> the rigid gun laws now make it appear that the U.K. will not
> be able to field a team for the Olympic shooting matches.
We were heading this way, too, if not for a change of government. The getting
desparate to get re-elected Prime Minister blurted out one day that he would
'ban handguns' for all but the police and military. He had to keep
backstepping. His first backstep was to exclude olympic shooters. Of course,
if no one not currently in the sport wants to try it, they can't, so . . . it
got expanded to include anyone who belongs to a club for target practice. At
this point, he's not changing the existing law much, which kind of backfired on
him. The largest block of voters as a group is 'the women's vote' and I assume
that that was the support he was looking for with that promise.
The new gov't had a platform of getting rid of our expensive long-gun registry
and instead focusing on crime. Of course, it'll boil down to the police and
the judicial system to put it into play. When I was asking, it seemed that the
rank and file police had no desire for the 'gun control'. The administration
wanted it though. I believe the last total that I heard as to the cost was
around 2 billion and rising and that was years ago. To get gun owners to
comply, the associated fees to the owners were dropped. ( But, we still pay
taxes. )
Totally ineffective. It's better to register criminals, IMO.
> From: b-evans@earthlink.net
> Incidently, the rigid gun laws now make it appear that the U.K. will not
> be able to field a team for the Olympic shooting matches.
>
> Buster Evans
|