Home Office and Plymouth "Tragedy"

[spanj]

The world has moved on from then as has the public’s perception of shooting sports and shooting in general.

So I would say you are either under an illusion or simply living in the past.

The world moves in if we let it in terms of fla. no doubt we will roll over and over until, as you say, the guns are taken from us. All I ask is that people bear in mind the origins of the fla before they start with the “I’m quite prepared to pay more” because this IS how they will strangle the sport

 

[25 Sharps]

The world moves in if we let it in terms of fla. no doubt we will roll over and over until, as you say, the guns are taken from us. All I ask is that people bear in mind the origins of the fla before they start with the “I’m quite prepared to pay more” because this IS how they will strangle the sport

I am not prepared to pay more and I don’t think we should, licensing departments should be more efficient, a huge amount of time and therefore money is wasted through their inefficiency so the ‘full cost’ of licensing is exaggerated.

My point is though, the vast majority of the voting public don’t see why they should be paying to enable your hobby. There are far, far more of them than us so if it came to a vote on our fees going up or their taxes going up/money being diverted from other policing or public spending we would lose.

 

[Apthorpe]

My point is though, the vast majority of the voting public don’t see why they should be paying to enable your hobby. There are far, far more of them than us so if it came to a vote on our fees going up or their taxes going up/money being diverted from other policing or public spending we would lolose.

But that sort of issue is never voted on, so I don't see why thst red herring need concern anyone.

If society as a whole does not pay for the system then it creates a conflict of interest which undermines both public safety and confidence I'm the system. It is widely supposed and accepted that any process is not independent when the people paying for it have a particular interest in the outcome. It is therefore essential, even ignoring fairness and utility arguments, thst the state pays at least half the cost. Even more important is that the state bears the cost of its own incompetence.

 

[Bo Diddley]

FAC fee should cover its cost. End of

It would be an open-ended option, the fees would just escalate out of all proportion over the years and it would kill shooting forever eventually.

 

[Bo Diddley]

Am I correct, was that was 1968, over 50 years ago? Should such gossip have any relevance now?
M

No relevance but an interesting point never the less

 

[Liveonce]

I am not prepared to pay more and I don’t think we should, licensing departments should be more efficient, a huge amount of time and therefore money is wasted through their inefficiency so the ‘full cost’ of licensing is exaggerated.

My point is though, the vast majority of the voting public don’t see why they should be paying to enable your hobby. There are far, far more of them than us so if it came to a vote on our fees going up or their taxes going up/money being diverted from other policing or public spending we would lose.

I find the non shooting public either have no option and little to no interest in what we do or how much a licence costs or they show an interest and ask where can i go clay shooting.
The government spends, wastes a lot of our money on far more irrational things than firearm licensing that put up taxes, what is a million pounds or more a day on the small boat people, plus whatever it costs to keep the boarder force boat on the english channel and the drones, helicopters flying above it.

 

[25 Sharps]

I find the non shooting public either have no option and little to no interest in what we do or how much a licence costs or they show an interest and ask where can i go clay shooting.
The government spends, wastes a lot of our money on far more irrational things than firearm licensing that put up taxes, what is a million pounds or more a day on the small boat people, plus whatever it costs to keep the boarder force boat on the english channel and the drones, helicopters flying above it.

That is until the anti shooting brigade raise their awareness…

 

[25 Sharps]

But that sort of issue is never voted on, so I don't see why thst red herring need concern anyone.

If society as a whole does not pay for the system then it creates a conflict of interest which undermines both public safety and confidence I'm the system. It is widely supposed and accepted that any process is not independent when the people paying for it have a particular interest in the outcome. It is therefore essential, even ignoring fairness and utility arguments, thst the state pays at least half the cost. Even more important is that the state bears the cost of its own incompetence.

So you don’t think ‘tighter gun controls following the Plymouth tragedy’ will feature in any party’s manifesto on the next general election?

 

[25 Sharps]

I am under no illusion. FLA was actually brought in to protect govt from trained, disillusioned men who returned from war

Out of interest what major conflict were trained, disillusioned British men were returning home from war in the mid 1960s?

What is your source of information for your statement above?

 

[12gsnapcaps]

Out of interest what major conflict were trained, disillusioned British men were returning home from war in the mid 1960s?

What is your source of information for your statement above?

The first firearms act was 1920, not 1968. Therefore the answer to your question being the First World War. Firearms licensing was invented to protect the aristocracy from a socialist uprising similar to that of the Bolshevik’s in Russia. It may well have transitioned into something more benign and altruistic by 1968, but it’s origins were indisputably that of crushing the working man.

 

[25 Sharps]

The first firearms act was 1920, not 1968. Therefore the answer to your question being the First World War. Firearms licensing was invented to protect the aristocracy from a socialist uprising similar to that of the Bolshevik’s in Russia. It may well have transitioned into something more benign and altruistic by 1968, but it’s origins were indisputably that of to crush the working man.

Thanks

 

[Apthorpe]

So you don’t think ‘tighter gun controls following the Plymouth tragedy’ will feature in any party’s manifesto on the next general election?

Your question bears no relation either to what I said, or the comment I had replied to.
So you think bacon sandwiches are best with mayo on?

 

[Liveonce]

That is until the anti shooting brigade raise their awareness…

indeed and that is where we fail to respond publicly, preferring to use softly softly political channels rather than like the anti shooting brigade public social media, TV etc.

 

[Bo Diddley]

The first firearms act was 1920, not 1968. Therefore the answer to your question being the First World War. Firearms licensing was invented to protect the aristocracy from a socialist uprising similar to that of the Bolshevik’s in Russia. It may well have transitioned into something more benign and altruistic by 1968, but it’s origins were indisputably that of crushing the working man.

Thanks for the info, every day is a school day

 

[Liveonce]

The first firearms act was 1920, not 1968. Therefore the answer to your question being the First World War. Firearms licensing was invented to protect the aristocracy from a socialist uprising similar to that of the Bolshevik’s in Russia. It may well have transitioned into something more benign and altruistic by 1968, but it’s origins were indisputably that of crushing the working man.

This is long , but worth reading, 1903 was the first.

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

Constitutional Commentary; All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America, by Joseph Olson and David Kopel.

guncite.com

 

[JTO]

The last of the five stages of Socialist Revolution:- Disarm the populous.

 

[25 Sharps]

Your question bears no relation either to what I said, or the comment I had replied to.
So you think bacon sandwiches are best with mayo on?

You said ‘that sort of issue is never voted on’

My point was it could realistically be a feature of a manifesto come the next general election and could therefore be voted on.

So entirely related to the original post you quoted and your subsequent response

 

[spanj]

This is long , but worth reading, 1903 was the first.

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

Constitutional Commentary; All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America, by Joseph Olson and David Kopel.

guncite.com

A fascinating, factual read. I’d urge everybody to read this and then think about apathy, acceptance of ever tighter gun control and how, as responsible and safe (emphasis on both) gun owners we can challenge the current perception of us. What do you think @Conor O'Gorman ?

 

[spanj]

I find the non shooting public either have no option and little to no interest in what we do or how much a licence costs or they show an interest and ask where can i go clay shooting.
The government spends, wastes a lot of our money on far more irrational things than firearm licensing that put up taxes, what is a million pounds or more a day on the small boat people, plus whatever it costs to keep the boarder force boat on the english channel and the drones, helicopters flying above it.

It seems this applies to some shooters too unfortunately

 

[Apthorpe]

You said ‘that sort of issue is never voted on’

My point was it could realistically be a feature of a manifesto come the next general election and could therefore be voted on.

So entirely related to the original post you quoted and your subsequent response

Tighter gun controls could certainly be on a manifesto, but since all parties are captive to the urge to over-regulate everything, I doubt they'll make it a major issue.
What will certainly not be on a manifesto, nor voted on by MPs will be the details of what the fees are and who pays them.