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

RDC wrote:

christel wrote:If anyone can post whatever on the NRA faceshoite page then why not that picture?

Freedom of speech/thought anyone?

You can only post whatever you like on the NRA facebook page insomuch as you can post whatever you like on forum like this.

Post something that isn't relevent or is purposefully inflammatory and chances are it will be binned.

Joe knows full well that the NRA Facebook page is not the place for his purported message and the content and context of the image posted is irrelevant to an organisation that promotes target shooting sports in the UK.

On here content like that gets moved into GOM.

Was that picture inflammatory?

At the end of the day all the NRA is in reality is a Surrey based shooting club, albeit with the best shooting facilities in the country. The national bit is like its aims and objectives a vision of a past existence that is now gone. For decades it has failed in its national remit and failed shooters at every legislative turn, at least now it is admitting that it cannot/will not advocate or fight the political fight needed to protect legal gun ownership in the UK even hiding behind its charitable status. Therefore posting anything other than NRA shooting discipline related content is surely irrelevant and the wrong place to post gun issue arguments, whether it is removed or left such posts are an exercise in futility if you expect it to have any influence on the NRA and its narrow localised remit.

breacher wrote:As to "countering the examples above" - you miss my point. I am indicating a general lack of respect for the law. Your solution just accepts they are yobs but stops them carrying a gun in locations where they are at their most yobbish.

My 'solution' is based on reality. It is impossible to get rid of a humans capacity to be an idiot, plain and simple. Its the same trait/hormone/change in the wind that allows us to behave stupidly that also fuels our ability to push limits, be creative and generally evolve.

Following your 'ideal world' scenario the government should be brought before the Hague on genocide charges for not banning cars

Blackstuff wrote:

breacher wrote:As to "countering the examples above" - you miss my point. I am indicating a general lack of respect for the law. Your solution just accepts they are yobs but stops them carrying a gun in locations where they are at their most yobbish.

My 'solution' is based on reality. It is impossible to get rid of a humans capacity to be an idiot, plain and simple. Its the same trait/hormone/change in the wind that allows us to behave stupidly that also fuels our ability to push limits, be creative and generally evolve.

Following your 'ideal world' scenario the government should be brought before the Hague on genocide charges for not banning cars

Funnily enough there is a certain contradiction in allowing manufacturers to sell cars with a top speed of 150mph in a country where 70mph is the legal limit.

And driving further proves my point - people cannot be trusted with a mobile phone without using it while driving. What makes you think the same people would be responsible with firearms ?

What Breacher said..........in capitals..........

Pete

Would those same people be certified for firearms.

The current certification system seems to keep most of these irresponsible people from owning firearms.

And Bingo was his name-o

The current certification procedure apparently puts off 98% of the population. Then add in additional criteria e.g. you can't enter a premises that's primary function is to serve alcohol/government building/stadium etc etc. Mandatory monthly training, annual/bi-annual marksmanship tests, classroom sessions on firearms law/legal ramifications/mental preparedness etc etc.

99.9% of the people you are worried about either wouldn't be able to meet the requirements or couldn't be bothered to turn up for classes and training because they're too busy getting lashed up and shouting at millionaires that don't give a monkies about them.

All those speeding drivers and all those drivers using the phone went through training and even a test............

The HGV drivers who have been caught watching TV while driving went through even more intensive training and certification.

And there are people out there who already carry weapons for self defence despite being illegal. They would be the first to carry once legal - despite a proven disregard for the law.

It is a huge catch 22. I would like the option to carry an article ( firearm or other ) for self defence. But if I can, so can everybody else. Looking around me, that would be a worry.

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.

breacher wrote:All those speeding drivers and all those drivers using the phone went through training and even a test............

The HGV drivers who have been caught watching TV while driving went through even more intensive training and certification.

And there are people out there who already carry weapons for self defence despite being illegal. They would be the first to carry once legal - despite a proven disregard for the law.

It is a huge catch 22. I would like the option to carry an article ( firearm or other ) for self defence. But if I can, so can everybody else. Looking around me, that would be a worry.

The highlighted part is eating away at me... If these individuals have already shown a disregard for the law, and they are already carrying illegal weapons, what could possibly make you think that if there was a legal route to do this, which may incur some costs, checks and a paper trail for said weapons, that these people would bother? Furthermore, there ARE people already carrying illegal guns, and this makes you want to NOT also carry a gun, because they already are.

This makes absolutely no sense to me.