Very interesting article

[buze]

Sorry sir, but as a frenchman, I don't imagine myself carrying around a Guillotine, the weapon that was used in our revolution to kick the (at the time) revolution and remove that said government -- well not JUST that government, but also the whole combo of nobility and clergy at the time. It was quite a massacre, and you didn't even need one (or ten) per citizen. So the 'we need gunzzzzzz to protect ourselves from a runaway gov' is ********.. It's not like it matters that much anyway since they've got a blinder on the one gov they have for a while now.

 

 

I think the gun-thing in the US is just fetishism (which IS ok when it involves shoes, cars, helicopters etc) -- only problem with guns is that their 'use' is to kill stuff. In our case I think the control on who/how/how many works pretty well to keep the potential fetishist going postal, as demonstrated by the general excellent behaviour of anyone with a licence. I even think that the handgun ban was a great idea; theres no USE of a handgun for hunting, nor anything else than a bolt-action or a double barrel rifle or shotgun. I realise that a lot of these handguns were antique and interesting in their own rights, but ultimately, they were *designed* to kill people, not hunt.

 

In the US, it's different, they can stockpile stuff that is not just meant to hunt -- they stockpile stuff that was *designed* to kill people (army weapons aren't made for pest control), and then you try to figure out why some deranged bonzo would actually try to.... use them?

 

Now, as far as the argument that medical 'science' kills way more people that guns, I don't disagree either, but it's also part of Murca's way. There the medical business apparatus has decided it was a superb idea to create customers. The goal isn't to HEAL people, it's to have more people to treat, and sell more stuff.

[Scully]

Sorry sir, but as a frenchman, I don't imagine myself carrying around a Guillotine, the weapon that was used in our revolution to kick the (at the time) revolution and remove that said government -- well not JUST that government, but also the whole combo of nobility and clergy at the time. It was quite a massacre, and you didn't even need one (or ten) per citizen. So the 'we need gunzzzzzz to protect ourselves from a runaway gov' is *******.. It's not like it matters that much anyway since they've got a blinder on the one gov they have for a while now.

 

 

I think the gun-thing in the US is just fetishism (which IS ok when it involves shoes, cars, helicopters etc) -- only problem with guns is that their 'use' is to kill stuff. In our case I think the control on who/how/how many works pretty well to keep the potential fetishist going postal, as demonstrated by the general excellent behaviour of anyone with a licence. I even think that the handgun ban was a great idea; theres no USE of a handgun for hunting, nor anything else than a bolt-action or a double barrel rifle or shotgun. I realise that a lot of these handguns were antique and interesting in their own rights, but ultimately, they were *designed* to kill people, not hunt.

 

In the US, it's different, they can stockpile stuff that is not just meant to hunt -- they stockpile stuff that was *designed* to kill people (army weapons aren't made for pest control), and then you try to figure out why some deranged bonzo would actually try to.... use them?

 

Now, as far as the argument that medical 'science' kills way more people that guns, I don't disagree either, but it's also part of Murca's way. There the medical business apparatus has decided it was a superb idea to create customers. The goal isn't to HEAL people, it's to have more people to treat, and sell more stuff.

Target pistol shooting was and is a legitimate reason to acquire and use handguns in the UK. As far as Im aware it is still an Olympic event. There is so much at fault with your entire post above that it would take me far longer than I have time for to itemise each piece.

Perhaps when my internet is connected ( rather than use my data) Ill revisit this.

[Squinting shot]

Given the opportunity plenty of people here would own ar15s and pistols. Not the pistols with the silly bar clad to the grip. Once you start banning a particular item it soon becomes easier to move to the next one and eventually it's I don't see the point in clay pigeon shooting. Or target shooting game shooting. All legal shooting should be protected and supported by all shooter's. One day the finger will be pointed at ur sport.

[Roddy189]

Im surprised we have any hobbies or pastime's left considering some of the comments on here.

How can some of you be anti gun when you own guns?

No wonder the uk has these restrictions when we have such divides in the gun owning community.

I doubt we will continue to have the privelidges we currently hold with the attitudes shown by some posts here.

[Ultrastu]

I have to admit .

I agree with the UK pistol ban .

[phaedra1106]

I have to admit .

I agree with the UK pistol ban .

Why?

 

It certainly did nothing at all to prevent or even reduce crimes involving handguns, those have been on the increase ever since the ban was introduced.

[ips]

I have to admit .

I agree with the UK pistol ban .

Why ?

Law abiding citizen's being stopped from taking part in a sport they love. Having to give up handguns that they love owning. It was ludicrous and the gun crime statistics prove it.

[Ultrastu]

A cf pistol is a 100 % anti personnel gun.it has no hunting or sporting use in my opinion .

And surely practising with them is to prepare for shooting people .

I'm all for supporting other shooting sports and dont agree with the proposed ban on 50. Cal in the UK .

[GingerCat]

A cf pistol is a 100 % anti personnel gun.it has no hunting or sporting use in my opinion .

And surely practising with them is to prepare for shooting people .

I'm all for supporting other shooting sports and dont agree with the proposed ban on 50. Cal in the UK .

How is the .50 cal not 100% anti light armour if by your logic the pistols have no sporting use and are just anti personnel weapons? But you dont support the ban?

Personally I have little interest in either but if shooting big lumps of lead a long way or smaller lumps of lead not so far floats your boat then why not.

It would be like banning all cars over 900cc as they are 100% going to be used to speed and have no use on the road and excluding the fact they can be used lawfully.

 

Edited for typos

Edited October 28, 2017 by GingerCat

[Ultrastu]

Nice try but not quite .

[ips]

How is the .50 cal not 100% anti light armour if by your logic the pistols have no sporting use and are just anti personnel weapons? But you dont support the ban?

Personally I have little interest in either but if shooting big lumps of lead a long way or smaller lumps of lead not so far floats your boat then why not.

It would be like banning all cars over 900cc as they are 100% going to be used to speed and have no use on the road and excluding the fact they can be used lawfully.

 

Edited for typos

Exactly.

Law abiding licensed citizens should be able to own and shoot whatever they like imo

[grrclark]

A cf pistol is a 100 % anti personnel gun.it has no hunting or sporting use in my opinion .

And surely practising with them is to prepare for shooting people .

I'm all for supporting other shooting sports and dont agree with the proposed ban on 50. Cal in the UK .

 

I have highlighted the key part of your statement.

 

You have an opinion that there is no sporting use for a centre fire handgun, but what gives your opinion any greater weight than people who think that target shooting with such a handgun is a perfectly acceptable sport?

 

What differentiates someone shooting a target with a pistol from someone shooting a clay pigeon with a shotgun?

[Ultrastu]

Well .in my opinion. (And I guess it's one shared by the government ?)

A clay pigeon shooter could be said to be practicing for shooting game .

.rifle shooting targets could be practice for deer hunting

Pistol shooting .practice for shooting people .

?

It's an opinion .And I guess the large majority of people in the UK would agree with it .

[Ultrastu]

As an individual my opinion has no more weight than anyone else's .

Right and wrong is always a matter of personal view .but . When the vast majority agrees what is right or wrong they make laws .

General opinion of the masses change slowly /some time quickly over time (evolution of thought ).

[GingerCat]

The majority would ban all firearms as they see no use for them or care not if our enjoyment and hobbies are taken away as it's not something they do themselves. Careful how they are whittled away, don't need to turn on ourselves.

[Ultrastu]

How is the .50 cal not 100% anti light armour if by your logic the pistols have no sporting use and are just anti personnel weapons? But you dont support the ban?

Personally I have little interest in either but if shooting big lumps of lead a long way or smaller lumps of lead not so far floats your boat then why not.

It would be like banning all cars over 900cc as they are 100% going to be used to speed and have no use on the road and excluding the fact they can be used lawfully.

Edited for typos

Yeah .50 cal is 100 % light armour .but cars arent people .you can't walk into a pub with a .50 cal and shoot someone at the bar .

They don't get used in any gun crime .cos they are useless for that .

They arent for shooting people .

[grrclark]

Well .in my opinion. (And I guess it's one shared by the government ?)

A clay pigeon shooter could be said to be practicing for shooting game .

.rifle shooting targets could be practice for deer hunting

Pistol shooting .practice for shooting people .

?

It's an opinion .And I guess the large majority of people in the UK would agree with it .

 

 

As an individual my opinion has no more weight than anyone else's .

Right and wrong is always a matter of personal view .but . When the vast majority agrees what is right or wrong they make laws .

General opinion of the masses change slowly /some time quickly over time (evolution of thought ).

We could also guess the vast majority of people disagree with guns in general, so should they all be outlawed?

 

In the public consultation exercise in Scotland around air gun licensing more than 90% of respondents (including Police Scotland) said that they thought legislation was wrong, yet it still happened.

 

Law established by public opinion is a nonsense suggestion and recipe for bad law.

 

As for target shooting being practice for other things, what about archery?

 

Can shooting targets not be a sport in itself, why must there be a secondary purpose? Is there a secondary purpose to snooker or darts? What about bowling, cricket or rugby?

Edited October 28, 2017 by grrclark

[Ultrastu]

Pistols went many years ago .

And I support no more chipping away of what we have .

[Ultrastu]

Because like it or not. The masses will decide on the law of the land .

And if to convince the masses that clay pigeon shooting is practice for game and that helps keep pur sport .than thats fine by me .for it is a good reason .And personally thats the only reason i occasionally shoot clays .but that's besides the point .

When the masses argue that they want our guns then (its a sport like snooker) isnt gonna wash mate.

[grrclark]

Pistols went many years ago .

And I support no more chipping away of what we have .

 

Yes they did, but the issue we are discussing is the attitude of shooters towards and around that act of legislation.

 

If we are content to take a very polarised stance against pistol shooting, post ban or otherwise, then we need to be content for people to take a very polarised stance around whatever shooting discipline we choose to embrace.

 

What you said, whether you intended to or not, was that because you disagree with pistol target shooting that you don't care about that being banned, in fact you thought it should be. The contention of course is that there is potentially more people, in fact highly likely more people, who agree that all recreational shooting should be banned and in your argument about pistol shooting you are giving weight to the their argument.

[grrclark]

Because like it or not. The masses will decide on the law of the land .

And if to convince the masses that clay pigeon shooting is practice for game and that helps keep pur sport .than thats fine by me .for it is a good reason .And personally thats the only reason i occasionally shoot clays .but that's besides the point .

When the masses argue that they want our guns then (its a sport like snooker) isnt gonna wash mate.

The masses do not decide on the law of the land, that is the entire point. If they did we would have no taxes and 365 days of paid holiday per year.

 

Clay shooting is not practice for shooting game, it is a standalone sport in its own right. It strikes me that you probably would't care if any clay or target shooting was banned so long as you could still shoot game. That is the premise of your argument.

 

The point about snooker is to highlight the absurdity of your argument, target shooting does not exist simply as practice for live shooting, it is a bonafide sport all on its own.

[Ultrastu]

The problem with having a totally belligerent stance on extra gun control is that you risk the government and general opinion of taking all the guns and stopping all shooting sports ,in one stroke .

It could happen .certainly not what I want .

Yes I do agree with the pistol ban (ive said so .) And a decent justification of other shooting discipline

There is nothing absurd about my argument as its shared by most people .

Yes target shooting is a sport I would not like to see disapeare. (I compete )

But give a little where you can and preserve the rest .

We are not America with the nra .And never will be thank God .

[Ultrastu]

Also in afraid that in these days of social media and petitions of 100000 signatures to get your agenda discussed in parliament the masses have a greater and greater say in every thing we do .

Like it or not the world is changing faster than you can blink

[GingerCat]

Yeah .50 cal is 100 % light armour .but cars arent people .you can't walk into a pub with a .50 cal and shoot someone at the bar .

They don't get used in any gun crime .cos they are useless for that .

They arent for shooting people .

Cars don't drive themselves either. The whole point of the 50 cal is to kill people in a vehicle or other lightly armoured positions.

However some use it for target practice as others did with pistols.

They don't get used in gun crime as they aren't many of them but the ira did use some in the late 8o's.

There's nothing stopping anyone with a 50 cal to use it in a bar,they aren't the preserve of weight lifters

Edited October 28, 2017 by GingerCat

[grrclark]

The problem with having a totally belligerent stance on extra gun control is that you risk the government and general opinion of taking all the guns and stopping all shooting sports ,in one stroke .

It could happen .certainly not what I want .

Yes I do agree with the pistol ban (ive said so .) And a decent justification of other shooting discipline

There is nothing absurd about my argument as its shared by most people .

Yes target shooting is a sport I would not like to see disapeare. (I compete )

But give a little where you can and preserve the rest .

We are not America with the nra .And never will be thank God .

 

I am not taking a belligerent stance, I am taking an entirely reasoned one. A belligerent stance would be to say that we should have no licensing regime and all should be allowed to carry guns as a matter of course.

 

Your contention that target pistol shooting was practice for shooting people, i say that is wholly and utterly not the case. There is no difference at all in someone using a handgun to shoot a target than there is a rifle or shotgun, the objective is to hit the target.

 

Just out of interest what is your frame of reference to suggest that your argument is shared by most people?

 

Once again you are wholly subscribing that it is OK to sacrifice what some people do as a sport so long as other bits that matter to you are spared. Who cares about sacrifice when it is not you making it eh?

 

This discussion is one of principle, the handgun ban has been empirically proven to have been entirely ineffective in reducing the incidence of handgun crime. That is an objective and factual statement. The use of handguns in crime has increased since the ban was imposed.

 

The sacrifice to those who shot pistols for sport was completely and utterly worthless for the shooting community, all it did was demonstrate that the government can impose legislation based on emotion and political capital with no net benefit to the public. It has done nothing other than establish precedent that wholly ineffective legislation is a sop to people who voice an opinion loudly. Evidently you sign up to that approach.

 

Also in afraid that in these days of social media and petitions of 100000 signatures to get your agenda discussed in parliament the masses have a greater and greater say in every thing we do .

Like it or not the world is changing faster than you can blink

 

 

Not entirely sure what the point of this statement is. I am being generous and not assuming that it is simply demonstrating an unthinking herd attitude of well if enough people say something loudly enough it must be true.