I think you need to have a look at a few things mate. First up, the concept of freedom. The point here is very simple - there is not a logical reason for handguns to be illegal. You say it's perfectly reasonable - why? Because some nutter used them to kill 16 people? As with just about every firearms offence that has been reported before or since, the nutjob in question was known to Police who failed spectacularly to bring the situation under control. It was preventable a very long time before Hamilton ever got to that classroom in Dunblane, and the failings were not those of law-abiding shooters, who were the ONLY ones who suffered here and without any benefit.nfrancis wrote:
We have a proper firearms licensing system in this country and the ban on handguns is not ludicrous. Its perfectly understandable that certain types of firearms are not generally available to members of the general public. In this country it happens to be pistols and you know the reason for that - a firearms certificate holder using legally held pistols which he obtained and learned to use by being a member of a shooting club very similar to the ones you and I are members of shot a classroom of 5 and 6 year olds to death. Just what do you expect a society to reflect upon when this happens?
This is not really a case of agreeing or disagreeing with any of this. The situation we find ourselves in is unfortunate but its not the end of the world. So there is some types of pistol we can't shoot. Big deal... There is loads of stuff we can - why don't we concentrate on all those instead of sulking about the few we can't? Some GB Pistol shooters have to train in other countries - do you know how many events this actually applies to? Out of the dozen or so current shooting events GB shooters can choose to shoot in the Olympic games two of them use pistols that are not legal in this country. Anyone in this country can shoot Olympic pistol disciplines - choose 50m free or air pistol. The challenge is the same, the techniques are the same the test of skill at arms is the same. Lets face it - you'd have to be pretty daft to choose a sport to concentrate on that was not readily accessible - that's what I'd be asking people.
You are going to have a hell of a job selling the 'we can't shoot pistols in the Olympics' to the general public with this argument because frankly even I don't buy it. You'll have an even even harder job when anyone points out the history the British have in Olympic pistol shooting - last pistol medal won in 1912 I believe and that as a bronze. A real impressive historic legacy that one!
Well - instead of getting our knickers in a twist about what any 3rd rate "here today gone tomorrow" politician says why don't we just get on with the shooting?
Every opportunity was there to stop this massacre, but the way the police were organised and the system of revocation in force at the time allowed it to happen. Handguns are just a tool - normally they are a tool for sport, humane destruction of animals and self defence. Like every tool, there are alternatives. What possible good does it do banning them? Since the ban gun crime increased markedly, so it clearly had no effect.
The argument about Olympics is no argument at all - it is a highlight, a symptom of a stupid, ineffective law brought in for no good reason whatsoever. The Conservatives knew the public mood at the time so they did the minimum possible - ban centrefire handguns. Labour then finished the job, for no reason except political points scoring.
People like to make out like our firearms laws make us the bastion of safety, but it's complete codswallop - we have more than our fair share of violent crime, and people get killed by plenty of other means - often just with illegal firearms!
Therefore, very simply put - there is no valid reason to remove the freedom to own pistols and enjoy their legitimate shooting. It does not protect the public. It does not save lives. So I'd like my freedom thanks.
Once you get that far, Nigel Farage's argument is sound. Not quite sure why it's surfaced now, but it's sound, and I back him on that point. it is a good thing to hear a political person come out and say it. It makes a very refreshing change from the usual Etonian claptrap, influenced only by the guff spouted by the mainstream press. Sadly, with every politician only caring for their newspaper image, the press are the ones who govern British policy now, not the politicians, and certainly not the people.
And a good point - that poll the Mail has on the page - anyone else noticed it's 52% in favour of keeping a ban? That's pretty bloody narrow!
I agree when you say: