The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

If the media want to try to make something of it, it doesn't matter who you are, what you're shooting, how you're shooting it or what you're wearing at the time. Just look at the hack job the Times <spits> tried to do on PSG around the time of the Christchurch shootings. Full page splashes of shooters in 'Power Ranger' tops (as I call them), the centre page one even being the Team GB shirt from a few years back. The main reason it got so little attention is because they did it on the Saturday edition which has the smallest readership. Obviously if that person had of being wearing a balaclava and full camo then it may have got more attention but within normal club/common sense limits I don't really think the press or great unwashed make a distinction. A bolt-action is a sniper rifle, a .22 semi-auto is an assault rifle, a side-by-side is a sawn-off, blah blah blah.

Pete wrote:Just because something is legal, it doesn't automatically make it acceptable...............
And I mean the clowns who make videos showing how fast they can shoot a firearm without a thought about how it might make the sport look to non-shooters, (and then start whining when they're banned)
Pete

What non shooters are going to be on Youtube etc looking up UK shooting videos, its not non shooters that push gun control most couldn't care one way or the other. Its the government anti gun lobbies and the police push gun control not not non shooting members of the public.

They'll only use non UK pics/vids to make a point anyway; showing some "shocking" image or video from the U.S and then linking it back to the UK somehow...A video of someone mag dumping a 15/22 with the headline "This can be owned in the UK!" etc. You're not going to win with these people because they have an agenda and are willing to go as low as is necessary. All that said I suppose an argument could be made of why make it easier, and I must admit some of these "high" rof vids do make we wince a little. But then we're not going to survive if we can't attract new shooters into the sport anyway, and a lot of them do seem to enjoy that side of it (practical shooting). Nothing will kill us dead faster than lack of numbers.

Lastly I absolutely cannot bear the thought of banning/restricting (even self restricting) the use of certain firearms for aesthetic reasons i.e military looking firearms, to me there's no greater form of imposed ideological bs than banning a rifle over its looks. Just look at Australia where many pine for the same straight pull ARs etc we moan about for being straight pull... One of the best things about our laws is that we at least haven't gone down that particular route and I don't believe in encouraging a move in that direction.

Pete wrote:Just because something is legal, it doesn't automatically make it acceptable...............
And I mean the clowns who make videos showing how fast they can shoot a firearm without a thought about how it might make the sport look to non-shooters, (and then start whining when they're banned)
Pete

The "MARS" and lever action rifles being a prime example - lots of YouTube posts showing how fast these rifles can shoot and we wonder why they got banned

nigelc wrote:

Pete wrote:Just because something is legal, it doesn't automatically make it acceptable...............
And I mean the clowns who make videos showing how fast they can shoot a firearm without a thought about how it might make the sport look to non-shooters, (and then start whining when they're banned)
Pete

The "MARS" and lever action rifles being a prime example - lots of YouTube posts showing how fast these rifles can shoot and we wonder why they got banned

How do you know that's why they were banned. ? Are you saying that the police governments etc, policy on firearms is based on what they see on Youtube videos. Do you not think the police were well aware of how fast these rifles can shoot, they were a way around the semi / auto ban the police decided to close that loophole, their next focus will probably be on LBPs.

Maybe not the REASON they get banned - amybe more of an EXCUSE to ban them??

They're between a rock and a hard place, desperate to be seen to be doing something that might just satisfy Joe Public a smidge, and keep the daily rags off their backs, and at the same time, with insufficient money/resources to do their job properly.................and it's a tad naive to assume they actually need a reason or an excuse.

Pete

The irony is amazing !

We as a shooting community argue against the antis who say "Your gun COULD be used to murder" by saying "Yes, it COULD but I am a lawful owner and no intention of doing so.

The Mars and Lever Release can be fired as fast or as slow as you want. Its down to the individual shooter.

Lets not go down the road of normalising the "ban anything that COULD be abused or used illegally"..................

ordnance wrote:

nigelc wrote:

Pete wrote:Just because something is legal, it doesn't automatically make it acceptable...............
And I mean the clowns who make videos showing how fast they can shoot a firearm without a thought about how it might make the sport look to non-shooters, (and then start whining when they're banned)
Pete

The "MARS" and lever action rifles being a prime example - lots of YouTube posts showing how fast these rifles can shoot and we wonder why they got banned

How do you know that's why they were banned. ? Are you saying that the police governments etc, policy on firearms is based on what they see on Youtube videos. Do you not think the police were well aware of how fast these rifles can shoot, they were a way around the semi / auto ban the police decided to close that loophole, their next focus will probably be on LBPs.

I wish people would read posts - I never said that YouTube videos were "why" they were banned - but I would put money on the fact that they were good evidence that they should be - in most cases, none shooters would not have been able to tell that they were not semi-auto.

I wish people would read posts - I never said that YouTube videos were "why" they were banned - but I would put money on the fact that they were good evidence that they should be - in most cases, none shooters would not have been able to tell that they were not semi-auto.

What does it matter if, in most cases, none shooters would not have been able to tell that they were not semi-auto. ?

The "MARS" and lever action rifles being a prime example - lots of YouTube posts showing how fast these rifles can shoot and we wonder why they got banned.