Mark Jones
Well-known member
Pro, miss it so much
Would you?
- Thread starter Les53
- Start date
Help Support Clay, Trap, Skeet Shooting Forum:
RobertBeard
Moderator
If I remember rightly the shooting fraternity did band together against the proposed handgun ban and thousands went and protested in London to no avail amongst other things. It was their excuse to ban handguns and nothing was going to stop them in spite of the fact that the shooter had been reported to the police before the event by his club and they did nothing about it. They even tried to bury the inquiry for ? 100 years evidence so that nobody could find out the truth but that got overturned in the end. Shooters therefore still feel acutely opressed and hard done by as under the then rules they had done what was expected of them but the Police were the weak link in not revoking his fireams certificate and taking Hamilton's guns off him before he could commit the murders.
Unless ALL gun owners stick together and present a united front, backed up by some proper PR and real political lobbying, we will eventually end up with no privately owned guns in this country at all. Our rights are gradually being taken away from us and have been for decades. I reckon the various shooting bodies need to get together and stop bickering about silly issues and get down to the job of protecting our rights and promoting gun ownership.
Last edited by a moderator:
RobertBeard
Moderator
Here Here Les I agree very much
Guerini Guy
Well-known member
Exactly !
Robert I can remember talking to a clay shooter around the time of the ban, he was not even slightly interested in the ban. He had the attitude that it was not affecting him so he couldn't care less. There was a similar case with a guy I knew who shot rifle, it seemed like a case of I'm all right jack, pull the ladder up!
Skeetfreak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 428
I would support a re-introduction of handguns for COMPETITION use only and with as others have said "strict" controls. Not sure exactly what defines strict though?
i). Must be kept at a nominated club - not sure of practicalities?
ii). No ammo stored at home?
iii). Must PROVE competition use on a regular basis?
iv). No-one under 18? (although this limits newcomers)
v). Any hint of a criminal record ever - no license?
vi). Shorter license period - say 12 / 18 Monthly renewal
vii). Very high fee's for license granting
viii). Full psychometric profiling of ALL applicants
These are some of the thoughts that pop into my head with regards to STRICT. Not sure of the practicalities of the above or if any of them were in place before as i have zero awareness of the sport in all honesty.
Onto competition.....
There is i suspect a marked difference between a "handgun that some criminal would use" and a "serious competition weapon" if its anything like the pistols we see in Olympic competition there is a trend towards the specialist grips, sights etc. So maybe there would be some mileage in altering the laws as to what constitutes a "Competition Pistol" and creating a new law based upon owning this type of weapon?
Focus it in on owning "competition pistols" rather than handguns as a whole. They take away in small pieces so the way to combat this if desired is to do the opposite and gain a little bit back.
I do have some big questions though and as i have not done my research:-
Has the ban affected our international competition results?
Are we losing ground in this field since the ban?
Can we show that it is affecting our Olympic level shooting standards?
Could this be used in a reasoned argument to demonstrate that we as a serious competing nation with a fantastic 2012 Olympic legacy are losing ground on our standards since the ban.
There is a very good case for taking on the argument but we need to be smart in how we approach it. Now i realise that many will not like it but we live in a very different world in the year 2012 and there are so many things that alter the general public's perception of our sport and little alterations made by us in how we use PR for our sport will help but it is a baby steps that will begin the pave the way.
For Instance....
I remember a few years ago there was a consideration to change the name of the CPSA to CTSA - It never got through and i do not understand why. It is little things like this that can alter how the sport is perceived by the "unknowing but easily influenced public". It is all about how the questions are leading by the person asking and positive PR is about removing the way the image of the sport can be twisted.
Even a simple question can be dramatically altered by the above instance for example
What do you know about the CPSA? - You can see the responses now - "they shoot pigeons? - I don't like that"
Compared to
What do you know about the CTSA - No mention of animals and the perception changes "they shoot targets - what type of targets?"
Now apply this to differing terminology for the re-introduction of handguns.....
What do you think about allowing the public to own handguns again? -
Compared to....
What do you think of allowing people to own "registered competition pistols"? -
I feel if we are to travel down this road we need to play the role with care and almost match them with their thought process's. They will try to sadly scaremonger the general public - we need to present that positive image and take out those words and phrases to help ourselves.
For instance if applying for a loan for a gun..... sporting equipment rather than gun looks better on the application. Because for most of us - lets face it - it is a sport so why refer to it any other way. We need to alter the image that the public has and that is only done by making little steps and removing words that make people nervous. I accept that it is giving in - but in order to gain you need to give a little too.
Just some thoughts......
i). Must be kept at a nominated club - not sure of practicalities?
ii). No ammo stored at home?
iii). Must PROVE competition use on a regular basis?
iv). No-one under 18? (although this limits newcomers)
v). Any hint of a criminal record ever - no license?
vi). Shorter license period - say 12 / 18 Monthly renewal
vii). Very high fee's for license granting
viii). Full psychometric profiling of ALL applicants
These are some of the thoughts that pop into my head with regards to STRICT. Not sure of the practicalities of the above or if any of them were in place before as i have zero awareness of the sport in all honesty.
Onto competition.....
There is i suspect a marked difference between a "handgun that some criminal would use" and a "serious competition weapon" if its anything like the pistols we see in Olympic competition there is a trend towards the specialist grips, sights etc. So maybe there would be some mileage in altering the laws as to what constitutes a "Competition Pistol" and creating a new law based upon owning this type of weapon?
Focus it in on owning "competition pistols" rather than handguns as a whole. They take away in small pieces so the way to combat this if desired is to do the opposite and gain a little bit back.
I do have some big questions though and as i have not done my research:-
Has the ban affected our international competition results?
Are we losing ground in this field since the ban?
Can we show that it is affecting our Olympic level shooting standards?
Could this be used in a reasoned argument to demonstrate that we as a serious competing nation with a fantastic 2012 Olympic legacy are losing ground on our standards since the ban.
There is a very good case for taking on the argument but we need to be smart in how we approach it. Now i realise that many will not like it but we live in a very different world in the year 2012 and there are so many things that alter the general public's perception of our sport and little alterations made by us in how we use PR for our sport will help but it is a baby steps that will begin the pave the way.
For Instance....
I remember a few years ago there was a consideration to change the name of the CPSA to CTSA - It never got through and i do not understand why. It is little things like this that can alter how the sport is perceived by the "unknowing but easily influenced public". It is all about how the questions are leading by the person asking and positive PR is about removing the way the image of the sport can be twisted.
Even a simple question can be dramatically altered by the above instance for example
What do you know about the CPSA? - You can see the responses now - "they shoot pigeons? - I don't like that"
Compared to
What do you know about the CTSA - No mention of animals and the perception changes "they shoot targets - what type of targets?"
Now apply this to differing terminology for the re-introduction of handguns.....
What do you think about allowing the public to own handguns again? -
Compared to....
What do you think of allowing people to own "registered competition pistols"? -
I feel if we are to travel down this road we need to play the role with care and almost match them with their thought process's. They will try to sadly scaremonger the general public - we need to present that positive image and take out those words and phrases to help ourselves.
For instance if applying for a loan for a gun..... sporting equipment rather than gun looks better on the application. Because for most of us - lets face it - it is a sport so why refer to it any other way. We need to alter the image that the public has and that is only done by making little steps and removing words that make people nervous. I accept that it is giving in - but in order to gain you need to give a little too.
Just some thoughts......
RobertBeard
Moderator
If that's what you think should apply to handguns why should the same rules not apply to shotguns - as Nicola says - just saying
The Olympics have .22 single shot pistols which have very specilaised grips and long barrels but also semi-autos for the speed shooting which are pretty much a standard handgun and why our competitors had to travel back and forth to Switzerland to train.
Our pistol shooting is nowhere up to world standard as a result of the ban.
Don't mind things limited to competition or maybe to vets as humane animal killers
Guns kept at clubs is probably more risky than if kept at home as clubs will be burgled for the pistols even if locked up in gun cabinetswith alarm systems as they tend to be in out of the way places. I think some of your restrictions are either unworkable or unfair compared to other lawas on shooting for rifles and shotguns.
The Olympics have .22 single shot pistols which have very specilaised grips and long barrels but also semi-autos for the speed shooting which are pretty much a standard handgun and why our competitors had to travel back and forth to Switzerland to train.
Our pistol shooting is nowhere up to world standard as a result of the ban.
Don't mind things limited to competition or maybe to vets as humane animal killers
Guns kept at clubs is probably more risky than if kept at home as clubs will be burgled for the pistols even if locked up in gun cabinetswith alarm systems as they tend to be in out of the way places. I think some of your restrictions are either unworkable or unfair compared to other lawas on shooting for rifles and shotguns.
PeteC
Member
I would vote pro. My wife comes from a family of shooters, mainly riffle, but the ban had a very negative effect on their shooting club.
We have more than our fair share of gun crime in the Nottingham area, that was before the ban and after it, the ban made no difference at all.
In the main responsible people who register guns use them for the right reasons, we should not be governed by a minority that choose to conduct themselves irresponsibly.
We have more than our fair share of gun crime in the Nottingham area, that was before the ban and after it, the ban made no difference at all.
In the main responsible people who register guns use them for the right reasons, we should not be governed by a minority that choose to conduct themselves irresponsibly.
Wonko the Sane
Well-known member
I'm certain that Mr. Beard is a very nice person, but opinions such as his are the very ones that got you all where you are today.
And I cannot imagine ANY government ever reinstating the rights to ownership of weapons they have already eliminated. Get real. Governments want citizens to be tax$ producing sheep. Not weapons carrying threats to their greed and incompetence.
good luck
Charlie
PS - good one, Nicola
And I cannot imagine ANY government ever reinstating the rights to ownership of weapons they have already eliminated. Get real. Governments want citizens to be tax$ producing sheep. Not weapons carrying threats to their greed and incompetence.
good luck
Charlie
PS - good one, Nicola
sibaldib
Well-known member
As many others - Pro, but no interest in them
Before the ban I was shooting with a copper at Bisley and in his opinion the last thing he and his colleagues wanted was guns and ammo kept at clubs! He viewed keeping guns and ammo at a club as a private arsenal just waiting to get hit by a criminal gang, one good raid and they could collect a huge amount of dangerous stuff, which made perfect sense to me.
PhilS
Well-known member
pro
Jan Powell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,734
Pro although that's hardly suprising on a website such as this.
Skeetfreak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 428
I take your point and that is certainly the flip side of applying rules for one thing you set a precedent for other things going forwards. To be totally frank i do think we are maybe seeing this from the wrong side of the coin though.
In reality this is NEVER going to be reversed IMO not that this means we should give up the debate with the powers that be. I do think however by the statement above about it applying to shotguns you are thinking about this from the wrong side - your trying to get a banned piece of sports equipment made legal again not put further restrictions on shotguns.
Here is a question for you....
Would you rather have the use of competition pistols again under the "suggestions" above OR not at all?
If it was a sport i wanted to take part in then i know what i'd prefer....
I do find the thought process of club storage would be a gang's haven for getting their hands on lots of guns and ammunition an odd one - as what are guns shops? surely the same thing?
I would suspect that the amount of gun shop burglaries are very low (if at all) due to the very high security - how would a club be different?
RobertBeard
Moderator
Yes you'd take what you can get but it would force closure of another tranche of small clubs who could not afford to raise the level of security to the right level. I have been in business in alarmed premises for years and there are so many false alarms, despite servicing, maintenance, redcare phone lines, alarm monitoring companies etc that the police rarely turn up and then they slap a notice on you to say they won't turn out again if you get too many false alarms - then the burglars will have their field day.
And it's much easier for the criminal to find a gun club than it is to find its individual members!
K
Kentskeet
Guest
Don't be so sure Les, with all due respect there is no CRB check on forum members, without too much effort I know where Robert lives, where he works, where he shoots, some family background, what he looks like, what gun he owns and others he potentially may have in the cabinet and we have never met! With the electoral register or a phone book I could pin his home address down as well. Criminals who need a gun will not be looking for 'lots of guns', they will be happy with just one.! Career criminals, gangs or opportunist thieves think nothing of committing violence against others if you have what they want, if they are happy to break in and beat you up for the keys to your car, rest assured they will think nothing of trying to rob you of a gun.And it's much easier for the criminal to find a gun club than it is to find its individual members!
Security where guns/firearms are concerned cannot be taken seriously enough, wherever they are kept, so be on your guard not to become a victim.
Sadly we do not live in a perfect world!
rod
Member
Pro as i also had to hand mine in.....
Guerini Guy
Well-known member
To Kentskeet - I understand the point you are making, but surely the same principal applies to your shotguns in the sense of criminals wanting them. The crims would simply saw off the barrels to effectively make 12g pistols out of them anyway, so every bit of interest to them!
And in fact the security required for firearms is, and even was at the time of the handgun ban, considerably greater than for shotguns.
Believe me, if I wanted to run amok in a school for instance (since the Dunblane incident has already been mentioned in this thread) take it from somebody who regularly shoots a .45 automatic, I could do just as much damage with your Beretta semi-auto than my Sig Saur .45 - possibly affecting even more victims.
The point is that the law banning handguns was a kneejerk political response to gain votes and did nothing to reduce crime in this country.
Like I said before, I don't think I will ever see a day where the ban is overturned anyway, and will have to continue travelling overseas to do it, but I will never stop spouting off about the injustices of it.
Just saying
And in fact the security required for firearms is, and even was at the time of the handgun ban, considerably greater than for shotguns.
Believe me, if I wanted to run amok in a school for instance (since the Dunblane incident has already been mentioned in this thread) take it from somebody who regularly shoots a .45 automatic, I could do just as much damage with your Beretta semi-auto than my Sig Saur .45 - possibly affecting even more victims.
The point is that the law banning handguns was a kneejerk political response to gain votes and did nothing to reduce crime in this country.
Like I said before, I don't think I will ever see a day where the ban is overturned anyway, and will have to continue travelling overseas to do it, but I will never stop spouting off about the injustices of it.
Just saying
