yeah, i wrote it when that came up and now use it when ever they sprout their lunacy... 8^)
Posted on 08/19/2005 12:28:00 PM PDT by neverdem
The government has been urged to relax gun laws which make it illegal for Britain's top pistol shooters to train in England, Scotland and Wales.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has given special permission for pistol events to be staged at the London 2012 Olympics.
But British team members face having to do all their 2012 preparations abroad.
"It would be fantastic if they were given the ability to compete on a level playing field," said British shooting's performance chief John Leighton-Dyson.
"I would like to think reasonable people will be able to have reasonable discussions and come to reasonable conclusions about this."
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
We must be allowed to train on the same level as other athletes if we're to have a reasonable chance of competing effectively
British shooting's performance director John Leighton-Dyson
|
|
|
|
Laws banning most types of handguns were introduced after gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and their teacher at Dunblane Primary School in March 1996.
As a result, British shooters who compete in the rapid fire, 50m pistol men and 25m pistol women Olympic events can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or Isle of Man.
Team members currently spend about 20 to 30 days a year training in Switzerland, and receive no funding because their events are illegal in the UK.
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Home Office agreed to relax the law so the three events can be staged in 2012, as it did for the 2002 Commonwealth Games events, although stringent security measures will still be required.
But the government's current stance is that there will be no further concessions for training in the build-up to the Games.
Japan, which has similar gun laws to Britain, gives its elite pistol shooters a special exemption.
And Leighton-Dyson is keen to set up talks with the government, the British Olympic Association and London's organising committee in an attempt to broker a similar compromise.
"It is very difficult for us to get young people to come into a sport they can't practise domestically," he told BBC Sport.
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
The banning of handguns wasn't a matter of eroding personal freedoms
Home Office spokesperson
|
|
|
|
"The British team in 2012 will be the biggest we can possibly put out because we are playing at home.
"We must be allowed to train and prepare on the same level as other athletes if we are to have a reasonable chance of competing effectively."
The International Olympic Committee has received letters from various parties since London won hosting rights for 2012 asking it to push for changes in Britain's gun laws.
But IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said: "We are totally comfortable with what has been put in place for Games time."
A Home Office spokesperson said the laws had been voted in by an "overwhelming majority" of MPs.
"The banning of handguns wasn't a matter of eroding personal freedoms, it was a matter of ensuring that what had been shown to be a terrible, if statistically small, risk was removed," she said.
Can't dare let the subjects near guns..
Well, at least she admits it. Egad, the Horror. England is doomed.
If I were them I'd do all my living abroad also.
ping
I'd better grab some duct tape before my head explodes.
This is lawmaking on the fly. The handgun law was done in a panic because of the Dunblane massacre; it is going to take years to undo.
Regards, Ivan
If it can be undone. Good luck.
Team members currently spend about 20 to 30 days a year training in Switzerland, and receive no funding because their events are illegal in the UK.
"The banning of handguns wasn't a matter of eroding personal freedoms, it was a matter of ensuring that what had been shown to be a terrible, if statistically small, risk was removed," she said.
Also, things that are blunt are banned, and things that are heavy are banned, and things that are blunt AND heavy are RIGHT OUT AS WELL!!!
Well, lets see... that about cover it then???
That's really sad. Every single Brit I know swears up and down they are "free". I always disagree with them, but I guess they're happy for the most part.
---"I would like to think reasonable people will be able to have reasonable discussions and come to reasonable conclusions about this."---
This guy's a real joker!
And he added, "Stupidity is Intelligence, Death is Life, Slavery is Freedom."
It became statistically larger.
A forseen consequence by many shooters here in the USA.
This guy's a real joker!
Translated the former means: "You're all gonna do it my way!"
It would have made Orwell proud.
You may be writing ironically, but that's what's coming to pass in formerly Great Britain. A numbef of nutcase doctors are actually trying to get chefs' knives outlawed.
Gun crime has indeed exploded in the UK: from almost non-existent to statistically insignificant!
Just compare the figures per 100,000 people for the USA and the UK and tell me who is safer...
God gives all His creatures the right to self defense...
The King usurps God by taking away this right from creatures
God created in His own image..
Down the British...up the Rebels....
One if by land
Two if by sea
Three if by way
of Washington D.C.
yeah, i wrote it when that came up and now use it when ever they sprout their lunacy... 8^)
Yep.
Just compare the figures per 100,000 people for the USA and the UK and tell me who is safer...
This is from Canada Blames Us
The experiences in the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers some pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.
Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.
The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey completed, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate of that in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out later this year, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35 percent, while those in the U.S. have declined 6 percent.
Excellent source data.
Bookmarked
No, you're wrong, you're not safer, you only feel that way. The UK is as vulnerable to internal violence as it was to invasion in 1940. Pardon me, but I don't find any bragging rights in being disarmed. Furthermore, if one removes the gun homicides of black and Hispanic males between 15 and 25 years of age, the rate becomes insignificant to the US population and the number of US firearms.
There may come another day when Britain has to ask Americans to send them guns as they did in 1939-40. BTW, we'd like some of them back.
If you remove blacks from the UK figures too, the real gun crime rate becomes nearly non-existent. Almost all UK crime with real guns is committed by black drug dealers against their fellows. Frankly, no great loss to society. I'm reliably informed that gun handling and care is poor: the guns are largely fashion accessories. There's nowhere they can legally do target practice, ammo supply is erratic, and carrying a gun brings an AUTOMATIC 5 year jail sentence on top of whatever other crime was committed.
The British gun crime figures also include crimes committed with imitation firearms, toys and airguns/BB guns, so are artificially inflated.
Violent crime takes in mainly low-level street brawling, pub altercations, domestic strife. No big deal, and almost never fatal, precisely because nobody has a gun. Drunken brawls like this are part of British culture.
Anybody who can't defend himself without a gun is a wuss anyway.
As it happens, though, I agree that the legislation was over the top and needs reform, particularly given the target shooters' plight. But I certainly would't like most of the UK population being able to purchase a gun, because that means criminals can get them too. I'm not scared of anybody armed the same as me: i.e. boots, fists, broken bottles/clubs etc.
In America it's different, and you're welcome to buy as many guns as you want. Hell, you can even buy bazookas and hand grenades for all I care - but you're not THAT free, are you?
But in Britain we (or most of us) are very happy the way things are. The only people with guns are the army and the police, and if you ask me the latter are already out of their depth with them.
See my post to Elbucko.
You have to look at the UK statistics carefully. Violent crime covers a multitude of sins in the UK. "Gun crime" is also often not with guns.
There has also been an increase in people reporting crimes that they previously wouldn't have bothered with.
Study the statistics! And remember that society is different here. British people in my view are far more prone to low-level violence than Americans, and it's always been that way, guns or not.
Did Mr. Lott unfairly manipulate thr data?
Did Mr. Lott unfairly manipulate thr data?
What? Lott? Who he? Is this some American joke?
Going offline for this weekend, back Sunday evening.
Leftists always try to use the USA's high murder rate to justify gun control laws. However, the murder rate by knives alone in the USA is greater than the UK's total murder rate! In 1981 the American murder rate was 8.7 times the UK rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times higher and by 2002 it was only 3.5 times higher. Besides, a study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate was consistently five times the London rate, but for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.
Swiss reservists (almost the entire male population between 20 and 42) keep semi-automatic rifles in their homes and conscripts are issued with fully-automatic rifles to keep in theirs, however, the murder rate in Switzerland is regularly lower than it is in Britain!
Yeah right, apart from the fact that in the UK a much higher proportion of people are kicked to death than shot and they along with many victims who suffer "Grievous Bodily Harm" could have been saved by a CCW system.
Several American states with the most liberal gun laws have the lowest murder and violent crime rates. For example, FBI statistics show that Vermont (which has a genuine right to carry law, i.e. it requires no permits), boasts the 47th lowest murder rate among the 50 states (its rate is about the same as the UK's), and enjoys the 49th lowest violent crime rate in the USA. If gun ownership rates are directly proportional to murder rates then why was Britain's murder rate lower between 1900 and 1920, (when it had no gun control laws at all), than it is now?
Anybody who can't defend himself without a gun is a wuss anyway.
Yeah those elderly, female and disabled people don't deserve to live because they can't fight as well, yup, that's a great attitude.
But I certainly would't like most of the UK population being able to purchase a gun, because that means criminals can get them too.
For goodness sake, criminals can get them even though they're illegal! See here.
I'm not scared of anybody armed the same as me: i.e. boots, fists, broken bottles/clubs etc.
Will you stop thinking about yourself, what about people who are outnumered, female, weak, ill, old, disabled etc?
Check out this "ukman" guy. His gun control arguments make me want to puke.
Pay no attention to the elephant in the room.
What elephant?..............................................;^)
"Violent crime takes in mainly low-level street brawling, pub altercations, domestic strife."
Well, it is pretty simple. If I am about to be attacked, I'll defend myself by any means necessary, including putting a hole through a soccer hooligan weilding a broken bottle.
"Anybody who can't defend himself without a gun is a wuss anyway."
Anybody who would attack somebody else is a degenerate and not worth not keeping alive. JMO.
"The only people with guns are the army and the police, and if you ask me the latter are already out of their depth with them."
People who cannot defend themselves by any means necessary are not free people. Then again, I could really care less about Britain.
Just compare the UK numbers with the Saudi Arabian numbers. The UK has 2X the murder rate and 25,000X the burglarly rate?
Whiny Socialist Voice:What does that say about you as a Sooo Cieee Uhhh Teee
When will you be adopting Sharia?
Now wait just a minute! On one hand you're trying to shoot down US gun owners with a comparison of British crime statistics, now you claim that the UK stats are artificially inflated with toy guns. In other words, what you're really saying is that you, or the government, doesn't really know what the hell you're saying.
Violent crime takes in mainly low-level street brawling, pub altercations, domestic strife. No big deal, and almost never fatal, precisely because nobody has a gun.
I've spent time in the UK every two years since '86, I am familiar with British "pub society" and nobody had guns before the gun ban either. What they did have, especially in the working class and ethnic neighborhoods was knives. I am willing to bet my lucky gun that there are more people killed with knives in the UK and the US, in the last 15 years, than have been killed by guns. A knifing just doesn't make the news. Fox or Thames TV.
Anybody who can't defend himself without a gun is a wuss anyway.
True, but only a fool would bring a knife to a gun fight.
In America it's different, and you're welcome to buy as many guns as you want.
Not since 1968.
Hell, you can even buy bazookas and hand grenades for all I care - but you're not THAT free, are you?
No, so what's your point? Should the US be less free or more so?
But in Britain we (or most of us) are very happy the way things are. The only people with guns are the army and the police, and if you ask me the latter are already out of their depth with them.
So we've noticed. That's because you do not have a competent "shooting class" to draw competent gun handlers from for police. It takes steady nerves to face another man with another gun and shoot, or not shoot, accordingly. This I know and it's not from watching the tele.
Cheers.
Considering that there hasn't been a homicide in two years in my USA county(with a LOT of guns), and no "gun" homicide in at least 4 or 5 years - I have no complaints.
I've taken some stick for my views, I see. I expected it.
Let me reiterate that I think the UK's present gun laws are unfair to target shooters, re-enactors etc. and I think it was a shame that so many old soldiers had to hand in their war trophies, nearly all of which were lying around harmlessly in attics. The crazy-gunman problem could have been solved by means other than banning ALL gun clubs and ALL private ownership etc.
I am new to FR, though I lurked for a while and read its articles with interest. There have been previous threads about gun control laws, which I ignored. I did read those about Britain and guns; most of these mocked us as pansies, wusses, subject, sheep etc. ad nauseam, and concluded our country was doomed. I never knew whether to laugh or cry at the ignorance, but this time I saw fit to post a response.
Now, don't conclude that I'm attacking your US gun laws (however puzzling and illogical they look to me – that's a completely different thing). It's YOUR country, your gun laws are the result of a long historical, legal and social process. I couldn't care less whether or not every American can buy assault rifles, AP ammunition or even flamethrowers. Go ahead, if it makes you feel safe. I'm just not interested in what happens in the USA.
However, I do get irked when Americans chortle at us. Our gun laws too are the result of a long process. I am talking here about guns purely in a BRITISH context.
Answering individual points, my thanks to Neverdem for the links: in many cases they confirm my views. But I'll have to peruse them in greater detail another time.
D.Hunter:
>Leftists always try to use the USA's high murder rate to justify gun control laws. However, the murder rate by knives alone in the USA is greater than the UK's total murder rate! In 1981 the American murder rate was 8.7 times the UK rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times higher and by 2002 it was only 3.5 times higher. Besides, a study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate was consistently five times the London rate, but for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. <
This alone proves my point that we're – still - safer in the UK than in the US. Thanks. As to the study comparing NY and London over 200 years, what relevance does it have today what things were like in Napoleon's day? I'm talking about the UK today.
>Swiss reservists (almost the entire male population between 20 and 42) keep semi-automatic rifles in their homes and conscripts are issued with fully-automatic rifles to keep in theirs, however, the murder rate in Switzerland is regularly lower than it is in Britain!<
So what? A different society, much more staid and law-abiding, while the Swiss' guns and ammo are government property and locked away. Why is this relevant? Why bring the Swiss into this? What have they go to do with us?
>Yeah right, apart from the fact that in the UK a much higher proportion of people are kicked to death than shot and they along with many victims who suffer "Grievous Bodily Harm" could have been saved by a CCW system.<
Meaning it's OK to shoot people to bring down the murder rate/violent crime rate? Er…
Kicking deaths being more frequent that shooting deaths demonstrates that REAL gun crime is hardly soaring.
Me: Anybody who can't defend himself without a gun is a wuss anyway.
You: Yeah those elderly, female and disabled people don't deserve to live because they can't fight as well, yup, that's a great attitude.
To clarify, I meant the kind of people who get involved in pub brawls. Youngish pissed-up blokes, not the above, who are almost never victims of this kind of thing. I stress "almost", so don't bother coming back at me with deplorable and sensationalised incidents from tabloid newspapers.
Me:But I certainly would't like most of the UK population being able to purchase a gun, because that means criminals can get them too.
You: For goodness sake, criminals can get them even though they're illegal!
I know that! It's bad enough already, so why make it any easier? Luckily, gun-armed criminals in the UK are a menace to each other more than anyone else. They are non-proficient (there's nowhere safe and legal for target practice) and more interested in looking cool (being insecure prats with masculinity problems, like as not). Ammunition supply, care, maintenance are sketchy too. BTW, to correct my previous assumption, it's not just black drug dealers, but also Turkish, Albanian, eastern European, Chinese and some British white gangs who use real guns without compunction. The death rate in all cases is insignificant, but let's be fair.
Me: I'm not scared of anybody armed the same as me: i.e. boots, fists, broken bottles/clubs etc.
You: Will you stop thinking about yourself, what about people who are outnumered, female, weak, ill, old, disabled etc?
If you're in one of those categories, you really shouldn't hang around near rough pubs at chucking-out time, where most of this sort of trouble occurs. If you're outnumbered, you'd best scarper. Common sense, really. Anyway, do you think hauling out a firearm is going to cow a bunch of tanked-up yobs? They'd ram it down your throat, or worse. Or call the police and get YOU banged up.
Stew Padasso:
>Well, it is pretty simple. If I am about to be attacked, I'll defend myself by any means necessary, including putting a hole through a soccer hooligan weilding a broken bottle.<
1. Soccer hooligans normally do prearranged battle with their own sort using fists and boots. Anything else is considered unsporting. Remember, our society is different.
2. Shooting a hooligan indulging in a friendly brawl with his fellows would be grossly disproportionate - and murder to boot.
3. Shooting anybody wielding a broken bottle is also rather unfair – and also likely to see you in the dock for murder. Why not just boot the guy? Dear, dear, why go to such extremes?
>People who cannot defend themselves by any means necessary are not free people. Then again, I could really care less about Britain. <
But we can defend ourselves against anything currently threatening the UK!
And if you don't care, don't respond on threads about Britain.
Adam Selene: Just compare the UK numbers with the Saudi Arabian numbers. The UK has 2X the murder rate and 25,000X the burglarly rate? <
Let's keep the Arabs out of this, we're comparing the US and the UK. I couldn't give a toss what the Arab figures are. A totally alien society, useless for comparative purposes.
ElBucko:Now wait just a minute! On one hand you're trying to shoot down US gun owners with a comparison of British crime statistics, now you claim that the UK stats are artificially inflated with toy guns. In other words, what you're really saying is that you, or the government, doesn't really know what the hell you're saying. <
What? Me, trying to shoot down (unfortunate turn of phrase!) US gun owners? See my above statements. "Gun crime" statistics in the UK also cover drunken twunts threatening people with toy guns, kids shooting greenhouses with airguns etc. Real gun crime with people getting added holes is very rare. That suits me fine.
>I've spent time in the UK every two years since '86, I am familiar with British "pub society" and nobody had guns before the gun ban either.<
(Meaning that the gun ban was irrelevant for most people.)
>What they did have, especially in the working class and ethnic neighborhoods was knives. I am willing to bet my lucky gun that there are more people killed with knives in the UK and the US, in the last 15 years, than have been killed by guns. A knifing just doesn't make the news. Fox or Thames TV. <
I hope you're not one of those calling for a knife ban! I know this is the standard PC response, but low-tech weapons simply can't be eliminated. If knives were to be banned, people would use box cutters, sharpened screwdrivers, bike chains, iron bars, brass knuckles or anything to hand. You can't stop people brawling. I know the police are concerned about knifings, but I'm against any ban on selling/buying knives. What you can do is hand out heavy penalties after the event to people using/carrying deadly weapons.
>True, but only a fool would bring a knife to a gun fight. <
In Britain gun-fights? Where? They're as rare as rocking-horse sh*t. Bringing a gun to a knife fight, on the other hand, is disproportionate and unsporting.
You can argue all you want about the details in crime figures. The point is, more people are murdered in the USA than in the UK, however many guns you have, however few we have. The UK is SAFER. Allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to buy a gun in the UK would open the floodgates to escalating mayhem. The police would have to be armed at all times, which they don't want either.
Going off at a slight tangent, but still relative to safety, is accidents. I read somewhere – please don't ask me for a source – that dozens of people in the US are killed every year while cleaning or playing around with guns, sometimes even their kids get hold of them, with unpleasant results. That's just a side-effect which is non-existent here in the UK now.
If I could legally buy a gun, I wouldn't: dangerous things for the user and bystanders without training, heavy to carry, seldom of real use in a crisis, and liable to make a disagreeable situation worse. However, I'd feel much less safe if low-lifes had even easier access to guns than they do now. I'd also not feel any safer if, in the course of, say, trying to break up a punch-up or subdue a mugger, some upstanding jerk with his pretty new gun happens by, misunderstands the situation and plugs ME.
There's nothing wussy or submissive in not having guns. Having and using guns in our society is simply inappropriate. We generally manage without them rather well. And like I said, we don't appreciate being mocked for it.
In conclusion, let us British do things our way without sarky comments.
Perhaps other British posters would care to comment?
Note to self:
No further posting after 24 hours, my arguments remain unrefuted...
I hereby declare myself the "winner" of this little debate.
Celebratory cuppa is in order.
til you get to the point that no tree branch can be longer than 6" and cannot be pointy, and no rock can weigh more than .2kg
If they don't allow guns, they shouldn't be allowed to compete in a gun event. There is something very hypocritical about that
Oh yes there is and especially so when you demand no one else should be allowed to have guns because it will frighten you.
Your opinion and you're welcome to it, but it flies in the face of fact. The fact is that they make a bad situation better. The fact is that according to extensive statistical research that you're a lot less likely to get injured using a gun to resist robbery or assault than following any other course.
The crazy-gunman problem could have been solved by means other than banning ALL gun clubs and ALL private ownership etc.
Again your response is lacking in factual matter. All one has to do is look at the jurisdictions in the USA with the highest violent crime to see that they're also the jusisdictions with the most restrictive anti-gun laws (eg Washington, DC) DC banned private ownership in 1976 and competes annually with Detroit for the highest murder rate in the nation
There's nothing wussy or submissive in not having guns.
Again a matter of opinion I'm sure the residents of NYC who long ago gave up their right to self defense would agree with you. Those of us in the relevant parts of the country would not.
Having and using guns in our society is simply inappropriate.
Your opinion again. This only hold true if human nature in GB ais fundamentally different than in the rest of the world. Somehow I doubt that. There are undoubtedly people even in the UK's nanny state would would vigorously disagree with you.
the land of bonsi trees and gravel...
No kidding... When I was shooting competatively (on the amature level), I was going shooting 3 or 4 times a week. I averaged about 500-1000 rounds of .22 a week, and 300-500 rounds of .45ACP, and the occasional .41MAG and .44MAG rounds (50-100) every week!
BTW, there's a shooting range that I used to go to run by the MO department of conservation. I was kicked out of that range for "firing too quickly." I was just doing timed fire (not rapid fire) practice!
I also got in trouble the first time I brought my M-14 out there, just to sight it in (it's only a 100 yard range). They didn't like the magazines, but luckily I had brought a legal hunting mag that was blocked down to 5 rounds. Still, it LOOKED like a 20 round mag, and after a few minutes they decided that if I wanted to continue shooting the rifle, I would have to fire it single shot!
Mark
Me: There's nothing wussy or submissive in not having guns
You: Oh yes there is and especially so when you demand no one else should be allowed to have guns because it will frighten you.
Me:
I don't "demand" anything. I just hope that the majority of British people will continue to agree that we want guns off our streets. Frightened? Not particularly. It's just that they're not needed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.