Pistols & Olympics
Imagine if you will, my utter consternation to see plastered across the front of Monday’s edition of The Times
Gun ban 'damaging Olympic hopes'
& a report that goes on to state that
Ministers are under growing pressure to relax a ban on handguns to allow Britain’s champion shooters to train for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games.
Positive coverage of the inconsistent effects of our handgun ban? Surely not! Having endured years of hysterical ranting from the likes of Mothers Against Reality & the deeply flawed arguments of Dr. Mick North, reading comments like
“The ban on lawful pistol shooters is damaging the chances for British medals, but it has done nothing to diminish illegally held weapons for criminal purposes”
from Kate Hoey, a Labour MP, make a refreshing change; as does finding me agreeing with a Labour politician.
Do we detect a slight thawing in the ‘meeeejars’ reporting of competitive pistol shooting & by implication private ownership of pistols in the UK? Now far be it for this former pistol shooter/owner to want to pee on anyone’s roses but I don’t want the UK’s pernicious firearms legislation relaxed for the Olympics. As the gasps & jeers die down (quiet in the cheap seats & please stop throwing rotten fruit) while I will explain why.
Whilst one broadsheet might be starting to back calls for an change in our ludicrous laws, the same cannot be said for the likes of kelp munching Guardianistas, whose GFW reporter Richard Williams, trotted out the same hackneyed old discredited arguments as often emanate from that slurry pit of an apology for newspaper, yesterday
Most bans have unintended consequences and this one is no exception. The pistol-shooters believe that it is unreasonable to turn them into collateral victims of a law aimed at an entirely different type of person. But the law is not aimed at them; it is aimed at their weapons.
Unlike shotguns and rifles, pistols have no application outside personal violence - either the commission of violence or, in the hands of policemen and members of the armed forces, the prevention of it. If you live in the country and you want to shoot game or vermin, a handgun will not be your weapon of choice. You will need something with a stock, for stability, and a long barrel, for accuracy. A pistol is fashioned for swift use at close quarters and for ease of concealment: for use, in fact, against another human being.
It remains my view that a great disservice would be done to all UK shooters if the insanely naïve pistol ban were to be partially revoked to allow potential UK competitors to train at home. Any such concessions would only come with gargantuan caveats – who might use weapons & what sort of weapons might be used, as well as where they might be stored.
As a (former) pistol owner, a few tweaks around the edge of idiotic law won’t do. Either give us back our right to legally own pistols or nothing. My assertion is that as the UK continues to sink into the mire of gun crime, with the whole world looking in during the build up to the 2012 Olmypics, the stupidity of our laws should be there on show, for everyone to see.
It is worth recalling the complete farce that that occurred last time this sorry country hosted a major athletic event
The Government granted a dispensation for handguns during the Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002, but the rules were so strict that some international teams lodged complaints and are now asking for better conditions for the London Olympics in 2012.
Shooters were escorted from Heathrow under armed guard and their guns were taken in an armoured vehicle to the national shooting centre at Bisley. Spectators had to watch events behind screens, and shooters were guarded by armed officers even during training.
No doubt this is the sort of farcical situation that will happen again only this time, on current form, any competitor that looks a tad swarthy might well get brassed up by one of the armed police guards! If the whole sorry situation weren’t so sad we could all have a good laugh as our streets are overrun by increasingly well armed criminals. Banning a few people from going & shooting a few targets as achieved absolutely nothing other than dramatically illustrate what a sorry place dear old blighty has become.
For much more erudite commentary of this topic have a look at Caught in the Crossfire & Resurrect the Sport
Comments
Don't you think the Labour Lovies will find it "fairer" to petition the IOC to ban shooting? After all it's not as though shooting is "relevant" any more. ;-)
Posted by: Oubaas | January 18, 2006 10:53 AM
"But the law is not aimed at them; it is aimed at their weapons."
So that's all right then. Bet he didn't feel the same way about collateral damage in Iraq.
Posted by: Bishop Hill | January 18, 2006 9:11 PM
It always reveals the so stuck-on-stupid frozen mindset when they say "pistols have no application outside personal violence" - which is also their totally retarded view of self-defense, that self-defense itself is a case of "personal violence." God created Man and Woman, Samuel Colt made them equal - not the Police who sweep up the debris afterwards or the Judges who misapply sentences and let criminals off easy.
Each year there are many more instances of a handgun being used in self defense, without even being fired - either stopping the perpetrator before they start or causing them to break-off and cease their harmful intent, than even are used in robberies. And in places where Shall-issue is allowed, crime is dropping more than in those with strict "gun control."
Posted by: -keith in mtn. view | January 18, 2006 9:40 PM
We love our handguns, as you know. Not only fun for target-shooting, but also very effective, when displayed, if in-laws, or other annoying people, just need to settle down.
Posted by: Bird Dog | January 19, 2006 6:20 PM
The gun law was tightened up after the Dunblane massacre and i would sure as hell rather see a few olympic shooters inconvenienced then another one of those, wouldn't you?? As a Guardian reading liberal i fully support the banning of all guns, they are designed to kill and banning something like that has to be a good thing.
Posted by: Lucyp | February 3, 2006 11:21 PM
As someone who was brought up surrounded by guns and who has no beef with any legitimate, law abiding gun owners, I am horrified that a legal gun owner has so twisted a mind-set as displayed in your blogs (and I have read right through your past missives). If you are a typical gun owner then I am sorry but you do your cause no good at all and only provide ammunition to those who support the anti-gun lobby. It is essential that gun owners are rational and level headed and you cannot by any stretch of the imagination, pretend to be that.
Posted by: JD Sumner | February 5, 2006 12:30 AM
You hit the nail on the head with farcical. In the U.S. we have competitive matches with anything and everything from revolvers to machineguns and you bastards need a special law and an armored escort for .22 pistols. Unreal! I think you're definitely right in your all-or-nothing approach. If you look at the history of gun control in the United States you'll see that capitulation buys you nothing. Stand up for what's right and don't compromise. Of course, y'all may be too far gone but time will tell.
Posted by: theElectron | February 15, 2006 6:22 AM
To Keith:- excellent post
To Bird Dog:- scareing people with any weapon is illegal in the UK and not something a sports shooter could support.
To Lucyp:- "a few olympic shooters" is not a true figure, 57,000 licenced club member sportsmen had their guns taken away.Along with draconian measures against re-enactors paintballers BBgun and airgun you can triple that figure. You say you are a liberal, look up the meaning of the word. A truly liberal minded person would tolerate and respect other peoples way of life, sports and pastimes. "designed to kill" wrong, I am a devout pacifist almost zen like in my respect of all life the pistol I want to shoot bears no resemblance to what someone might use with criminal intent. It costs thousands of pounds with the hope of putting 60 shots into a 10mm group at 10m. BBgun paintballgun are most unlikely to cause harm likewise airgun though I must admit too many are made to resemble real guns and are used in crime. Mine does not and at £2000 I dont think ever will be misused. I am no criminal yet UK law prevents me from having aspirations of going for Olympic gold.
Posted by: Smokeless Coal | February 15, 2006 9:58 AM
I would say I'm quite liberally minded overall, but taking away our main right to defend ourselves is illogical idealism at best.
Yeah if guns didn't exist the world might be better off, but they do. The government should deal with it and allow us to defend ourselves before we [I] get hurt/maimed/killed in a situation that could have been prevented via a handgun.
If you carry a handgun, usually the only way you'll get hurt by an attack is if somebody attacks you by surprise. This minimizes risk of getting hurt overall.
I'm posting this after seeing the Channel4 documentary on guns, it spurred my interest on the subject.
Posted by: Tom | May 24, 2006 7:42 PM