Worth a punt

https://submissions.epetitions.direc.../petitions/360

No it isn't.

No politician is going to risk being on the front page of the Mail next to the picture of a 'Slain Tragedy Tot'.

The inability of a few people to practice pistol shooting is, in my opinion, outweighed by the benefits of not having the things (even .22) in public ownership, even if those owners have oustandingly high common sense, and the best motives.

But e-petitions do precisely that for me - representation without, er, representation. Political genius.

Originally Posted by Victorian_Major

The inability of a few people to practice pistol shooting is, in my opinion, outweighed by the benefits of not having the things (even .22) in public ownership, even if those owners have oustandingly high common sense, and the best motives.

Even though more people have spontaneously combusted than have been killed by legally owned .22 pistols?

Do we remove everything from the public that could cause harm to others?

Pray tell VM what are the benefits of not having pistols, even .22, in public ownership? If we want to cut down on accidents and deliberate misuse of potentially hazardous items, then I can think of a dozen things perhaps even more, but pistols are not on that list.
Oh a please not the usual propaganda rubbish. I've heard it all before.


No I don't own a 22 pistol.

Actually, whilst I'm ambivalent about the parliamentary time that went into legislating against pistols, I'm pretty sure I don't want them wasting time to rescind it. Same with foxhunting really.

My view is that firearms are a tool, primarily. So I support civil ownership of target rifles and shotguns for personal and commercial purposes, and a sport seems a logical extension of that. IMHO automatic (and semi) weapons belong with the forces and the police - who used to be a force.

.22 pistols as a firearm don't fit. If you want to compete then what's wrong with an air pistol?

Originally Posted by Victorian_Major

My view is that firearms are a tool, primarily. So I support civil ownership of target rifles and shotguns for personal and commercial purposes, and a sport seems a logical extension of that. IMHO automatic (and semi) weapons belong with the forces and the police - who used to be a force.

.22 pistols as a firearm don't fit. If you want to compete then what's wrong with an air pistol?

Surely the same argument extends to 'whats wrong with an air rifle?

Most olympic pistol events are, Standard pistol, 5 shot semi auto pistols. Centrefire pistol, again five shot centre fire, Free pistol-single shot pistol.

I don't think you are likely to see a police force or military outfit using a .22 pistol.



Bet you can't find an example of someone being killed by a legally owned one.

The quote about .22 pistols not fitting in is a little ill informed and naive mate

Originally Posted by Victorian_Major

If you want to compete then what's wrong with an air pistol?

ISSF pistol disciplines include 6 events, only one of which you can use an air pistol for.

Originally Posted by Victorian_Major

Actually, whilst I'm ambivalent about the parliamentary time that went into legislating against pistols, I'm pretty sure I don't want them wasting time to rescind it. Same with foxhunting really.?

I'd rather they spent their time on that than on passing yet more damn fool ideas into law.

I'd sign a petition going back to pre 1988 laws but also one where the truth regarding Hamilton and Ryan was made public and the plod responsible for approving both their licenses lost their pensions!