no experiance

[Evilv]

to me a lot centres round chinese whispers,

 

and my two penny worth...if no experience then a mentor should be an absolute requirement (by law if necessary) as no FAO can catagorically say a person is reasonably competent (Dunblane springs to mind) and IMO no one should be allowed an FAC without first getting experience and NOT on live quarry. It can be useful if different FAOs have different views and interpret things differently but it's also b***** confusing for us mere mortals.

 

Mind you BN I think you're a bit confused about open/semi-open tickets as they're either open or not otherwise the land has to be cleared by an FAO BEFORE being shot over.

 

I completely disagree with you I'm afraid.

 

Hamilton the Dunblane killer had held firearms for years so he was experienced. Using his horrible shooting spree as a means of controlling the rest of us till further is quite frankly a stupid argument for a shooter to bring up. I cant imagine why you would want to do that.

 

On of the biggest faults of this country is the tendency to look at the action of some negligent or criminal and then say - 'Oh look. That's what these kind of people do. We need to control everybody just in case they turn out like them.' The whole relationship between the individual and the state is the wrong way around. The presumption should be that men and women are free and not that they must be controlled.

 

The problem here is that negligent and criminal fools will always be a menace, but MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT NEGLIGENT FOOLS OR CRIMINALS. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN JUST STUPID. That is why grown ups should by and large be able to acquire firearms if they like and should be told to use them sensibly. I'm in favour of control of firearms this far and no further, that shooters should be obliged to show themselves to be sane adults of good character and not of subnormal intelligence. Such people are all capable of handling firearms properly and of behaving responsibly. Why should such a person be obliged by narrow minded suspicious fools to have a mentor? It's rubbish and a dangerous trend that shooters should be resisting and not advocating. This country is far too restricted anyway. Has it helped? I don't think so. Always remember that it is criminals, fools and the immature that cause problems with firearms and not the rest of us.

 

 

What are you waffling on about.

 

 

If you can't read and understand it, then I can't help you.

[Highlander]

Evilv it’s you who can’t read and Axe is right you’re waffling!

 

My mention of the Dunblane experience had nothing to do with it’s use as a means to restrict holders of FAC but to illustrate that no one, not even FEOs, can tell a person’s true worthiness at a single meeting. The police were at fault in ever granting Hamilton an FAC but then they like the rest of us have human failings.

 

My reasons for stating (as I’ve done on here many times) that people wishing to take up shooting sports should be mentored or at the very least have some lessons (from a professional NOT their mates) is that they are handling dangerous tools, weapons, call them what you will and should learn to handle them safely (note the guy who’s child has just been shot) AND if wishing to shoot live quarry should learn to give that quarry the proper respect BEFORE hunting it.

[tulkyuk]

people wishing to take up shooting sports should be mentored or at the very least have some lessons (from a professional NOT their mates) is that they are handling dangerous tools, weapons, call them what you will and should learn to handle them safely (note the guy who’s child has just been shot) AND if wishing to shoot live quarry should learn to give that quarry the proper respect BEFORE hunting it.

 

 

Very well said Highlander

[bignoel]

i am not takeing up shooting ? this thread started out as a differance in the law from one variatin to a newbie receiveing all rifles he required ? and i dont require trianing please read first thread .and the shooting accident is a terrible accident.

[al4x]

Evilv it’s you who can’t read and Axe is right you’re waffling!

 

My mention of the Dunblane experience had nothing to do with it’s use as a means to restrict holders of FAC but to illustrate that no one, not even FEOs, can tell a person’s true worthiness at a single meeting. The police were at fault in ever granting Hamilton an FAC but then they like the rest of us have human failings.

 

My reasons for stating (as I’ve done on here many times) that people wishing to take up shooting sports should be mentored or at the very least have some lessons (from a professional NOT their mates) is that they are handling dangerous tools, weapons, call them what you will and should learn to handle them safely (note the guy who’s child has just been shot) AND if wishing to shoot live quarry should learn to give that quarry the proper respect BEFORE hunting it.

 

Dunblane the FEO recommended revoking the firearms ticket and got over ruled by the chief of police but thats by the by. you want to be a little careful what you wish for or it could end up with something along the lines of the DSC for all guns, I've a funny feeling the BASC already has the company set up and ready to set up training courses, Don't get me wrong they are dangerous weapons and you do need to learn from someone but I'd hate to not be able to teach a child of mine to shoot and make them go on a course to learn one end of a gun from another as IMHO you learn as you go along from watching and listening to experienced people.

[Evilv]

My mention of the Dunblane experience had nothing to do with it’s use as a means to restrict holders of FAC but to illustrate that no one, not even FEOs, can tell a person’s true worthiness at a single meeting.

 

That's why we supply character references and our medical history. The person giving a reference has to be a person of good standing, and to have known the applicant over a period of years so that they are in a position to vouch for their maturity, safety with firearms, their social adjustment and to say that they know of no good reason why the police may need to have concern about them being trusted with firearms. Likewise when they approach your doctor to find out whether you have consulted them about psychological, emotional problems, drug dependence or alcohol abuse. They already know whether you have ever appeared in court, and should on the basis of these sources of information be able to weigh up the balance of probabilities that you will walk out with your .223 and cause a major incident, shoot your boss, or discharge it carelessly in the direction of the local village.

 

The firearms acts, tight and restrictive as they are require no period of tuition, only that the police satisfy themselves that the candidate for a certificate has a good reason to acquire the firearms requested, and may be allowed to possess and use them without threat to the public or the peace.

 

My reasons for stating (as I’ve done on here many times) that people wishing to take up shooting sports should be mentored or at the very least have some lessons (from a professional NOT their mates) is that they are handling dangerous tools, weapons, call them what you will and should learn to handle them safely (note the guy who’s child has just been shot) AND if wishing to shoot live quarry should learn to give that quarry the proper respect BEFORE hunting it.

 

These are opinions and nothing more. I happen to agree with the last one, but it does not form any part of UK law. As for the former point about danger, I have already covered that and as an indication that further legislation is required, perhaps you can detail the serious accidents and incidents that show further restrictions should be brought into play. The man who left a loaded air gun with his infant children at the weekend had been vetted or vouched for by nobody at all since the type of gun involved is on open sale to anyone over seventeen years old. We were discussing centre fire rifles not pop guns. Exactly how many people have been shot or injured by sports and pest control shooters using centre fire rifles? There have been a handful or less of tragic incidents over the last five years that I am aware of, mostly from lamping which is an inherently dangerous activity, though I do not deny that some experts may carry it out well. It of necessity involves shooting in the dark with restricted vision. But even so, contrast the safety record of shooting with the tens of thousands who are maimed on the roads each year and the almost four thousand who die. As an indication of the risks involved in shooting as it is, I get £10,000,000 third party liability and membership of an organisation from the Gamekeepers Organisation for £30, but even with a forty year no claim driving record, pay vastly more for car insurance.

 

On these grounds and because it is an attack on liberty, I utterly reject your suggestion that shooters should be further restricted. We already have far too many pettifogging restrictions and should trust the good sense of the already heavily vetted firearms certificate holders of this country who are in the vast majority of cases, mature, careful and scrupulous in the use of their firearms.

 

By the way, pathetic 'rolleyes' icons do not qualify as an argument in any adult discourse, so I recommend that you and the Mod, Axe, desist from their use and supply evidence of why a poster may need to reconsider his views in future, rather than expressing contempt in such a manner.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Evilv

[CharlieT]

Evilv

 

That Sir, says it all. I wish I could have posted so eloquently. My sentiments exactly.

[Evilv]

Evilv

 

That Sir, says it all. I wish I could have posted so eloquently. My sentiments exactly.

 

Thanks Charlie. I have a passion about letting people take responsibility for their actions. There are two ways of looking at this, or maybe three. At one extreme you operate a system like in the USA where you start from the assumption that people are free and should be allowed to act as adults, taking responsibility for their actions and taking the consequences for their failures if and when they occur. At the other end, we have the Post-War British model which assumes by default that the British are a fools, hooligans, or maniacs who can not be trusted unless and until they have jumped through so many hoops that only the most determined can sustain the interest.

 

I have no problem with a light touch system which asks applicants to show good reason and that they are trustworthy, but after that, I see no reason at all why policemen, worthy souls as they may be, should decide whether Mr Smith or Jones should have a .223 as well as a .270 rifle. Why? Once he has been granted a .270, is it likely that Mr Smith will run amok with his .223? Why should Dixon of Dock Green haggle him down to two rifles when he asks for a .22LR, a 17HMR and a .223? If he is going to make a menace of himself, the .222 will do the job very nicely, so why knock back the .17?

 

We in the UK have been taken over by left wing 'nannyism' and its appeasers - people from within the shooting community who actively conspire with people who want to restrict their lawful activity. In this very thread we have a shooter advocating FURTHER restriction than our already draconian laws allow. For myself, I don't want to give any more power at all to enforcement agencies who will further restrict access of adult people to what are currently lawful shooting activities. Some of these appeasers are no doubt well meaning. They think that in the face of left wing animal rights fanatics and anti-gun freaks, they should show how willing they are to be more draconian even than the law is now. It is a profound mistake. What they should do is to loudly proclaim their rights to act as free people, to shoot on private land, to hunt, to shoot targets and they should attack the fanatics who oppose them by pointing out that their restriction of freedom is nothing more than left wing fascism - something to be opposed and rejected by all free, right thinking people. We have lost confidence in that in this country and turned ourselves into cowering surfs.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Evilv

[markbivvy]

some very good posts there EV, top man.

[njc110381]

I like the mentor idea. A rifle, especially a centrefire, can do some serious damage. I went from a .177 air rifle at 12ft-lbs (a good backstop being a half inch thick ply board) to a 6.5x55 (which will punch through a railway sleeper like it's a sheet of paper) as soon as my certificate arrived, and I am really glad I had someone to keep an eye on me! I know the theory is fairly clear, but it's nice just to have someone to give you the go ahead on shots you're not sure about. I still shoot regularly with my mentor now, even though I have an open FAC and can do as I please.

 

I'll stick my neck out and say it should be a requirement to at least have a small amount of club history before an FAC is granted. That's what I believe anyway. It's a bit of a pain at first, but well worth the experience you gain. The way I see it the more I can learn the better.

 

People like Tulky may be a little rude at times (he's p***ed me off before too but I got over it). He's also a very experienced bloke and is well worth listening to even if you don't want to hear what he says.

[rocksaplenty]

There is a line.

 

And I think that line was Hungerford. Pre-Hungerford the ability to own an AK47 or uzi was too much.

 

I used to shoot at the tunnel club in Devizes. Some shooters would (legally) go for a wander around town (between shooting) with Lugers, 9mms etc tucked in their back pockets - that was a bit too much.

[MC]

There is a line.

 

And I think that line was Hungerford. Pre-Hungerford the ability to own an AK47 or uzi was too much.

 

I used to shoot at the tunnel club in Devizes. Some shooters would (legally) go for a wander around town (between shooting) with Lugers, 9mms etc tucked in their back pockets - that was a bit too much.

 

 

Perhaps I have missed something, but how is that legal?

[al4x]

was is the key word, before hungerford you could carry pistols to a club and keep them at home, much as we do with shotguns and rifles now

[MC]

Yes I know that but when was it ever legal to carry them around town in your back pocket?

[al4x]

If you lived in town at a guess, or on the way to a gunshop etc etc the main thing about them being banned was the fact they are easy to conceal unlike a rifle or shotgun so you wouldn't be noticed with one in your pocket and assuming you were going somewhere legitimate with it you would in theory be legal.

[njc110381]

Would the pistol being carried not have to be unloaded and covered as it was in a public place? Also, wasn't it Dunblane that put an end to private handgun ownership?

 

Hungerford wrote off semi auto and pump action fullbore rifles, and I think reduced the magazine fed shotgun capacity to 2+1 on SGC

[rocksaplenty]

Correct.

 

It was Dunblane that saw the end of the handgun. However, my post was intended to highlight the generally laid back attitude that led to the gun controls. After all, how many of us tolerate the loner individual that has an obbesion with guns (rather than the sport of shooting).

 

The chap that used to wander around with a luger in his pocket, did have it unloaded (even back then carrying a loaded Luger in a public place was illegal).

 

Great thread!!

[Zapp]

Maybe they only issue closed tickets to people who brag about shooting foxes at extreme ranges with shotguns??

 

 

For CHRISTS sake dont get that going again...

 

ZB

[bignoel]

some people just love to pick a fight idiot's

[ferretman]

some people just love to pick a fight idiot's

theres no need to keep calling people name now is there??

[ferretman]

Maybe they only issue closed tickets to people who brag about shooting foxes at extreme ranges with shotguns??

 

 

For CHRISTS sake dont get that going again...

 

ZB

dont get wot you on about have i missed somthing somewere?????????///who shoots foxes at a extreme range with a shotty???? Edited August 28, 2008 by ferretman

[Evilv]

Correct.

 

It was Dunblane that saw the end of the handgun. However, my post was intended to highlight the generally laid back attitude that led to the gun controls. After all, how many of us tolerate the loner individual that has an obbesion with guns (rather than the sport of shooting).

 

The chap that used to wander around with a luger in his pocket, did have it unloaded (even back then carrying a loaded Luger in a public place was illegal).

 

Great thread!!

 

I don't think it could ever have been legal in recent times to carry a luger in your back pocket while in a public place. Even to have a firearm in a public place cased and secure, you need to have a good reason, like you are on your way to the club. I'm not sure that going for a sandwich would qualify. Taking it to a gunsmith for an opinion, or transporting it back home from having just bought it would - as long as it was cased and secure.

 

When I recently bought my HMR the seller handed me the winchester in its cardboard box which could be opened in about a second and a half. I asked him to tape up the box since I had a 180 mile drive to take it home. Then I put it in the boot and covered it up.

 

I am sure that the requirement when having a firearm in a public place to have it secured in a case (or box if you just bought it ?) goes back at least to my first owning a shotgun in 1975.

 

Where I shoot in some pretty remote countryside with tiny 10 foot wide roads, the farmers have a very lax approach to this 'secure' business. They think it amusing I when I cross an 8 foot road with grass growing up the middle from one field to another, that I unload and case my rifles, walk over the road (about three seconds, and take them out on the other side and load up again. Like many of us, I am sure I have seen shooters wandering about remote roads with their shotguns in plain view and open. Still doesn't make it legal though.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Evilv

[Cushat]

some people just love to pick a fight idiot's

 

Another perfectly eloquent post my good man. One of these days you might post something I'm able to read first time without going over and over it to figure out what you're on about!

 

 

 

[MC]

some people just love to pick a fight idiot's

 

 

HHHMMM! ! !

 

That is decidely rich coming from the guy who lost his FAC while getting a variation done. Surrey police must be very slack, I had to give my FAC in while a variation was done.

 

Just remember to be a convincing ********ter you need a good memory

[tulkyuk]

Just remember to be a convincing ********ter you need a good memory

 

 

Well done Mr Cavie,