salsa-king

Very hard hitting.. upsetting and a real eye opener!!!


Phil

davyboy

I remember it....but because of my age then I dont think it really hit home.....well it just did!

Even today, when we hear of people getting shot daily, that is shocking stuff!

Iwan

I was quite young when that happened but still remember it, they stopped us using SLRs in the cadets after that.

Bad though it was, i got the impression it would have been a whole lot worse if the muppet had been a good shot. There was a lot of unaimed shooting from the hip, if he'd been a trained marksman (ex-army etc.) i dread to think what the final count would have been.

Very sad

salsa-king

he was a member of a couple of gun clubs!

do you remeber at the time they blamed it on him watching RAMBO films!!!

after watching the 1hr programme.... the Police etc did all they could with the tech they had at the time... but its a very big wake up call to all.

Phil

Peccant

really, really sad

Iwan

Yeah but i've seen some shockingly bad shots who were members of gun clubs. The police firearms instructor was right when he said that himself and the other copper would have been an easy target where they were standing on the common.

And there were the two women he shot in the car at almost point blank range, 7.62mm short with full metal jacket goes through cars like a hot knife through butter. They were incredibly lucky to be able to drive away and survive despite their injuries.

If the re-enactments were accurate then the shooting did look very hollywood style, not how you'd shoot if you actually wanted to hit lots of people.

I think it could have been a lot worse really.

Kevin Groat

Time for a break from SNET - this is just starting now in Scotland..

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

It was utterly shocking. I remember being in the car with my family on the way up from Kent to Norfolk to see my aunt and uncle and hearing about it on the radio...what still puzzles me even now is why things like this hadn't happened more frequently, I don't recall such terrible events like this happening in the UK, but afterwards it almost seemed to start becoming common place


Didn't happen like that where I came from, we used the SLR up until it was replaced with the SA80 as we standardised with NATO on the 5.56mm round. Most cadet forces have acces to the Enfiled Cadet which is a bolt action version of the SA80 (basically all the working parts for self loading have been removed)

Cadets even now get access to fully automatic weapons. In some ways I find this is good for them, normally it teaches a healthy respect for weapons of all types, however I think those of a psychotic persausion will always find a way and that disturbs me greatly

A terryfying fact worth being aware of is that a standard NATO issue 7.62mm jacketed ball round has a leathal effective range of 6 miles and the bullet can travel 9, it can also be accurate at over a mile. Even small calibre ammunition like .22" rimfire rounds are lethal at 1 mile.

Mark Miwurdz

I'm still not sure which incident was more hideous; Hungerford or Dunblane

Iwan

Maybe our area didn't have enough money for the modified SA80s, all i know is i was a pretty good marksman on smaller calibre rifles and was supposed to be going on a course for SLRs which was canned. I was pretty bitter at the time since it was one person spoiling the sport for the whole country.

Agreed, education rather than misinformation is the key IMO. Even the police are admitting that banning semi-automatic handguns after Dunblane made no impact whatsoever on reducing gun crime or gun deaths, in fact it's rising faster than ever. Almost all with ILLEGALLY held weapons.

You'd save considerably more lives by banning smoking, or scuba diving (etc.) than banning assault weapons.

Diesel

Ban guns not speeders - lets get the emphasis right

Shocking stuff - even shot his own mum...

tmo

The programme certainly brought the incident back to mind. Shocking is an apt way of describing the incident

RR

I think people should be trained (if they want to) in the use of weapons. A hands on approach would benefit most people and give them more respect and a more balanced view of assault weapons in general. But the chances of u ever shooting the afore mentioned weapons in this country in very unlikely now.

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

If you joined the Cadets or the CCF at school (like I did) you would have had this opportunity...even now. In fact I even had the opportunity at a weekend 'Executive Stretch' course with the TA I went on a few years back, although I wasn't overly impressed with the lack of safety checks (like handing me a weapon with a magazine attached, not asking us to declare that we had no live rounds or empty cases in our possesion etc)

Still once you see hands on what can happen (and what can go wrong) you grow up very quickly. However this won't stop the determined psychotic, and as my old QMSI used to say; if you look at how tightly they regulate and license firearms why do they let a 17 old loose with a car with the minimal amount of back ground checks...just think what could of happened if Mr Ryan had decided to vent his anger on the world with a 7.5 tonne truck...

popeye

Yeah but that's just like Prince Phillip's cricket bat theory - "you can kill people with a cricket bat, so why not ban them? Why is it just guns that are banned"? Somebody should have explained to him that massacres committed by cricket-bat weilding maniacs are non-existant, as are mass-murders involving trucks. It's always these gun-huggers that go out and commit this sort of atrocity. That's why access to them should be tightly controlled.

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

Too right, I could never understand why/how the ownership of 'assult weapons' could be justified, they serve no legitimate sporting purpose, they're a weapon designed for one purpose, and it isn't shooting innocent pieces of paper. I would have thought that as soon as someone shows an interest in owning such a weapon alarm bells should start ringing!

Iwan

But by that argument, why do people 'need' high performance cars? When a cheaper/slower and more economical model will get you from A-B just as well.

Same reason some people like to shoot assault rifles at things (and i mean targets here not people) - because it's fun if you like that sort of thing. And for the most part it doesn't harm anyone.

Every so often a loon goes a bit mental with a gun/car/truck/tank/leopard etc, it probably can't be prevented 100% unless you banned 'everything'.

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

Ah, now, I can understand someone wanting to shoot one in a controlled environment, it's the 'owning' side of it that bothers me. I was always releived that I just handed back the firearm I had been using in what ever training/competative event once it was over (and we'd cleaned it...) so it could be very securely locked away in a bunker.

popeye

Modern history is littered with examples of loons offing loads of people with a gun....Hungerford, Dunblane etc. Members of the public don't set out to commit mass murder armed with tanks or leopards. It's that simple.

Tiggs

not really littered is it? Apart from those two can you name any more???

But i aggree with the point.....anyone wanting such a gun has small dick/no friends issues that need solving first!

ajm

Try to get some perspective. Modern history is littered with massacres full stop. When you look at how many are comitted by legitimate gun owners the number is tiny.

Take a look here: http://www.free-definition.com/List-of-massacres.html

I know you think its amusing to jump on the "gun hugger" band wagon and to score a few points on here attempting to make legitimate shooters seem sinister or deranged, but we are not. Perhaps you think you are upsetting us by using such prejudicial terms towards us? The truth is you are not. We are used to being treated with suspicion and contempt and, as well balanced individuals, all we can do is to keep explaining to people that legal ownership of firearms is not a significant risk to the public.

Hungerford and Dunblane were two terrible events, no one is denying that. The people who perpetrated them did so because there was something wrong with them, not because they were shooters. There is simply no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't have done something equally horrific if they hadn't had access to guns legally. I will concede that using legally owned guns was the easiest option available to them in these particular instances, but certainly not the only option. They could have bought illegal guns if they so wished. Harold Shipman had nothing to do with guns, and neither did Fred and Rosemary West.

If you think that removing thousands of shooters rights to legitmately own and use firearms will somehow clean the entire population of the UK, removing any intent to commit atrocities then I'm afraid you are being terribly shortsighted.

To my mind the lessons that should be learnt from these events should centre around weeding out those people who are unsuitable to own firearms, rather than blanket banning firearms. I think as a consequence of these events shooters are much more vigilant in spotting the people who want to own guns for the "wrong reasons", as are, I would hope, the police.

The problem we have is that, irrespective of gun ownership, the only way the Ryans and Hamiltons of this world could definately have been prevented from doing what they did was if their intentions had been discovered before they had the means to do it. Short of mind reading every person how can you do that?

MJW

Mass murder is still possible without firearms, just look at that nutter who attacked a load of kids in a nursery armed with a machete.
Banning the legal use of firearms was one of the most stupid knee-jerk reaction pieces of legislation ever : gun crime is higher now than it ever has been in the past. And it's not semi-automatic weapons that are used either - MAC-10s are the latest 'gangsta' fashion accessory and can empty a 30 round clip in less than a second.

David Lock

I see from the news that some guy in Liverpool went out and dumped 400 bullets on the streets in the early hours. Odd coincidence or perhaps some loony was affected by the film in some way? DL

gregjd

She is deffo a real eye-opener.. just check out Arena mag this month.





Oh, sorry that's Michelle Ryan, I'll get me coat!

andypugh2000

Since hand guns were banned after the terrible dumblane incident, murders involving guns have soared in LONDON/MANCHESTER etc so how *effective* was banning them from legitimate shooters of any use?? I could buy a gun on the streets of London no problem according to some reports

andy

Brendan Hughes

Interesting link from ajm - the term "massacre" being applied to as few as 4 dead (admittedly 4 dead, 9 wounded, from National Guard firing on a crowd).

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Cant see the fascination with guns, but then again I have a massive *****.....

ajm

It's a fairly arbitrary list, even the Pied Piper gets a mention!

I posted it to make the point that people kill groups of other people every day, yet only certain events capture the hearts and minds of the press and the public in such a way that they think the prevention would have been something as easy as banning a particular object or activity.

Everyone has heard of Hungerford and Dunblane and associate them with the term massacre - in this case crimes perpetrated by people for motives that are unclear. The popular belief, propogated by people like popeye, is that gun owners are fulfilling some perverted soldier/gun fantasy. The truth is, even if that were true for Ryan and Hamilton, more people die each day by owners of fast cars fulfilling what some might call "racing driver" fantasies and yet no serious calls are made to make car ownership any more restricted.

mattstant

[QUOTE=MJW]Mass murder is still possible without firearms, just look at that nutter who attacked a load of kids in a nursery armed with a machete.
QUOTE]

Its posible but nowhere near as effective.
Idont know the amount of people killed by the guy with a machete but i can say with absolute certainty that alot more would have been dead had he been carrying a gun

Brendan Hughes

Whoa - change of subject mid-sentence! Guns are primarily designed for killing, cars are primarily designed as transport to get from A to B. Indeed no calls to restrict car ownership (prevents the transport aspect) but many, many calls to restrict speeding - as you well know!