JDBenelliM1 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 This has been all over the web today, what are people's thoughts on the proposals? Should I be worried my BAR may soon be taken from me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradders Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 This has been all over the web today, what are people's thoughts on the proposals? Should I be worried my BAR may soon be taken from me? No chance. This UK shooting News scaremongering journalistic poison should stop There problem is that while we're all talking about it, Gaz the Journo is getting publicity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCetrizine Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 UK shooting news are amazing at talking rubbish based on their lack of understanding of subjects. They even say in the article that they are using Google translate which as any sane person knows is less than reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds1 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 I went to the Eu website and there is a press release to that effect....passed by the commission. This is worrying sh1te. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markfromholland Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 https://www.change.org/p/council-of-the-european-union-eu-you-cannot-stop-terrorism-by-restricting-legal-gun-ownership?recruiter=429947826&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition here one can sign a petition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannywayoflife Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I've written to my MEP and Nigel Farage asking them to raise the point in the eu forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wapinschaw Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 I don't think there is any room for complacency with this. There two relevant EU documents, “Council Directive of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons” Ref No 91/447/EEC. Annex 1 of this document defines categories of firearms for the purpose of the Directive. Category A relates to what we would recognise as Section 5 prohibited stuff. Category B relates to what we would regard as Section 1 firearms. Item 7 is of most concern to us, “Semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms.” The Directive "COM (2015) 750 final 2015/0269 (COD)" is in the form of a proposal to amend the primary document by moving Item 7 from Category B to Category A, essentially prohibited. The definition given in Item 7 is loose to say the least. Practically any semi-auto .22 could fall into this category, even the most basic 10-22 could be said to resemble an M1 carbine. Any Government so inclined could do a lot of harm with that, and slope responsibility by blaming the EU. There is also a lot of very woolly, undefined stuff about large capacity magazines. Now where have we heard that before? So: get writing and emailing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brillo Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 It's always worrying when a knee jerk reaction kicks in following an atrocity involving firearms. Too many politicians and the media fail to understand the simple difference between a legally held firearm by a civilian and that held by criminals and terrorists. It almost borders on insanity. And all of this because of the Paris attacks! The irony is that if this had happened in an Amercan city the population would have fought back because they have the capability. It doesn't help when you have TV presenters like Piers Mirgan spouting anti gun hype based on regurgitated incorrect data and information. Did you see him on Good Morning Britain the other day when he challenged his Amercan guest about why the US can ban a Kinder Surprise and not firearms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akeld Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Wrote to my three MEP's and my MP, to date the UKIP MEP has replied saying he'll vote against it if it comes to it, to replies from the other though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MH Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Letter from the CEO of the NRA to the EU Parliament: NRA Letter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Brillo, I don't want to get invoved in easy knee jerks either-I think politiciana are well aware of legal/illegal ownership-and the Police make constant reference to this. "Insanity' is simply unjustified,and helps not at all. What is sensibly answerable with data is the idea that an armed US public could effectively intervene in a shooting incident-well,as you no doubt know,there are no shortages of such in the USA-major incidents (at least 4 victims) average one per day-we're at 355 this year,and there were 28 casualties at the very recent shooting in San Bernardino.There was no armed civilian intervention,and the two shooters were killed by armed police. It seems the motivation was terorist linked. Most US citizens who possess arms legally would have no time to respond (at work,etc) even if motivated to do so.No,this is a job for trained armed Police/special units,not amateurs.This is true whatever your view of civilian rifle (and pistol in USA) might be-self defense at home,maybe-but not on the streets in some vigilante posse. I apologise if I have read your subtext incorrectly,but you seem to imply an armed populace is effective.It has not been,unless you have access to such data inany of the other 354 incidents. It wasn't in San Bernardino,and that is unlkely to be because gun ownership is low by US standards-there are some restrictions on immediate purchases,and can't be for the many of the other 354. Let me be clear,I am not at all against civilian ownership of rifles (in UK) but I don't think we promote our case by advocating vigilante citizens tackling (terrorist ) shootings.I am pretty sure CPO's and politicians agree-that is sanity.Leave it to the trained Armed Police Response Units,though more of them/similar would be a good idea-and is underway. We had best defend our possession of rifles in an informed way,if we need to at all,don't you think? gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradders Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 About the figure of 355 mass shootings being bandied about.... http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds1 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 On the EU proposal information and updates are available on Firearms United website . Also everyone should sign the petition and write a comment to the Eu. Info on Firearms United. The proposal seems to have lost its 'fast track' urgency, probably due to the commission getting alot of negative responses from countries like Finland and Sweden. This is not all good news as the process will drag on The original idea was for common regs on deactivated weapons but the anti gun commission has drawn up an abortion of a white paper to ban semi automatic mechanisms. That's everything - pistols, rifles (including. 22) and semi auto shotguns. The madness goes further putting paintball and airsoft onto FAC also (at least that would be the case here in cz). The white paper does not show any impact studies or mention compensation. I hope this will be negotiated down if not voted against but a long fight and it does nothing to prevent terrorist in the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds1 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 There has been a strong response from the DSIA (Defence And Security Industry Association) of the Czech Republic calling for replacement of the Eu Commissioners - stating that they and their proposals are incompetent. This is not internet angries but the likes of Cz, Meopta and Selier & Ballot. Details of the report on Firearms United. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 David,I have signed the petition,and commented that it would have near zero effect on terrorism;others should consider doing likewise; I note the NRA chairman has written making very similar points. Mark,I am aware that statistics can be collected variously,not per se incorrectly,and was aware the figure of 355 is for shotings of at least 4 victims. Whatever the number,and how defined,it is higher than most Western democracies. However,my point was that in how many such shootings,did an armed civilian act in such a way as to reduce the likely number of victims. I think it's low. Indeed it has to be. Most victms are shot in the first few minutes,before even any armed response units/police can get there,and most civilians are not available (at work etc). The notion that an armed civilian population would substantially reduce victim number is untenable. It's the kind of unthought out idea that weakens the much better points that can be made in defence of gun ownership (eg home defense,maybe,where there is some evidence.)That was my main point-we do civilian gun ownership no good at all by making such claims. If you get into 'statistics',then you will be faced with figures on the kinds of weapons used...you won't find that to be data that you would welcome. Certain types of weapon fit illegal/terrorist etc use. We must focus attention on keeping legally held weapons in legal use only. g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brillo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Gbal, Yes, you have read my subtext incorrectly. You have mis-read something in my post that was not intended and phrased in any way that implies an armed populace is effective at whatever you think it implies and most certainly did not advocate vigilante citizens tackling terrorists. My point is that terrorists tend to go for weak targets and that it is unlikely that they would have planned similar attacks in the US, as those in Paris, because they know that there is at least a chance that someone will shoot back. It won’t prevent other attacks such as IEDs but it could be argued that if you know the intended victims are armed you are less likely to have a go at them. I most certainly am not suggesting we arm civilians to protect ourselves against terrorists. Even if I agreed with that, it wouldn’t happen anyway. No doubt this is open to further discussion but that’s my view. There are many documented cases in the US where an armed civilian has prevented mass shootings, but I don’t intend to get into a debate about the rights and wrongs of US gun laws as this is not what the OP is about. I merely expressed that what the EU commission is proposing is ill thought out and the word insanity is my expression of the proposal in a closed forum of members with a common pursuit. It is not the word I would use in a letter to my MEP. As preposterous the proposal is I would choose a far less emotive word or phrase. I used the word insanity as a euphemism, out of frustration, (DS1 has posted that the DSIA has said the proposals are incompetent) because so many times our politicians, even when armed (no pun intended) with data and information to the contrary, continue to try to impose laws that they know won’t solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Brillo: "The irony (of the Paris attacks) is that if this had happened in an American city,the population would have fought back because they have the capability." San Bernadino? I'm glad that you have clarified that you were not advocating armed civilian repsonse to terrorism or multiple shooting incidents. We do very much better to have professional armed response units,for several reasons,all essentially that they will get there soonest,and minimise collateral,and have legitimate authority. I also said that more of these are planned,and needed. There is some evidence that armed home owners may deter criminals,but little of this really holds up in the 'terrorist' context,who know full well that armed (police) response units will confront/pursue/shoot them. LIkewise your use of more balanced language is welcome-why not use it here too-it would do no harm at all if we had a balanced,informed base of shooter opinion. It's also clearer, as well . Antagonising any decision maker seldom helps .I suspect politicians etc just ignore unjustified extreme name calling,at best ,and even consider the views of anyone using it to be unsound..No good done at all. Again,sorry if I misunderstood; the quoted comment above and San Bernadino seemed an ill fit. atb g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brillo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Gbal, I'm glad we understand each other. To parody the old BT advert, "it's good to post" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Brill,of course. Anyone who has had the pleasure of a chat with armed French Police (not the 'bold gendarmes' as in the song ) on the relatively mild topic of speeding is unlikely to think France a softie,laissez faire haven. Charlie Hebro and more recent Paris response,even more so. The victims are very unlikely to be armed,of course,so are 'soft targets' - ('even' in USA-as San Bernadino) and any direct terrorist attack on a real 'Red troop' seems unlikely. Jihadis may well welcome martyrdom,and most trained terrorist armed response teams will be quite competent in obliging them. Bien entendu. g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brillo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Ah mais bien sûr mon ami. I have had the pleasure of conversation with a French policeman regarding a minor driving misundstanding in Rocamadour and he had me in a fair sweat. Needless to say I tactfully agreed with his point of view departed the way he suggested with tail between my exhaust pipes :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Ah mais bien sûr mon ami. I have had the pleasure of conversation with a French policeman regarding a minor driving misundstanding in Rocamadour and he had me in a fair sweat. Needless to say I tactfully agreed with his point of view departed the way he suggested with tail between my exhaust pipes :-) a la tienne ! :-) georges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradders Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Ban Military looking Assault Knives http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3347632/Tube-terror-knifeman-screaming-Syria-blood-spilled-slashes-man-s-throat-Tasered-police.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 Ban Military looking Assault Knives http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3347632/Tube-terror-knifeman-screaming-Syria-blood-spilled-slashes-man-s-throat-Tasered-police.html That's happened because our anti-establishment types have been allowed to conflate the targeting of the genocidal Daesh death-cult with the title 'the bombing of Syria'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds1 Posted December 7, 2015 Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 Blood boiling at the moment.....Eu Commission committee meeting video on Firearms United. Utterly senseless. Possible UK impact would be - if I understand it right. 22 rimfire semi autos, section 1 semi auto shotguns over 3 shot capacity and Ar15 straight pulls, Augs, Fals etc as they could be converted back to high capacity semi auto and therefore full auto. Plus side - more than 250,000 signatures on petition. The goal is simple, more than 370 Maps need to vote against this proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowji john Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 That would be all my rifles gone - haven't had them a year yet ! Was compensation paid last time they did this (with hand guns)? 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.