Time to relax UK gun laws?


April 3, 2006, 07:49 AM
Posted 03 April 2006 08:06

British Commonwealth medal hero Mick Gault is forced to train extensively abroad because of British gun laws introduced after the Dunblane massacre.

Should gun laws be relaxed to allow sporting shooters to train in Britain?



If you enjoyed reading about "Time to relax UK gun laws?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
April 3, 2006, 07:56 AM
What a terrible poll. Reduce the effectiveness of laws meant to control crime so that a handful of people aren't inconvenienced? It doesn’t matter that the laws are 100% ineffective. Just the notion of doing such a thing makes no sense. Everyone in the UK will vote no.

Laws that don't work should be eliminated because they don't work. Not because someone's life is made a little harder by them.

April 3, 2006, 09:19 AM
Quite a few have voted Yes.

I think it's because it wasn't designed to stop crime, but rather to appease the anti-gunners, who were quite irrational at the time (when are they not?), and to hell with the good guys (if Art's Grammaw will forgive the language).

April 3, 2006, 09:45 AM
I vote NO

The gun laws should be relaxed but not for the convenience of a privileged few

April 3, 2006, 01:11 PM
I would prefer a poll that asks how many years until the USA has to rescue Europe from one of their Marxist sociopaths.......AGAIN!

April 3, 2006, 01:30 PM
Hey now, I vote no.

We are running out of states which do not allow concealed carry and soon, if they all allow it, we wont have any place our criminals can go to be safe. As soon as the Crips and the Bloods learn that it is much safer the other side of the pond, I am sure they will be happy to go there, where they can roam free, free from the harm that may happen to them here.

They still ahve some free enclaves here though. They can hunt freely in Washington D.C, NYC and other bastions of leftist thought.

So, I have to vote no, for the future of our criminals. If it saves just one criminals life... wouldn't it be worth it?

I'm out

April 3, 2006, 01:40 PM
The should be relaxed to allow ordinary British citizens to participate in the shooting sports. However, being a Texan, maybe I don't quite "get it"? I got this thing about Freedom, I suppose, kinda started about 1836 and I inherited it.

April 6, 2006, 05:32 PM
:eek: :rolleyes: :fire: :cuss: :cuss:
The UK anti-gunners are made up of the following types:people who hate guns FULL-STOP,people who were related to,or were friends of- people killed in both the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres and those wonderful people who see guns as killing-machines that have very little purpose for the everyday citizen, exept for the law enforcement agencies,Military,vets,farmers;pest-controllers, etc- who have an obvious bonifide reason to use a gun.::rolleyes:. Other gullible suckers are those who I define as wishy-washy-characters who know that our sport is bonefide and legitimate,but haven't the courage to take a stand with us, because they feel that there are psycopaths and other undesirables who are amongst those of us who are legitimate,honest and reliable shooters.

Wishy-washy could be used to describe former Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, who was an absolute pushover, compared to the Ironlady-former Prime-minister Margret Thatcher.

These people are citizens of the UK and live in England,Scotland and Wales and want England to remain as gun-free as possible and who seem to object to our laws, because they think our laws are not strict enough.

There is a current campaign to restore target-pistol shooting in the UK mainland, by means of a petition. I will at somepoint create a link to this website, for shooters to SIGN AT THEIR DESCRETION.:) :) :) :)

April 6, 2006, 06:48 PM
Wishy-washy could be used to describe former Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, who was an absolute pushover, compared to the Ironlady-former Prime-minister Margret Thatcher.

thatcher the gun grabber you mean? we used to have semi-autos prior to her gun grab following Hungerford.

April 7, 2006, 05:18 AM
What I am talking about is that Thatcher is a strong woman compared to Kinnock, but YES unfortunately she did grab our assault-weapons, and sporting semi-auto; pump-action centrefire rifles because of the 1987 General Election and also because some morons in her party,though that these weapons were inappropraite for civillian use.The sporting-shooters failed to stop her from banning sporting-centrefire semi-auto and pump-action rifles, because not enough sporters supported these weapons-they favoured single-shot and bolt-action/lever-action weapons, instead.Plus they took into account-our wildlife, which didn't need to be shot by these sporters.It was a case of "If you need to,why not use a manual-repeater".If we had the same types and numbers of wildlife found in North America and Canada, then these bans wouldn't have been processed-easily.

If you remember that the Conservative government made a special allowance for rimfire semi-auto and pump-action rifles, by not including them in the 1988 Firearm Ammendment Act.This was because alot of sporting-shooters used them to dispatch vermin with and thus being very popular amongst sporting-shooters.

April 7, 2006, 06:18 AM
I tend to think that it was the "conservative" party leadership - more than Margaret Thatcher herself - that wanted to ban semi-autos etc. It was these same people who forced her to resign over her opposition to the EU.

It must be a tremendous embarrassment to the British team to have to grovel around these days for a place to shoot, though on this topic point I agree with Graystar.



April 8, 2006, 01:30 AM
Yes: 80.75 %
No: 19.25 %

I wonder how many of those votes are British?

April 8, 2006, 02:36 AM
Dang it , my vote only raised the 'yes' to 80.76%

April 8, 2006, 02:53 AM
Actually I'm cheering total disarmament in Britain. Nothing helps combat gun control laws like a a perfect example of them.

And besides as a New Viking I want their stuff.

April 8, 2006, 03:13 AM

If we had the same types and numbers of wildlife found in North America and Canada, then these bans wouldn't have been processed-easily.

Don't let yourself fall into the trap of thinking of America as a wild west and Britain as an endless suburbia with nothing to hunt. I'd venture that if your game laws allowed you, your biology would support as many hunters as most American areas. For that matter, the American states that perhaps most closely resemble Britain in terms of population density, for example Massachussetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, have plenty of hunting that would be available to their citizens if their game laws were condusive to such.

Yes, parts of America do have wolves, bears and mountain lions, but the vast majority of the American population lives in areas where there is nothing as much to be concerned about as the homo sapien type varmits, and perhaps mean housedogs, which I know you have both of in Britain.

I would say our culture of hunting plays a much larger role than the diversity of our wildlife. Remember that for (how many?) hundreds of years Britain and most of western Europe were ruled by cultural elites who restricted
hunting to themselves, and the serfs who hunted had to poach. By contrast, the society that was present here when white man first stepped foot on the continent had a culture of 'the best hunter and warrior gets accolades and the pick of the beautiful women', and the Europeans who first integrated here adopted and adapted huge portions of that cultural code into their own lives and law (many states have written into their own constitutions rights of hunting). Ben Franklin, several hundred years after bows had been (supposedly) made obsolete by firearms was suggesting integration of bows into American militias fighting British troops, due in part to his current observation of American Indian culture and ability with the shortbow (as well as his affinity for history and his roots and the English culture of yore effectively wielding the longbow).

April 8, 2006, 06:28 AM
If we had the same types and numbers of wildlife found in North America and Canada, then these bans wouldn't have been processed-easily.

I can understand what you are saying politically but it is a huge trap. I own guns. I own lots of guns. I plan to own a lot more. I DO go hunting a few days a year but my gun ownership has NOTHING to do with hunting. If you allow that linkage to become your justification for gun ownership, you will lose. It is inevitable. The human population goes up. They take up more land. The animals get squeezed. Hunting becomes more and more uncommon. Then hunters might as well turn in all their guns?

As I've argued many times, this is one of the best things about the rise of "shall issue" CCW in the States. The anti-gun people had made the hunting argument here for decades. People didn't need guns if they weren't "useful for hunting." And handguns were the most "worthless of all." All they were good for was "killing people." But much to the anti-gun people's dismay, the majority of states now actually sanction the idea that regular people have an actual utilitarian role for concealable handguns. They teach the classes, the issue the permits. Hmmm, there must be a "use" for those darn things after all.

No wonder CCW laws make anti-gunners foam at the mouth despite all of the evidence that they don't result in more crime, etc.


April 8, 2006, 08:08 AM
I agree that there are more fundamental reasons for owning/using firearms than sporting, and that firearm ownership should not be limited to "privilaged groups" (hunters, members of the Olympic team, etc).

But there is a very clear attitude amongst anti-gun campaigners/think tanks/politicians here that if it is relatively easy for people to get involved in shooting sports, then they will, and more more people will come to think that there is nothing inherently wrong with guns.

Which I agree with (just not that it is a bad thing), and I expect you would too.

So surely allowing sport shooters to train with handguns in the UK would be a good (aleit very small) thing for the RKBA.

Besides, if you guys all start voting "anti" in UK-based polls, just so you can have an example of gun control not working, then maybe I'll have to start doing the same thing with US-based polls ;).

April 8, 2006, 09:06 AM

As I have explained before in my own thread titled "About Bloody Time BBC", The present government doesn't have a problem with the Olympic team practising here,its just that the anti-s will object to this privilage and will argue that this will be the beginning of the end of the 1997 Firearm Ammendment Act,-that the antis have worked so hard to get endorsed through Parliement. In other words from the antis:"IF YOU DO THIS MR BLAIR THEN WE WILL VOTE FOR LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AND SEE THAT YOU ARE OUT OF OFFICE FOR GOOD!!!!".

This prediction by the GCN (Gun Control Network) does ring true, because it means that the major shooting organizations will openly accuse the government of favouritism and will demand a change in legislation soon, after any changes they make to this legislation.Blair is not that stupid,he has probably shot shotguns and rifles in his time at university or amongst family and friends.He put more legislation on us, because he is a YES-MAN to the antis and wants to stay in power, making him just as bad as the previous Conservative government and his predessesor John Major.

Ramsey MacDonald was the first Labour Prime-minister and Labour originated in Scotland, from what I have read, learned at School and have been told.The names Blair, and Brown, are Scottish and Blair and Brown like many Scots sympathised with those who lost loved-ones at Dunblane and strove to gain votes from these people, by creating more bans for us shooters.

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to relax UK gun laws?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!