SGC are to be moved over to FAC in the near future

[HDAV]

That's a VERY valid shout actually... nothing wrong with the two tier system so keep it as is but a FAC holder should automatically be able to purchase & hold shotguns without the need for a separate SGC... would reduce the admin burden dramatically and notreduce security or control from the authorities perspective!

I am sure there will be a "slots" issue for sure a dvla type central system with a card that can be updated by RFD's or by post for private sales and allows lawful ownership of firearms would be great, pistol, rifle, shotgun never going to happen tho

[JonathanL]

The best way of ensuring that my daughter will be able to shoot in the UK when she is old enough is for shooters from every facet of the sport to come together and unite behind 1 unified national body.

 

Target shooter, deer stalker or clay birder...who cares, we all have a love of shooting and should come together to protect it from a very real threat.

 

Just look at the power the NRA has in the USA.

 

This is definitely the answer. We don't have the same attitude here though. Most UK shooters are far too protective of their own little empires and are unwilling to look at the bigger picture. Lots of shooters have been all too willing to sell out other shooters to save their own discipline. Semi-auto rifle and pistol shooters got precious little support from shotgunners after Hungerford and Dunblane. After the former in event even the NRA was willing to throw semi-auto rifle shooters to the wolves despite the fact that it would mean that civilians would be unable to practice with the service weapon of the day which is, in fact, the whole point of the NRA's existence! More shotgunners were affected by legislation changes in 1988 than semi-auto rifle shooters so their lack of support cost them also.

 

Things may change in the future but getting a united front on the part of shooters is a significantly more difficult task them simply attracting more shooters.

 

J.

[Blackstone]

This is definitely the answer. We don't have the same attitude here though. Most UK shooters are far too protective of their own little empires and are unwilling to look at the bigger picture. Lots of shooters have been all too willing to sell out other shooters to save their own discipline. Semi-auto rifle and pistol shooters got precious little support from shotgunners after Hungerford and Dunblane. After the former in event even the NRA was willing to throw semi-auto rifle shooters to the wolves despite the fact that it would mean that civilians would be unable to practice with the service weapon of the day which is, in fact, the whole point of the NRA's existence! More shotgunners were affected by legislation changes in 1988 than semi-auto rifle shooters so their lack of support cost them also.

 

Things may change in the future but getting a united front on the part of shooters is a significantly more difficult task them simply attracting more shooters.

 

J.

Yeah I've heard this school of thought many times before

[wymberley]

This is definitely the answer. We don't have the same attitude here though. Most UK shooters are far too protective of their own little empires and are unwilling to look at the bigger picture. Lots of shooters have been all too willing to sell out other shooters to save their own discipline. Semi-auto rifle and pistol shooters got precious little support from shotgunners after Hungerford and Dunblane. After the former in event even the NRA was willing to throw semi-auto rifle shooters to the wolves despite the fact that it would mean that civilians would be unable to practice with the service weapon of the day which is, in fact, the whole point of the NRA's existence! More shotgunners were affected by legislation changes in 1988 than semi-auto rifle shooters so their lack of support cost them also.

 

Things may change in the future but getting a united front on the part of shooters is a significantly more difficult task them simply attracting more shooters.

 

J.

 

Not too sure that the comment re the shotgunners and Hungerford/Dunblane is accurate - certainly not down here in the west country.

 

It is naive to think that the NRA was allowed to exist to benefit the civilian shooters. It ensured a pool of marksmen were available in times of conflict. Now, it seems we have too many existing soldiers by the number of redundancies so there's no longer a need.

[JonathanL]

Not too sure that the comment re the shotgunners and Hungerford/Dunblane is accurate - certainly not down here in the west country.

 

It is naive to think that the NRA was allowed to exist to benefit the civilian shooters. It ensured a pool of marksmen were available in times of conflict. Now, it seems we have too many existing soldiers by the number of redundancies so there's no longer a need.

 

The NRA was established to ensure good marksmanship within the populous in case lots of men were ever needed in time of war. It was never the case that it was 'allowed' to exist if you are implying that it was some sort of concession given to the lower orders by the establishment. Shooting and firearms ownership was always very widespread prior to the first world war and the NRA was set up royal charter (I think) and was positively encouraged by the government at the time.

 

The fact that NRA still has the notion of training civilians for national defence is laughable, quite honestly. It's an impossible goal to live up to and has been so since 1988. The NRA is a sporting organisation and should realise so. Also, it should be much more forthright in it's legislative campaigning side. The argument it gives for not being so is that its charitable status prevents it from doing such things which is entirely incorrect.

 

J.

[Graham M]

Not too sure that the comment re the shotgunners and Hungerford/Dunblane is accurate - certainly not down here in the west country.

Well it certainly was true up here in the Midlands.

We took a petition around our sports club after Hungerford and almost everyone signed it....with the notable exception of the local clay shooters. They were adamant that they wanted no part in it because it was all the fault of pistol and semi-auto rifle owners, some of them even made the comment that they were glad to see the back of the Cowboys from our sport.

Then Douglass Herd made noises about banning semi-auto shotguns and the clay shooters brought around a petition to stop it.

You can guess the response they got to that one.

As it was we had the stupid situation where semi's were reduced to a two shot magazine.......much less dangerous eh!!!!!!

 

And then after Dunblane we had exactly the same thing from many target rifle shooters, who were only too willing to see pistols banned in the vain hope that rifle shooters would be spared future legislation. I even heard one international shot at the City of Birmingham Rifle Club state that there was no need for anyone to own a pistol OR a deer calibre rifle, as it was disgusting that anyone would kill a deer. so those should be banned as well.

 

Join together as a united front........you must be joking.

G.M.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Graham M

[wymberley]

The NRA was established to ensure good marksmanship within the populous in case lots of men were ever needed in time of war. It was never the case that it was 'allowed' to exist if you are implying that it was some sort of concession given to the lower orders by the establishment. Shooting and firearms ownership was always very widespread prior to the first world war and the NRA was set up royal charter (I think) and was positively encouraged by the government at the time.

 

Yep.

 

The argument it gives for not being so is that its charitable status prevents it from doing such things which is entirely incorrect.

 

It should take lessons from the RSPCA and RSPB.

 

J.

[wymberley]

Well it certainly was true up here in the Midlands.

We took a petition around our sports club after Hungerford and almost everyone signed it....with the notable exception of the local clay shooters. They were adamant that they wanted no part in it because it was all the fault of pistol and semi-auto rifle owners, some of them even made the comment that they were glad to see the back of the “Cowboys” from our sport.

Then Douglass Herd made noises about banning semi-auto shotguns and the clay shooters brought around a petition to stop it.

You can guess the response they got to that one.

As it was we had the stupid situation where semi's were reduced to a two shot magazine.......much less dangerous eh!!!!!!

 

And then after Dunblane we had exactly the same thing from many target rifle shooters, who were only too willing to see pistols banned in the vain hope that rifle shooters would be spared future legislation. I even heard one international shot at the City of Birmingham Rifle Club state that there was no need for anyone to own a pistol OR a deer calibre rifle, as it was disgusting that anyone would kill a deer. so those should be banned as well.

 

Join together as a united front........you must be joking.

G.M.

 

I don't doubt what you're saying for one minute but it is so different from my immediate neck of the woods - whether that would still be so remains to be seen.

 

I must admit to a bee in the bonnet about one point though. If you were to stop 10 non shooting people in the street and ask, first,if they were against target shooting sports and, secondly, if they said, no, then ask which of the two they thought potentially more dangerous between a semi automatic shotgun/rifle and a self loading one, you'd get ten identical answers. I would make a point that sometimes we just make it difficult for ourselves but realise that I'm in a minority of close to one here.