England: Olympic Gun Training

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Conservative proposals for changes in the law to allow Olympic pistol shooters to train in the UK ready for the 2012 Olympic Games are to be considered by the House of Lords.

Peers will debate proposed reforms enabling competitive target shooters to practice at specially licensed ranges at T.A. (what's that?) and Army barracks in the UK, while the general ban on ownership and use of hand guns remains in force.

Without the changes, competitors would have to train overseas, raising costs, and reducing the prospects for success when the Games take place in London in six years time.

Commenting, Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said: "...By allowing Olympic athletes to train for and compete in Olympic target shooting at designated shooting army ranges, with strict conditions keeping the weapons stored at those armouries, we can better prepare our athletes for London 2012 without creating any risk to the public."

And Shadow Sports Minister, Hugh Robertson, added: "'...It is also absurd to support a sport with taxpayers' money if they are banned from practising and competing in this country."

Source: Conservatives.com

I note that they still don't trust competitive shooters to take their handguns home with them, for cleaning, maintenance and dry-fire practice. I guess that a competition shooter who sets foot off the target range instantly transmogrifies into an untrustworthy murderous maniac!

Now, who gets to decide which shooters are allowed to train for the Olympics? How do new handgun shooters improve their skills, if only those already qualified for the Olympics are the ones allowed to train? How can you improve your skills, if you can't practice often? I guess once the current generation of shooters dies off, then there won't be any more - maybe that's been the plan all along...

[penniless 0]

Quote

News:

Conservative proposals for changes in the law to allow Olympic pistol shooters to train in the UK ready for the 2012 Olympic Games are to be considered by the House of Lords.

Peers will debate proposed reforms enabling competitive target shooters to practice at specially licensed ranges at T.A. (what's that?) ..

TA = Territorial Army, rather like our NG.

Good job they've got the Lords to keep some common sense in politics.

[Brian3576 0]

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dun06a.htm

i think you'll find that Thomas Hamilton was a shooting club member, nice of him to kill so many children don't you think?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dun06a.htm

i think you'll find that Thomas Hamilton was a shooting club member, nice of him to kill so many children don't you think?

Yeah I am sure that his membership was the thing that sent him off in a rampage.

[Scoop 0]

If the costs are anything like BPA membership then yeah, quite possibly. I was close too, only couldn't get my hands on a weapon

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dun06a.htm

i think you'll find that Thomas Hamilton was a shooting club member, nice of him to kill so many children don't you think?

Yeah I am sure that his membership was the thing that sent him off in a rampage.

I think the point is that he'd have passed muster even after all the bullshit regulations were imposed.

Every massacre in Britain seems to provoke a new round of restrictions. As the U.K. sneers at their American cousins and the incidents of lunatics going 'postal' the excessive gun control, lack of firearms culture and virtual absence of weapons in the country seems unable to prevent homegrown incidents. The politicians have still got to be seen to do something about the problem each time some nut does what nuts do.

It's all reactionary hysteria over everything from bird flu to firearms. People can be fucking morons collectively. Great men used to write laws to protect the rights of the individual from the stupidity of the baying mob, now it's open season and the best headline wins.

[Sockpuppet 0]

oooo..... we're onto my specialist subject.

I'm moving into Skydiving from target rifle shooting mainly due to the bullshit regulations that are imposed on us by the government / police make it too hard to do anything.

I'm not saying the regulations are a bad thing. They are not but they are imposed by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I personally dont think that handguns over .22 calibre should be allowed in the UK. They are not used in any "sporting" environment (i.e. olympics) and are quite frankly dangerous. That said there is a lot of need for .22 handguns. The UK is the only country in the world (including all these dictatorships) that has made an Olympic sport illegal.

The year of Dunblane there was 279 offences where a handgun was used as a threatening object (i.e. pointed and/or fired). The year after there was 314 of the same kind. But wait....all the legally held firearms were being cut up by the police! Blimey...I'd not have guessed that 99% of the firearms used in UK crime are unregistered and not legally held.


There was an amendment like this already that the lords wanted. Pistols would have to be stored at Bisley (National Shooting Center) and only used there. The Lords (like a higher version of Congress or Senate) threw this out.

Today Thomas Hamilton would not pass the requirements to become a member of a shooting club. We have to contact the police about every new member even before they are allowed to see/touch a rifle.

In 2005 the UK knife deaths were at about 236 a year 100% of those knives were legally owned. There were 77 gun deaths 0% of which were legally owned.

The govt can screw me to the floor with all the regulations they want. I'm a member of the Terratorial Army, every weekend they give me an SA80. I can legally buy .223 (5.56mm) ammunition on my firewarms certificate.

If I'm going to go postal I'm not going to use my .22 target rifle (single shot - bolt action - no magazine) I'm going to use the fully auto, 30 round mag SA80. Yet they make it harder for me to get a FAC to cover the ownership of the .22 rifle than it is to become a member of the TA.

------
Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh.

[dorbie 0]

Hamilton would have found another way. It doesn't take much to lock some doors and start a fire. There was a purpose to his evil.

There's nothing mysterious in the contradiction on firearms access, the government needs the TA. They don't give a shit about civilians with guns. It's not about being consistent or doing anything that makes sense. They need to generate headlines and laws that makes it look & feel like they're addressing a problem. They're perfectly happy to fuck with your ability to own and use a gun, it simply doesn't affect them. The media are on the same sheet of music, you'll never meet a liberal arts major who's lamped foxes. Guns are simply incompatible with cheese & wine parties.

This latest fiasco is a classic example, they might lose a chance of a medal or more to the point look like the asses they are, so they've got to patch the law. The concept of rights has gone the way of the dodo.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

oooo..... we're onto my specialist subject.

I'm moving into Skydiving from target rifle shooting mainly due to the bullshit regulations that are imposed on us by the government / police make it too hard to do anything.

I'm not saying the regulations are a bad thing. They are not but they are imposed by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I personally dont think that handguns over .22 calibre should be allowed in the UK. They are not used in any "sporting" environment (i.e. olympics) and are quite frankly dangerous. That said there is a lot of need for .22 handguns. The UK is the only country in the world (including all these dictatorships) that has made an Olympic sport illegal.

The year of Dunblane there was 279 offences where a handgun was used as a threatening object (i.e. pointed and/or fired). The year after there was 314 of the same kind. But wait....all the legally held firearms were being cut up by the police! Blimey...I'd not have guessed that 99% of the firearms used in UK crime are unregistered and not legally held.


There was an amendment like this already that the lords wanted. Pistols would have to be stored at Bisley (National Shooting Center) and only used there. The Lords (like a higher version of Congress or Senate) threw this out.

Today Thomas Hamilton would not pass the requirements to become a member of a shooting club. We have to contact the police about every new member even before they are allowed to see/touch a rifle.

In 2005 the UK knife deaths were at about 236 a year 100% of those knives were legally owned. There were 77 gun deaths 0% of which were legally owned.

The govt can screw me to the floor with all the regulations they want. I'm a member of the Terratorial Army, every weekend they give me an SA80. I can legally buy .223 (5.56mm) ammunition on my firewarms certificate.

If I'm going to go postal I'm not going to use my .22 target rifle (single shot - bolt action - no magazine) I'm going to use the fully auto, 30 round mag SA80. Yet they make it harder for me to get a FAC to cover the ownership of the .22 rifle than it is to become a member of the TA.

My apologies for the rifle you are forced to use to save your life...too bad they didn't think more of you lads than that.

[Sockpuppet 0]

The A2 version isnt really that bad..well I hope its not that bad as I've been told that over the next year I have to volunteer to go to Iraq or Afgan or I will be sent. I think I'll volunteer as at least I have a choice of what role I could go for.

The UK firearms law is so hypocritical it is untrue.

I can legally own on of these http://godgunsglory.com/images/front_rifles.jpg

But I can't own a pistol used in an olympic sport? For reference here is what a olympic pistol looks like:
http://www.targetshooting.ca/graphics/equip-guns/hammerli/fp10_gr.jpg

------
Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

i think you'll find that Thomas Hamilton was a shooting club member...

So let me see if I've got this straight. When one person does something horrible, then everyone else like him who hasn't committed any crimes, should also be deemed untrustworthy, and punished. Is that you're philosophy for governing a nation of free people?

If one skydiver kills a spectator making a reckless parachute jump, should the government confiscate all parachutes from all skydivers?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

The A2 version isnt really that bad..well I hope its not that bad as I've been told that over the next year I have to volunteer to go to Iraq or Afgan or I will be sent. I think I'll volunteer as at least I have a choice of what role I could go for.

The UK firearms law is so hypocritical it is untrue.

I can legally own on of these http://godgunsglory.com/images/front_rifles.jpg

But I can't own a pistol used in an olympic sport? For reference here is what a olympic pistol looks like:
http://www.targetshooting.ca/graphics/equip-guns/hammerli/fp10_gr.jpg

Yup but the pistol restrictions were introduced after some marksman used one in Glasgow after a traffic accident and it made headlines. Nobody has used a high caliber rifle to take out random members of the public for no good reason. When they do the newspaper editors will be the first to know that the government is all over the problem.

[Sockpuppet 0]

Quote

Yup but the pistol restrictions were introduced after some marksman used one in Glasgow after a traffic accident and it made headlines. Nobody has used a high caliber rifle to take out random members of the public for no good reason. When they do the newspaper editors will be the first to know that the government is all over the problem.

Must admit that made me chuckle. Makes it sounds like people have been using high calibre rifles to take out people with good reasons for doing so

------
Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

i think you'll find that Thomas Hamilton was a shooting club member...

So let me see if I've got this straight. When one person does something horrible, then everyone else like him who hasn't committed any crimes, should also be deemed untrustworthy, and punished. Is that you're philosophy for governing a nation of free people?

Duh! Philosophy or not it's what's happening now.

Quote

If one skydiver kills a spectator making a reckless parachute jump, should the government confiscate all parachutes from all skydivers?

We may not be far away from that day and it may not take a reckless skydiver. What would happen at any DZ if someone went in on a moving vehicle or in someone's back yard and took out a child? What do you think would happen if there was a mid-air between a commercial heavy and a skydiver? None of these are zero probability events. If it ever does happen it won't make a recurrance any more likely (we already assume that risk today every day), quite the contrary but it would give the mob, the media and the politicians some impetus to legislate our sport into a smouldering crater.

[Brian3576 0]

Quote

Nobody has used a high caliber rifle to take out random members of the public for no good reason.

no?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/hungerford.shtml

so, the pro-gun people will keep brushing aside these cases just as long as they can keep their guns.... guns available to lunatics are a price we have to pay just so selfish people who wants guns can have their guns.

how about dangerous dogs? should they also be allowed back simply because the majority of them don't attack? Do the ones attacked by dogs just have to put up with it because the majority of dog owners are responsible?

to me, most gun owners have a gun as a penis substitute.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Nobody has used a high caliber rifle to take out random members of the public for no good reason.

no?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/hungerford.shtml

so, the pro-gun people will keep brushing aside these cases just as long as they can keep their guns.... guns available to lunatics are a price we have to pay just so selfish people who wants guns can have their guns.

No I disagree but it depends on your definitions, the context of my remark is clear and you're the one ignoring it. You should realize that Hungerford caused sweeping restrictions in the UK. Just for example, all shotguns over 2 shots had to be modified impacting thousands of legitimate farmers and hunters. We've been through the Hungerford firearms pogrom, it made no sense then and it didn't stop Dunblane.

The fact is it's remotely unlikely that you'll be shot with a gun, and if you are it's incredibly likely that it'll be an illegal gun & owner, not one of the thousands of legal gun owners who the restrictions actually impact. Your irrational fears and obsession with villifying legal gun users don't justify restricting the legitimate use of firearms. You should try to ban christmas tree lights, you'd do more good and less harm, but then you'd look and sound like an ass to everyone in the country, not just those who understand gun ownership.

P.S. I'm not justifying the ability to own some exotic gun. Just showing how assinine and irrational the decision making process is, thanks in large part to opinions like yours.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

to me, most gun owners have a gun as a penis substitute.

You sure do like to post revealing stuff about yourself!

. . =(_8^(1)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

to me, most gun owners have a gun as a penis substitute.

Every time that argument is trotted out, it demonstrates how perfectly illogical the gun-ban folks are.

Thank you.

Oh, and you ignored this question I put to you yesterday. Would you like to try again, please?:

So let me see if I've got this straight. When one person does something horrible, then everyone else like him who hasn't committed any crimes, should also be deemed untrustworthy, and punished. Is that you're philosophy for governing a nation of free people?

If one skydiver kills a spectator making a reckless parachute jump, should the government confiscate all parachutes from all skydivers?

[miked10270 0]

There's two theories on shooting comps in The London Games:

1: Britain will win EVERY medal in the shooting competitions 'cos as soon as the rival teams step off the plane, we arrest 'em all for holding illegal weapons & lock them up 'til the competition's over!

2: The games are being held all over london. We had to have something you could hold in Brixton. Hence the new olympic shooting comp which uses Mac 10s from a moving Ford Escort.

If one skydiver kills a spectator making a reckless parachute jump, should the government confiscate all parachutes from all skydivers?

PLEASE... Don't give our idiot soundbite-hungry politicians any more daft ideas!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Sockpuppet 0]

Quote

Quote

Nobody has used a high caliber rifle to take out random members of the public for no good reason.

no?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/hungerford.shtml

so, the pro-gun people will keep brushing aside these cases just as long as they can keep their guns.... guns available to lunatics are a price we have to pay just so selfish people who wants guns can have their guns.

how about dangerous dogs? should they also be allowed back simply because the majority of them don't attack? Do the ones attacked by dogs just have to put up with it because the majority of dog owners are responsible?

to me, most gun owners have a gun as a penis substitute.

Damn I've been sussed...time to get the sweedish cock pump out

Guns are not availible to lunatics....have YOU ever been to a rifle gallery? Have you ever seen the regulations that are in place?

Why should I live with the risk of someone falling on me from the sky just so selfish people can go skydiving?

Of wait that a very unlikley occurance. I bet £10 that more people have been killed in the lat 5 years by small planes falling from the sky than legally held rifles. SO lets ban all the small planes....

------
Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh.

[Brian3576 0]

Quote

So let me see if I've got this straight. When one person does something horrible, then everyone else like him who hasn't committed any crimes, should also be deemed untrustworthy, and punished. Is that you're philosophy for governing a nation of free people?

and by your very philosophy..... dangerous dogs should not be banned because the majority of them have not attacked anybody? it's just tough luck on the people who have been attacked ?????

and... i should be able to carry nunchukas and a machette around because i've not attacked anybody in public with a machette so why should i be punished because of the actions of others ?????

Do you allow people to do what they want (carry guns, knives, spears, machine guns etc) until they prove themselves untrustyworthy ?? and only then do you ban that single person from carry such weapons... after all, you don't want to stop others carry similar weapons who have not committed a crime yet do you !!!! why prevent a crime from happening, its much better to have to deal with a crime after its been committed

[miked10270 0]

Since this has now degenerated into YAGA, let's summarise.

British gun laws are insanely draconian.

American gun laws are insanely non-existent.

There are Brits who believe that their system is perfect and should be adopted whole by America.

There are Americans who believe (etc...).

My own view is that Britain did pretty well under the old (pre amended) Firearms Act, 1968 which allowed Britons to hold most weapons (Automatics, very large calibre & certain other weapons were prohibited) IF they showed reasonable cause to have a particular weapon. Reasonable causes included vermin control, knowledgeable collector, war trophy, and most significantly, Membership of a Gun Club - sporting & competition.

Where this act fell down was in it's administration. For example, there were numerous "Gun Clubs" which existed solely to allow it's members at the time to obtain guns! No premises, no range or land to shoot over, and often not even any meetings if you don't count a monthly piss-up at the local pub. If I remember correctly, Michael Ryan was a member of just such a club which gave him his "reasonable cause" to buy an AK47 & ammunition. In the wake of Hungerford, gun clubs came under scrutiny and those which weren't serious enough, the ones which existed purely as an excuse for folk to obtain guns, were disbanded.

Now... While Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton committed horrific crimes, the government response was completely disproportionate and misdirected. BOTH Hamilton and Ryan had previously had applications for grant or remewal of their Firearms Certificates recommended for refusal by the investigating police officer who "wasn't happy" with them. Both recommendations were overturned by more senior officers who didn't want an appeal going to court.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[mnealtx 0]

Insanely non existant? With over 20k of them on the books??

*puff puff PASS, damnit!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pirana 0]

Quote

If one skydiver kills a spectator making a reckless parachute jump, should the government confiscate all parachutes from all skydivers?

The offending party should be publicly stoned the next day at dawn.

I think we'd see a lot more people signing up for canopy class, and maybe an increase in go-arounds.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

i should be able to carry nunchukas and a machette around because i've not attacked anybody in public with a machette so why should i be punished because of the actions of others ?????

Do you allow people to do what they want (carry guns, knives, spears, machine guns etc) until they prove themselves untrustyworthy ?? and only then do you ban that single person from carry such weapons... after all, you don't want to stop others carry similar weapons who have not committed a crime yet do you !!!! why prevent a crime from happening, its much better to have to deal with a crime after its been committed

Obviously there are degrees of freedom and control between the two "black" versus "white" examples you provide. I prefer to come down on the side of freedom for those who have proven themselves trustworthy in society. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer to come down on the side of tyranny for all.

By way of example, here in the U.S. there has been a wave of state laws passed allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Something like 45 of the 50 states now permit this. Licensed gun carriers have background checks and training classes. And the history of these programs demonstrates that it hasn't been a problem, and no state has even considered revoking their law.

This is a good example of my brand of freedom. But you, to the contrary, would just ban 'em all, regardless of qualifications, and not let anybody do it. I believe that your version is the wrong way to treat honorable citizens in a free society. In fact, when you treat everyone like they are no better than common criminals, then you're a hell of a lot less free.