We agree!
There should be no need to carry a gun in public and in this country it's been damn-near impossible to do this legally for many, many years.
BUT, you are not allowed to even own certain weapons now,. not even as a hobby, not even if you pledge to keep them at a range under massive security. Nope, as a British citizen, you are not deemed morally fit to own these things.

THAT'S what I object to, the fact that, because two people (who were "overlooked" in one case and actively aided and abetted by the police in the other) neither of whom were abiding by the law, could bring down long held rights and give the media and the govt the right to demonise those sane, upstanding citizens who jumped through all the hoops to get a firearm certificate.
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 14:56, 2 replies)

I agree entirely
I think the knee jerk over-reaction was, well, just that. I went pistol shooting in austria, it was good fun.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 16:19, closed)

You do have a good argument (my position roughly matches what's been stated here; I don't believe people should carry weaponry in public, but I don't see why sports shooting in secure environments shouldn't be allowed).

However, there's a balance to be reached; no secure environment is entirely secure, and weapons kept and used safely in those secure environments can occasionally end up stolen and in the hands of dangerous individuals (as could have happened with your guns had the twat had more smarts, for instance).

So with that in mind, I can see why some measure of limits might be a good idea; so that dangerous criminals aren't able to steal and use highly dangerous weapons like assualt rifles; if they aren't there to steal in the first place, they can't get them.

At one end you have small handguns. At the other end you have, say, an atomic bomb. Somewhere inbetween you have to draw a line between what is suitable to be enjoyed as fun sport by sensible individuals, and what is really too dangerous to have around.

Lurkaloid asks why shouldn't someone be allowed to carry around whatever he wants if he's been properly vetted? My answer is this; I could carry an atomic bomb and could be trusted to never press the big red button on it, but the person who mugs me and steals it is another matter.

When it comes to things like guns, I'm not happy in relying on Joe Public's immunity from theft/mugging to ensure my safety from heavily-armed criminals.
(Musuko, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 16:15, closed)