longlowdog
Well-Known Member
The way I see it is that the reason the motion had to be defeated is to preserve an individuals freedom of choice. If someone wants a 'black' rifle who is to stop them? Knee jerk reactions to the actions of the mentally subnormal are not justification for restrictions on the activities of the law abiding. It is the responsibility of society to help, police, treat or remove from harms way those who pose an genuine risk to that society. One man's view of aesthetics will differ to another's but no-one is wrong or absolutely right. The fact is that in a balanced society if a man wants to own a rifle to hunt, compete or collect then the shape or action or power of the thing is irrelevant, a sane man is no more threat with a semi-auto fifty cal' than a single shot .22 with BB caps.
To put the U.K narrow eyed view of the uses of 'black' rifles etc into perspective, in the U.S.A a man has the right to defend his home with lethal force in a number of states using a legally held weapon often against perpetrators with illegally held weapons. Semi-auto with home defence loads are common place and courses can be attended to teach home guardians how to best utilise them.
Sport shooting in America has a huge following for shooting competitions based on courses of fire suited to 'black' rifles (and pistols). It should also be pointed out to younger shooters in the U.K that we also had these sports until we were robbed of our freedom to participate by the self same knee-jerk reactions to the activities of a mad man.
Just because a weapon does not fit into our own mental view of the aesthetics of what we perceive as justifiable does not give us the right to judge what another sane, mentally well balanced person following a different path should or should not be able to do.
In short, a mad man with a 4x4 outside a sports stadium is considerably more dangerous than than any gun owner but gun ownership does not bring in the same revenue as car ownership so one will suffice as a whipping boy for politicians and one will go unmentioned.
To put the U.K narrow eyed view of the uses of 'black' rifles etc into perspective, in the U.S.A a man has the right to defend his home with lethal force in a number of states using a legally held weapon often against perpetrators with illegally held weapons. Semi-auto with home defence loads are common place and courses can be attended to teach home guardians how to best utilise them.
Sport shooting in America has a huge following for shooting competitions based on courses of fire suited to 'black' rifles (and pistols). It should also be pointed out to younger shooters in the U.K that we also had these sports until we were robbed of our freedom to participate by the self same knee-jerk reactions to the activities of a mad man.
Just because a weapon does not fit into our own mental view of the aesthetics of what we perceive as justifiable does not give us the right to judge what another sane, mentally well balanced person following a different path should or should not be able to do.
In short, a mad man with a 4x4 outside a sports stadium is considerably more dangerous than than any gun owner but gun ownership does not bring in the same revenue as car ownership so one will suffice as a whipping boy for politicians and one will go unmentioned.