bring back pistols ?

[the running man]

And for your information a sawn off shotgun is a SAWN OFF SHOTGUN as defined in sec4(1) Firearms Act 1968. Not a 'pistol type' weapon.

 

Only pump action and semi auto's are covered by sec5 if they have a barrel under 24" or are less than 40" overall.

 

Yes, 'back in the day' I was taught to shoot handguns by a serving police 'shot' (didn't have specialist units in those days). I was also a member of two local clubs and shot on a regular basis.

 

Now, what favour would you like me to do you?

at fdpc we shot against the police all the time,and they never won a thing,in fact they were an embarrassment to the force,as were all the other police teams we shot against all over the country and at bisley,so being taught by a policeman leaves no impression of excellence in my book....................as for the sawn off,what would you call a 10/22 swan up into a basic pistol type? a sawn off rifle? youre missing the point entirely,cut down to size is the point,cut down to a in the pocket size. concealable,that is the point i was trying to put accross,if you dont agree then thats youre opinon and you are entitled to it. and also i beleive that coach guns are also a shotgun on a section 1 licence.

[Scully]

I can see your point Vipa,but why should there be a problem with someone choosing a .308 rather than a .243,if they've been cleared up to and including that calibre?A friend has .223,.243 and .308.He is deemed responsible enough to be granted a FAC,so long as he has authority to shoot over suitable land I can't see a problem.We're either deemed fit or not.

I admit the idea would need refining,but I can't see where the risk to public safety arises which would give the Police cause to claim they had less control.

One of the biggest problems we have is that the body which polices us is also responsible for licensing,but that's another debate.

I think BASC had the right idea,and feel it's a pro-active opportunity missed.Never mind.

[poontang]

at fdpc we shot against the police all the time,and they never won a thing,in fact they were an embarrassment to the force,as were all the other police teams we shot against all over the country and at bisley,so being taught by a policeman leaves no impression of excellence in my book....................as for the sawn off,what would you call a 10/22 swan up into a basic pistol type? a sawn off rifle? youre missing the point entirely,cut down to size is the point,cut down to a in the pocket size. concealable,that is the point i was trying to put accross,if you dont agree then thats youre opinon and you are entitled to it. and also i beleive that coach guns are also a shotgun on a section 1 licence.

 

It wasn't meant to impress, just prove a point. Obviously lost on you.

 

I'm not missing any point, and what I've quoted is not my opinion, it's the law.

 

To answer your question 'what would I call a 10/22 sawn down to a 'pistol type' weapon?

I'd call it a prohibited weapon under sec5(1)(aba) Firearms Act 1968 there is no other definition of such a weapon. It's neither a 'sawn off rifle' or a 'pistol type' weapon.

 

Of course any rifle/shotgun can be cut down for easy concealment but I really don't see what your point is, or how it helps your argument for bringing back pistols? You seem to be making a correlation between illegal fireams and pistols. How does that work?

[the running man]

It wasn't meant to impress, just prove a point. Obviously lost on you.

 

I'm not missing any point, and what I've quoted is not my opinion, it's the law.

 

To answer your question 'what would I call a 10/22 sawn down to a 'pistol type' weapon?

I'd call it a prohibited weapon under sec5(1)(aba) Firearms Act 1968 there is no other definition of such a weapon. It's neither a 'sawn off rifle' or a 'pistol type' weapon.

 

Of course any rifle/shotgun can be cut down for easy concealment but I really don't see what your point is, or how it helps your argument for bringing back pistols? You seem to be making a correlation between illegal fireams and pistols. How does that work?

the point wasent lost on me,it went striaght over my head,as soon as you mentioned policeman teaching you ho w to shoot,but the least I could do for you was to give you a proper explanation as to why that went striaght over my head......................,ok for the last time,the pistol ban took place to remove pistols yes? Or no?,you're focusing on the legal side of things for some reason, my argument is that if someone still wanted to do harm as hamilton did, then if someone wanted to repeat the event all they would need to do is take a hacksaw to an existing rifle or shotgun, now I don't think anyone who does that would be looking through the legal books to see then what they have made is classed as under uk law (its not the point) once this has been done it then becomes a pistol type or at least hand held,hence pistol ban was not enough to save the public from another nutter with a pistol becase they are still here pre hack-saw. Now I know if u chop a 10/22 up quite small it does not make it a glock ok,I realise this,wat it does do is make it basically hand held. Do you see what I'm on about now? Becase out of the hundreds of shooters I know and have talked to they all say the same as I am...in fact I got it from them! Do u understand now poontang? Do u get it? Having said that,ude be mad to do a chop to a rifle then take it to the range, I think someone would call the police!And as for illegal firearms,hamilton ryan bird should never have had an fac in the first place,but that's another issue........and I think this thread Is come to its end now.. Edited June 4, 2011 by the running man

[poontang]

the point wasent lost on me,it went striaght over my head,as soon as you mentioned policeman teaching you ho w to shoot,but the least I could do for you was to give you a proper explanation as to why that went striaght over my head......................,ok for the last time,the pistol ban took place to remove pistols yes? Or no?,you're focusing on the legal side of things for some reason, my argument is that if someone still wanted to do harm as hamilton did, then if someone wanted to repeat the event all they would need to do is take a hacksaw to an existing rifle or shotgun, now I don't think anyone who does that would be looking through the legal books to see then what they have made is classed as under uk law (its not the point) once this has been done it then becomes a pistol type or at least hand held,hence pistol ban was not enough to save the public from another nutter with a pistol becase they are still here pre hack-saw. Now I know if u chop a 10/22 up quite small it does not make it a glock ok,I realise this,wat it does do is make it basically hand held. Do you see what I'm on about now? Becase out of the hundreds of shooters I know and have talked to they all say the same as I am...in fact I got it from them! Do u understand now poontang? Do u get it? Having said that,ude be mad to do a chop to a rifle then take it to the range, I think someone would call the police!And as for illegal firearms,hamilton ryan bird should never have had an fac in the first place,but that's another issue........and I think this thread Is come to its end now..

 

Oh I get it now.

 

So because it's possible to cut down a shotgun or rifle so it becomes 'hand held' then we should bring back pistols, as there's really no difference?

 

I think that's what you're trying to say, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I've got to be honest fella, it ain't a good argument, and it won't get the pistol ban overturned.

[chrispti]

I shot a pistol comp in 2000, really enjoyed it, and actually did quite well.

 

It would be something I would like to take up, guess I wont get the chance now

[poontang]

I shot a pistol comp in 2000, really enjoyed it, and actually did quite well.

 

It would be something I would like to take up, guess I wont get the chance now

 

Cut down one of your rifles, it's no different.

[chrispti]

Cut down one of your rifles, it's no different.

 

[the running man]

Oh I get it now.

 

So because it's possible to cut down a shotgun or rifle so it becomes 'hand held' then we should bring back pistols, as there's really no difference?

 

I think that's what you're trying to say, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I've got to be honest fella, it ain't a good argument, and it won't get the pistol ban overturned.

I don't think becase u can cut one down they should bring pistols back,ure right its not the best of arguments,as a proper pistol compared to a crude sawn up rifle is no real comparison in performance but at close range would be just as deadly,which I and others feel is a very valid point. I'm sure it probably won't get the ban overturned,in its entirety,small victories are being won on the road to repeal. Also in answer to the most basic of questions,the pistol ban was implemented to make sure that dunblane could never be repeated,that's why we don't have pistols,nothing to do with illegal gun crime at all. As we all know the goverment don't like the truth to get in the way!

[Mungler]

The problem was that the system was broken. Thomas Hamilton was a mad, bad paedo and lots of people flagged up he shouldn't have guns, but he did.

 

What I don't get about the shooting community is the "we all must stand together" mantra and it crops up on these sorts of threads.

 

I wouldn't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Thomas Hamilton. And we get a regular amount of "I have no livestock but I want a pistol for humane dispatch" newbie questions raised on here. I am not comfortable with those requests and won't stand shoulder to shoulder with those people.

 

Its all irrelevant though because pistols ain't coming back....

[Vipa]

The problem was that the system was broken. Thomas Hamilton was a mad, bad paedo and lots of people flagged up he shouldn't have guns, but he did.

 

What I don't get about the shooting community is the "we all must stand together" mantra and it crops up on these sorts of threads.

 

I wouldn't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Thomas Hamilton. And we get a regular amount of "I have no livestock but I want a pistol for humane dispatch" newbie questions raised on here. I am not comfortable with those requests and won't stand shoulder to shoulder with those people.

 

Its all irrelevant though because pistols ain't coming back....

 

The problem with that statement Mungler is that you won't know who the Thomas Hamiltons of this world are until they flip... by your logic that would suggest you need to distance yourself from the whole shooting community 'just in case!'

[Breastman]

The problem was that the system was broken. Thomas Hamilton was a mad, bad paedo and lots of people flagged up he shouldn't have guns, but he did.

 

What I don't get about the shooting community is the "we all must stand together" mantra and it crops up on these sorts of threads.

 

I wouldn't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Thomas Hamilton. And we get a regular amount of "I have no livestock but I want a pistol for humane dispatch" newbie questions raised on here. I am not comfortable with those requests and won't stand shoulder to shoulder with those people.

 

Its all irrelevant though because pistols ain't coming back....

 

Totally agree with the comment about people asking for things that the won't use for what they are intended, it weakens the argument for people who genuinely have a need. But all (former) pistol shooters were or were like Thomas Hamilton?! ***?! I think 59,999 people might disagree with you on that one :unsure:

 

Mark

Edited June 4, 2011 by Breastman

[poontang]

I don't think becase u can cut one down they should bring pistols back,ure right its not the best of arguments,as a proper pistol compared to a crude sawn up rifle is no real comparison in performance but at close range would be just as deadly,which I and others feel is a very valid point. I'm sure it probably won't get the ban overturned,in its entirety,small victories are being won on the road to repeal. Also in answer to the most basic of questions,the pistol ban was implemented to make sure that dunblane could never be repeated,that's why we don't have pistols,nothing to do with illegal gun crime at all. As we all know the goverment don't like the truth to get in the way!

 

The point is......you're point isn't valid.

 

What you're saying is that a sawn up rifle isn't comparable in performance as a pistol but it can be concealed. Of course at close range it can be just as deadly, but why bother chopping up a rifle in the first place? Derrick Bird didn't bother and still managed to kill 12 people.

 

Your whole argument seems to revolve around the overall size of a weapon.

 

If the pistol ban was put in place to prevent another Dunblane it's achieved its purpose. There hasn't been a mass killing with a legally held pistol since the ban.

 

The one mass killing that has occurred involved a shotgun and rifle. Neither of which were 'sawn off'. To avoid another knee jerk reaction to the Cumbria killings I'd rather put my support behind current SGC/FAC holders and try to protect what rights we still have, rather than push for a repeal of the pistol ban which A)Has proven to be effective in stopping mass killings with handguns (if, as you say, this was the reason for the ban), and B)Just isn't going to happen, and is a waste of time and resources.

[Breastman]

Derrick Bird did use a sawn off shotgun btw and it was the gun used to kill/maim 90% of the people he shot

 

Mark

[the running man]

The point is......you're point isn't valid.

 

What you're saying is that a sawn up rifle isn't comparable in performance as a pistol but it can be concealed. Of course at close range it can be just as deadly, but why bother chopping up a rifle in the first place? Derrick Bird didn't bother and still managed to kill 12 people.

 

Your whole argument seems to revolve around the overall size of a weapon.

 

If the pistol ban was put in place to prevent another Dunblane it's achieved its purpose. There hasn't been a mass killing with a legally held pistol since the ban.

 

The one mass killing that has occurred involved a shotgun and rifle. Neither of which were 'sawn off'. To avoid another knee jerk reaction to the Cumbria killings I'd rather put my support behind current SGC/FAC holders and try to protect what rights we still have, rather than push for a repeal of the pistol ban which A)Has proven to be effective in stopping mass killings with handguns (if, as you say, this was the reason for the ban), and B)Just isn't going to happen, and is a waste of time and resources.

you're information is incorrect,youe are wrong,derrick bird used a side by side hammer action 12g thet he SAWED down,get ure facts straight,as for the rest,I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. If you don't get it now you're not going to get it. And as for knee jerk,we all have to be grateful that cameron was and is in goverment,becase labour would have banned the lot the very next day............

[poontang]

Derrick Bird did use a sawn off shotgun btw and it was the gun used to kill/maim 90% of the people he shot

 

Mark

 

Not really.

 

26" barrels.

 

[poontang]

you're information is incorrect,youe are wrong,derrick bird used a side by side hammer action 12g thet he SAWED down,get ure facts straight,

 

Oh dear (see above post)

[Vipa]

Oh dear (see above post)

 

I've been trying to work out how I could change my avatar to read "me too!" when following on from Poontangs posts but for it to work I'd have to stalk him and only post when he did :unsure: Is that normal

[the running man]

Oh dear (see above post)

Oh dear He still cut down to that size, oh dear,I'm still tired of ure essex mafia attitude.oh dear,I'm so impressed by the sudden appearance of this picture.......boring <yawn>

[poontang]

Is that normal

 

It's perfectly normal to love boobs

 

Stalking, on the other hand.............

[poontang]

Oh dear He still cut down to that size, oh dear,I'm still tired of ure essex mafia attitude.oh dear,I'm so impressed by the sudden appearance of this picture.......boring <yawn>

 

 

:lol:

 

Ok fella, we'll leave it there then.

 

 

Good luck with overturning the ban. You're arguments sound convincing enough so it shouldn't be a problem.

[the running man]

:lol:

 

Ok fella, we'll leave it there then.

 

 

Good luck with overturning the ban. You're arguments sound convincing enough so it shouldn't be a problem.

yes let's agree to disagree.

[WoodyPopper]

The only way it might happen is for all our rifle, shotgun and airgun shooters to win gold medals in the Olympics and for our pistol shooters to be humiliated. Then there'd be a public outcry to give us our pistols back! Perhaps we can bribe our pistol shooters to take a dive for us.

[Kes]

I am surprised by the suggestion that supporting all forms of shooting, including the return of pistol shooting, should imply to anyone, support for the most heinous murderers.

The need to support each other and not to be selfish about other shooting sports, stems from the knowledge we all share that there is nothing dangerous about guns. Its a very, very, very small number of the people who use them, those who should have been prevented from their ownership and use.

The effects of that madness are catastrophic and nobody, with half a brain, would support anyone who kills in any situation such as this.

 

There are very many more 'murderous' drivers than shooters, by a long way, but we dont ban cars - they dont set out to kill but we try to balance the control and management of cars and their use to allow us the freedom to use them. Drink/drug driving kills large numbers of people annually.

Driving a car or supporting someone who drives a car is NOT, and never will be, support for the worst excesses that a motorist can perpetrate.

 

I believe we should all support all well controlled and regulated shooting sports, not just hope the one we prefer will be the last to be banned.

That means excluding rambo type idiots from all our sports.

l'd hope for the support of others, were my shooting sport to come under threat, hence I offer mine.

[Mungler]

It's tricky because it's an imperfect system that can never be perfect.

 

In what I do I always have to look at both sides of a story.

 

You try and explain to the majority of the population how hard done by the shooting community is, they will laugh in your face especially if they live anywhere near Cumbria, Dunblane, Hungerford etc. Their votes and views are worth no more and no less than yours.

 

I don't know what the answer is because there is no cast iron way of keeping the wrong sort away from guns. Let's face it we will all know of someone who we really dont think should have sgc/FAC and certainly someone who we would not counter sign for.

 

The real way to keep the corner stones of our sport protected (and yes that's sporting shooting because it has the greatest number of participants and best public facing image) is via BASC. Hearts and minds...

 

As above I don't know what the answer is but if anyone wants to tell me they are right and I am wrong, well, if they ever repeal the handgun ban I'll concede I was wrong and in the meantime.....