NRA Facebook page they don't like being political

[Blackstuff]

Got me stumped too. As already mentioned no country in the world has a total free-for-all when it comes to having firearms for self-defence. There are always caveats and exceptions. People who carry illegal firearms now are almost certainly prohibited to own legal firearms, let alone qualify for any extra checks that would be needed in this country to prevent the sort of people highlighted from carrying them.

[joe]

The certification system stops chavs, criminals, Saturday night drunks et al from
Getting hold of legally obtaining firearms and shotguns! This won't change if self protection was once again considered a good reason! likewise if much more people in this country knew they can obtain firearms legally for sport

[breacher]

BUT, if it saved one life!

Nice to see that the behavious of idiots and criminals dictates what the law abiding can and cannot have.

The supposition that everyone would want a gun in nonsensical to say the least. If that was the case then why are shooting clubs up and down the UK so few and dwindling as the membership gets older.

Even where ownership is a RIGHT there is NOT a majority execise of said right.

We have cars, power tools, swimming pools, golf clubs etc etc - and we have accidents and stupid stuff. That is a fact of life.

The initial post was, IMO an attempt to show the hypocricy and double standards of the "NO GUNS" lot - it was NOT a "pro CCW" attempt. Guns are a last resort measure, not a substitute for a well thought out security plan. However politicians and professional victims want the public disarmed, just how thieves, rapists and murderers prefer it.

So, we have cars that do 150..so what, driving too SLOW also causes accidents? It's a red herring, irrelevant argument. Most people obey the law - and there are laws about killing people by driving too fast or with guns. It's not that long ago the great British Public were allowed guns for self defence.

The argument of "risk" is not the issue. Everyone is at risk nowadays. As someone said, we should have the CHOICE - it should be up to the law abiding "fit" person to decide. Certainly the RIGHT should not be put out of reach by onerous terms and conditions. The current syetm plus a proper training regime would cover it.

Proper training (and police checks) would weed out the undesirables. Switzerland doesn't seem to have the issues the retentive Brits have.

I agree re the Swiss - which tends to demonstrate what I mean about people being the issue. Its people who ruin it for everyone else.

And yes - thats how the law works - it caters for the lowest standard - ie 30mph not because most people cannot drive faster safely - more to cater for those who are NOT good drivers. Some drivers ( and some cars ) are inherently safer at high speed than others. The laws are set for the worst drivers and worst cars.

And those who cannot be bothered with the fac system as it is - thats because they dont want to target shoot. The ones who want a weapon for other purposes would jump at the chance.

And Joe - how exactly does "certification" stop chavs getting guns ? I dont recall any mention of "chav" in legislation.

Lots of undesireables out there with no record but a shocking attitude would be eligible for "certification" if the wanted it.

[RDC]

I still don't see what 'hypocritical politicians' has to do with a non-political charity organisation that focuses on promoting target shooting.


Cristel, this forum has a GOM to put that stuff out of sight of Joe Public. Facebook groups don't.

[Chuck]

And Joe - how exactly does "certification" stop chavs getting guns ? I dont recall any mention of "chav" in legislation.

Simple - they would be put off by the process, training requirements i.e. discipline, or get canned by the instructors. Way too much emphasis on why these things should NOT happen as opposed to why they should.

On my Instructors course a chap was canned PDQ because "he wanted toi kill people, what's the best gun /ammo" he was gone VERY quick, I think he was directed to the Army recruiting office.

Attitudes like that are part of the training process and an indicator of suitability to carry / own a firearm. Instructors would weed out the bad apples, a bit like the club system is supposed to do nowadays??

RDC: TBH, I am amazed this topic has stayed here for so long, not that Joe Public is of any concern. Anyway, Facebook publishes stuff far worse than conversations on armed self defence and gun control issues.