Originally Posted by Conor
There is one thing I have learned in the past few years is that Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information and detracts from the validity of the authors point of view.
In fact its no longer accepted in schools and universities as a reference source
One thing I have learned about all discussion in the past few years is that despite evidence, no matter it's provenance, history (no matter how long), despite all example to the contrary (however abundant that might be), any reason or good common sense (however self evident to most), however honest their intentions, the facts are that some peoples determination will remain steadfast in the face of it all.
Why that determination should be so is what it boils down to, and what our opinion of an authors validity of thought perhaps can be part based on that.
Let's examine why people hold to their determination;
Why is it that those that seek suddenly - and lets face it these regulations have existed for a very long time - to change the options open to shooters before today by removing S/A?
Are we to believe it "new found" knowledge? Hard to believe in the face of history surely?
Why is it the history of S/A is being ignored? These guns are nothing new - that is proven fact. They have been around for yonks, countless examples cited here, and elsewhere, for all to see.
Are we to believe the industry was ignorant and misinformed up until recently? If that's true, logically it must surely follow that their current "advice" must be viewed with increased circumspection, not blind faith. In this light we can also look at other similar subjects the GTA choose to profess knowledge on, or stay quiet over - short barrelled FAC air rifles being just one example.
Is this not about history or good judgement but actually about all our future safety? Is this reasonable?
Where has their prescience been all these years? What is the source of their fear that makes it now reasonable and justified? It seems to fly in the face of those with S/A S1 or S2 firearms ownership does it not? No justifiable reason for S/A? S/A is "unsafe? Is that their position?
Why is it that there is a pretence being formed around "trev'd up Nova's" that is built on unfounded fear not fact? There have been no S/A airgun incidents in the UK. Ever. That is a fact.
But let's forgive them all of that. Let's take all that fear on board - after all we as gun owners know what guns are capable of in the wrong hands.
Let us imagine, should the fears of the "trev'd up Nova" drive-by come to pass. Why should it be that the accepted stance of the industry changes from blame the man not the gun? After that prat footballer shot someone in the backside T.D. wrote an editorial that went along the lines of; Would you ask an F1 driver to apologise for a road accident caused by a drunken tit on a bypass? What has changed?
It appears to many in review, that the GTA has suddenly transformed into Daily Mail-esque caricature, headlessly running around moaning and wailing, ignorant of history, shouting from the top of their lungs "Won't somebody think of the children!" and citing "LAW" as if it were something they were in control of, their shield from any criticism.
Why should this be? Let us all ponder that and reach our own conclusion.
Let us instead turn to those in support of the current status quo. The determination of those supporting S/A. Where does their determination spring from?
Not withstanding the long history of S/A.
Despite the published, guidelines (HO, CPS, individual responses etc.).
Despite the safety record - no horrors.
Despite the lack of public outcry - no headlines.
Despite the lack of precedence in prosecution (the actual "law").
Despite the support of authoritative bodies such as BASC.
Despite the reasoned logic.
Just who are these people to be so determined without all of that?
Well they don't seem to have a financial interest.
Their livelihood doesn't depend on protectionism.
They appear to have nothing to gain, only something else to lose.
I could stand that criticism I reckon - and rest on the all the other reason given of course.
Ahh... But, would us crackpots rest on it in a court of law? That one is always trotted out
Perhaps the boot should be on the other foot.
I'm sure accusing people of unfounded illegal doings falls into some legal definition somewhere? Deformation perhaps? Harassment? Libel? Slander?
(I'd check wikipedia, but I'm less confident of using it now...