments about the use of guns from a country that has shot and killed 4 of its presidents, and fired hundreds of rounds at many others. (for a country that loves guns - they have terrible accuracy or ability.)
|
Shotguns tend to be most dangerous in the hands of their owners to the owner. A friend of a friend killed himself last year aged 25ish whilst cleaning his gun.
Otherwise, a shotgun isn't much use to anybody for killing people further away than at point blank range - unless you're very (un)lucky.
I think the UK gun laws are about right. The guns that cause trouble aren't generally the legal ones. I suspect that if I wanted to I could get hold of a pistol and some bullets within two miles of my front door for a couple of hundred pounds without too much trouble.
And I certainly know a fair few people who own, legally, .38 6-shooters.
|
"funnily enough none of theses armed concerned citizens have ever managed to stop one of the frequent US gun masacres. "
None? Can you be absolutely sure?
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the following, but I don't have any reason to disbelieve it.
tinyurl.com/yr2w3b
|
|
didnt prevent the first three killings tho did it.
|
>> And I certainly know a fair few people who own, legally, .38 6-shooters.
How do they "legally" own these (and what is a "6-shooter")? I am very inclined to disbelieve it.
|
Superbly reported testimony - a very British understated description of hell.......juxtaposed by the sounds of summer in the background.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10226933.stm
|
...Superbly reported testimony - a very British understated description of hell...
Ditto the cyclist who is clickable from the same link.
"I think we knew there was nothing to be done - there were parts of her outside that shouldn't have been."
|
>> How do they "legally" own these (and what is a "6-shooter")? I am very inclined
>> to disbelieve it.
You doubting Thomas!
6-shooter is a slang term for a handgun that contains 6 rounds.
Slaughtermen who owned them prior to the new legislation coming in banning multi-shot pistols were allowed to continue owning them. They are however no longer available for sale, and only single-shot pistols may be used by slaughtermen.
You try shooting an angry, injured bull at point-blank range with only one chance to aim for its tiny brain... don't fancy it myself, but that's what the law now requires.
|
It appears from this discussion forum that all forces permit you to carry a pistol with 2 rounds.
www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/showthread.php?3790-Who-has-a-pistol...advice-needed-please./page3
|
>> How do they "legally" own these (and what is a "6-shooter")? I am very inclined to disbelieve it.
I'm surprised you don't know what a six-shooter is Fothers. Have you never seen a western? Usually refers to a six-chambered revolver.
Large calibre pistols can be legally owned, but must be kept (as must their ammunition) under strictly defined conditions: normally I believe in a safe on the premises of a legitimately constituted shooting club. You aren't allowed to load the thing and stick it under the seat of your car just in case someone gives you a dirty look.
|
didnt prevent the first three killings tho, did it?
No. However, I doubt that anyone, even in the American Gun lobby, have ever claimed that it could.
|
|
AH but they do, the American Gun Lobby claim that carrying a firearm makes the streets safer.
|
>> AH but they do, the American Gun Lobby claim that carrying a firearm makes the streets safer.
>>
IIRC the figures quoted this week were 39 gun deaths in the UK in the last year vs 35 gun deaths in the USA per day.
Even adjusting to approx four to five times greater population in the USA those are terrible figures compared with the UK.
|
...39 gun deaths in the UK in the last year vs 35 gun deaths in the USA per day...
Yes, and I believe 99 per cent of the fatalities are related to the gunman, usually following a domestic argument.
Clint Eastwood is one of my favourite actors, but this Dirty Harry idea of wiping out the bad guys has no basis in fact.
|
I remarked to my wife last night that in a place where everyone was tooled up, there would be a chance that these random murder chains might sometimes, although not very often, be cut short. So it would appear in fact from the gun-lobby link quoted above.
My wife is a sort of leftish pacifistic person but quite rational, and she nodded, rather doubtfully though. I have to say that I know very few people I would trust to be safe with firearms. They require a highly specific form of discipline, like cars. Only given the overt purpose of firearms, the whole thing is more serious even.
I don't think rural New Mexico is much of a role model for this country though.
|
>Shotguns tend to be most dangerous in the hands of their owners to the owner. A friend of a
>friend killed himself last year aged 25ish whilst cleaning his gun.
Killing yourself accidentally while cleaning a shotgun takes some extraordinary "effort".
I still find it odd that there is no requirement to prove that you're familiar with handling firearms before being issued with a license.
>Otherwise, a shotgun isn't much use to anybody for killing people further away than at point blank range..
It depends on gauge, barrel length, shot size, charge and chokes. A direct hit from a regular 12g 30" sporter would probably be lethal up to 40yds. Hardly "point blank".
Kevin...
|
...Killing yourself accidentally while cleaning a shotgun takes some extraordinary "effort"...
Why anyone should want a cartridge within 10 yards of the damn thing while cleaning it is beyond me.
|
>> Killing yourself accidentally while cleaning a shotgun takes some extraordinary "effort"...
Yes, it can't really have happened very often, although it may have been the pink packaging for many a genteel suicide.
Getting shot by someone else in a proper, grand shoot with driven birds is not unknown, however. Over-excitement, drink, drugs, distraction and hurry all go badly with firearms. Dragging a loaded gun, barrel first, through a thick hedge, in pursuit of game or escaping from gamekeepers, may have done for more than a few.
Defective firearms are a bit of a menace too. Once on my way out (rough) shooting I carelessly tested the safety catch of a hammerless 12-bore with a defective safety catch without unloading it first. Narrowly missed my car with a blast of no. 4 at about five yards. It used to flinch when it saw me after that.
|
>> many a fine day at Bisley
>> fussy people who could suspend breathing and do great impersonations of a dead log, and the >> guys who thought they were Wyatt Earp
Heh heh... got to fire a Kalashnikov once. Before me a cameraman had a go, a former British army officer who had shot at Bisley for his school or regiment. He did that thing of lying back and resting the rifle barrel on his crossed feet or something like that. The bullets just went over the horizon, but he didn't shoot his feet off as I feared he might (Kalashnikovs are quite short).
When it was my turn the rifle, cocked, on fully automatic and with the safety off, was handed to me in the middle of a jostling crowd of alternative hacks and minor European parliamentarians. I was alarmed and pointed it straight up in the air with finger extended along trigger guard army fashion. When people had moved back a bit I took three single shots - you can do that with a delicate trigger finger - at a white stone 20 or 30 yards away. The rifle's sights were so set that a that range it shot a good foot wide, high and to the right, half past one as it were. Hit the stone with the third shot, then the jealous desert fighters snatched the rifle back to hand to some woman.
Later a guerilla sidled up and asked where I had got my military training. In the CCF at school, I said. They didn't look convinced though.
|
>> >> >> When it was my turn the rifle, cocked, on fully automatic and with the safety
>> off, was handed to me
Obviously an expert then, wasn't he?
>>>a former British army officer
Yep. No wonder it is 'former'if that's his attitude.
Some clown did this to me once - handed me a 9mm star, with magazine out.
Still one in the chamber, though, which I discovered as I pulled back the slide.
|
Ian: the British cameraman, a fine fellow, would never have done anything like that. I have misled, as can happen, by trying to keep the post short.
No, that well-worn Kalash was handed to me by its owner most likely, or one of his comrades. People who live with these things every day, and sometimes get to use them in anger, can get pretty casual about the way they handle them, especially if they have no formal western-style military training.
May interest you to hear that in those very dusty desert conditions weapons are assembled dry, as any oil quickly becomes grinding paste. When the thing is fired you hear the concussion, but behind a loud clank as the mechanism operates.
The misaligned sights are probably not unusual. In combat people fire automatic bursts, and often have every third or fourth round tracer so that they can see, more or less, where they are shooting.
Everyone except the army officer and me just squeezed off long bursts all over the desert. We were the only two who tried to see if we could hit anything with it.
|
>> >> No, that well-worn Kalash was handed to me by its owner most likely, or one
>> of his comrades. People who live with these things every day, and sometimes get to
>> use them in anger, can get pretty casual about the way they handle them.
Been there (or similair), done that.
The Kalash is known to be a pretty peasant-proof weapon, and can survive abuse which other stuff can't - hence the contempt the original bullpup attracted due to its propensity for jamming and stovepiping.
And as a 'put down heavy fire in the general direction of, like a hosepipe...' weapon, the Kalash is probably the best of the bunch.
Hence its popularity with drug dealers, terrorist groups and other similar nasty chaps.
They still pop up often in cash-in-transit heists and factional fighting on this side, and there's a whole arsenal of them floating about in Mozambique, where they can be bought for close to tuppence if you know where to look.
Remember the Wonga Coup, involving Thatcher, Archer and other pillars of the brit upper crust - they flew in to Zimbabwe to pick up a few hundred, with 5000 rnds per weapon...
Last edited by: Webmaster on Mon 7 Jun 10 at 01:21
|
>> known to be a pretty peasant-proof weapon
'Soldier-proof' is the British army expression. The Kalash may well be the best infantry weapon ever, combining firepower, accuracy and stopping power to high levels and being virtually indestructible. Its only drawback in modern terms is the weight and bulk of its ammo. These small modern fire-hose things - the French used to call theirs the 'bugle' because it looked like one - fire small bullets at very high velocity and a high rate of fire. But they are a bit fragile and finicky and for anything further than fifty yards away heavier calibres are needed.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 5 Jun 10 at 14:26
|
>> The Kalash may well be the best infantry weapon
>> ever, combining firepower, accuracy and stopping power to high levels. Its only drawback in modern
>> terms is the weight and bulk of its ammo.
Nope. The exact opposite.
Sadly, modern warfare doesn't need a big 7.65 manstopper.
we WANT small, tumbling, high-velocity projectiles to hurt you, not kill you!
Rather have three blokes out of the field looking after their wounded comrade than those three armed and chasing you!
Also, the soviet system was the conscript army were pals - so when ex-class-captain Giorgi goes down shot, screaming for his mother, you've KNOWN him for years, and you KNOW his mother... imagine the psycholigical damage to the platoon?
Morbid topic.
Sorry.
|
>> Morbid topic.
>> Sorry.
Yes. Endlessly interesting but a bit grim and not everyone's cup of tea. And a bit off subject too.
|
>> Yes. Endlessly interesting but a bit grim and not everyone's cup of tea. And a
>> bit off subject too.
>>
On a tangent - Michael Ryan, who want 'postal'back in 1988 (?), was carrying a chinese copy of an AK-S.
The incident led to the banning of this type of weapon in Britain.
|
>> Sadly, modern warfare doesn't need a big 7.65 manstopper
Not for close-quarters combat, clearing houses and so on. But in places where the enemy is a little way off they are a good idea. Story in today's Terrorflag about the army in Afghanistan having to buy an American 7.62 rifle called the Sharpshooter to supplement the SA80, precisely because its bigger bullet carries accurately much further. Obviously in a place like that the enemy is often a long way off, and you wouldn't want him to get any nearer than necessary would you? There's a Kipling story involving his three soldier characters Mulvaney, Learoyd and Ortheris that is about sniping on the North-West Frontier. The cockney Ortheris is the sniper, and he takes out a particular Afghan who has been all too successful against the regiment.
A British NCO who had trained with the US-made Sharpshooter rifle said it could be used (like a Kalash or SA80) as a submachine gun for close quarters stuff, although its 20 round magazine is smaller than a Kalash's. He described the weapon as 'hoofing', which I imagine is a term of approval.
|
"The army in Afghanistan having to buy an American 7.62 rifle called the Sharpshooter to supplement the SA80, "
The Russians had much the same problem in that they found their AK47s were no match over longs distances for Talaban fighters equipped with WW2 vintage Lee Enfield and Mauser rifles.
One of the reasons we lost an entire army in the first Afghan war was that the tribesman were equipped with flint-lock long barreled jezails fired from a rest which were far more accurate and had a greater range than the brown Bess Musket, the standard equipment of the British army of the time.
|
>Some clown did this to me once - handed me a 9mm star, with magazine out.
My first handgun. A 9mm Star BM.
The extractor tips on these used to wear after a few hundred rounds and always seemed to stove pipe more with Czech ammunition. A friend machined a new extractor for me out of a Chrome-Vanadium spanner and fitted a stronger spring. I can't recall it ever failing after that.
An African story:
In 1980 our local club was host to the Springbok national team. I shot skeet, trap and combat handgun against them. Boetie, the chairman of our club was a huge practical joker - you never put a cigarette out in an ash tray without first checking that he hadn't emptied powder from a shotgun cartridge in there. He was also the manager of the carpenters workshop.
One of the Springbok team was first on the stand for skeet and called for the bird...Bang!... The clay jinked in the air and carried on flying. Raised eyebrows everywhere, these guys don't miss very often, especially the easy hightower first bird. He reloaded, called for the bird again and powdered it before it got to the centre stand. He powdered the lowtower and pair as well. The rest of us went through without a miss.
On the next stand he missed the hightower again. The clay skipped but didn't break. No-one could believe it! He changed guns.
He cleared the next two stands easily and seemed to be settling down but missed the hightower again on stand five. It landed about twenty feet to his right totally intact. He walked over to the clay, picked it up and bellowed like an enraged elephant before chasing Boetie into the clubhouse.
Boetie had had some clays made up in his workshop out of wood, painted them black and told the boy in the trap house to swap the odd clay for a wooden one when this guy was shooting.
It was a nice try but they absolutely thrashed us :-(
Kevin...
|
Lake district shootings - Bigtee
