Page 22 of 35
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:03 pm
by dromia
karen wrote:OK how many of us here can honestly say that they have never known someone who had an unhealthy interest in guns? People who think that guns make themselves something special or give them a stiffy?
I have known a few . . .
When I first started shooting I was at college with two guys who were members of the rifle club - one of whom claimed he was in the SAS and walked around with three pistols secreted about his person at all times. He was a mature student but still only late 20s. He wasn't a plinker, a competitive shooter, a collector, a historian - he was just a saddo. He and his friend ended up in prison for being caught with a sawn off shotgun in the back of their car and a lot of illegally held ammo.
Another person I knew quite well had a massive amount of firearms because he "needed them". He was competitive, a plinker, a collector, a historian etc BUT he spoke often about killing members of his family and of "needing his firearms one day". He boasted to me about having stocks of illegal firearms and going out in a blaze of glory. What do you do then?
Sometimes there are people who should worry us and if they do we should do something about it and hope that someone takes notice. If someone had taken notice of those who were concerned about Hamilton we might not be having this discussion.
Love
Karen
So what has that to do with nfrances view that
everyone who is interested in guns is suspect?
To be honest after following his ramblings on here I am wondering if his state of mind is sound enough for him to own firearms.
Regarding Hamilton every body other than the chief constable thought he shouldn't have guns.
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:08 pm
by karen
I don't think that is what Neil is saying at all
Love
karen
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:10 pm
by karen
Um aren't "plinkers" also competitive or am I being dumb?
If you are a "plinker" and you go shooting and you never hit anything ever, how long would you carry on?
If you are a "plinker" and you go shooting and you get a bull don't you feel happy about it?
Isn't that still competitive even though its a different sort of competitive to wanting to be in a GB team?
This is a serious question as although I would class myself as lightly competitive, those watching me shoot might class me as a "plinker" :lol:
Love
Karen
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:37 pm
by Sim G
The crux of Francis' point is that anyone who owns firearms for any other reason than competitive shooting is a worry to society.
And this is not the first time he has been disparaging about "gun owners" as such. Some may say that it's purely his own opinion. I really don't care if it is. That opinion is being voiced by the NRA representative for GR. My response is simply I will not be attending Phoenix on the back of his opinion, nor will I be rejoining the NRA. I'll stick with my gun owning, plinking.
Personally, I think Francis is a cock. He may feel "safe" and anonymous behind his keyboard in the wee small hours, but some of us previously were heavily involved in practical pistol and then gallery rifle. I thought Francis was a cock then, but evidently age nor exposure has rubbed the edges of his "cockness". As long as he and a couple of others are involved in GR, I won't be. Coupled with, as long as he is a NRA representative, then I now, won't be a member again.
And before cries of "it shouldn't be personal", Feancis put himself up for it with his crass expressing if his opinion.
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:44 pm
by dromia
karen wrote:I don't think that is what Neil is saying at all
Love
karen
"People who are more interested in guns than shooting worry me - they should probably worry everyone."
Those are his very words.
I spend more time working on my guns, studying them, researching them, measuring them, casting for them and loading for them and recording the results than I do shooting them so by his definition I should be a worry. Those reasons are not sound for making such a disparaging statement about me, the permissions i have for my firearms are based on the use I have just described. Nfrances has made it quiet clear that in his mind the only target shooting of any value is competitive target shooting in organised competitions.
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:47 pm
by karen
Sim G wrote:The crux of Francis' point is that anyone who owns firearms for any other reason than competitive shooting is a worry to society.
I really don't think that is what he said and my last post was also about defining what is competitive shooting? I think we are all competitive to some degree even if it is just bettering a previous score achieved whilst "plinking".
There are obviously other issues between you and that is fine - I am not going to comment on that.
Love
karen
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:56 pm
by karen
dromia wrote:
"People who are more interested in guns than shooting worry me - they should probably worry everyone."
I get what he is saying although I think he could have put it better. :roll:
I would suggest that everyone on here is interested in SHOOTING in all its various legal forms whether it be competitive, "plinking", collecting, researching etc etc etc. They may not regularly fire a shot but they are interested in SHOOTING.
People like the ones I described earlier who are interested in possessing GUNS (sometimes illegally) for weird purposes should worry everyone.
I hope that makes sense - it does to me!
love
Karen
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:08 pm
by dromia
It obviously doesn't make sense to nfrances, he has been challenged about this on here many times before and he has stuck to that position. Stuck to it so much that he tries to undermine other peoples genuine attempts to support shooters, just look at this thread and how he piled in saying it was a waste of time, not supportive but damaging and derogatory.
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:46 pm
by karen
It's odd that we all seem to read Neil's comments differently.
As much as I regret saying this (and I think I said it earlier in this thread), the petition is likely to do no good at all and I agree with Neil's similar comments. We have been here so many times before and nothing happens. I have signed every similar petition going (and will always continue to do so) even though I do not shoot the discipline involved. I've seen it advertised on Facebook, on websites and by email yet still only 13,702 signatures after over a month and most people sign at the start.
I wish it would work and so does everyone here but I don't think it will. Since this thread started it has gone up by just over 500 (hopefully from the NRA putting it on their website) but that is not enough (SendIt - you need to hassle the NRA to send an email out).
I wish I had a magic wand that would make every shooter in the country sign it but I don't and I don't think anyone else does either.
Ho hum!
Love
karen
Re: New Petition - Part 2 (Number of signatures: 13,188)
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:34 pm
by Chuck
Karen
,
When I first started shooting I was at college with two guys who were members of the rifle club - one of whom claimed he was in the SAS and walked around with three pistols secreted about his person at all times.
Now then Karen, why did you not dub these clowns in then? I believe that people who are in the SAS do not say so and vice versa. Either way there was NO law allowing them to carry guns and they could have had the club brought into disrepute or closed. What if THEY had been Thomas Hamiltons' in the making, sure sounds like it.
He and his friend ended up in prison for being caught with a sawn off shotgun in the back of their car and a lot of illegally held ammo.
There is absolutely NO legal use for a sawn off shotgun of course, but why did you turn a blind eye and allow them to carry on doing illegal stuff with guns instead of shopping them to plod. Now, how would you feel if they had murdered someone?
There are always people who will do dumb stuff with guns, that sweeping pompous statement IMO was just arrogance and an insult to people who actually DO a good job at the NRA. His position should be called into question because continuing to make ANTI statements will do no one any good.