Page 2 of 11
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:17 pm
by walesdave
Looking at the news footage and reading all of what the Sherriff said it was a 'bog standard' semi-auto pistol with either a 'normal' or an extended mag. Because California has a state-wide limit of 10 rounds per magazine, having 11+ mags now turns your handgun into an 'assault pistol'.
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:55 am
by Blackstuff
walesdave wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:33 am
Think Starmer is bad, after the mass shooting this weekend in California, the local Sherriff has said the shooter used 'a magazine-fed semiautomatic assault pistol'.
Any ideas what an 'assault pistol is nowadays?
It was a semi-auto MAC11. Looking at the video of the lad wrestling it off the shooter it looks like it doesn't have a stock so would be registered/catergorised as a 'pistol'. But a MAC11 also falls into the fantasy gun category of 'assault weapon' so using Cali logic thats probably the right description for it
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:31 pm
by Pete
I'd really like to know WHY two elderly gents offed 17 (?) people.........not interested in what they used.
Pete
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:59 pm
by Daryll
Pete wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:31 pm
I'd really like to know WHY two elderly gents offed 17 (?) people.........not interested in what they used.
Pete
My thoughts exactly.... when i heard about the first one, my theory was some white american with a grudge against asians... I was very surprised when i heard it was a 72 y.o. asian..!
The 2nd one was also an elderly asian.... what possible motive could they have... Triad related..?
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:40 pm
by Mauserbill
Hello
Possibly Honour killing ?
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:00 pm
by GeeRam
Daryll wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:59 pm
Pete wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:31 pm
I'd really like to know WHY two elderly gents offed 17 (?) people.........not interested in what they used.
Pete
My thoughts exactly.... when i heard about the first one, my theory was some white american with a grudge against asians... I was very surprised when i heard it was a 72 y.o. asian..!
The 2nd one was also an elderly asian.... what possible motive could they have... Triad related..?
The latest one in Half Moon Bay (an area I know well) is believed to be by a disgruntled worker, and all victims were his co-workers.
Which is just nuts.
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:17 am
by Pete
Probably old Tong scores being settled.........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tong_Wars
Pete
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:19 am
by paul mercer
When commenting on the latest shooting in Euston, Sir Keir Starmer was quoted as saying - amongst other things, “There are many illegally owned guns and there are legally owned guns, I don’t think they should be in the hands of people who are legally owning them” he also added that while he does not back an outright ban on gun ownership saying that exemptions should be allowed for farmers and sports shooting clubs “ Is he suggesting that licenced gun owners are holding illegal weapons that are not on their 'ticket'?
What on earth was he talking about? His solution of tightening gun ownership laws after the Keyham shooting is a typical Labour knee jerk response as it was to the Dunblane disaster in Scotland in 1997 which led to the banning of handguns. In both cases the weapons were held by persons who should never have been granted a licence in the first place. It is obvious that Starmer is not aware of the process required to own a gun which is surprising as he is a lawyer.
However, in view of the Plymouth shooting, do members think that there might be a case for more 'positive vetting' before a licence is granted?
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:27 am
by Pippin89
paul mercer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:19 am
When commenting on the latest shooting in Euston, Sir Keir Starmer was quoted as saying - amongst other things, “There are many illegally owned guns and there are legally owned guns, I don’t think they should be in the hands of people who are legally owning them” he also added that while he does not back an outright ban on gun ownership saying that exemptions should be allowed for farmers and sports shooting clubs “ Is he suggesting that licenced gun owners are holding illegal weapons that are not on their 'ticket'?
What on earth was he talking about? His solution of tightening gun ownership laws after the Keyham shooting is a typical Labour knee jerk response as it was to the Dunblane disaster in Scotland in 1997 which led to the banning of handguns. In both cases the weapons were held by persons who should never have been granted a licence in the first place. It is obvious that Starmer is not aware of the process required to own a gun which is surprising as he is a lawyer.
However, in view of the Plymouth shooting, do members think that there might be a case for more 'positive vetting' before a licence is granted?
The more "positive vetting" as you put it is already in place. In the case of the Plymouth shooting it just wasn't followed correctly. Processes have to be applied in order for them to work. The police failed in that case, not the policy.
Re: Here we go again - Starmer says need to tighten gun laws
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:21 pm
by Dark Skies
paul mercer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:19 am
...It is obvious that Starmer is not aware of the process required to own a gun which is surprising as he is a lawyer.
It doesn't surprise me in the least. I've lost count of the amount of simple tasks I've entrusted to lawyers that have then gone on to balls things up.
I've even had one arse up a simple adverse possession case that I'd done all the spadework for. All the berk had to do was literally copy my paperwork.
He couldn't even manage that without getting details wrong and introducing spelling errors. As someone with a law degree, it's often painful to watch them bumbling about.
There are an awful lot of crap lawyers out there. Mind you, on the occasions I've used the small claims court, I'm sure glad the other guy has hired them.