Unadulterated pure hate..............

Bucko's piece about the The Gun Control Network and their Nazi inspired* ideas sent me scurrying over to their site to see what this bunch turds were up to. I was drawn their list of 'objectives'. I have copied this mess of ill conceived bollocks below, together with a brief demolition of the 'objective'.

GCN objectives are in italics and my reasoned response is in blue. Emphasis are mine.

Posted: 1 October 2011

All our objectives are predicated on the belief that the interests of public safety demand a reduction in the availability and attractiveness of guns of all kinds.

    1    The tightening of gun licensing into a single, more rigorous, system that includes all firearms, shotguns and air guns. The onus should be on the applicant to demonstrate their suitability to own a gun and a specific need for doing so. Any opportunities for the spontaneous purchase of any gun, including air weapons, should be eliminated.

There is really nothing that can justify this. The onus should always be on the licensing authority to show that there are good reasons not to grant a licence. This is in line with the presumption of innocence principle. There is no justification to alter that in any way. Why should you not make a spontaneous purchase of an gun? One. Good. Reason. There aren't any.

    2    A licence for every gun, renewed annually (as opposed to the current five-year renewal) and requiring two referees for each application and its renewal.

This seems like a prescription for non-jobs and a way to simply wear gun owners down. It would NOT prevent any tragedies such as those that we have seen in the last couple of years, as these tend to be spontaneous rather than actions planned over several months.

    3    An increase in the licence fee in order to cover the cost of policing a more rigorous system.

Pricing out the poor and the young! If the state demands more unwarranted controls, then they should foot the bill.**

    4    Lifting the secrecy about gun ownership, making it possible for certain professionals and members of the public to find out who has a licence and for what purpose.

The police know who legally hold firearms, no one else needs to. Allowing members of the public these details is simply irresponsible.

    5    A National Gun Hotline for those wishing to record their concerns about a gun owner. This should be a well-advertised free phone line for those concerned about their own or another’s safety or the behaviour or well-being of a gun owner.

Er, if you have genuine concerns you could call the police, use 999 and mention the word gun and they will be there in seconds probably with a helicopter or two as well. this idea is a load of wonk. This also has a high liklihood of being used a tool of mischief or revenge.

    6    Refusal or revocation of a gun licence where there is evidence of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, misuse of a gun, when a relevant misdemeanour has been committed (e.g. shooting of wildlife, threatening behaviour or negligent storage of the weapon) or when an applicant has a significant criminal conviction.

All of which can be grounds for revocation or refusal as it is.

    7    Mandatory notification to GPs at the point when a patient becomes a legal gun owner.

Why? It's my GP's job to make me better when I'm ill. No more no less! Whether I own a gun or an axe or the materials to make a bomb is not his concern. If he independently feels that he has concerns then he can raise them as can anyone else

    8    Mandatory private and discrete notification to former and present partners of new and repeat applicants. Evidence from Canada and Australia shows that gun-related domestic violence has decreased as the legal frameworks on gun licensing and domestic violence have become harmonised.
This is the get your own back charter, it is worthless unless there is proof and that takes us back to my point about point 6. It would wrong to judge anyone purely on hearsay - except gun owners it seems

They then go on to say;

We recognise the existence of a significant minority interest in shooting for sport, and our proposals are aimed at striking an appropriate balance between the sport-shooting interest and the overriding interest in public safety.

Which they obviously don't in any way!! The Gun Control Network has few members, a secretive structure and a nasty, repressive agenda. Why does this very peculiar organisation have the ear of government?

 Just for fun, take look at this blog. It hasn't been updated for a while but I think that the piss taking bastard is actually pretty good. Go and give him a few hits perhaps he will be inspired to carry on.


* "...the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. See  here
**Yes, I know. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill