triggersqueezer Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Narrow minded that mate i'm never narrow minded sir.life is a big game of chess and there are times to be bold and times to lay low and accept.this is the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannywayoflife Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Got to totally disagree there mike. We as shooters have never United in the past with great issues affecting our sport so what makes you think that this will change in the future. We should be proactive and fight for our rights bud. Again though why do people always say "I dont mind paying double if the service gets better". What's that all about? Why should we pay more? Licensing is done for public safety therefore the vast majority of cost should be footed by the tax payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggersqueezer Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 Got to totally disagree there mike. We as shooters have never United in the past with great issues affecting our sport so what makes you think that this will change in the future. We should be proactive and fight for our rights bud. Again though why do people always say "I dont mind paying double if the service gets better". What's that all about? Why should we pay more? Licensing is done for public safety therefore the vast majority of cost should be footed by the tax payer. i feel it represents value bud we agree on most things pal exept you think the dta is a good rifle lol.it has changed yes ,disproportionatly no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finman Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Got to totally disagree there mike. We as shooters have never United in the past with great issues affecting our sport so what makes you think that this will change in the future. We should be proactive and fight for our rights bud. Again though why do people always say "I dont mind paying double if the service gets better". What's that all about? Why should we pay more? Licensing is done for public safety therefore the vast majority of cost should be footed by the tax payer. I think you may be forgetting that a much larger increase was on the cards and negotiations as well as public petitions (I remember signing something about this, or am I dreaming?) had taken place prior to this announcement, and probably led to this compromise. I don't know what your beef is with this, but, all you said can be equally be said for car tax, council tax, mot prices,the price of beer and the list goes on. As triggersqueezer said, very wisely, it is the way it is and it could be much worse. All the best Finman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybrock Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Got to totally disagree there mike. We as shooters have never United in the past with great issues affecting our sport so what makes you think that this will change in the future. We should be proactive and fight for our rights bud. Again though why do people always say "I dont mind paying double if the service gets better". What's that all about? Why should we pay more? Licensing is done for public safety therefore the vast majority of cost should be footed by the tax payer. Like I said, I wouldn't mind paying double the new cost if I got a good service in return i.e. My certificate returned within two weeks and not sat in someone's out tray for several months, someone answers the phone when I ring up asking where my certificate is! Even if it was double it still would only be £26 a year for 5 years........a round of drinks costs more than that, BASC membership costs more than that, a box of bullets costs more than that, your broadband probably costs more than that to come on here!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL. Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Used to be that to tax your Jeep would be £155. Now it could be £485 - £500. I have no trust that the greedy accountants aren't trying to impose a stealth tax on shooters by getting into a position where the costs steadily rise. Shooting isn't popular with those who don't participate. We're a soft target, and the organisations who represent us, well, I'd better not voice how disappointed I am, as I would be critical in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazzer Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 I got my variation back in a week from Merseyside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony.H Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 i think its good value, and if they impove there services because of the extra money they get then, all the better, its your tv licence that is a waste of £144 a year..i would say most rifle owners shoot more than they watch the crap thats on tv, i think you have to be realistic and enjoy what you like doing, have you seen the price too play golf, or buy a season ticket too watch a top football club....fac small price to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL. Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 It's not simply about the actual published cost and affordability in relation to our incomes. It's about being required to pay for a system that none of us asked for. There should be no charge if the licensing system is in place to benefit public safety. This is the thin end of the wedge. The authorities will move the goal posts at any time. You guys welcoming this are like turkeys voting for Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannywayoflife Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Very well put DL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggersqueezer Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 It's not simply about the actual published cost and affordability in relation to our incomes. It's about being required to pay for a system that none of us asked for. There should be no charge if the licensing system is in place to benefit public safety. This is the thin end of the wedge. The authorities will move the goal posts at any time. You guys welcoming this are like turkeys voting for Christmas. when the wedge gets thicker its time to act.for many like me there is a line that is value for money.i personally think they have not crossed it.if we don't execpt any change we would be un reasonable.if we exept moderate change we have that under our belt when we unite to say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannywayoflife Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 By which time mate your reacting to a very one sided situation which you cannot win pal. Far better to be proactive about these things buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony.H Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 It's not simply about the actual published cost and affordability in relation to our incomes. It's about being required to pay for a system that none of us asked for. There should be no charge if the licensing system is in place to benefit public safety. This is the thin end of the wedge. The authorities will move the goal posts at any time. You guys welcoming this are like turkeys voting for Christmas. if there was no system, there would be no guns at all, most things that are high risk have to be managed in some form or another, or should we because like america, with everyone allowed one, a free for all...and i dont think anyone is welcoming this, just saying thats its not as bad as it could of been... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggersqueezer Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 By which time mate your reacting to a very one sided situation which you cannot win pal. Far better to be proactive about these things buddy. lets face it dan this is just you being a tight git. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannywayoflife Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 lol I am a tight git mate your right but I'm sorry I think there's plenty of other areas where they could improve rather than trying to make us pay all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL. Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Well it's really about the principal of the thing, I don't really care what the costs are to administer an FAC because I don't see why the fee charged to the holder should be proportionate. If someone on a limited budget wanted they could buy a BSA .22Lr sportsman 5 for £50 s/h from an RFD and have several years cheap shooting with FAC costs at their current level. The trouble is I don't trust the people administrating this system not to see this as an opportunity to milk a cash cow, and take shooters for all they're worth. Before long FAC holders would be expected to pay hundreds of pounds for FACs no matter what the actual representative cost, and the people behind this would be singing their own praises for crime prevention whilst patting themselves on the back for managing their budget! What it costs now is irrelevant, fast forward ten years and picture a figure that would be more than you would like, and you have a real possibility on your hands. Doesn't bother me - I can afford it, but I believe this should be fought all the way - now before some greedy barsteward kicks the arse out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannywayoflife Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Man after my own heart DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL. Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Man after my own heart DL I'm glad it's not just me thinking along these lines, the people who are happy to accept a price rise obviously have the best of intentions at heart about not rocking the boat, but it seems a bit naive when people could effectively be priced out of shooting and real damage could be done to the relative freedoms that we enjoy now (in context to the future possibilities). If shooters were presented with spending £200 per year on an FAC would that be OK? What if monitored alarms were mandatory? Would that be OK too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony.H Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Man after my own heart DL by the way dan did you ever get sorted on your atlas bi pod, there back on aliexpress buddy....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R4CER Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 You would not feel so hard done by if the service was good, but lets be honest it awful , we pay good money and get a second rate service, I can't believe we have to wait so long and then its sent second class !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCetrizine Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 If the government wanted to stop shooters shooting then they would. They don't need any backhanded sneaky ways of doing it, they'd just do it. The vast majority of the population wouldn't care either. This is just an increase to cover costs and a tiny one at that. Thinking it's just the beginning of a conspiracy is paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannywayoflife Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 by the way dan did you ever get sorted on your atlas bi pod, there back on aliexpress buddy....... Yes mate Ive got 2 now Great value they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalua Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 If the government wanted to stop shooters shooting then they would. They don't need any backhanded sneaky ways of doing it, they'd just do it. The vast majority of the population wouldn't care either. This is just an increase to cover costs and a tiny one at that. Thinking it's just the beginning of a conspiracy is paranoia. We overlook the lessons of history at our peril. It isn't the government, whoever they might be: but rather the hard-wired mindset of the police and the Home Office that we need to keep in mind. It would not be 'the beginning of a conspiracy', but rather the continued persuit of a well-established intention. It is very likely that FAC and SGC costs are still seen as a means of restricting and reducing civilian firearms ownership. The quality of FLD services is a red herring - it is their duty efficiently and impartially to administer the law regardless of the fees charged to certificate-holders. Like many others, I can't say that the immediate rise in fees is unreasonable - but I await future annual reviews of the fees with, shall we say, interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Cost of a British Passport in 1992: £18 1998 £21 Current cost £72.50 for ten years.This has risen 85% in last four years. Some of the increased cost arise from increased security checks since 9/11. It would be difficult to interpret such increased passport costs as part of an insidious plot to reduce emigration,or deny citizens access to EEC,or holidays in the sun for a fortnight,or to hinder British trade abroad. Historically,we have been geographically diverse. The Magna Carta-or at least the copy currently on view in Durham-does not mention Passports,but it would be a difficult task indeed to make a convincing case against the freedom to travel,subject to safeguards. I'd expect a similar narrative and cost increase, for Driving Licences,which are a tested privilege, with public safety issues. Safe travel,and,dare I mention,shooting to all gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL. Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 There shouldn't be a charge for firearms licensing the whole cost should be born by the taxpayer as the excuse for the system being in place is public safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.