Rock-climby-Dave

If that's what you believe, then tell them! It's fine us all agreeing here that RIFs are not an issue, but the EC want to ban everything that they can get their hands on and are only stopped when people call them out on their shit.

Doesn't mean they won't ban it anyway.

I've said go ahead on the necro here as it's a sensible enough topic, closely related enough to the original content. I originally visited these forums instead of others as I like the way we allow a natural and progressing discussion, rather than over-moderating a topic and killing conversation in mid-flow. I don't think Proffrink is wrong, per say. I would say that he is trying not to get drawn into an irrelevant (and mostly useless) argument online unrelated entirely to the original topic at hand. K@rl, your apparent need to get the last word in here is getting you close to warning points for, frankly, being a bit of a knob. But that's just my reading of the tone - as Proffink said it's not easy to read tone in written word. I always find smileys useful if you're being sarcastic or not entirely serious. Quote Back on topic please.

If poeple want to discuss it, I'd rather they necroposted than started a new thread.

Quick link to an interesting article with some links out of it to sources etc. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/its-britain-not-america-that-has-debate-over-gun-ownership-wrong-1530102 There are sporting applications for most weapons, but they are still weapons and their primary function is still to kill/injure living things (mostly people). My firearms are NOT weapons. I (and google) define weapon as 'a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.' My, and the huge majority of other privately held firearms DO NOT fall into that category. Sure, they'd be a good make-shift weapon, but so would a hammer, or a baseball bat, or a really pointy guitar. They are simply sporting equipment. For those that do want to kill people in a pre-meditated way; school massacres in the US a the best example here No, they're not. 92% of mass murders (defined by FBI as 3+ dead) in the US are committed in gun-free zones, such as schools, libraries, chrurches etc. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/'>source besides which Mass murders make up a relatively small percentage of the total murders. Yes, they are upsetting because of the usually large reported casualty rates of innocent people, but they are not how most killings take place. (predominantly gang on gang in deprived areas) I don't think we can really argue our own 'whatif' guesses against each other, but i remain confident that no amount of armed civilians will deter or reduce the number of people killed by foreign terrorists, and more guns in circulation can only increase the potential for native terrorism (school massacres etc) I agree on the whatif statement, so far we've avoided strawman and ad-hominem arguments pretty well, let's keep it that way. Arming civilians can have 2 outcomes towards terrorism: 1. Deter terrorists: probably not hugely likely to be fair, If it did, excellent job done, if not then we haven't lost anything for trying. In this case we Either gain security or security levels do not change. 2. Not deter them, but provide immediate 'good guy' capable of defence of innocent life on the scene. This prevents terrorists from simply walking up to people and executing them, something that did occur in Paris. There IS CCTV evidence of this out there. In this case Safety levels have increased. However; every single one of those bad actions you give as an example is done by someone every day, in an act of emotion not logic. Therefore if we had guns in general circulation, I am certain someone would get killed by one in an act of emotion not logic everyday/week like in the US. Yes, people can be emotional. Sadly I cannot find any sources (looking now for half an hour) of information on 'random murders' Obviously, though, If someone DID escalate a situation or argument with a weapon, you would be fully within your right to diffuse the situation with swift and judicial use of a carried firearm (or taser, mace, whatever your choice of protection is) for self defence. The lack of data on this suggests to me that these events are so small in number that they are simply a non-issue. If you DO find some stats, I'd love to see them, though. The only useful info I can find states: source People with concealed carry licenses are: 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public Gangs etc are the extreme of gun crime, just as middle-class gated communities are the extreme of safety. These areas are both a minority, although there being far far far more areas of impoverished crime than safe suburbia. However there's plenty of gun-crime and deaths/injuries in between. You certainly have it the wrong way round and there are very few areas of the US which don't have gun related deaths, injuries or crime on a regular basis. I THINK the point here is that we should take the two extremes out of the stats? I'm not sure, again, correct If I'm wrong. To address that point I would say that of the 2 extremes, we only really have 1, and that is 'middle class safe area' we simply don't have the massive gangs that cause problems in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, DC to name a few. Again, a link to gunfacts: http://www.gunfacts.info Closing statement on this part: There are 3 kinds of stance you can take on firearms availability: For: gain their hobby back and the security offered by allowing CC and self defence, alongside this they will boost the economy. Firearms aren't cheap and they are worth $42bn in the US economy. I would not expect us to gain this value, but it gives an idea of the numbers involved in firearms. http://www.nssf.org/impact/ Anti: They lost the argument, probably will continue to campaign against firearms. They will be able to do this safely thanks to at worst a continuation of current crime rates, at best a decrease in violent crime. Completely indifferent: Does not effect. Crime rates again remain the same or decrease, so whilst indifferent are likely to have gained.

well semi only is what he wants Just get a new selector when you want auto back! I did say it cost a little more than the other way

drill the hole just to the front of the selector lever when it is pointing at semi on the receiver body and tap (verb: to cut threads into metal/wood for screwing into) the hole for a grub screw. (for the drill/tap mehod) For my method, take the gearbox out of the lower receiver and use a sharp knife to cut the selector plate where it pushes the disconnector out of the way so it doesn't contact it at all. If you're new to it, its pretty easy to do (one of the easiest jobs to do, really)

as triggerhappy said. You can also modify the selector plate so that it doesn't lift the cut off lever out of place. This is a bit more expensive, but a more professional way of doing it and doesn't mark the lower receiver at all. Don't forget to make sure they disconnector is not wobbly or likely to wear out (ICS tend to be fine, but worth a check) as an airsoft AEG reverts in it's 'selector component failure' state to fully auto only.

Preaching to the choir, mate.

Kurtz, respectfully, I am going to pick apart the points given. Many people are in the same boat as yourself and like the romanticised idea, but look at poor examples cherry picked by a mostly anti-gun media over here. Rather than use quotes a lot (as you should in most cases), lines in bold are posted by others(in this case mostly Colonel Kurtz) with my response in standard lettering directly below it: Parts in red are added (not edits) made after a re-read The reality is more guns means more deaths, because quite simply, that is the primary function of a gun, to impart death. Guns are simply a tool. In the same way a hammer has a use and a guitar has a use (smacking nails and playing sweet riffs). The function of a gun is simply to throw a projectile with massive energy accurately as far as possible. Obviously, they do this very well. You wouldn't use the wrong tool for the job would you. Firearms are used for sporting purposes, pest control, self defence and in some cases, sadly used to harm other humans. My firearms have never killed anyone. Nor have the huge majority (neigh, all. Possible exception of an Enfield, but that would have been in a legal war) of the firearms I have ever handled. So increasing the ability of people to kill each other, strangely enough just leads to more people killing each other. People who are happy to kill someone are going to kill them regardless of access to firearms. Most people just want to get about their lawful business with as little interaction with outsiders as possible. I'll touch again on this later. Things that we know are bad being made legal doesn't mean everyone suddenly does those things. To ban or outlaw an item is to simply relinquish control of it to the black market. Portugal decriminalised drug use in 2001 and since then have NOT seen an increase in drug use, yet HAVE seen a decrease in drug related issues like ODs and STD transmission. This is because we all know drugs are bad (m'kay). As responsible adults the citizens of portugal that weren't crack heads before didn't go out and buy a whole bunch of smack just because it wasn't a criminal offence anymore. In the same way, just because now that you have the ability to 'pop a cap in someones ass' you won't because that's just a terrible idea. If that granny might have a .45, why risk mugging her, just shoot her in the head and take the bag. The harsh reality is she should be grateful a criminal didn't expect her to have a gun and got she only mugged. Because most muggers are NOT murderers. Mugging happens for an awful lot of reasons, murder, less so. Muggings are mostly random. Murders are often done by people you know. The latter half of that statement comes very close to victim blaming, frankly I think we can agree that it was potentially said in poor taste. I do see what you're going for though, I disagree. The expectation of a gun isn't there. The POSSIBILITY IS. If she didn't have a gun, suddenly it's a very, very different set of circumstances (cold blooded random murder vs legitimate self defence going south for victim). Not many people would instigate a firefight as guns are an excellent equaliser. And you simply don't know if the opponent is more equal than you until it is too late. If that theatre had 100 people with guns out of the 1500 in there, then it might have indeed made an assault on it with guns less practical, but a terrorist is not going to go for a lesser option or think 'actually that's a bit too risky i quit'. It just means that it'd be easier to get guns, and there could have be 20 people with them running round Paris not 7, or that same seven just being on their way back across the border before the bombs go off and kill all 1500 people inside. The main point I think you're making here is that "believing the opposition to be armed would have lead to more attackers" (please tell me if that isn't correct) however, I would hazard a guess that they would have liked more but 7 is the maximum number of people willing to commit such an atrocity at that time. Bombs are tricky, however, certainly all gigs I have been to, bags have been searched. The point I was making really there was that if the fight was 75vs7 the death toll would have been lower. Well worth it in my eyes. Again, i really really do appreciate the sentiment, and my guess is you yourself could perfectly handle gun ownership without killing your wife, killing yourself and the kids when she asks for a divorce, letting your kids shoot each other by mistake, mis-interpreting a situation and killing an unarmed person, or any of the fecking idiocy that people use the power to kill at a trigger click for. Thanks man. I'd like to think you could be a perfectly good 'good guy with a gun'. However, you're sadly the minority, and most people don't even truly know what kind of person they are, good or bad until the opportunity/situation arises. More guns only creates more of such opportunities, and unfortunately far far more tragedy than heroism, with most such heroism only being done vs a situation made possible by more guns anyways. I think most people know whether they are 'good' or 'bad' (although poor terms really) I would say most people are 'good' that is to say, don't commit violent acts against others and keep themselves to themselves. those that fall into 'bad' tend to fall into categories such as 'murderer, rapist, mugger, terrorist' As for creating more opportunities, I don't think so. Again goes back to people wanting a quiet life free from oppression. You COULD smack everyone you meet around the face, but you don't. Why? because of the consequences that happen, assault charges, potentially serious injuries to someone you don't know deserve it. Yes, someone cut you up in traffic, you COULD ram their car with yours, but why don't you? because you, and everyone else who doesn't ram their car into someone who cuts them up is a rational human being with thoughts and feelings. It's very, very, very easy to assume everyone is thick as shit, but EVERYONE thinks they have common sense, most will demonstrate that they do. Their situation is worse on every single level, more crime, terrorism, killings, discrimination, poverty, slavery. Most of this crime/killings relate to gangs in very few areas of the country. Pull those HUGE spikes in crime from statistics and you've suddenly got a very safe country. We do not have these slum areas over here, so this is simply a non-issue (regarding our own firearms laws, obviously it's AN issue.) The other areas you highlight relate to social issues, rather than providing firearms. I don't have an answer for those, sadly, but I feel the rule of 'Don't be a dick. Are you being a dick? Stop being a dick' applies. You must like the romantic idea of having the power to kill someone if you deem it necessary Ending a human life, good guy or bad guy is certainly not something to be romanticised. I simply believe that I should be allowed to defend myself or others around me from harm. If that requires lethal force, so be it. Because guns are very good at killing they make fantastic equalisers. I'm not exactly a built guy, if some big fucker decided he wanted my wallet, he'd probably get it. Introduce a firearm and suddenly his physical size simply is irrelevant, at that point the person most willing to shoot the other will, more often than not, win. As I said earlier, muggers are not murderers, he's unlikely to want to kill me for my wallet. He's demonstrated himself to be a bad guy (by mugging me) so I'm pretty happy to pull that trigger. If this argument doesn't work, by all means replace 'me and my' with 'your daughter' and 'wallet' with.... you get the picture. [You must like the romantic idea of having the] freedom to do whatever you like, You don't? What are we without our freedom? The more individual freedom we have the better. Unfortunately in a society of millions of people you simply don't deserve that freedom/power as there is not enough benefit to society by you having it, only more risk and more negative impact. Far more firearms are used in self defence than to commit crime in the USA. To say I do not deserve the freedom is ridiculous, I'm not going to harm anyone by using a self loading rifle at the range, or by competing in practical pistol with full bore pistols. I'm not going to harm anyone who doesn't deserve harming by concealed carrying. Hopefully I could CC from tomorrow until the day I die at 85 having never had to use it, but bad people exist in the same world that I live in, and I WILL NOT let bad people dictate how I live my life. I WILL NOT live in fear. i go even further and dream of a world where a gun isn't necessary cos everyone's a good guy. again, we go back to the original point I made where we simply use firearms for recreational and sporting uses. Guns are fun, if you've never shot one I would HIGHLY recommend getting out and seeing what you're missing. Go claybusting with some mates one weekend (maybe some other airsofters as a nice way to stay in contact in the grim winter months away from play) There's not a single living creature on this planet you can't sort out with a pointy stick, that's why we're here, But we're also not allowed to carry a pointy stick (or ANY object) in the UK for self defence, if you do it is considered an offensive weapon. No pepper spray, no tasers (section 5 firearms, MANDATORY prison sentences) or other less lethal devices. Also, don't know about you but I'd rather not take on a buffalo with a pointy stick. that's as far as available killing technology should go in my opinion. I would be happier if guns were completely outlawed for private ownership in the UK, as there is no real benefit to society by them existing Again, it's not killing technology, it's hole punching tech. I would NOT be happy if guns were outlawed. How would you control pests, hunt for meat? What would you suggest I do instead of compete in practical shooting or long range target shooting? What about people who collect interesting or rare pieces? They don't WANT to play football, they WANT to shoot. It's worth the hassle to shooters to do all of the hoop-jumping required here to use firearms safely and legally. and it is FAR safer than horse riding or playing football. IPSC style shooting is one of the safest activities you can participate in. No Benefit to society? Because of gunshot wounds, we have fantastic medical care. Because of the scale we can wage war thanks to firearms a HUGE proportion of our technological advances owe themselves to trying to kill the french/the germans/the soviets and most recently brown people more efficiently and with lesser loss of life on our side. and the potential for tragedy far outweighs any potential benefit in random situations. 'Don't do anything because I might get injured.' Nah, I'd rather live, be free and be happy. Also, an untrue, unbacked claim. Firearms are used FAR more in self defence in the states than in roberies etc. not to mention that most crimes are committed with illegal firearms. Certainly the most recent Paris attacks were committed with firearms that are already banned across the whole EU. ~Fin. for Kurtz points anyway. Now to Zak: You're right in the sense that the system doesn't work. It only really works if you have someone who really cares about what the people think in power. It's not just those in power. There are plenty of people who like the idea of individual freedom who are NOT shooters. If THEY see how shooters are treated then we've gained a lot of voices. However, I don't believe in the conspiracy that the government is trying to completely control us. That's in my eyes really stupid. Sorry to be a bit sarcastic with this one: 'How to end up living under a regime in 1 simple step, the new best seller from ZakDaMack' If you don't constantly push for freedom, then it gets eroded bit by bit until you suddenly have none. Besides, people worrying about their guns getting taken away should be more worried about organisations such as GCHQ and the NSA who can see almost everything they are doing. Who says we aren't worried by this? Guns are just a good way to see how your government treats its citizens. link here for recent and well worded article The belief that some guns would save us all is a lie. Unsubstantiated claim. Also straight up wrong. besides, I don't want 'some' guns. we have 'some' guns in the police and it's not overly effective (and that's before another potential wave of cuts to said police). What I want is 'many' guns. Where 5-10% of the population regularly carry. Japan didn't invade the USA mainland for exactly this reason (behind every blade of grass is a gun came from some Japanese guy, I don't know who, I'm not a history graduate) Back on topic, I don't believe airsoft so too big a deal on a politicians radar. A lot of us are a tight knit community as well who would look out for the sport and I'm sure would report anyone who could damage the name of airsoft. We'll be sent under the wheels of the freedomcrusher9000 that is knee jerk lawmaking before shotgun shooters and the tweed brigade. You also state IN THE SAME POST that (not exact wording, my interpretation of your meaning): The goverment do not care how many people protest against a law they want, it'll happen anyway and we're safe from bans as we've got a big, but tightly knit community. Didn't someone on AF-UK send a letter to the ACPO asking about airsoft guns? IIRC, they didn't have any intention or even a slight thought as to banning or restricting the sale of airsoft guns. It's not ACPO trying this shit. It's the European Commission. They are unelected and almost entirely unaccountable. They are the exact reason big government is bad. I know I hold some potentially antagonistic views, but I believe I can justify having them with reasons beyond 'muh feelings' or 'I dont like that thing I have no knowledge of' TL;DR You're wrong and here's why. Edit: Fuck me, I'm glad that essay is over. I've been here for like an hour.

Thanks Ian. If you didn't post it I would have. To my eyes the whole 'guns thing' is pretty straight forwards: Have at it, yo. If you can afford it then you should be allowed to buy it, for any purpose. Pistols and public carry (wether concealed or open) should be not only legal, but encouraged. Police cannot be on scene when you need them, whether that is a terrorist attack, mugging, rape or other violent crime. You know who ARE on scene? Joe Public. You know what a police officer is when he's not at work? Joe Public. These people are the same as the rest of us, so why should they be allowed to defend us if we cannot? We all know what stops a bad guy with a gun. It's a good guy with a gun. Why not let that good guy that NEEDS a gun have a gun? Take the Bataclan theatre as an example. The theatre has a capacity of 1500 people. There were 7 terrorists in Paris TOTAL. Lets assume that they all attacked the Bataclan (they didn't, several exploded themselves elsewhere for some reason, fucked if I know why, but I'll be fair and skew the numbers away from my side of the argument for this as I can't find a figure for the terrorists inside the theatre) assuming that 5% of those at the theatre were carrying (this figure is a lowball estimate -and very vague- for the total number of people who regularly concealed carry in the states. I use the states as they have good stats, have a similar economy/number of people who can afford firearms and a similar social ideology) so of the 1500 inside and 5% carrying? Suddenly those 7 terrorists are met with 75 armed (and probably very pissed off that their concert is getting ruined) 'good guys' Don't know about you guys, but with those figures, that 89 death toll is suddenly a bit lower. and with attacks like these becoming more likely and frequent? Interpol's Chief says that countries should be arming their citizens. Criminals don't care if they break the law to obtain firearms they are using. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Edit (nothing above changed from original post) Monty's like was before this edit: To those wishing to see more reasons, they are all well documented by people that are far greater wordsmiths than I. http://www.gunfacts.info I do believe my feelings on the statement 'the feelings of the masses should not infringe the rights of the few' are well documented around the forum at this point. If you treat people like responsible adults, then that's, for the VAST majority, how they will behave. Treat them like children, then that's, for the VAST majority, how they will behave. I do believe people are best left alone from unnecessary government meddling in their lives and private business. Leave people to spend their free time and money in a way that they deem sensible, appropriate or heck, even just fun and they are happiest. I would probably say that most of the governments you can call 'regimes' unironically disarmed their population first. The more like America we can be, the better in my opinion (not necessarily the other mods or the forum offical stance, may I add)

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Fss4zy I barely play games anymore, Insurgency is good though.

getting there, but: Still need a CPU cooler, can reuse an old one (cleaned up) if it's right, but new ones from a fiver are fine. The single stick of RAM is slightly cheaper and has basically the same performance. Plus it's from a reputable company. Seagate HDD are great, faster AND cheaper than the WD version. Swap that out! You've jumped up to the 4gb GPU, just double check it is actually an upgrade. google the differences and compare performance. You like that case don't you.... Again, 500W is probably not necessary. admitedly not a huge amount can be saved, but pennies matter and do add up at this price point. The DVD Drive can be stolen from your current PC if you need to. I've got a nice Pioneer Blu Ray drive in my PC. Cost me £110 to fit. Has never been used. Again, it's a tenner that can be put elsewhere on the build. Speaking of small bits making a large difference: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/bpDsTW and spending a little of that on a MoBo with USB 3.0 (which you DO want) http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/mYfZpg and to get that case you wanted: http://www.diy.com/departments/colours-orange-satin-spray-paint-400ml/172179_BQ.prd

Done a little fiddling: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/Bmxqt6

If you go to partspicker, click edit this parts list then click on the part you want to choose (to change case, click where it says 'case' in blue writing, not the currently selected case) There's a zalman microatx case for £20 Using partspicker also tells you an ESTIMATED power usage (you don't need 500W supply) and any potential fitting/running issues with compatibility. I spent about a month messing around before buying any of my parts. Once you've got parts that don't need big expenses, you can look at the other stuff getting a speed boost (quicker RAM, faster Read and write speed harddrive, maybe an SSD to boot windows from) Remember that you WON'T be running ARMA/Fallout/BLOPS on Ultra settings, but you can compete with the visuals of a PS4/Xbone for a reasonable price.

You can cheap out on the case more. Do you REALLY need a DVD drive? Why wireless? Why not get an ethernet cable? If you DO want wireless, is there a better Mobo with wireless built in for the £65 you're spending between the two at the moment? Does a PC not require RAM? Or CPU Cooling? http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/F782P6 That's what you have there, take a look at what you can cheap out on (case!) and what else is available

TBH we can't really do that: We do this voluntarily. We all have full time jobs, other commitments, health issues, kids etc to deal with just like the rest of you. We like to participate in the community when we can and try to avoid becoming power crazed and aloof like mods on other forums do. Sadly for us to participate we need to moderate first. Changing a topic title takes maybe a minute per topic. times this by however many threads we get a day that are nonsense titles and we suddenly can't participate in the community as our time is all gone. We would end up with 5 threads a day titled 'tell me to buy a combat machine' This is already a guideline on our rules page. http://www.airsoft-forums.co.uk/index.php/topic/2-rules/

Timeouts and IP Bans!

'Proffink, 0 warning points' Yeah, I guess you missed a trick. also would have been a good laugh to add some to the big fat 0 you have there

PLEASE USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD. A simple search is found in the top right of the page, below your user control panel. An advanced search function is found by clicking the gear button next to (far right side) it. Alternatively, click on ANY of this text, I've helpfully made it all a nice hyperlink to the advanced function page.

Literally 8 pages below on 'most recent posts' here Please start using the search function more, or you risk damagingly sarcastic responses from users and Mods alike. Topic locked as it's unnecesary with another identical thread still active.

fit pistol grip first, then stock. Iuf that doesn't work fit it like this: Box into lower receiver Pistol grip on Upper and llower together Stock on

On one of those, yes. Lots of messing around with the way the trigger actuates and cuts off in semi. Much, much easier (and in the long run, potentially cheaper) to fit an ASCU type device and shorten the trigger to just the button push

OHHHHH BOY Well, that exploded quite spectacularly there. I've gone through and removed the links to external websites, partly for our forum members security (we don't know what they link out to) and partly as Kylesesh asked me to delete the whole thread. I've removed any material pertaining to his digital footprint. Those particularly interested in this, it is all apparently available on page 1 of google. Note to our Members: We get it, Anonymoos leejun. Next time, back off once you've made the point (IE, by page 4) please, makes the Mods lives so much easier. Note to Kylesesh: Probably worth going back and removing some of those posts from the redacted NSFW site. Or at the very least use a different username, man! I would also suggest that continuing to use the same account on here isn't going to go down well. If you want to continue using the forums I would suggest deleting and starting again with a different username and not mentioning this topic. If this is the case, let me or another Mod know so we can prune your current account. Thread not deleted to act as a warning/reminder that Racist views probably shouldn't be posted so readily online.