Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:Ask the police.

Of course ! Hearsay and anecdote, how could I forget.

Nothing like a well proven and trusted explanation.. and that is nothing like a proven and trusted explanation for an entirely baseless claim.

I agree that the legislation was kneejerk and ill thought out, but there's no way of telling whether there are more guns now than 20 odd years ago or whether the law influenced this total at all.

I would suggest that the ban did in fact reduce the number of guns around as most people are, essentially, law abiding/honest ( to a point anyway).

reds8n wrote:

Of course ! Hearsay and anecdote, how could I forget.

I haved not forgooten your stubborn resilience to truth either. Look around you, open your eyes, ask.

One thing is for certain, you wont get the truth from government figures.

As for your hearsay and anecdote 'defence' well you could add that to anything outside of pure science. Actual proof is something diffiicult to come by in politics. Is an economic policy working/not working for example: any dimwit can sqwawk 'hearsay' if they dont want to listen to the evidence on the subject and for even transparent issues you will get differences. Add a blatantly lying government like the one we have at the moment and a subject where a lot of the real info is concealed it gets even harder to find the truth.

You are better off searching yourself than relying on stats or the media, and far better than if you bury your head in the sand and dont listen at all.

reds8n wrote:

I would suggest that the ban did in fact reduce the number of guns around as most people are, essentially, law abiding/honest ( to a point anyway).

Post Hungerford changes needed to be made, they were sufficient. Dunblane occured because the wrong operson had a licence. The Gun clubs warned the police about Hamilton but the police did nothing.

The kneejerk post Dunblane (at least you admit it was a kneejerk) hurt because by closing the Gun clubs are removing legal access to handguns the people were divorced from the once source by which gun control could be implemented by education.

It is one thing to say 'gun is wrong'. But that wont educate a teenager.

The trajedy is that pre 1997 teenagers could go to gun clubs learn about guns (they could not get a licence until they were 18+ and passed police vetting) but they could handle guns as a guest. The first thing a gun club would do was educate any bad attitude out of the potential gun owner before they got hold of a gun. The gun club internal eduication worked this is why despite apparently lax gun laws Britain had a good record regarding gun abuse. Hungerford and Dunblane were aberrations not symptoms of decay or guin crime out of control.

In a very real way sweeping gun ownership into the shadows has only helped to increase gun related offences and legal avenues for gun ownership have been removed or sequentially marginalised.

Lordhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Son if you think you can hit something with an unmodified AK-47 at 300 yds, you really haven't shot much have you.

You haven't shot as many AK's as you profess. I've hit targets @300 yards, my friends have hit targets @300 yards. All with DIFFERENT AK's. Are AK's EFFECTIVE @300 yards? Just BARELY. But the accuracy is there.

I think we're looking at different levels when we say "accuracy." Can you hit a mansized target after lotsw of shooting and sitting and muck about? Eventually. Can you hit them center mass with a half decent scope with an AK on shot one-no way Jose. When I say accuracy, thats what I am thinking of.
All of that is generally irrelevant as shooting across a quarry at rocks sounds like epic fun. I miss the days in Cali similarly open area shooting. Lugging out car doors and wat heaters and generally going berserk.

To the different topic of not needing a gun if the criminal doesn't have one, thats hogwash. I don't want to be equal to the criminal. I want to stop the cirminal in his tracks. If the criminal is on drugs, is a nut, or generally bigger, I need a gun. Ask the woman about to be raped by two guys if she needs a gun. As the old saying goes, never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Going back to the OP.

I was in Pittsburgh over the holiday weekend. Was passed by the funeral procession returning from Indiana, PA to Pittsburgh from the funeral of one of the officers. Very humbling.

The Saturday paper had a few tidbits:
1. The authorities did not know where the shooter obtained the AK-47.
2. The shooter's mother called 911 saying that her son was abusive and wanted him evicted. She did not mention that he had firearms in the home.
3. The two officers that responded to the call were in the home when they were shot. The first officer did not get to react. The second officer put three rounds in the shooter - one in his leg and two into his bulletproof vest. Yes, that's correct, the shooter was wearing a bulletproof vest when the police initially responded, so this was clearly an ambush by him.
4. The shooter made it up to the second floor, exchanging gunfire with police. After he 'had enough' he told police that he was laying down his weapon, and that he was wounded and they needed to come get him.
5. The shooter's grandmother handcuffed herself to the fence in front of the home on Friday. She claims that police stole $3,000 in cash out of her purse and that the police used excessive force in apprehending her grandson. As my father commented, if she had $3,000 in cash, it was from something illegal. Nevermind that no one believes her. The police chief commended the arresting officers for showing restrait. I would not shed a tear for the scumbag if he had been shot 'during apprehension' and police left a drop weapon next to him. Yes, it's wrong and illegal, but I also think this guy deserves to die and wouldn't mind the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania avoiding the legal fees of a trial.