Oh don't get me wrong, there are people in the business who I wouldn't pay in washers, and you're right, there are some FEOs (and even decision makers....) who are awkward and could be described as obstructive, but they are few and far between. I know of at least one whose words and actions at one stage would make it appear it was his mission to reduce the public ownership of firearms. However, he was sharply reminded that it was his job to gather facts and that he wasn't there to decide who can and can't have what.
It would be really lovely if we could all have whatever takes our fancy, but the most difficult cases are those where someone asks for authority to possess something where it rapidly becomes apparent that they don't really have good reason to do so.
As a fellow enthusiast I understand the desire to purchase new and shiny, but we go back to the initial overarching premise, that of public safety. There is, whether it suits our personal agenda or not, a risk that firearms will be targeted by professional thieves. The more firearms held in domestic premises, the greater the risk of those firearms being stolen, and by logical progression, increased danger to the public.
I'm not picking on target shooters here by the way, but I know of several who have, over the years, amassed an absolute arsenal of target rifles. One such, on interview, admitted that he only ever fired a few rounds through some of them then stuck them in his strongroom and more or less forgot about them, before heading for the auctions and dealers in search of more interesting examples. He was eventually persuaded to do a few more one-for-ones and if he really became attached to stuff, to apply for a collector's certificate.
