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

I have put this invite on our Facebook site. It is a genuine invitation to try and share aspects of our sport that perhaps our MP's dont know. Feel free to share it, we wont defend our sport by hiding, only by telling people how good, safe and popular it is.


Offensive Weapons Bill.

I am not an overly political person, I have strong sense of right or wrong but I'm not much for shouting my opinion but since we have opened here I have learnt a great deal about how the wider public view shooting sports and also how the shooting community views itself.

As a brand new range it was likely that a lot of our members would be new to the sport, encouraged to try the sport of target shooting and see if it was something to take up and its been refreshing to be involved in that process. In the run up to our opening we also faced tremendous hostility to the extent I was surprised at the depth of venom some people felt towards shooting, shocked in fact.

Since we have opened I now understand more as to why the shooting community is treated and it comes down to one simple fact - a lack of understanding of what target shooting is.

We will soon be releasing a series of Youtube programs about the sport of target shooting but ahead of this I thought a mention of the new proposed Offensive Weapons Bill is timely as really the firearms aspect of this proposed piece of legislation does reflect the fear and lack of understanding form the public.

Target shooting is exactly that - the sport of shooting targets, nothing living, flying or walking, just bits of paper or steel or wood that are shot by people with guns. It is a huge sport with different kinds of shooting made variable by distance, type of gun, size of bullet, timed, non timed, there are literally hundreds of different kinds of target shooting disciplines that can cater for all kinds of people.

Fortunately target shooting does have a high number of events that do not require huge mobility so its a sport that engenders itself well to those less physically able, we talk of para olympians, but in some shooting disciplines those who are less able compete and win against those without any disability, it really is a sport for all.

The problem is that the general public associate a gun as a weapon, its only purpose is to kill or inflict harm and as such proposed legislation such as the Offensive Weapons Bill emerge.

The Offensive Weapons Bill has laudable aims - to restrict the sale of caustic substances and edged items used as weapons (note the term weapons refers to its use, not the item itself, a gun is a gun like a car is a car its only when used to inflict harm that any of them become weapons) but the bill has had a area attached, almost tacked, on where it seeks to ban the use of two types of firearm - those above a certain power and those where the process to reload is in part automated.

The reasons for these additions to the proposed bill seem to be based on ones of prevention of danger to the public, this despite the fact that none of these firearms have even been used in the action of a crime at any time the plan is to ban them because they 'might'.

The downside to this is that it is the result of fear of the possible setting the path of restrictions for everyone, we know smoking kills but we dont make it illegal, a car can be used as a weapon but we dont ban them, why are guns any different? Thousands of people use them as their sport, to have these people prevented from their legal rights due to the 'possibility' of a crime being committed is extreme.

At this stage its worth pointing out that to have a legal firearm in the country the owner must have passed a series of stringent checks; their doctor must be consulted to ensure the prospective owner will not pose a threat, you are interviewed by the police in your home, back ground checks are made with multiple referees required and if you want to store a firearm in your home it must be inspected and agreed to be safe enough to certain written standards. If you fail any of these tests you wont be allowed a firearm and if you subsequently fail after having one awarded they are taken away, very quickly. Your average firearms owner has undergone more checks than even someone applying to be a police officer or wanting to work with children.

So, if the process is hard to get a legally owned firearm, why chose to ban them?

Because gun crime is rising, despite previous bans of various gun types over the years gun crime is rising, not from the use of legally held firearms but from illegally held ones and its easier and simpler to ban items from those who obey the law than to try and stop those who chose not to obey the law. This applies to all firearms, regardless of type and its for this reason I see no reason to dwell on the type of firearms this bill refers to as the thought process behind it and its execution of it is flawed. However, this bill refers to firearms that shoot higher speed/energy bullets and those which enable a re-load after pressing a button/moving a lever. The former has never been used in any crime in the UK, ever and the latter is particularly suited to those less able people in terms of upper arm movement.

No, the reason for this bill is not the type of gun, its the fear the public have of guns and of gun owners.

To this end I'd like to make an open offer to any of our elected MP's or members of the House of Lords - come and take a look at our shooting range and see the sport of target shooting. We will show you the different aspects of our sport, the different types of firearms and subject to conditions even shoot one (if you like).

We are not looking to embarrass or cajole you, just show you what target shooting is and perhaps open your minds to what a large (and growing sport) target shooting is. You can invite the media if you wish or have it as a quiet fact finding process just so you can understand the sport and the people who participate in it before voting to ban aspects of it. You never know, you might even like it?

Just contact us directly to arrange a visit.

One thing though, whilst having certain criminal convictions might not stop you being an MP it will stop you touching a firearm so best to check first. :)

John Thorne
Owner, Silverstone Shooting Centre.

PS To the shooting community, share this, forward it to your MP or local representative, give them the opportunity to understand our sport before they vote to restrict it further, knowledge never hurt anyone, lack of knowledge can hurt everyone.

Something similar was proposed prior to the pistol ban - a group of influential people were invited to a display of practical pistol shooting. A load of guys turned up wearing black kit, rolling around, shooting through windows etc etc. all very dramatic.
The dignitaries were shocked and commented that the shooters were better than the Police were at that time.
The ban followed soon after.

I worry about what people who know nothing about PSG or mini rifle shooting would think when they see it. Judging by a recent posting on Facebook a large number of SCG holders were amazed that PSG goes on in this county!

Thorney wrote:I have put this invite on our Facebook site. It is a genuine invitation to try and share aspects of our sport that perhaps our MP's dont know. Feel free to share it, we wont defend our sport by hiding, only by telling people how good, safe and popular it is.


Offensive Weapons Bill.

I am not an overly political person, I have strong sense of right or wrong but I'm not much for shouting my opinion but since we have opened here I have learnt a great deal about how the wider public view shooting sports and also how the shooting community views itself.

As a brand new range it was likely that a lot of our members would be new to the sport, encouraged to try the sport of target shooting and see if it was something to take up and its been refreshing to be involved in that process. In the run up to our opening we also faced tremendous hostility to the extent I was surprised at the depth of venom some people felt towards shooting, shocked in fact.

Since we have opened I now understand more as to why the shooting community is treated and it comes down to one simple fact - a lack of understanding of what target shooting is.

We will soon be releasing a series of Youtube programs about the sport of target shooting but ahead of this I thought a mention of the new proposed Offensive Weapons Bill is timely as really the firearms aspect of this proposed piece of legislation does reflect the fear and lack of understanding form the public.

Target shooting is exactly that - the sport of shooting targets, nothing living, flying or walking, just bits of paper or steel or wood that are shot by people with guns. It is a huge sport with different kinds of shooting made variable by distance, type of gun, size of bullet, timed, non timed, there are literally hundreds of different kinds of target shooting disciplines that can cater for all kinds of people.

Fortunately target shooting does have a high number of events that do not require huge mobility so its a sport that engenders itself well to those less physically able, we talk of para olympians, but in some shooting disciplines those who are less able compete and win against those without any disability, it really is a sport for all.

The problem is that the general public associate a gun as a weapon, its only purpose is to kill or inflict harm and as such proposed legislation such as the Offensive Weapons Bill emerge.

The Offensive Weapons Bill has laudable aims - to restrict the sale of caustic substances and edged items used as weapons (note the term weapons refers to its use, not the item itself, a gun is a gun like a car is a car its only when used to inflict harm that any of them become weapons) but the bill has had a area attached, almost tacked, on where it seeks to ban the use of two types of firearm - those above a certain power and those where the process to reload is in part automated.

The reasons for these additions to the proposed bill seem to be based on ones of prevention of danger to the public, this despite the fact that none of these firearms have even been used in the action of a crime at any time the plan is to ban them because they 'might'.

The downside to this is that it is the result of fear of the possible setting the path of restrictions for everyone, we know smoking kills but we dont make it illegal, a car can be used as a weapon but we dont ban them, why are guns any different? Thousands of people use them as their sport, to have these people prevented from their legal rights due to the 'possibility' of a crime being committed is extreme.

At this stage its worth pointing out that to have a legal firearm in the country the owner must have passed a series of stringent checks; their doctor must be consulted to ensure the prospective owner will not pose a threat, you are interviewed by the police in your home, back ground checks are made with multiple referees required and if you want to store a firearm in your home it must be inspected and agreed to be safe enough to certain written standards. If you fail any of these tests you wont be allowed a firearm and if you subsequently fail after having one awarded they are taken away, very quickly. Your average firearms owner has undergone more checks than even someone applying to be a police officer or wanting to work with children.

So, if the process is hard to get a legally owned firearm, why chose to ban them?

Because gun crime is rising, despite previous bans of various gun types over the years gun crime is rising, not from the use of legally held firearms but from illegally held ones and its easier and simpler to ban items from those who obey the law than to try and stop those who chose not to obey the law. This applies to all firearms, regardless of type and its for this reason I see no reason to dwell on the type of firearms this bill refers to as the thought process behind it and its execution of it is flawed. However, this bill refers to firearms that shoot higher speed/energy bullets and those which enable a re-load after pressing a button/moving a lever. The former has never been used in any crime in the UK, ever and the latter is particularly suited to those less able people in terms of upper arm movement.

No, the reason for this bill is not the type of gun, its the fear the public have of guns and of gun owners.

To this end I'd like to make an open offer to any of our elected MP's or members of the House of Lords - come and take a look at our shooting range and see the sport of target shooting. We will show you the different aspects of our sport, the different types of firearms and subject to conditions even shoot one (if you like).

We are not looking to embarrass or cajole you, just show you what target shooting is and perhaps open your minds to what a large (and growing sport) target shooting is. You can invite the media if you wish or have it as a quiet fact finding process just so you can understand the sport and the people who participate in it before voting to ban aspects of it. You never know, you might even like it?

Just contact us directly to arrange a visit.

One thing though, whilst having certain criminal convictions might not stop you being an MP it will stop you touching a firearm so best to check first. :)

John Thorne
Owner, Silverstone Shooting Centre.

PS To the shooting community, share this, forward it to your MP or local representative, give them the opportunity to understand our sport before they vote to restrict it further, knowledge never hurt anyone, lack of knowledge can hurt everyone.

John, that's a great post .

If it were me, and I am not you, and neither is this meant to be critical, but in the interests of always keeping to facts, I would take out the last line about criminal convictions.

David TS wrote:If it were me, and I am not you, and neither is this meant to be critical, but in the interests of always keeping to facts, I would take out the last line about criminal convictions.

I thought that was the best bit

The criminal convictions bit is accurate, if you look at parliamentary rules convictions are not an automatic bar to being an mp, whereas curtains ones are for firearms ownership.

It’s also funny and part of all this is the dehumanising of shooters as militant lunatics, we do have a sense of humour.

Thorney wrote:The criminal convictions bit is accurate, if you look at parliamentary rules convictions are not an automatic bar to being an mp, whereas curtains ones are for firearms ownership.

It’s also funny and part of all this is the dehumanising of shooters as militant lunatics, we do have a sense of humour.

I am sure it is accurate, but we'll have to agree to differ. I don't want to argue over one line of a very good post.

Thorney wrote:The criminal convictions bit is accurate, if you look at parliamentary rules convictions are not an automatic bar to being an mp, whereas curtains ones are for firearms ownership.

It’s also funny and part of all this is the dehumanising of shooters as militant lunatics, we do have a sense of humour.

Too true. Many would also fail regarding the temperate habit requirement.

David TS wrote:

John, that's a great post .

If it were me, and I am not you, and neither is this meant to be critical, but in the interests of always keeping to facts, I would take out the last line about criminal convictions.

It's accurate and ought to make them think.
Also, and this surprised me as I'm reasonably sure it wasn't the case when I was with TVP (a long time ago), a criminal record need not bar you from becoming a police officer.

The bit about the Met didn't surprise me one little bit.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan ... nal-record

I will refer to my point earlier. All respondes to MPs need to be considered and considered from all angles. Take the current point that is trying to be made that you can become an MP with criminal convictions that would stop you owning a firearm. In short, implying that firearms owned are more lawful and honest than an MP. That’s a challenge. The fact is, you can have revived a prison sentence of under three years and still be eligible to own firearms, section 21 of the 1968 Act.

All of the good points and hard work that goes into constructing a response is thrown out. Decision influencers will not be interested or give you any credit if you make a mistake, they’ll just discount your efforts.

Sim G wrote:I will refer to my point earlier. All respondes to MPs need to be considered and considered from all angles. Take the current point that is trying to be made that you can become an MP with criminal convictions that would stop you owning a firearm. In short, implying that firearms owned are more lawful and honest than an MP. That’s a challenge. The fact is, you can have revived a prison sentence of under three years and still be eligible to own firearms, section 21 of the 1968 Act.

All of the good points and hard work that goes into constructing a response is thrown out. Decision influencers will not be interested or give you any credit if you make a mistake, they’ll just discount your efforts.

Appreciate your opinion but I'm happy its in. Its a social media post where we have asked it to be shared (16k views but only 100 odd shares sadly) so an element of humour I feel is necessary to keep it readable. We are of course being more formal with an invite to all MP's via our own MP (who happens to be the leader of the HoC, Andrea Leadsome) who has been supportive of us from the beginning. For some reason none of the shooting organisations (and I do mean none, not one) have shown any interested in the idea, which I find a little disconcerting.