The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Interesting that it is built around the cost to the Police of granting an FAC, but at no point do they recognise that the Police may like to do a little process improvement activity to reduce that cost and make the process more efficient!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using "An application"

Geordie bloke wrote:Valerie Vaz. Any relation to that odious little committee loving chairman Keith Vaz?
Makes me want to puke everytime I see his face on tv. Sure that he was involved in some scam regarding expenses (ALLEGEDLY)

They are all on a scam by being paid to do a job that they re demonstrably incapable of doing.

I wonder how much money has been spent on other sporting activities over the years , paid for by the public .
As for all the public services I don't use have I ever had a refund on my council tax , NO , so personally I think I have paid for a life times worth of FAC/ SG licensing already .
How much would it have cost to educate 2 children till the age of 17 for instance ? As I have no children that has been a big saving that I have made to the public plus all the free medical care they could have needed and the list goes on .
At least I am not a MP thieving or even ponsing from the public .

Dave

Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough but I don't why these MPs are anti-gun. They want to increase the cost of gun ownership. There's nothing here that that will stop anybody shooting. I don't agree with what they propose for the reasons others have given but what they propose isn't, in itself, antigun.

Quarters wrote:Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough but I don't why these MPs are anti-gun. They want to increase the cost of gun ownership. There's nothing here that that will stop anybody shooting. I don't agree with what they propose for the reasons others have given but what they propose isn't, in itself, antigun.

Today £200, next year £500, years down the line £1000 plus. (In addition to other "reasonable restrictions" that they dream up)

Where does it say "reasonable restrictions"? Or are you just making that up so you can feel more oppressed?

Do you honestly think MPs backing this will (if/when they) get it passed and then leave shooting alone?

Or do you think you'll bask in the publicity, note bashing shooters gets them noticed/gets the tabloid reading public on side and go on squeezing?

If they wanted to ban guns they would just ban guns. There is no need for a stealth policy to do it if the plan is to ban guns that's what they would do.

Surely making sure firearms owners are legit is for the greater good? It's certainly not for our benefit only!

"Greater good" is the language of the anti's and gun ban brigade. Same as "reasonable steps" and "common sense gun laws", they are always anything but that. Best not use that language IMO

Wouldn't it be better to draw up a list of MPs that are approved for shooting, oomans? Open licence?