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

Well said!

breacher wrote:Again, why are we focusing on the firearms ?

It does not matter how powerful it is or how fast it can be fired IF the person possessing it is law abiding !!

Its beyond me why we dont focus on how we as a group are more regulated and more law abiding than pretty much any other group in the UK.

artiglio wrote:I see no point in clouding issues with arguments that effectively try to draw comparison with other firearms. Why make an argument wider than it needs to be.

The basis of these bans isn't the idea that the lawful owners of them present a risk. The Home Office is claiming there is a risk of these firearms being stolen from their lawful owners and used by terrorists and that because of their range and power or rate of fire they pose a greater risk than other types of firearms.
It's not widening the argument, the comparison to other types of firearms has been there since the consultation began.

You can say that FAC holders are the most law abiding etc. & the Govt. will turn around and say we know that, but if someone were to steal one from them and use it in an atrocity the outcome would be so much worse than if a less dangerous rifle was used. While the unsubstantiated risks of theft need to be challenged so to do the claims of them being more dangerous than other rifles so that even if evidence of the theft risk is produced we can show that they are not more dangerous and do not justify a ban.

With the chairman of the all party group on shooting and conservation saying on MARS and lever release rifles "adaptations of otherwise bolt-action single-shot rifles, converting them into, in effect, semi-automatic rifles should be banned." we need to make sure they know what they are talking about banning and this requires technical information.

Sim G wrote:And FFS, please stop with the “a lever action can shoot just as quick as a semi” rubbish that seems to be vogue at the minute. That was exactly the argument that was presented with the semi full bore ban, that time citing pump action full bore. Without a second thought, they banned full bore pump as well!

yes dont give them any helpfull ideas I certainly dont want to empty the Marlin cupboard

The Event wrote:

breacher wrote:Again, why are we focusing on the firearms ?

It does not matter how powerful it is or how fast it can be fired IF the person possessing it is law abiding !!

Its beyond me why we dont focus on how we as a group are more regulated and more law abiding than pretty much any other group in the UK.

artiglio wrote:I see no point in clouding issues with arguments that effectively try to draw comparison with other firearms. Why make an argument wider than it needs to be.

The basis of these bans isn't the idea that the lawful owners of them present a risk. The Home Office is claiming there is a risk of these firearms being stolen from their lawful owners and used by terrorists and that because of their range and power or rate of fire they pose a greater risk than other types of firearms.
It's not widening the argument, the comparison to other types of firearms has been there since the consultation began.

You can say that FAC holders are the most law abiding etc. & the Govt. will turn around and say we know that, but if someone were to steal one from them and use it in an atrocity the outcome would be so much worse than if a less dangerous rifle was used. While the unsubstantiated risks of theft need to be challenged so to do the claims of them being more dangerous than other rifles so that even if evidence of the theft risk is produced we can show that they are not more dangerous and do not justify a ban.

With the chairman of the all party group on shooting and conservation saying on MARS and lever release rifles "adaptations of otherwise bolt-action single-shot rifles, converting them into, in effect, semi-automatic rifles should be banned." we need to make sure they know what they are talking about banning and this requires technical information.

That argument can be countered by the fact that Police and Military have a huge number of rounds and firearms unaccounted for - while we have practically none go missing.

Likewise Museums which have sec 5 weapons - they rarely go missing. So if they start banning firearms on the basis of POSSIBLE thefts, they will have to empty the museums or deactivate the exhibits.

Likewise private ownership of military vehicles - if my fiat gets stolen, the police have the means to stop it. If a collectors tank or APC gets stolen, they dont - shall we ban them in case they get stolen ?

When stored correctly, our firearms are quite safe.

breacher wrote:
Likewise private ownership of military vehicles - if my fiat gets stolen, the police have the means to stop it. If a collectors tank or APC gets stolen, they dont - shall we ban them in case they get stolen ?

That's a good point. Would you include such a comment in your discussion with Govt. or would that be seen as giving them ideas?

Like this, for instance?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=st ... &FORM=VIRE

Pete

The Event wrote:

breacher wrote:
Likewise private ownership of military vehicles - if my fiat gets stolen, the police have the means to stop it. If a collectors tank or APC gets stolen, they dont - shall we ban them in case they get stolen ?

That's a good point. Would you include such a comment in your discussion with Govt. or would that be seen as giving them ideas?

Probably give them ideas......much like those folks that are saying a lever action/Lee Enfield etc can be fired as fast as a MARS/Lever Release!

David TS wrote:

JSC wrote:Have your say!

Send your views to the Committee ASAP. It will meet for the first time on Tuesday 17th July.
It will stop receiving evidence on Thursday 18th September.

After that it will go to the report stage which is when MPs will suggest amendments, so it's important all the facts go before the Committee now so they can't claim they haven't received any evidence for this, that or the other.

Keep it objective and factual. Emotional outpourings and moaning isn't going to help.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news ... pons-bill/

Thank you for posting that.

I shall be entering a written submission, to add to my response to the initial consultation, and two rounds of emails to my MP.

Just had confirmation from the scrutiny unit that they've received my submission, so that's 2 emails to my MP & one to the scrutinity unit, whatever the outcome I can say I did my bit.

Am I missing the part where in order for terrorists/criminals to steal .50 calibre/MARS/Lever Release Rifles from a FAC holder they would need to know who owns these types of rifles and where they live?

Without this information a terrorist or criminal would potentially have to break into thousands of homes before you hit the jackpot so to speak and if someone was followed home from a range how would a potential thief know if they had a 10/22 or a MARS etc?.......surely it is obvious to the powers that be that it would far easier and less of a risk for the criminal element to get a firearm on the black market rather than break into a FAC holders home to steal a registered firearm that would draw (hopefully) an immediate response from the police in the event it did happen.

snayperskaya wrote:Am I missing the part where in order for terrorists/criminals to steal .50 calibre/MARS/Lever Release Rifles from a FAC holder they would need to know who owns these types of rifles and where they live?

Without this information a terrorist or criminal would potentially have to break into thousands of homes before you hit the jackpot so to speak and if someone was followed home from a range how would a potential thief know if they had a 10/22 or a MARS etc?.......surely it is obvious to the powers that be that it would far easier and less of a risk for the criminal element to get a firearm on the black market rather than break into a FAC holders home to steal a registered firearm that would draw (hopefully) an immediate response from the police in the event it did happen.

unless there has been a 'leak'