Ajlorton Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Those septic tanks are scary scary loons. Full Auto Shoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyoldgit Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Looks like fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish13 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 I was on a training school in Oklahoma not that long ago, and from what I saw there, that didn't really make me blink! They are very scary in that neck of the woods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LR90 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Wonder if they dare venture to Iraq or if they only play at home on their own turf while sending others to do it for real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom P Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 omg I want to move, B) Wonder how much all that cost lol Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Turner Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Think i'll have a go at organizing one at Slindon! What do you think! Will i get it off the ground, it's got potential can't see any objections can you Only in the USA, lucky s*ds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Boy Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 OH MY GOD! Who needs to pay soldiers, when you can get 8 yearold girls to fire a heavy machine gun for a day solid! just give her a new one every time the barrel melts! even with the cheapest ammo, and cheap cars and that crazily cheap fuel in the US, thats £100 a minute! and we think landrovers are a costly hobby! wow! might be cool to try, bet you wouldn't even get to do that in the SAS! too much money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troddenmasses Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 As a shooter myself, I can't see any problems whatsoever in that. It seemed safe from what I could see, and looked like incredible fun. Why the hell not. In the UK we simply don't have the space to do that kind of thing, but I sure would like to have a go. Comparing it with going to Iraq is daft, they arn't in the army - they are just having a plink for a bit of (damned expensive) fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Henson Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Typical 'lets blow the carp out of something and whoop like a lot of idiot kids' Memebers of the public, let alone children. shouldn't be allowed to own or use heavy weapons like that. High explosives too. No wonder kids going to school and shooting teachers/classmates is unique to the USA when they are taught how much fun it is to use a machine gun and other weapons. Les. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troddenmasses Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Memebers of the public, let alone children. shouldn't be allowed to own or use heavy weapons like that. No wonder kids going to school and shooting teachers/classmates is unique to the USA when they are taught how much fun it is to use a machine gun and other weapons. Tosh. All they are doing is having a bit of fun. I shoot at least once per week, and have great fun doing it. I have never decided to go and shoot my collegues. One of the members on here was shooting pistols (to a very good standard) from the age of about 6, and is one of the people I would trust most in the world. What this tells me is that if somebody already has the propensity to harm/injure/kill a load of people, then they will do it with or without guns. The most prolific mass murderer in this countries history did it with morphine, not a gun. I would agree that having guns around and knowing how to use them proficiently is a great assistance to those wishing to murder people, but if that weren't availiable it would be knives/sticks/fists. Are you saying that all guns/knives/sticks etc. should be banned, or would you just like people to be able to get on with their own lives so long as they are not harming anybody? <rambler> Those bloody Land Rovers should be banned. All they do is rip up the countryside. I can see that farmers/Police/the army should have them, but nobody else. I mean, why on earth do they need them? </rambler> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Henson Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 What possible purpose can a private individual have for owning a heavy machine gun? You are generalising the topic in order to justify yourself. You have an opinion that's different from mine - so what? Les. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollythelw Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 "I may disagree with your views but I will fight to my own death to defend them" (paraphrased Voltare) as soon as you start telling people what they can and cannot do when what they do isnt to the detriment or harm of others then you become the nanny state Personally I have a section 1, an FAC and a doormans licence, that might confuse a few social workers.. I'd love a chain gun - why? no reason, if you have to justify everything in life then it would be very dull kids and guns? more down to education, we have kids on the shoot that are more responsible with a gun than many parents are with thier cars only my 2 pence worth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogMonster Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 What possible purpose can a private individual have for owning a heavy machine gun? Because they want one? Same reason people own lots of things. Dad has an old Rolls Royce in a shed on the farm. He never uses it, he just has it because he always wanted one when he was a kid. He also has a fair collection of guns: a .303 Lee Enfield, several 12 and 20 bore shotguns, .38 service revolver, couple of .22 revolvers, two .44 Winchester repeaters and a couple of .22 rifles. Despite being a farmer he arguably doesn't NEED most of them and most get used only rarely, only a couple are used regularly, nor will I arguably NEED them when I come to inherit them, but I'll bluddy fight tooth and nail to keep them, and in working order too. Oh and I want a chain gun too. And a howitzer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I hope you never do need them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4780192.stm Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troddenmasses Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 You are generalising the topic in order to justify yourself. You have an opinion that's different from mine - so what?Les. Les - sorry if I caused offence. I thought we were having an interesting debate with different views to be aired. If everybody was of the same mind, we wouldn't need forums like this - everybody would know what everybody was thinking. Anyway - it stops the forum getting dull Post by Honiton Hobbit An interesting point though - when you say What possible purpose can a private individual have for owning a heavy machine gun? Consider the following. Machine gun Turns chemical energy via an explosion into mechanical energy - moving metal down a bore repeatedly. Cost an arm and a leg to run + service Some other people don't like them, and think they should be banned from towns Of no practical use to civilians, other than being great fun There are dedicated clubs where you can go to use them safely, away from passers by See where I'm heading????? As far as Bogmonster is concerned - It could very well be of use to the local population Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02GF74 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Les - sorry if I caused offence. I thought we were having an interesting debate with different views to be aired. If everybody was of the same mind, we wouldn't need forums like this - everybody would know what everybody was thinking. Anyway - it stops the forum getting dull Post by Honiton HobbitAn interesting point though - when you say Consider the following. Machine gun Turns chemical energy via an explosion into mechanical energy - moving metal down a bore repeatedly. Cost an arm and a leg to run + service Some other people don't like them, and think they should be banned from towns Of no practical use to civilians, other than being great fun There are dedicated clubs where you can go to use them safely, away from passers by See where I'm heading????? As far as Bogmonster is concerned - It could very well be of use to the local population difference is the sole purpose is to maim and kill; why shoot up cars when surely shooting people has to be more fun? and guess what, it has happened here too, remember HUNGERFGORD? DUNBLANE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troddenmasses Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 difference is the sole purpose is to maim and kill; why shoot up cars when surely shooting people has to be more fun? and guess what, it has happened here too, remember HUNGERFGORD? DUNBLANE? Oh come on now. The original link was to some people having fun with machines. They weren't killing anybody or anything - apart from that American car (which probably deserved it). Just because the machine can also be used to kill something doesn't mean that it is inherently evil. There are many more people killed each year in this country on the roads than are killed with guns, and yet if I suggested that everybody who owned a car was a potential murderer, I would be laughed at. If I suggested that all cars should be melted down to stop the carnage, nobody (apart from the eco-mentalists) would take me seriously. Of course I'm not suggesting that, but to say that nobody should be allowed a gun because they could be used to kill people is just as daft. I have owned guns for many years, and shot countless millions of rounds, but have never shot anybody. What does that say? Does it tell you that the "Sole purpose is to maim and kill"? Yes, I do remember Hungerford and Dunblane - both terrible terrible acts by people on the edge. In both cases, the Police were told that the people involved should not have access to firearms. In both cases, the advice was ignored. Because of that, I had to hand in all of my pistols. I can still own large numbers of guns, just nothing under 24". At the time only 4-5% of all gun crime was committed with guns that had EVER been owned legally, and yet the government decided to persecute the people who had gone through police checks, and had a licence for their guns, rather than targeting all of the illegal guns in this country - the more difficult option. The day after the gun ban, Michael Howard stood in the house and told parliament that the conservative government had "Taken guns off the streets". In the years since then, gun crime has risen exponentially, and yet nobody seems to have taken the government to task on this matter. Perhaps I'm getting a little too carried away with this post, but I can see both sides of the argument. Honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollythelw Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 difference is the sole purpose is to maim and kill; why shoot up cars when surely shooting people has to be more fun? and guess what, it has happened here too, remember HUNGERFGORD? DUNBLANE? Remember Peter sutcliffe? he used a ball pien hammer - wanna make those illegal too? Almost anything can be used as a weapon if the intention is there to use it - look at the Japanese, they murdered the British bike industryarmed with nothing more than reliability... Incidentally gun crime has risen over 600% since the banning of handguns, the irony is that during the Olympics foreign nationals will legally be able to bring thier handguns into the country to target shoot while the UK team will technically be breaking the law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogMonster Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Rememeber Harold Shipman Ban the NHS.... A flippant comment perhaps but I think it illustrates the point. The fact that something CAN be used for doing something doesn't mean it WILL be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajlorton Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 As the original poster, I feel I should chip in. Others have pointed out 'they're just having fun.' I guess that's where I have a problem. I find putting fun and guns together just too scary / idiotic / socially unacceptable. I especially struggle with putting children, guns and fun together. I don't see it as being the same as putting cars or hammers and fun together as they weren't primarily designed to hurt people. I guess I'm just more keen to draw the line on things we should / shouldn't be allowed to play (i.e. have fun) with. I draw it under firearms. However, I don't know if banning them is a sensible choice, as I support the right to hunt for food. I'm also a committed carnivore and would be quite happy to go out and kill and gut the animal I intend to eat (have done in the past). So that leaves me stuck between a rock and hard place. But plonking kids in front of machine guns strikes me as insane. If nothing else, I think that should be banned. Oddly enough, I used to love shooting when I was young. I was quite good at it and considered taking part in competitions. I then did my firearms training in the RNR and decided it wasn't half as exciting or cool as I first thought. I haven't touched one since. Without wanting to open a whole other can of worms, I think this is a similar reason why people have argued about the right to hunting with dogs (i.e. fox hunting). I think it's because of the association of fun with the death of an animal that has put people's backs up. If the hunts people didn’t appear to have such a great time, I doubt the antis would have kicked up such a stink. I think similar arguments apply to the wearing of fur. If wearing fur was purely a practical means of keeping warm, rather than a symbol of decadence and luxury it probably wouldn't bother people. Anyway, I digress…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid_From_Hell Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 difference is the sole purpose is to maim and kill; why shoot up cars when surely shooting people has to be more fun? and guess what, it has happened here too, remember HUNGERFGORD? DUNBLANE? FFS DBSFS Guns do not kill people .................people behind them do. And before you get 'smug and smart' with a reply.......... same applies for cars. Som, lets ban cars cos more die in and from them that anything else, ................you know its true Prob is of course the money situation, ...............and everyone has and wants one too. Dunblane and hungerford had everything to do with 'nutters' and 'authorities' failing to do their jobs, but thats ok, lets persecute probably the most law abiding citizens in the UK (try getting a FAC and see what you have to go through) by banning them, Now only the scum and criminals have handguns, but, as Tony says "Its a safer place", is it a co-incedence hand gun ban was a an election time - who could 'out do' the other party further ??? yeah right................... PC brigade make me sick, maybe if a burgular thought he might get shot if caught then the social services would have less to do, banning handguns lanning for 4x4s, shooting generally, fox hunting, etc etc etc is cheap publicity for politicians, ..............shame is so many think its a good thing My mate 10 years ago saw a burgular, and chased him down the road, caught him, and smacked him Very hard, then sat on his head and kicked him if he so much as moved till the law came, he has (and is proud of it) - a "Certificate of Commendation" from the then chief constable - can you IMAGINE what he would get NOW ????? Just today, I had a pillock of a village resident try to get me to sign a "30 mph through our village" petition. I said "No Thanks" He said "Do you know my son was killed in this village driving his corsa, and we need a 30 mph" .......... I was having a bad day .............. so he got the full reply : "Yes, I do know, and if your kn&bhead chav son had stuck to the 50mph and not tried to do a stirling moss around the bend at 80 F mph he would be alive, you would not be in my face and I would not be about to bodily remove you....NOW F O" He stood there stunned, shopkeper clapped and said "hes a point yerknow your son did drive like a complete Pill*ck" PC cretins get my goat Ooooo I think I need a beer and a lie down Nige Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogMonster Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Well I was taught by my parent to use guns safely from an age long before I ought to have been ... and I consider that I benefited from that. In this as in many other things, age is not really as relevant as common sense - you can have young safe/intelligent/sensible people as well as older ones who you wouldn't trust with anything more dangerous than an egg whisk. Though I have not downloaded the original video (dialup - bah) so that may not be a relevant comment when referring to the folks using them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyoldgit Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Good thread, not getting involved but it's a good thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minivin Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Good thread, not getting involved but it's a good thread. oh go on, you can only be "shot down" once for saying something against the flow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillbilly Raider Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Nige thats what i love about you!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.