Olympic coach Ian Coley anger at WH Smith shooting magazine rules for children

“'Virtually all gun crime involves illegal guns, not legal ones. Three cases? As bad as they are, it is still a very small minority. The perpetrators of those incidents should not have had guns, as there was clearly something wrong with their psychology. There is evidence to suggest Thoman Hamilton was a paedophile, and there had been complaints made against him for running clubs. I very much doubt that titles like shooting times were a major part of their reading material.'

I didn't really ask for your opinions on it Reece. You do admit there are cases and these cases not only involved danger but multiple murder. You also agree that they were licensed gun holders. Not quite the same as legal guns pose no danger is it? I believe I've already said that at least two of these cases had issues and these people should probably not been certified as safe. The point is under current legislation and the policing of it, they did. This isn't an argument for guns or for our regulations. It just demonstrates the issues with licensing to people you cannot ever know well enough and do not review enough to judge that haven't changed. Even when they are noticed they are given licenses anyway. So the idea that we have tight restrictions and anyone who is a legal gun holder is safe is total nonsense then. If you cannot trust those that are judging then the certificate is a meaningless piece of paper. You doubt?? Well that helps. Promoting guns generally is not a good thing. They are designed to kill and even with all our laws that try to protect the public they do kill innocent people at the hands of those deemed safe. Promoting in a nationwide store to everyone, most of whom are far more more likely to have access to illegal guns that legal ones isn't sensible. Remember I'm not here on behalf of the urban massif and their right to brandish mac 11s. I'm here to say that advertising lethal weapons to children is beyond stupid. I would class it as irresponsible and criminal. All of this is justified so children don't have to get their parents to purchase it for them or that adults face some sort of embarrassment at the auto tills? Madness.

'We will just have to agree to disagree. My view is that shooting is a legal sport which promotes discipline, conservation of wildlife, and ethical meat production, and it should not be discriminated against. I am not going to respond to any more of your claims, so, like I said, agree to disagree.'

You've reverted back to the party line Reece. It isn't a legal sport without restrictions. It is a tightly controlled activity for children and rightly so. It may promote discipline to those that shoot legally it also promotes guns and killing animals to those that know no better. Conservation of wildlife? Some, mostly predators predating the animals you rear to that have to be controlled by gamekeepers. Ethical meat? Much of which is reared in exactly the same conditions as our farmed animals but dont have the legal protection to be killed 'humanely'. Many don't die instantly and flap about in pain until they are clubbed by some amateur or returned by a dog. It is discriminated against already. They are called laws and they restrict your use. The people are not discriminated against, the use of killing tools is restricted by law for obvious reasons. The reason that they do clearly pose a danger to people and animals, legal or not. I don't think you have responded to any of the things I've said, you certainly haven't dealt with them.”

“TDugg,

Virtually all gun crime involves illegal guns, not legal ones.

Three cases? As bad as they are, it is still a very small minority. The perpetrators of those incidents should not have had guns, as there was clearly something wrong with their psychology. There is evidence to suggest Thoman Hamilton was a paedophile, and there had been complaints made against him for running clubs. I very much doubt that titles like shooting times were a major part of their reading material.

I have answered your claims on a different article, here: http://tinyurl.com/barg3oz

We will just have to agree to disagree. My view is that shooting is a legal sport which promotes discipline, conservation of wildlife, and ethical meat production, and it should not be discriminated against. I am not going to respond to any more of your claims, so, like I said, agree to disagree.”

“Reece

You've ignored me entirely.
Charlie2times,

'Legal guns pose no danger to humans.'

*****. Seriously? Because they are legal they pose no danger to humans. How old are you Reece? I've never heard anything so stupid in my life. Other than the three most tragic cases in recent British history and the hundreds of deaths beside. Sure many of the individual deaths are suicides or accidents but I still think the gun causing this could be classed as dangerous. Legal guns also find their way into illegal hands. The promotion of guns to children is madness. The animal abuse has much reduced since tightening the restrictions on children's use of airguns. Like all restrictions on guns, they have been put in place not because of the good ethics of gun owners or their common sense and understanding that these things need to be regulated. No, they have generally been brought against their will after some tragic event has forced our government to do something about a tool designed to kill. Generally while they moan about infringing their rights, their tradition, damaging our sports and not understanding the 'way of the country' like some wellie wearing kung fu master.

'Legal guns pose no danger to humans' = 'what can i say, you are clearly a loony'
You provided the evidence yourself mate. TBH Charlie I'm with you but if they must have their toys at least don't promote their use.”

“Lord Gaga,

What makes me a "loony"? You have not disputed a single thing I have said. This confirms the paucity of your argument and your lack of evidence. It also shows, again, how your argument is based off prejudice and insults.


Charlie2times,

I accidentally rated your comment up. I meant to click the red arrow.

Why should guns be restricted like that? Legal guns pose no danger to humans. America has a completely different system than we do. We have heavy restrictions on gun ownership and use, unlike America. Guns are an essential tool for many, and there is simply no case for banning them.”

“Hmm, they ban sport shooting magazines. Wonder how many 12 rated films a 13 yr old could buy in WH Smiths featuring unrealistic glamourisation of gun-related violence?”

“ReeceFowler

what can i say, you are clearly a loony”

“It's quite simple, guns should only be available at gun clubs, no one should be legally allowed to have a gun outside of these premises other than the police. Do we want to turn into America?
Where paperboys can be shot!!!
I've no problem with magazines about guns being sold, just guns.”

“Human rights? The owning of a gun? Even if that is what you mean then no, as all people would have the same rights. No one is taking your guns away Reece. It's just stopping the promotion of them to children. Is it a child's right to bare arms too?

Not all gun crime is committed with illegal guns. The proof of this are actually the worst examples we have. This includes the recent case in Cumbria which came after the other laws were brought in to stop further tragedies from happening. By law enforcement you mean the handing out of gun licenses, as said in my original post. The system isn't working and we have to try harder to fill these gaps. I'm not sure where you are going with criminals getting access. Many do gain access to legal guns but we also need to not only reduce illegal gun ownership through policing and increased sentences when they are found. Your logic seems to be saying if they can have them so should we. Is this for defence? Are you advocating we all get them so we can be equal and defend ourselves and our property?

'I have never once seen lions featured in shooting magazines. It would seem that this appears rarely, and only in some magazines.'

But they do appear. Are all the images of the other dead animals acceptable even though they may be seen by children who have not been taught how to shoot, or shoot ethically?

I agree that if children do shoot they should be taught by an adult and guided by that adult. The law stipulates they are to be supervised by an adult and I would prefer that to them picking up bits and pieces from magazines. Your point still only justifies the purchase of these magazines by children who shoot. The majority of children who do not shoot are being targeted by shooting groups and this is the issue.

Children can go shooting with an adult. It is illegal for them to shoot alone. They can still access the magazines through their parents who obviously condone and support their hobby. They can purchase the magazine for them, set up a subscription or view online. This still does not justify the promotion to the majority of children who do not shoot.

The car comparison is nonsense taken directly from the BASC. Cars are not designed to kill but due to their massive usage we do have many deaths related to them. When the magazines start printing photos of people killed by cars the comparison will have some validity.

'Children are unable to buy their own guns, so gun adverts are irrelevant.'

Is this in relation to Gunmart? Why allow a magazine that is pretty much dedicated to selling guns to children? Even if it is just to look at pictures of guns, why allow children access this publication? These are not gun shops, these are individuals selling guns. The risk involved is massive if you have an unscrupulous seller or a fraudulent buyer.

So only some of it is unethical? Much of it also goes to waste. As for estates you also have the massive issue of persecution of other animals for the benefit of the game, something regularly discussed in the RSPB magazine.

You cannot guarantee a kill every shot at all, another fabrication. Certainly easier with the reared pheasants that have no clue, but wild birds and other animals move quite fast. There is ample footage proving your claim as false.

You want children to see reality and see where meat comes from but not actually where 'their' meat comes from. You want to sell the idea of your sport as some sort of justified hunting although their food actually comes from a slaughterhouse that will make them a vegetarian? So not reality really.

Well I don't agree with you or the law. I disagree that the legal status necessarily means you should be allowed to promote this 'sport' to children. I would generally suggest advertising the use of guns to children is undesirable and personally I don't think children should be involved with killing animals at all. Killing animals for sport also shouldn't be legal, it's an abomination.”

“Lord_Gaga_

Your comment is pure prejudice, with no facts.

Shooting is conservation because the management of land for shooting has been shown to benefit a range of species. Shooting depends on healthy ecosystems. Game management has been shown to benefit many of our endangered species, including our declining songbirds and butterflies. This has been proven through various studies, including a PACEC report.

For example, predator control benefits vulnerable bird species, and the maintenance of woodland rides provides ideal conditions for butterflies, which are normally found mostly at the woodland edge, as the edge gets more light and as a result, more flowers.

Shooting is also essential for the control of alien invasive species, such as grey squirrels and mink, which do serious damage to our native wildlife.
Some native predators need controlling to protect vulnerable endangered species, especially black grouse and capercaillie. This has been shown by the RSPB during experiments in the field.

Wildlife conservation is something shooting magazines promote, which you would see, if you read them regularly. It seems as if you have never even looked at one, let alone read one.

How exactly does wanting a gun make one an "idiot"? What is so idiotic about wanting to source meat ethically? What is so idiotic about wanting to control pest species to protect agriculture? What is so idiotic about wanting to control non native invasive species to protect wildlife? What is so idiotic about encouraging effective conservation of wildlife?

I would suggest that you do not respond to my comment until you have at least read a shooting magazine.”

“how can some fool put countryside and wildlife conservation, in the same sentence as shooting wild animals, the mind boggles. guns should be banned! people applying for a gun licence, want a gun, thus proving they are idiots, thus shouldn't have a gun.”