Re Old but deadly rifle.

Thanks everyone for your replies. I am aware that in the United States gun control laws vary from State to State and that under the US constitution there is the right to bear arms. What I was trying to determine was where the sensible limit to that right was.

In the UK there have been two notable tragedies which have led to a change in the law with regard to gun control. Firstly there was the Hungerford massacre (1987 16 killed), where a man armed with an automatic assault rifle went through a sleepy English village and began to randomly kill his relatives and neighbours. This led to the restriction i.e. ban on Automatic and Semi Automatic Rifles.
Then in the sleepy Scottish village of Dunblane in 1996, a man armed with hand guns killed 15 small children (about the same age as the children in aloha's pictures) and their teacher. This led to the restriction i.e. ban on hand guns. The common thread was that the individuals concerned in both tragedies were mentally disturbed. I do of course recognise that it is not the killing tool (Gun) itself that is responsible for such evil but the individual who uses that killing tool who is responsible for their actions. The problem is that individuals who are mentally disturbed, some are not responsible for their actions. I suppose the issue is that without access to such efficient killing tools then the individual is much more limited in what he or she can do i.e. the numbers of deaths will be a lot less.

I know that many will argue that if everyone had guns then the limits of both tragedies would have been more confined because the actions of the crazed gunman could have been stopped at an earlier stage. This might have been true for the Hungerford massacre but not the Dunblane massacre. You cannot legislate for the mentally disturbed but you legislate to ensure that they don't have access to such efficient means of killing. Please don't think that I am a gun control liberal (egg sucking liberal whose needs to be reprogrammed - Ponder - you have the greatest collection I've ever seen). I always found hitting the target at 1200 metres with the Lee Enfield quite challenging and rewarding. In America you live in a democratic republic, you as a nation have decided to ensure that you all have in principle the right to bear arms. In the UK, we live in a democratic constitutional monarchy. Democratic being the key word. Its just that the loss of the lives of innocent people and small children have tipped the balance of the argument against the personal ownership of such deadly weapons. Most people in the UK would agree that a small restriction on their freedom to own a concealed hand gun or assault rifle is something their are prepared to do to help ensure that future tragedies can be avoided. Of course the argument I have put forward can also be applied to other tools which can kill, Air Rifles, Swords, Knifes, Pointy Sticks etc, the politicians can take things to far. But at the end of the day the British people are inherently sensible and reasonable people and they do hold their freedoms within the law with high regard.

As for the Enfield rifle, I do actually regard it to be more deadly than even the fully automatic assault rifles (AR15s and M16 derivatives, licenses required I believe from previous responses on this thread) issued to the US army soldiers. This is because it is a much more capable weapon and when used in the right hands, therefore much more lethal.

Susan and billym - I know this going to make some mad but here goes - With regard to the swiss anti-aircraft gun point - I think I remember in 2003 Iraqi invasion that a local Iraqi farmer shot down a US Apache helicopter gun ship with a Lee Enfield .303 Mk4.

Then according to your criteria the Garand, the Mauser, and even the venerable '03 Springfield are all more "lethal" as well, since they are, in one way or another, superior to the Enfield. Yet none of these fine rifles are still standard issue anywhere that I am aware of--at least among countries claiming better than a 3rd rate military. As much as I love my No. 4 Mk III, I still consider it a backup to my A-Bolt, my SKS, and my 03A3. And if I had the dough to buy an M-16 or AK-47, it would slide even farther down the list.



On the contrary, thanks for the chuckle. Was this one of "Baghdad Bob's" reports?

I'd really, REALLY like to know where you came up with that idea.

There are only 2 attacks on the States that I'm aware of: a sub shelled up by Santa Barbara, CA; a few weather balloons fell to ground up around Idaho. The Japanese knew about the Gulf Stream and tried 'bombing' us that way.

Personally, I think that having a 3000 mile supply line would be a bigger intimidation.

Oh, and BTW, my No. 4 Mk. III is stamped "1942" and was made by Savage Arms right here in the good 'ol USA! One of about 4 million we shipped over under Lend-Lease.

A quote from Admiral Yamamoto commander of the Japanese Imperial Fleet;

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”


Here is a google search for lots of sources;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yamamoto+blade+of+grass+quote

Very true. That's one of the stats shown at the link I sent. Most criminals don't get their guns legally anyway. I used the DOJ's data there because they with the BATF are the most anti second ammendment portion of our government, but they're own data shows as gun ownership by private citizens goes up (RE the number of background checks) violent crime goes down. I'm anxiously waiting to see the crime statistics of Washington D.C. in two years now that they can possess firearms within the District.

"I think I remember in 2003 Iraqi invasion that a local Iraqi farmer shot down a US Apache helicopter gun ship with a Lee Enfield .303 Mk4."


That does not make it an AA gun just a lucky shot.

Actually this post was a response to Bentirran not Norad.

Bentirran,
I lived in England as boy and remember the "Bobbies" who did not carry guns at all. Now when I see the news I see British police as armed as any US SWAT team. So now your cops are loaded down and the citizens are helpless to resist. You live in a much less free society than when I lived there.

Here in the US there is NO sensible limit because we are free to resist our government. The media and leaders of your fine land have brainwashed you all into thinking you are safer when in fact it is the politicians who are safer. You are less safe because you depend on others for your safety and gave up your rights in the process.

I loved my time in England as a child but with knife laws as they are alone I will probably not return.

Most of the people in Afganistan were carrying singe shot when the russians invaded. Now the full auto AK-47 is the most common weapon. guesse where they got them.

Re Norad




I do believe that the even the Garand and Mauser types are superior to the M-16 and its derivatives. The Garand and Mauser were also fine examples of the type but were not as reliable or durable and when considering the overall qualities were not as good in their design when compared to the Lee Enfield. The Garand was a semi-automatic model and as such had reliability problems as all semi-automatics do. The British had the Bren and Germans had their MG42s to keep their opponents heads down. The Masuer was more capable in terms of accuracy than the M1 but had only a 5 cartridge magazine and an inferior bolt action when compared to the Lee Enfield. The achievable rate of accurate fire for the Enfield would have been better than the Mauser but not as great as the M1 when it was working. But all being said these differences would be negliable compared to the differences in the skill of any individual aiming and firing the different rifles.

The reasoning for todays smaller cartridge weapons are to do with the amount of ammunition any single individual can carry and the type of warfare that would generally be expected to fight. Smaller ammunition and greater rate of inaccurate and indiscriminate fire is the order of today especially when fighting urban warfare. Even today the British Army has begun to realise the problems the US NATO 5.56 round has. It has limited range and killing power. Anything over 600 metres and the 5.56 round becomes effectively pointless. Even though the current standard British Army Rifle L85A2 has much more accuracy than any of the US army M16 derivatives the British army has now had to introduce many more bolt action L96A1's and Accuracy International AWM's (at least one per squad) to counter the 3rd world AKs (7.62s) and Lee Enfields (.303s) in Afghanistan and Iraq.



What I do remember was that the local farmer was being videoed in front of a downed Apache proudly displaying his bagged aircraft with his Lee Enfield. The Apache did have a few bullet holes in it. The most noticeable one was the one through the left hand pilots window. I guess it could have been one that had been abandoned after developing a mechanical fault and the crew had been rescued and then a propaganda piece being fabricated. But I think that it is normal procedure to destroy any downed aircraft if possible to ensure that they don't fall into a enemies hands to be used for intelligence or propaganda reasons.

What is the context of this particular quote?

Adm. Yamamoto always knew that a protracted war with the U.S. would lead to defeat because of the sheer advantage in men and industrial capacity the U.S. had. The US had enough people and factories so that "every blade of grass" could have a rifle behind it and Japan could never match that, but that doesn't necessarily support this idea that he thought Japan shouldn't invade because private citizens already had guns here before the war started. I'll be happy to change my mind if there's any evidence supporting the Second Amendment angle.

I think the idea of an "armed and trained" citizenry has some merit in the case of Switzerland, but again, the Swiss were citizen-soldiers and their deterrance value were as soldiers organized into military units, not as individuals who already had guns.

It's an effective military that deters invaders. On the other hand, it's the gov't and burglars that are afraid of an armed citizenry. Very different situations.