Shooters seek handgun law change (UK)

BBC Sport ^ | 2005/08/19 08:43:22 GMT | Andrew Fraser

[neverdem]

The government has been urged to relax gun laws which make it illegal for Britain's top pistol shooters to train in England, Scotland and Wales.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has given special permission for pistol events to be staged at the London 2012 Olympics.

But British team members face having to do all their 2012 preparations abroad.

"It would be fantastic if they were given the ability to compete on a level playing field," said British shooting's performance chief John Leighton-Dyson.

"I would like to think reasonable people will be able to have reasonable discussions and come to reasonable conclusions about this."

			We must be allowed to train on the same level as other athletes if we're to have a reasonable chance of competing effectively British shooting's performance director John Leighton-Dyson

Laws banning most types of handguns were introduced after gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and their teacher at Dunblane Primary School in March 1996.

As a result, British shooters who compete in the rapid fire, 50m pistol men and 25m pistol women Olympic events can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or Isle of Man.

Team members currently spend about 20 to 30 days a year training in Switzerland, and receive no funding because their events are illegal in the UK.

The Home Office agreed to relax the law so the three events can be staged in 2012, as it did for the 2002 Commonwealth Games events, although stringent security measures will still be required.

But the government's current stance is that there will be no further concessions for training in the build-up to the Games.

Japan, which has similar gun laws to Britain, gives its elite pistol shooters a special exemption.

And Leighton-Dyson is keen to set up talks with the government, the British Olympic Association and London's organising committee in an attempt to broker a similar compromise.

"It is very difficult for us to get young people to come into a sport they can't practise domestically," he told BBC Sport.

			The banning of handguns wasn't a matter of eroding personal freedoms Home Office spokesperson

"The British team in 2012 will be the biggest we can possibly put out because we are playing at home.

"We must be allowed to train and prepare on the same level as other athletes if we are to have a reasonable chance of competing effectively."

The International Olympic Committee has received letters from various parties since London won hosting rights for 2012 asking it to push for changes in Britain's gun laws.

But IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said: "We are totally comfortable with what has been put in place for Games time."

A Home Office spokesperson said the laws had been voted in by an "overwhelming majority" of MPs.

"The banning of handguns wasn't a matter of eroding personal freedoms, it was a matter of ensuring that what had been shown to be a terrible, if statistically small, risk was removed," she said.

[David Hunter]

Given the usual background of run-of-the-mill, common-or-garden burglars, I'd think that a fair assumption.

I wasn't suggesting that he'd be familiar with Commando level knife-fighting techniques, just capable of following the rudimentary methods which he's bound to have seen in action movies.

I'd prefer not to judge whether elderly and physically vulnerable people can really handle shotguns competently. Sawn-off, perhaps?

Well, they've more chance of handling a shotgun competently than physically neutralising a knife-wielding attacker with only a "makeshift weapon" or their bare hands.

I don't doubt that shooting isn't always killing, but we shouldn't really be worrying too much about the lifespan of burglars anyway.

Agreed, but my point was that it isn't always necessary to shoot to kill.

[AdamSelene235]

If you want to lug heavy guns around all day, go ahead.

6.6 ounces.

Titanium/Scandium 12 oz. 357 mag.

Better buy NVGs, helmets, bullet-proof vests too; you can't be too careful.

Every civilized person should own some body armor and at least Gen III NVGs.

As I've been saying all along, in the USA you should do what you like, just stop being sneery at the UK's approach. Thanks for taking the time to provide me with food for thought.

I'm not sneering, I'm merely standing up for the rights of others, regardless of nationality.

Nice chatting.

[AdamSelene235]

An added benefit: you could also defy any cops or officials trying to enforce ridiculous and tyrannical taxes and laws you didn't vote for.

Or perhaps defend yourself against the police. Ask Kim Groves, a 32-year-old mother of three, who was murdered by the New Orleans Police for filing a police brutality report.

If you don't think democracy and tyranny can co-exist, you are sorely mistaken. That's why you won't find the word democracy in the US Constitution.

[smokeless coal]

One thing that concerns me is that the horrors or WW1 caused most people to turn their backs on guns and weapons of all types. At the out break of WW2 there were very few weopons in prive possesion and Britain had to go begging to US in 1939 in order to protect the country.
Today we are in a similar unarmed condition. With the threat of muslim extremists already in the UK in very large numbers and with vast numbers of illegal weapons easily aquirable the country is under thtreat of being taken by force. You may thing we have an army who could prevent it but our soldier do not have live ammo in their possesion. They have to be issued it by the powers that be. I'm sure the information of strategic locations is freely available so an organised consolidated attack would not be heavily opposed. Worried yet? Switzerland have the better idea with all those who have been in the army keeping their weapon at home in case of such a threat.
Also I wonder how sports shooters around the world feel that any medals they get at the London olympic will be meaningless as possibly the best shooters are prevented from attending by the British government.