Presenting those who would use the guns illegally (And there are far more killings by them than by the ‘spree’ shooters) with a nice target for burglary or armed robbery, where they know full well they can pick up a useful store of ammunition and guns.

Moggy

Like a gun shop?

Sorry Stuart, didn’t mean that your posts are irrelevant, but IMO the debate on gun control is irrelevant to the actions of the few that are determined at all costs.
Still disagree about cars, but that’s a different debate.

Bumblebee I think the points raised wil inevitably be raised in the media (might actually seem odd if they weren’t really), the investigations into why he did it might be important as it has already raised some facts about his past, and maybe helps towards ‘closure’ for some.
I hate blogs anyway, and I don’t think they are right in this situation.

The problem as I see it, is as David Cameron himself said, you can’t legislate against a switch turning on inside someones head, and yet the public will want action, so whats to be done?

Maybe, if in the aftermath of Dunblane, handgun owners had said, we don’t need to keep amunition at home, so alter the law so it is only to be kept at a licenced gun club/range (the only place we can use the weapons), there by rendering a dangerous weapon inert, in so doing drastically reducing the likelyhood of a licenced gun owner from shooting anyone (for what ever reason), then they would still have their weapons now.

if you separate a motor vehicle from its fuel does that not become less dangerous?

You can buy quite legally in this country guns without a licence, known as obsolete calibre weapons, they are fully functional, it is just that the amunition is no longer made ,and it is considered that no old stock is in existance.

It is illegal to hold amunition for these weapons in anycase, but if the Govt, are happy to deregulate these weapons purely because of the lack of amunition for them, then there is a case to be made for separating licenced guns from their amunition ,other than when they are used for the purpose they are intended, i.e sporting.

Completely disagree, way to simplistic, if cars were just transport wouldn’t they all be the same?! It’s a bit like saying food is just for survival – both can, and do, have an enjoyment factor.
Also don’t get your earlier post about 28 days and planning permission etc?
I can’t use a firearm until I have been visited by the police, my checks are done and my certificate is in date, every three years.
All of what you say is irrelevant really, if someone is determined enough they will use a firearm to kill, or a car, this guy used both and they are both highly regulated!

Well its nice of you to say “all of what you say is irrelevant”, I’m glad that my hard work typing this drivel is appreciated…….

FYI a clay shoot can be held without planning permission, provided that it is operated for 28 days (or less) in a year ;there are many activities that feature this rule including caravan pitches.

Using your line of thinking that all cars would be the same, why aren’t all kitchen knives the same, or for that matter guns?

From its inception the car was designed for transport, a relatively peaceful activity, whereas the gun from inception was designed to kill, not considered peaceful; ask yourself this question, why can’t you bulk buy petrol and store it at home, so that you might take advantage of a discounted price, no one thinks their civil liberties are infringed having to go to a petrol station.

Stay focused, this isn’t about protecting the public, clearly if it were, then a concerted effort to rid this country of illegally held handguns would be on the agenda.

What this is about is the anticipated knee jerk reaction, that will surely come, and what form that will take; they’ve already banned hand guns, and multi shot shot guns, what next, a complete ban? you tell me.

Guns are made to kill? I personally use them for shooting targets. Its not the gun that kills its the person behind it.

A kitchen knife can and does kill! However its not designed to.

Baseball bats are used as weapons all the time (possibly more than they are used in the sport).

Cars can be used as a weapon.

So what you are saying is:-
Ban guns, guns are bad.
Ban kitchen utensils, utensils are bad.
Ban baseball bats, baseball bats are bad.
Ban cars, cars are bad.

What about a tin of Baked Beans, if thrown at a head hard enough that would kill, so better ban baked beans too to be on the safe side.

Are you deliberately mis reading my post, or can you genuinely not understand it?
to reiterate, the gun was invented to kill, its secondary role can be for target shooting, a car is for driving, a carving knife is for carving, etc, etc, I can’t see where I am suggesting any of them should be banned; if you hit someone over the head with a laptop, with sufficient force it may kill them, but it’s main role is typing pointless answers to needless questions.

You need to look at gun ownership as a priviledge rather than a right, because we are all very close to losing our priviledges; cars are made for transport, baseball bats for sport, kitchen knives for preparing food..guns are made to kill.

Still three years in S.Wales.

No matter how tightly you regulate it will effect the genuine users of Firearms greatly, and the determined nutters will still get hold of weapons and ammo but be driven off the authorities radar.

Just a small point but your quote of my post is slightly misleading; the line “regulate more carefully” was attached to “shooting grounds” .

Currently many can operate under the 28 day rule, meaning that they neither need planning permission, nor do they have a membership list, or any police involvement.

The pricing structure for clay target ammunition makes bulk buying much cheaper. 1,000 or 5,000 rounds at a time being useful quantities. Buying in 25s at a clay shoot is not economical by any means. Plus serious clay shooters train and shoot using one cartridge carefully selected from hundreds of different brands and specifications. Are we expecting every little shoot at an agricultural show to carry the full range?

What of ammunition not used? Are the shoot organisers going to buy back the handful of rounds not used from the ones they have sold? A 25-bird shoot could use anything between 25 and 50 rounds depending on the number of second barrel kills, so inevitably there will be some left. It would only take a few shoots to amass a useful number of left-over rounds stockpiled.

Plus most clay shooters also shoot game and vermin, sometimes using clay target ammunition, sometimes using dedicated game rounds.

Nice idea, just wouldn’t work.

Moggy
Ex Head of Sales & Marketing. Winchester UK

Speaking as a shotgun/firearms holder of some 22 years, and a lifelong shooter, i think the idea could work.

A 50 bird shoot offers 50 targets, and you get 50 shots, any crossing pairs of clays “killed” with one shot don’t count, as the idea is one target with one shot, whilst this happens, as do shots at broken clays, it is infrequent, but the idea is that if you aren’t allowed to keep amunition at home, then you return unused cartridges for a refund at the end of the shoot.

Lets not forget, that clay shooting is a hobby not a need, you cannot get around the fact that, the average man in the street (where most of the UK’s guns are to be found), has no need for amunition at home, and whilst this is undoubtably an infringement of civil liberties, (ring this number) look what happened to all the law abiding handgun owners.

Most clay shooters that I know don’t do vermin control, those that do will be able to show written permission from a land owner,(something that is already in place for firearms) in anycase different amunition is needed, 24grams of no.7.5 or no.9 shot (the most common clay loads) don’t have the range or the hitting power for pigeon, rabbits, crows etc and is way too much for rats and the like.

I have a variation on my firearms licence for the possesion of hollow point bullets, a target shooter with the same amunition is breaking the law)

You are quite right that cartridges are cheaper bought in bulk, however most shooters don’t buy a 1000 in one go, as it is, most shoots provide amunition of the right kind already, they buy them in 1000’s, and sell them on for a profit, just like cans of coke at an airshow; I myself buy 250’s at a time, but to be honest when on vermin control, a box of 25 lasts a long while.

I wasn’t suggesting that the words contained in my original post ,should be transferred straight into the statute books, but clearly there is a way that it can work; the alternative, I fear is that gun ownership in this country could become a thing of the past.

Shotgun/firearms certificates used to be renewable every 3 years, that was changed to every 5 years, I would suggest as a cost cutting exercise; a lot can happen in 5 years, maybe more regular contact, and a requirement for a GP to notify change in personal circumstances, and or prescription of anti depressants (during the course of the license)

Interesting point regarding home possession of amunition, agreed farmers need to keep a supply for vermin control, but those who shoot clay pigeons or static targets perhaps do not, afterall most clay shoots that I have been to sell amunition, and even if they didn’t they could.

Maybe the way forward is to regulate more carefully, shooting grounds (some of which are very informal) and move some responsibility towards them, if you own a gun and do not use it regularily, do you really need to own a gun?