9th June 2016 – A police force is said to have commissioned a video of a MARS action rifle and a lever release rifle being fired alongside a true semi-auto rifle – and is putting the frighteners on shooters wanting to buy these rifles, a source has claimed.
Update: Because some hard-of-thinking folk are posting this on certain shooting forums as if it was definitive proof of an upcoming ban, let’s be clear: It is no such thing. You can believe the anonymous source or you can disbelieve him, but this is not a formal proposal to/by Parliament or a proper document from a police force, which are the two main indicators of an actual ban coming up.
The source – who did not want to be named, and would not name the police force involved – alleged that his local firearms licensing manager (FLM) had asked him to make the video and that it will be passed to NABIS, the National Ballistics Intelligence Service
He said that the FLM wanted the video because NABIS, the police lobby group pushing for ever more restrictions on lawful shooting and firearms ownership, is about to start pushing for a ban on lever-release and MARS action rifles.
The source also claimed that the unnamed police force in question is issuing warnings to anyone applying for a variation for lever release or MARS rifles, telling them there may be ‘problems’ at a later date. The clear implication is that shooters should avoid buying these rifles because the police want to ban them and want to evade paying compensation for lawfully-owned property that is seized.
UK Shooting News is unable to verify the source’s allegations or find evidence to corroborate them, though it is certainly plausible that NABIS might be hungry for a new target. It is important to note that these claims are from a single unverified source, and should be treated as such.
Lever release rifles were an ingenious technical solution to the problem caused by the 1988 ban on self-loading rifles. The mechanism of the lever-release rifle means it unloads itself automatically but stops short of reloading – that is, chambering a new cartridge. In the popular Southern Gun Company design a lever by the operator’s thumb allows the bolt to be released, manually chambering a fresh round.
The MARS (Manually Activated Release System) action achieves much the same thing but is released by repeated trigger pressures. One press of the trigger fires a shot; the second releases the working parts ready for the next round.
UKSN understands the police hate these action types but cannot find an administrative route to implement a backdoor ban, or get the Home Office interested in banning them – for now.
Lead image: a Southern Gun Company 9mm lever-release, borrowed from the SGC website. UKSN’s author has shot one of these and considered selling off a kidney to buy it outright.
UK Shooting News 
Great, and just as I’ve put a deposit down on a Robinson XCR lever release in 308………
Can you remind us on what grounds the Police / Home Office / Govt think they can seize lawfully held property and avoid paying compensation?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the force in question has an FLM who sits on the FELWG (or whatever it’s called these days) – my forces FLO does have representation – though I doubt any of the FEO’s employed within give two sh1ts as the one’s I’ve met follow the party line without deviation.
LikeLike
Ask the Scottish government about that wrt air rifles.
LikeLike
The thought occurs – one does not and is not legally required to specify action type on a variation / grant – though of course some forces insist – and some RFD’s insist that a slot mentions the type (CCA does for MARS IIRC). Yet more examples of forces making it up as they go along – perhaps requiring them to follow the statutory guidance is no bad thing……
For grants / variations etc – only calibre and type are required – so really it should be in my case of the Robinson “.30 cal / Rfile” and not “7.62/.308 Lever Release Rifle” – fwiw it’s worth – the slot I have spare is “7.62/.308” and only so that the police could differentiate between the 4 other .30 cal rifles I have.
LikeLike
If they are legal at present and you want one go and get one.
Is there any proven incidents of these arms being used in a crime, NO.
Go get on and make the government pay through the nose.
They, the police want guns banned to civilians and want a police state.
LikeLike
You’ve hit the nail on the head – these rifles have been around for nigh-on 20 years without incident, in addition they are relatively expensive and so uncommon so a ban on them would achieve precisely nothing towards public safety!
LikeLike
Perhaps the argument should be – we’ll support the ban, if you return full bore semi-auto’s back to section 1………
Never happen of course but I can fantasise for 30 seconds 🙂
LikeLike
If all it takes is a simple thumb action to make the new round live, isn’t it about as close to semi auto as makes no real difference? I still believe, personally, that magazine fed firearms should be slow to reload, if allowed at all, and this kind of ‘ingenious technical solution’ to what and what isn’t semi-auto rather misses the purpose and point of the original ban.
LikeLike
Nick, I take it you are still using an ancient Martini or rolling-block action for all your shooting and I’m sure you are respected for your superior moral stance. As for the rest of us, we will comply with the rules imposed by the legislation, whatever they may be, and just have fun … isn’t that what shooting sports are all about?
LikeLike
I only shoot prone target with bolt action, no magazine, .22 and 7.62 rifles. It’s not a moral stance as such, merely that I do fervently believe that public ownership of rapid fire weapons is not something to be encouraged because, as we see in the USA, it only takes one angry or upset person armed with such a firearm to kill many innocent people.
It is very hard to go on a killing spree with a manual loading, no magazine, target rifle. All the people that have run amok with firearms in the UK in the past were perfectly normal people, and responsible firearm owners, until the moment came when they suddenly weren’t.
Remove the weapon and you reduce the risk surely?
LikeLike
I can feel your condescending tone in your post. So what about Lee Enfields should they be banned since some gifted shooters can get over 30 rounds through them in a minute? Where do we stop? You might want to go look up Michael Yardley, I think you and him will get along just fine.
LikeLike
My ability to be trusted with a firearm has absolutely NOTHING to do with it’s action type. The purpose and point of the original ban was a badly thought out knee jerk reaction to a disturbed young mans incorrect possession of ANY type of firearm. And as usual – we the shooters paid for the Police failings in giving yet again an inappropriate person access to firearms.
Your premise that the ban was justified is just plain wrong, and the mere existence of lever releases and MARS and NONE having been used for criminal activity of any kind proves the point.
Remove the weapon is one way of reducing risk – but as you see on a range (MOD or NRA) – when anything goes wrong – the first step is remove the person from the firearm.
Firearms are not and never have been the problem, they are inanimate objects – it is and always will be the person. Our licensing system whilst still a little flawed (inconsistent application of rules and slowness of the whole endeavour) is succesfull these days in keep firearms out of idiots hands – ergo – we should be trusted to possess anything.
You and I have had lengthy debates on this subject before on here and I think it fair to say that there’s nothing anyone can say that would convince you to change your mind – and equally nothing you could say that would do the same in my regard. I would however respectfully ask you to accept that there are a significant amount of shooters who favour these and many other types of firearms you do not agree with – and allow us to go on unabated and continue to enjoy the sporting and recreational use thereof.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have to point out that you’re completely wrong on this point:
“All the people that have run amok with firearms in the UK in the past were perfectly normal people, and responsible firearm owners, until the moment came when they suddenly weren’t.”
Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria – there is no universe in which those shooters can be described as normal and responsible. There is considerable evidence in such documents as the Cullen report that shot that Hamilton was wholly unsuitable to possess firearms and that the evidence was there for a significant number of YEARS before Dunblane happend. The same is true of Bird and Cumbria – hence why we not have markers on our medical files at our GP surgeries. All that happened after Ryan and Hungerford – was we banned semi autos and pump action full bore (duh!) and mandated safes amongst other thing. Nothing was done to ensure innapropriate persons possessed firearms.
Please go and inform yourself on these three disasters before you continue to peddle that firearms are the problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you really want to live in a Police State that is exactly the kind of argument that will take you there. Adolf Hitler passed the first gun laws in Germeny and made it illegal for Jews to own guns. After the American civil War many of the Deep South states made it illegal for blacks to own guns. British governments are not prejudiced at all. They discriminmate against everyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘They, the police …… want a police state.’
‘If you really want to live in a Police State that is exactly the kind of argument that will take you there.’
‘Adolf Hitler passed the first gun laws in Germeny and made it illegal for Jews to own guns.’
Are not these kind of over statements the kind that give shooters a bad name? We aren’t all paranoid and angry police-haters but such quotes taken up by a national newspaper would give the impression we might be, and would only aid those who want all kinds of guns banned.
They certainly don’t reassure me that we shooters can all be safely regarded as level-headed. Am I alone?
‘ I would however respectfully ask you to accept that there are a significant amount of shooters who favour these and many other types of firearms you do not agree with – and allow us to go on unabated and continue to enjoy the sporting and recreational use thereof.
I merely offer my personal opinion, I have no influence on the Government’s policies so don’t worry on that score.
I think debate on the subject of what kind of firearms a society should accept its citizens having access to is perfectly healthy and reasonable. It is much easier to not open the stable door in the first place than try to close it after.
LikeLike
“I think debate on the subject of what kind of firearms a society should accept its citizens having access to is perfectly healthy and reasonable.”
By all means debate this, but it seems a moot point to do so – the firearms held by on FAC by appropriate persons – where there isn’t any evidence that they should not possess – cannot be demonstrated to be used for criminal / terrorism / domestic abuse / other nefarious persons – and yet – we’re still debating this and unable to convince even yourself a shooter of the folly of the arguments against.
Firearms laws only affect the law abiding.
“It is much easier to not open the stable door in the first place than try to close it after.”
By that token – let’s ban all firearms then? or anything remotely dangerous whilst we’re at it. I would not be happy at all to live in such a proscriptive society at all, why can’t we permit people to possess and undertake any activity whatsoever – what on earth ever happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions? The UK has gotten to a fairly decent standard (as regards Firearms) of ruling out the ne’er do wells – so why can’t the rest of us be left alone?
Is there any argument I can make that would convince you their are ways and means of responsible persons owing such items as handguns and full bore semi autos (and full autos for that matter?)…….
This is rhetorical – such a process already exists – it’s called Section 5 authority and is given by the Home Office. This proves that responsible people can be trusted and there is a way of vetting this.
LikeLike
Well I am not interested in making friends per se, I will continue to express my personal opinion though, even if that makes some FAC owners who wish to possess semi autos etc worryingly angry and abusive. Of course a single shot firearm can be used to kill people, but target rifles make very bad ‘spree’ weapons, which is what most of the recent tragedies have been about. It’s a case of reducing ability to multiple kill quickly.
Normal people is in regard to their appearance to the the authorities BEFORE they went crazy, Hindsight is always 20/20. We’re all normal until suddenly we aren’t. Most murderers don’t advertise before they kill someone. They all seem perfectly normal until then.
LikeLike
Nick……by taking that attitude who will stand and support you when they come for your rifles?.As shooters we should all stick together regardless of what rifle/action type we shoot.Sometimes we can be our own worst enemies as many believe that if potential bans don’t concern them or threaten their chosen discipline then it doesn’t matter!
LikeLike
My comment was at Nicholas Harman, not Nick B by the way 🙂
LikeLike
I cannot morally side with the idea that semi auto firearms are okay for public ownership. They are not, in my opinion. If, and it’s quite a bit if, they decide to ban target rifles I will argue their specific case, which I think is more tenable than arguing for public possession of semi autos and pistols etc.
I have never been a gun nut. I like the discipline of target shooting with its emphasis on calm, considered single shots. I find rapid fire from semi autos too close to aggressive military behaviour to be comfortable with it. My own sport has been described as golf with a rifle, I think that’s quite a good analogy.
Just because we all use firearms of some sort does not make us all the same.
LikeLike
We may as well just ban all firearms because Nickolas is missing the point, it doesn’t matter if you kill one person with a .22 target rifle or 30 people with a lever release rifle, one death is one too many! Even with a single loading rifle you could sit at the top of a car park and shoot 30 people with carefully aimed shots so even non magazine, single shot rifles are not safe so why not ban the lot?
Unfortunately this is why we lost semi auto rifles, because we did not stick together and the Bisley single shot crowd thought that they would look after themselves and not the plebs who used semi autos, as a shooter of single shot rifles and semi auto practical shotguns, I will always defend shooting as a whole and not just single interest disciplines, get real.
Stuart cooper
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well I am sorry Nick B, but as far as I am concerned firearms should be as safe as possible and therefore anything that can be reloaded quickly with magazines is not safe as it can fall into the wrong hands. I have nothing against single shot, no magazine, firearms designed for target shooting in the prone position. Or pistols that require laborious reloading. They can be used to kill people, but if that was your intention you’d be better off with a large knife.
Of course this is an echo chamber for people who want to possess and use all kinds of firearms, and indeed want banned firearms such as automatic pistols brought back, and each of you feel you can be trusted with them. It’s always other people who are the problem, isn’t it?
However to put a dissenting view is not trolling, unless you believe trolling to be defined as saying something you violently (sic) disagree with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reason it’s useful to have a lever release is this, there is no mechanical advantage to a straight pull rotary breech AR15 and you often need to download to ensure reliable extraction. Downloading buggers your ballistics and your choice becomes reliability or accuracy. Auto eject allows reliable extraction, full loads and better ballistics.
As to the law, it’s purpose was to distract dumb folks from a) the p##s poor response time to an ongoing shooting spree at Hungerford (an hour and a half or so of unopposed killing) and b) how in Christs name did Ryan get a ticket while still a probationary member.
LikeLike
Who is the dipstick allowing the police to film his rifle in operation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s probably not allowing as such – but rather requested – and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s an RFD who is due for renewal……
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas, the problem with your Yardley-ish attitude is that it is blinkered, short-sighted and misanthropic. Frankly I’d rather you gave up shooting than continued to demand anything you don’t personally use is banned and regulated out of existence. You give target rifle shooters a bad name amongst other disciplines and give succour to those who would cheerfully set about your beloved Anschutz (or whatever it is) with a hacksaw and a gas axe, not knowing or caring that it doesn’t have a magazine or any of the features you’re scared of.
edit – great, I can’t even work my own blog’s software – that’s a reply to Nicholas Harman above, not Nick B!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahah – that’s Nicholas (the other) not Nick (me!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Nick B, but this seems to be defeating my skills too as far as posting in the right place.
But Gary, I don’t demand things are banned, I simply state the reasons why I think perhaps they should be. If you take my opinion to be representative of all target shooters then you are no better than someone who thinks all Muslims are terrorists because one is.
And if you’re advocating violence towards me, or condoning it, because of my opinions I honestly think you should not come out with that sort of stuff in a place where your FAC issuer might read it. It could be taken as indicative of the wrong mental attitude.
Just saying.
LikeLike
I think it is just fearmongering. I have a MARS action and I basically got a “scary worded letter” with the gun saying it could be banned at any minute. I was initially outraged and then reason kicked in knowing full well that it would take a definition in the firearms act for this to happen and should the police demand my gun without any compensation I could sue till the cows come home.
So I say to anyone wanting to get one to do so, since the same technique was tried with the Lever releases in 2009, police temporarily confiscating them from all Devon FAC holders until they tested them and of course even when long barrel revolvers and gallery rifles came out in 2000s they tried to ban them. Since they were trying to “break the handgun ban”, now, 16 years later with tens of thousands in circulation it is safe to say the police have lost that argument as well.
The same will happen with self-unloading rifles, the police will huff and puff, but we base our arguments on “brick” law and not “strawman” arguments.
LikeLike
I’m certainly keeping my order in for the Robinson XCR – should be here any week now…..(sat in Proof I think)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas Harman,do you even read what people say ?
Where were you threatened?
LikeLike
+1, i have read and re-read the replies and i can see no such threats?
Actually, the only threats i see are threats to our sport. Its time shooters stuck together instead of bickering about what their fellow shooter uses versus what they do and whether they agree with it or not for goodness sake. That is the kind of attitude that weakens us all and has got us into the mess we are in now.
If Nick B voices an opinion, he should be able to do so without replies citing that his FAC could be under scrutiny because of the possibility he is “being watched”, attempts to instill fear get us absolutely nowhere.
LikeLike
I was not threatened per se of course and I never suggested that, I said the language and the emotion was not reassuring. Perhaps you need to read more carefully? Or more objectively?
LikeLike
However this EU Referendum turns out and as we are still an EU member state, Article 17 of the EU Constitution states that any possessions legally acquired by a person are protected and subject to fair compensation. If a police force grants a variation for a MARS/ LR, all paths were followed by the owner in order to acquire the firearm, LEGALLY.
“Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.”
Now, our Govt. recently adopted the new deac. laws mandated by the EU, they cannot pick and choose the laws set by the EU, so i would definitely state the case that LR/MARS owners have a strong case for compensation under Article 17, IF anything happens.
LR/MARS owners and future owners, enjoy them, you have done absolutely nothing wrong.
LikeLike
Just so you are aware, UK also requested the retrospective action as shown in the spiro report of 2015, the report being a consolidation of the consultation spanning 2013-2015. During the entire process the GTA was the only NGO in UK to respond in 2013. In all other consultation papers, only the home office, ACPO and Nabis responded for the UK. The tranche of consultation in 2014 included interviews and direct contact with NGO’s , Manufacturers, and individual shooters in multiple other EU states but non from UK.
The new deact crap was also raised by the commission and passed by the parliament in 2 days with no recourse to the actual process within the EU (they broke their own regs basically) and the UK is one of the few who have not placed on record any objections to any of it. So the UK is happy to enforce a regulation/law that was fraudulently enacted in the first place.
With no ultimate effect on criminals whatsoever.
LikeLike
Nicholas (Harman) has a kind of a point. One point only. In that not all shooters are as responsible as we might like. The counter balance to that is generally the shooting club system. This simple mechanism has the propensity to weed out the undesirables, usually at the probationary stage, though not always. Nutters almost always demonstrate thier ‘suitability’ long before any actual incident. The problem is that the concerns aren’t always acted upon.
Hamilton was a classic example – for decades befor the event no club wanted him as a member. The problem was that for renewal after renewal he somehow managed to get his ticket renewed. This wasn’t the fault of the shooting community, they consistently expressed their concerns, as did a number of police officers during the renwal process. The problem lay at the feet of senior police officers who overruled those legitimate concerns. If memory serves me right, the same thing was basically true of the Hungerford shooter, Ryan.
Nicholas, the problem is not the type of action, nor the use the tool is put to in responsible hands. The actual use of the tool lies firmly with the user alone. Use a semi-auto fullbore (or machine gun for that matter) for service rifle events or any other bit of fun that can be safely devised and that is perfectly OK. But use a break-action .177 air rifle to cause injury or damage and I (and society at large) have a problem with the person who did it – note – the person who did it, not the air rifle as an object. Your thoughts?
LikeLike
Pete Moore (Guns Mart) should never have put up that YT video review of the MARS, it was asking for trouble, honestly, anyone would think Pete wanted to get the rifle banned.
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRZmSsPRAN4 He racked the firearm as fast as he possibly could which dramatically implied that a criminal could do the same, it was like a red rag to muesli-munching, hysterical gun haters who have now obviously contacted plod.
LikeLike
I can see your point but as responsible and legal shooters we shouldn’t have to hide……..which is a damning indictment of the state of affairs for shooters in this country.
LikeLike
And it is, re the photo, a fairly macho looking firearm and not one best to allay concerns
LikeLike
What nonsense. He talked about it and then fired it, demonstrating the speed of the MARS action. Nowhere did he mention anything about misusing it for criminal purposes or imply same.
LikeLike
Criminals don’t need FACs. And they tend to only shoot their peers anyway. I am not worried about being shot by a criminal (which is the USA NRA argument for allowing home arsenals). I’m worried about Mr Previously Normal suddenly going off the rails and heading down town with his semi auto and a head full of resentment.
LikeLike
” I’m worried about Mr Previously Normal suddenly going off the rails and heading down town with his semi auto and a head full of resentment.” Mr. Harman, I have to question the validity of your perception … you worry about something that is so rare as to be statistically insignificant … how pathetic. With that kind of attitude I’m surprised you even get out of bed in the morning … you might even slip on your bedside rug and break your neck! As for the rest of us I respectfully suggest that we ignore this man. He is a waste of our intellectual capacity.
LikeLike
Yes he did, he was showing off and being macho, which does not reassure me as to his fitness to possess the firearm.
LikeLike
Until something is published in the FELWG minutes i’ll not be fretting any time soon. As for Mr Harman (not related to Harriett by any chance?), writing statements such as “I do fervently believe that public ownership of rapid fire weapons is not something to be encouraged ” isn’t going to make you any friends in the shooting community now is it? You make recall ‘The Washington Sniper’, and the 15 or so people he managed to kill shooting them with single shots? Yes he was using a semi-auto rifle but he wasn’t rapidly firing at people. Single shot firearms can be used to kill just as many people as “rapid fire weapons”, it simply requires a different technique. No firearm is immune from being abused as in the cases previously mentioned. As for describing Hamilton, Ryan and Bird as “normal people”, well, I don’t think anything more really needs to be said.
LikeLike
Mr H, it wouldn’t be difficult for someone to put forward a damned fine argument that single shot rifles by virtue of not having a magazine cut out have more rigid and potentially more accurate actions. Further, that T.R and M.R. are in fact high powered rifle, long range sniper training disciplines where concealability and magazine capacity are irrelevant to potential danger. It could be suggested that the cold, aloof, obsessive nature of such shooters who don’t mingle with the bang, bang, grin fun loving crowd is antisocial and highly strung. That such people with such rifles and skills represent a real danger, not just to the general public but the establishment and noteworthy dignitaries, leaders, political figures, aircraft and visiting statesmen who are routinely only protected from close up attack.
We are none of us outside the greenhouse, why do you insist on throwing stones?
LikeLike
Most sprees have been committed at close range and with semi automatics. If you can hit a tiny moving target at a 1000 yards with a simple rifle you’d be in the England team, not trying to be the Jackal. Which is the film I suppose you are basing your character assessment on.
LikeLike
I was rather thinking of the Boer and World Wars where several people fell to open sighted bolt actions I believe? Just because a motor cycle is dangerous it doesn’t mean that a bicycle isn’t. You can ride whichever you like and point at the failings of the other but to a car driver they’re all bikes. As a journalist you must be aware that spin can be applied at will and no one’s exempt, that includes you and your fellow snipers. You are, even if you don’t realise it berating your own hobby and your confrontational, condescending style, designed to provoke, is a poor advert for your capacity, your discipline and our hobby.
Please, think before you hit post.
If you can find the time, perhaps you could read up on Hungerford, Dunblane and the like and you might stop blaming your spoon for making you fatter.
On at least 3 occasions junior officers recommended the withdrawal of Thomas Hamilton’s Firearms Certificate. The law then, as now required that the Chief Constable remove the firearms from Hamilton and investigate the recommendation, only returning the firearms if Hamilton was proved innocent. This isn’t a speeding offence, there’s no lattitude permitted to the Chief Officer, he must act. He didn’t, the man in charge, the deputy Chief Constable I believe simply decreed no action to be taken. For about 2 days after the shootings people like you, working for the press were crying out “why did this man have a Licensed firearm”
LikeLike
Then in a stroke the cry became “how can anyone have a Licensed firearm” almost as if someone on high had said “Oi, enough, this is the new line.” Before you knew it the body of Hamilton was cremated, the scene of crime knocked down and a 100 year secrecy order slapped on a civilian crime with no national security implications.
LikeLike
‘You are, even if you don’t realise it berating your own hobby and your confrontational, condescending style, designed to provoke, is a poor advert for your capacity, your discipline and our hobby.’
If you define confrontational as ‘not agreeing with me and offering an alternative view’ then I suppose I am. However I feel your definition is flawed, self-serving and lacking in objectivity. I’m trying to make you stand back from your gun and pause.
My own hobby uses firearms which I would consider very low down on a scale of dangerous firearms. You’d be more efficient hitting multiple people over the head with a target rifle than trying to shoot them with one .
Comparing a motor cycle to a semi automatic firearm is facile and simplistic at best. A motor cycle’s primary purpose is to transport people, it can be used as a weapon of course but it was not designed for that use and would not be that good at it. A plank of wood can be used to kill someone, but that is not what it was created for. A target rifle was is designed to shoot at targets A semi automatic firearm was designed…. well I think you get the point.
Please, think before you hit post.
LikeLike
Your actually quite a funny guy.
LikeLike
Well the idea is to use a bit of humour to try and cut through the rather worrying ‘from my cold dead hands’ rhetoric I find I that I am all too often seeing here. People with a sense of humour are usually the last to go postal.
LikeLike
Nicholas,
“My own hobby uses firearms which I would consider very low down on a scale of dangerous firearms. You’d be more efficient hitting multiple people over the head with a target rifle than trying to shoot them with one .”
This is the “I’m alright Jack” argument – you can’t see beyond your own discipline. Your point here is utterly flawed – earlier you mentioned you shoot a single shot 7.62 (and a 22?) So your 7.62 (presumably 7.62 nato) that is about 2700 fps shooting something like a 180 gn and a muzzle energy around what 2600 ft/lb f – that’s no good for shooting people? really? Your presumed proficiency with said firearm also makes it no good for that? no? you don’t know what your sights need to be set at to put a round into a vbull at any given distance? no? so you can’t put a round into a human sized target at any given distance from 0 to a 1000 yards first time every time? no – if that’s true I’ll concede your point – but I put it to you a target shooter with a 7.62 is the scariest tower climbing elevated position shooting spree scenario I can think of. If anything – target shooters with 7.62’s should be banned – not plinkers with a Ruger 10/22!
There are mechanisms in place that prove that people can be trusted with semi auto full bores, full autos, handguns etc etc etc – this proves that it is not and never has been the firearm that is the problem.
What would you say to shooters / RFD’s that have Section 5 authority? Can they not be trusted?
What stopped me or any other serving soldier running amok with their section 5 firearms and weaponry? Can soldiers now not be trusted? If they can – what is it that you think stops them?
What about the Police with section 5 firearms – can they be trusted?
The firearm in and of itself has got absolutely nothing to do with anyones propensity towards violence.
If this little blog were a home office approved club – then I would suggest you should be denied membership as you don’t support the ethos and aims of the club.
Not one of the points you make is backed by evidence – it’s all opinion. The counters to your points are all backed by evidence. Arguments like yours are how we end up with badly thought out legislation that does nothing to prevent anything happening to anyone.
Go and familiarise your self with the spree shootings in this country and then argue how those responsible were fine to possess their firearms right up until they pulled the trigger. There’s a veritable plethora of evidence that showed none should have had the firearms in their possession before they went on to commit their crimes.
Meanwhile the rest of us having committed no offence whatsoever were punished. NOT one of those persons who enabled the shooter to carry out his crime was ever prosecuted. NOT one.
How is it that there are many many thousands of people with many many thousands of semi automatic rimfires and shotguns – and we’re not inundated with spree shootings and mass killings?
It is not nor ever has been the firearm.
I think it must be abundantly clear to you now that not one commenter agrees with your point of view, nor that you are prepared to educate yourself and look at the evidence – and that no point anyone can make will assist you in changing your mind. The inverse of this may be true if only you could present evidence to back your argument – but there isn’t any as your argument against magazines and semi auto’s / handguns is one born of a dislike as it’s not your thing – and nothing and no one will change that.
To that end – I conclude that you’re merely trolling this blog for your own entertainment…..
LikeLike
Well said Nick B
LikeLike
Yawn. You know where the door is.
LikeLike
What about shooters with arthritis etc., LR/MARS enables those shooters to take part in their sport with less issues having to cock the firearm after each round…
LikeLike
..and one last one, how on Earth can the LR / MARS mechanisms be pre-vetted by the powers that be, be passed for sale, THEN a potential reversal of that take place after consumers have spent their hard earned money?
LikeLike
Any firearm can be used to commit mass murder, as can any car or van or hgv. High explosives are not that difficult to make. I think it’s likely that illegal firearms can be procured with a little bit of effort.
At the end of the day, if a sick mind wants to commit atrocities, it will find a way.
The thing is, why should the hundreds of thousands of people that own guns legally be restricted/punished because of the actions of several very sick indiviuals? I think every licensed shooter should be able to own all types of small arms from full auto down to .22lr pistols. I bet there would be absolutely no change in the frequency of mass shootings in this country if that was the case.
LikeLike