I fired a live round gun once. Well, I fired it ten times and hit the little paper target every time. Not bad for a total novice. I’ve never done it again.

It was in the first week of university. All the clubs have stalls and special offers to attract the new intake, and there was a gun club. They used .22 live round rifles in a big shed in a Cardiff backstreet. I went along, had a go, and it was fun. However, gun fun costs a lot of cash and I was just starting my first round as a skint student. So I passed on that one.

I did have an air rifle for a long time but sold it. It was a good rifle but when I moved from country to town it wasn’t getting used at all and Oily Al was in ‘ban those too!’ mood so I decided to just pass it on. I still have the Gat because I had one when I was a kid and lead slug-pellets are the most effective. There’s also a .22 not-very-good air pistol around somewhere and a scarily realistic BB gun that struggles to punch holes in paper – but taking that out in public would get me shot from a helicopter these days. A far cry from my youth when we carried our air rifles in the streets and nobody cared.

I have no real guns. Never owned one. I’m happier with a throwing knife or a bow. Or even a catapult (I have one of those with the armrest so you can really haul the elastic back) and a bag of gravel.

Having a real gun in the house these days is the same, in the eyes of the Law, as being Lex Luthor with an undergound base and a nuclear bomb. I do not have an underground base yet, I’m still digging.

It’s the Crime of the Century even if the gun in question is some homemade contraption that you have in your attic and have never pointed at anyone, ever.

A farmer who made a ‘bizarre’ gun capable of firing 74 rounds of expanding bullets has been jailed for 30 months after his frightened wife reported him to police.

The opening paragraph is utter bollocks. Which is what you have to expect from the Daily Hate.

The gun is pictured. There is no magazine, it’s a single shot gadget. Quite where this ’74 rounds’ came from is never explained. He had two bullets for it. Not 74. The ‘expanding bullets’ is also nonsense, as is the ‘frightened wife’.

He did not threaten his wife with any kind of gun. They had a major row, she called police and snitched on his shotgun and this silly pistol. If he threatened her at all, it was with the mentioned lump hammer. He is in jail for firearms offences because of a row with his wife which involved no firearms at all. Yes, he was in possession of the weapon – incidentally, later in the article it emerges that he was given the thing, he didn’t make it. Every word of that opening paragraph is lies.

Police normally regard an argument between husband and wife, in which nobody is hurt, as a ‘domestic’ and leave it alone. Not when there is an easy collar to be felt though. A definite ‘strict liability offence’ is an easy one and a certain conviction to add to the stats.

These days, only criminals have guns therefore anyone with a gun is a criminal. I don’t need one so don’t have one. It wouldn’t be safe for me anyway, a burglar would be more awake than me and would probably get to it first. If they get that realistic-looking BB gun, best of luck pal, the plastic pellets will bounce off me. They might get to the swords but they’ll pick the ones that look good – the ornamental ones with rat-tail tangs that my full-tang plain-looking one will knock the blade right off with the first swipe.

The gun ban is as silly as the smoking ban and even more dangerous. Before the ban, a burglar would enter my house not knowing whether or not I had a gun. Now, they know for sure I don’t have one. They can be much more bold and vicious and the Daily Mail, that champion of disarming everyone, delights in telling us that they are.

What they never mention is ‘why’. They also never mention that their campaign of disarming the population is the reason for the boldness of burglars these days.

I have to wonder if the Daily Mail reporters go through the same brain-removal procedure on employment as our politicians.


45 thoughts on “Bang!

  1. Many years ago my son was a member of a shooting club and owned a Magnum gun quite legally, it was so safely secured it wouldn’t have been much help in a break in. One of his favourite memories was being stopped by the police for speeding and asked what was in the case, when he told them there was total panic, However after checking it was licensed that was that. These days he would likely have been shot.


    • I’ve only encountered the police twice whilst “in possession” of my rifle, and in both instances they weren’t bothered in the slightest. Perhaps my little .22 target rifle isn’t as impressive as the stuff the crims (still) have round my way?

      Oh, and “magnum” isn’t a gun (in the same way that “turbo” isn’t a car) – it’s part of the description of a bullet casing, indicating “larger than the one it was based on”. Same bullet (calibre), bigger bang. Sorry to be a pedant πŸ˜‰


      • Not quite. A Gun must be “Magnum rated”.

        For example, my .357 (Magnum) S+W 28 Highway patrolman, can take .38 rounds. But a .38 Webley service could well be deadly to the shooter if he tried using .357 Magnums.

        So to say a gun is “a Magnum” is NOT incorrect, it just leaves the question open WHICH Magnum?”

        Even .22s have magnum rounds (Stingers).


        • Point taken, but it sounds a little like chickens and eggs? πŸ˜‰

          I believe that you can chamber .38 in a weapon designed for .357 magnum as the round is shorter – this is not normally the case for the reverse. Is it even possible to close the cylinder on a .38 service revolver if you loaded it with .357mag? For a semi-auto the magazine dimensions and slide length would preclude using the longer round, and for rifles with breech chambers shaped to accept a specific round a jam would occur on loading something longer.

          The .22LR breech chamber, being straight, might be able to accept a .22mag but I imagine that the amount of force needed to engage the round further down the lands would either damage the casing beyond use or at the very least warn the user that this really wasn’t right!


          • “Magnum” refers to on the charge as well (amount of powder). I have Magnum rated cases that will fit in a .38. BUT!! You must load them with .38 frame safety in mind. I.e, the same charge as a normal .38.

            The other way around is no problem.

            But then, who bothers with.38 these days? πŸ™‚


  2. l made a ‘gun’ when l was 10. A piece of copper pipe with one end bent over. l inserted a lit banger (firework) and then a ‘piano key’? Don’t know if that’s the proper name but a piano has loads of these ‘key’ things … aprrox 2″ long piece of solid metal. Anyway, my gun put holes in metal, knocked chunks off bricks etc etc. Range was well over 50 metres. Now it seems l’d get 5 years for that … this country is screwed!

    When l was in Phoenix AZ last Oct l went up a notch or two. Fired $100 worth of ammo … 2 semi-automatic rifles, a pistol which l never knew the name of, a Glock and a 357 Magnum. No licence required to do this … just had fun. Pity l didn’t have a load of MP’s in front of me.

    Mind it also seems l could get them if they were flying in a helicopter and pointing a laser pen at it according to the powers that be. Wonder why those helicopters didn’t come plummeting down in Egypt when they overthrew their government. Remember the pics? … literally hundreds upon hundreds of laser pointers lighting up the helicopters … damn things just kept on flying!

    Think l’d better check if l have any copper pipe left lying around and get rid of it, just in case plod come calling


    • We used cut in half handlebars πŸ™‚ The old fashioned ones that turned towards you at the ends…I don’t remember adding ammo, the banger was enough on it own. We called them “banger guns” which was v. original 😦


    • The public can now buy tiny radio-controlled helicopters with cameras that record to SD cards.

      The drones are all ready to roll. They’re only waiting for an appropriate reason to be fabricated.


  3. There should be no prohibition at all on possession of weapons.
    The important point is the use to which they are put.
    A burglar enters a house armed, a very serious crime needing very serious punishment.
    The occupier of the house empties a full magazine into the burglar, nothing wrong with that at all.


    • If the burglar leaves alive you will be done for obstructing a criminal in the course of his duties.

      I’m willing to bet there are already a few shallow graves out in the woods.


  4. Sometime I imagine a case in an unreal world where someone is brought to court charged with firearm possession and says, ‘Yes, I have a gun. It is for defence of my family, myself and my property and I invite the jury to take the view that it is not a crime. Therefore I ask for an acquittal.’
    It would take a brave person to do it, but wouldn’t it be great if ordinary jurors kicked out oppressive laws.


    • No go.

      The jury would be told to ignore the plea.

      They base their decisions on what the law IS, NOT what they would LIKE it to be. If the judge suspected that was so, he would declare a mistrial and dissmiss the jury.


      • Not so sure. Certainly my jury experience was different, we acquitted in one case because although the accused was probably guilty we felt he’d been punished enough – seven months on remand for smuggling cannabis – and no useful purpose would be served by conviction, the judge seemed to agree. Mind you this was nearly thirty years ago and maybe juries are different now. That’s the problem really, it would take a jury with as much bravery and commonsense as the defendant to acquit and a judge who wasn’t part of the legal / political axis of stupidity we have these days.


  5. I have never been shot and I have never shot anyone. This pleases me. So even though I agree with gun ownership from a political point of view I have to appreciate that the UK gun laws have not actually caused me any harm. Its the same with speeding laws. If I could vote to raise the speed limit and get rid of the humps and cameras I would but, I have to appreciate that I have never been hurt by a speeding driver nor have I caused a death by being one.

    I think sometimes we have to give our political opposites the benefit of the doubt on thier motives. They are not all sour faced control freaks. A lot of them just want to make the UK safer and in many ways they have. Appart from in hospitals, where many of them seem happy to just watch us all die.


    • I feel the same with the smoking ban. Harpies like Arrnott might see it as a way of making others as miserable as they are, but there are thousands of good people involved who really just want to improve the heath of thier fellow people, which is a noble aim I think.

      It is important for one’s own sanity to rehumanise one’s political opposites and not to judge them all by the excesses of thier most militant mongs. Otherwise you end up as a paranoid loony who thinks that the giving of rights to anyone but wealthiest whitest industrialists is all part of a Jewish conspiracy to enslave us all.


      • “but there are thousands of good people involved who really just want to improve the heath of thier fellow people, which is a noble aim I think.”

        Well we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. The problem with this is that other than on purely technical issues, such as say aircraft safety or medical procedures who is to say what is safe ? You are arguing for giving people the benefit of the doubt when they wish to abide by the precautionary principle, which ultimately results in a world wrapped in cotton wool. Your approach also enshrines the practice of granting conflicting positive rights to competing groups of the aggrieved, which restricts rather than enhances freedom.

        As regards not dehumanising ones opponents, a sound principle but one that is increasingly ignored by the likes of Public Health activists and anti gun campaigners. We can be as rational and tolerant as we like but we shouldn’t expect to have that reciprocated or to win any political arguments that way.


        • If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then what is the road to heaven paved with? Ill intent? The truth is that people don’t get shot when there are no guns. Cars are easier to control when they are not driven at 150mph. Air quality is improved by the absense of selfish chain smokers everywhere. People come home from work alive thanks to health and safety laws. People get along better in the absense of mental racists and homophobes. If you don’t believe me then look at the countries where you can smoke anywhere, build anything, treat workers like slaves, drive anything you want anyway you like and women and gays are considered worthless scum. Places like Pakistan or Uganda. If you think our righteous are the devil incarnate, go live there and see what life is like.


          • And just so we are clear, I’m no pinko lefty. I smoke and I drive a Jaguar and if it were legal I would own a Glock 26 and an AR15. I’m just saying, not all of the righteous are evil and I think a lot of good has come from their actions.


              • You’re taking an extreme example there and using it to make a general point, I’m not even sure what it is you arguing for or against. Copeland committed crimes that were always illegal and the existence of more recent laws against racial discrimination obviously did nothing to stop him.


          • “The truth is that people don’t get shot when there are no guns.”

            Well that’s little more than a truism and tells us nothing about the level of gun control we should have and even less about the point at which the safety of some becomes an infringement of the liberty of us all.You are using the consequentialist argument that the enactment of gun controls now saves lives in the future, this is contentious to say the least. Consider the situation in Britain before the First World War, no controls and a low rate of crime, particularly murder, compare it with the situation now. A rather facile argument from correlation would be that gun control causes gun crime and an increase in crime rates generally, the picture is obviously more complex than that but it is exactly the sort of argument that gun control advocates use. This was my point about the difficulty of untangling causes and effects and deciding what the safest response to some perceived harm might be.

            There comes a point with these consequentialist approaches where it is necessary to say, ” I’m sorry I’m not having my withers wrung by tales of death and woe, liberty as a fundamental concept is more important than safety”.


          • I don’t know why you seem to think I’m against safe driving or work environments, you seem to be countering arguments I haven’t made. My point was that the mere existence of people with good intentions is no guarantee at all of good outcomes and the slightly patronising implication that such people have their hearts in the right place should restrain us from telling them so, using forceful language if necessary, is a sure recipe for some very bad outcomes.


          • Heard most of this sanctimonious drivel from Chapman. The good of the humble bureaucrat, the unsung public servant etc., etc..

            Rehashed, unoriginal and, like the myopic jobsworths you so admire, completely ignores the rights of the individual to chose.


            • Sorry if what I typed sounds like sanctamonious drivel. I agree with every point you guys have made. Trust me, I am as right wing as they come. I just like to see the good in life and in other people, even when its not the life I wanted and they are not people I like. I wasn’t trying to make as much of a case for the lefties as it seemed.


              • Sometimes, when you look for the good in people, it isn’t there.

                It would be nice if it was, even if it was deep down, but sometimes you have to accept that people are just evil bastards.


  6. I have recounted my anecdote entitled “Have you ever tried scribbling your last will and testament on a MickeyD’s napkin?” elsewhere before (On Joolz site I think). Short version : I was lunching at that famous eatery one day,post firearms ban, in Sarff London and someone with his mental cassette tape on loop came in with wild eyes and a sawnoff under his ‘weasel’ (so called cos that was how bad he smelt). In another life and jury-is-my-dick-son I would have drawn and put two in his chest and one in his head (actually I would have just walked up to him and emptied cos you don’t grandstand with whack jobs off their meds).

    Fortunately for me and the countless CHILDREN (shouldn’t they have been safe in school at that time of day?) in the eatery, Mr “Lizard People & Little Green Men Molest Me” decided it wasn’t our day to die and wandered back out again.

    That kinda settled the argument about Gun Control for me. If someone off his haloperidol can get access to a sawn off then I NEED access to a 9mm….will you not think of the CHILDREN?!?!


  7. Guns are ok for protection of house and home; but, a simple sign might be better.

    Building is a Bio-tech lab that contains toxic bacteria.

    If disturbed, these bacteria may cause your skin to melt!!!!!

    Just don’t post it on the front door.
    Your mail will not be delivered. πŸ™‚

    A micro-biologist must have a few such signs handy.


  8. It is not the gun, nor the knife, nor a stout walking stick that so affronts. It is the idea that someone, somewhere, somehow might get it into his head that he has a right to defend himself from evildoers.

    That is the job of the State.

    The State is not required to do so, of course. Anyone who thinks otherwise might attempt to bring action against the State for failure to protect you. Let me know how that works out for you.


  9. If you think that police treat an argument between a husband and wife as a “domestic” and leave it alone you are mistaken. We dont any longer have policing by policemen who use the discretion they are obliged by their office granted by HM the Queen to use in the discharge of their duties. Now it is a matter of POLICY that if a wife calls the police they go round kick the door in and drag away the husband, lock him up and farm his DNA, and worry about the whys and wherefores afterwards. That is government POLICY.

    And dont forget the female Court of Appeal judge who decided a year or two ago that shouting is now domestic violence. If you are married just shut the fuck up and do whatever your wife tells you – that is the law nowadays.


    • ” If you are married just shut the fuck up and do whatever your wife tells you”

      Suuuure, then they complain that you never talk to them.
      You can’t come out even no matter what you do or don’t do. 😦


      • I was told by a long-sufferer of marriage that there is a silver lining. ‘When nothing you do can ever be right, it no longer matters what you do,.so you can do as you please’


    • ” If you are married just shut the fuck up and do whatever your wife tells you – that is the law nowadays.”
      This is a new law? But, but my wife told me that was the law 40 years ago.


    • You do not pay a prostitute for sex. You pay a prostitute to go away after sex.

      Oh, sorry. You were talking about something else altogether. I don’t know what got into me. A thousand pardons.


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s