TargetTalk

Hi

I just read George S. Patton's later Biography. He was in the Modern (possibly Military) Pentatholon (spelling). I know he did Swimming, Running, Equestrian, Pistol, and Fencing. Apparently he lost the Pistol competition because the scorer only counted the holes he could see, not those that went through the same group. I would guess that he shot at a human silhouette. That was the 1912 Olympics.

Mike
Wichita KS

Hi

Copied this from http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mickay/patton.htm

Patton also represented the United States in the 1912 Olympics at Stockholm in the Modern Pentathlon. This event, which includes five traditional military skills shooting, fencing, swimming, riding, and running was considered a rigorous test of those skills most necessary for an officer. Patton did quite well, but lost points on perhaps his best event shooting. The competitors were allowed to choose whatever pistol they wished, and most used .22 revolvers. Patton, however, felt that he should use a true military weapon, which at that time was a .38 revolver. Consequently, Patton's handgun punched larger holes in the target, which probably cost him points in the shooting finals since he supposedly missed with one round; in actuality the "missing" round had passed through a cluster of holes he had already put in the target. Still, Patton finished fifth overall, an excellent finish in an event traditionally dominated by European marksmen.

later

Mike
Wichita KS

To TIM S from Exeter, UK.

Yes, our guns were banned some years ago. But has UK grown better, safer, with less violence because of that? Nope.

So what is left to do? Take a walk on the hillside? In rainy, polluted and foggy old England? Not very temphting.

We find less exitement in our leisure time after we lost our sporting pistols. But do the politicans care about that? Nope.
Maybe we had better ask them to berry our soules in the deep old abandoned coal mines in England.

The world is truly growing a little worse every day. And Great Britain has taken the lead in this regard in Europe.

Mike Mcd:

I agree with your philosophy and the logic of the approach you suggest. In fact, I even admire your writing style.

But I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of English law.

Self defense including the use of deadly force, is a common law concept which is both alive and well in Great Britain.

I'm a practicing U.S. criminal attorney and am somewhat familiar with the British system as well - my mother was born there.

F. Paul - in Denver, CO

Self defence is acceptable in UK law, but having a firearm for self defence is not. Also using a firearm or any other 'weapon' for self defence is a deffinate no no as more than a few UK citizens have found out the hard way.

Rob.

Hello all, technically there is a UK statute that gives us the right to defend ourselves, the much forgotten Bill of Rights. However it is also true that due to the requirement sof firearms laws that using one for self defence has not been an option in over thirty years.

Yes it is unfortunate that the government has treated shooters, especially pistol shooters exceptionally shabbily. My previous post was more to point out the situation in the UK, regarding the link between Olympic shooting and ownership of firearms; that there really isn't one. The current .22 longarm pistols were eligeable under law anyway, that they could be used in international competition was only a part of the argument. I am certainly no apologist for the '97 ammendment act.

Excuse the minor rant here. Good shooting all.

Tim S

Exeter UK

Mike McDaniel wrote:(insert blushing visage here)
You've got to remember that in countries like the UK, self-defense is NOT considered a legal right.

To weigh in with the UK lawyers here, that's not correct. In the UK, as in Ireland (most laws in Ireland were carried over from the pre-state days so there's a lot of common ground between us and the UK legally), self-defence is a civil right. However, the difference is that there's the concept of using appropriate amounts of force. In other words, if you're walking down the street and some five-foot-nothing 18-year-old with about four sheets too many to the wind yells foul language at you, you're not allowed to beat him to death with a brick in self-defence. (Ok, silly example, but you get the idea.)

Also, at least in Ireland, there is legal precedent for carrying a pistol for self defence. It's just very, very rare - there are only at most a dozen people with "personal protection" firearms in the country.

Not that it makes it much safer, you understand, but the details matter.

On a more positive note, recent developments (as in, since last friday), mean that we are now anticipating the return of 50m Free Pistol to the country over the next fortnight or so. Yay!

Hmph.....

We all know that there can be a vast difference between the letter of the law and its actual enforcement. The eagerness of HMG to prosecute people for using deadly force in self-defense is well documented. Unarmed? I wouldn't bet either way. Particularly if the person doing the defending has significant martial arts training.

I'll put it this way: The last time I was in the UK (1998), I considered myself in hostile territory and conducted myself with the extreme discretion that I would have shown walking through Moscow twenty years earlier. Especially since I was traveling with the U.S. International Muzzle-Loading Team to the World Championships - and had four pistols (yes, with appropriate paperwork) in my baggage.

Although I will concede that from a sheer paperwork standpoint, Australia in 2000 was more of a headache than the UK in 1998.

However, let us turn to a more cheery topic.

The way that I see it, the IOC suffers from two problems.

Problem #1 is that the Summer Olympics have gotten too big. A host city has to come up with venues for ~180 events, and housing for nearly 25,000 competitors and officials. This has put tremendous pressure on the schedule, as well as restricted the number of cities with the resources to bid.

Problem #2 is that the IOC has sold out - everything is about the NBC Sports TV coverage.

I think that the solution to the sellout problem probably lies in the leadership of the IOC. One of the great ironies has been that Avery Brundage, an American, was wary of the professional athletes and big-money contracts. Once the Europeans took control, they were dazzled by the big-money promises and sold out. Perhaps it's time for the IOC to get new leadership, preferably leaders who detest paid professional athletes. I think it is very clearly time for a policy of selling rights to cover each individual Games - and possibly to break up the rights, and sell the rights to each individual event. I would at minimum require the prime vendor to sub-let any events they did not cover at a minimum (probably defined as ~1 hour of coverage) level.

As to the size of the Olympic Games, there are several options. To me, there is a good case for deleting some sports that are "owned" by one or two countries. Let's face it, the US will inevitably win the basketball gold medal - so there's no reason to have the event.

A second solution would be to move some of the indoor events to the Winter Games. Sports like Judo, fencing, and wrestling are traditionally winter sports anyway - not because they need ice or snow, but because they are indoors (yes, I know about grass strips for traditional epee). We could even move air pistol/rifle to the Winter Games.

The third solution would be the BIG change - four Olympic Games per quadrennial cycle. Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. Winter stays pretty much as it is, but the current Summer Games get broken up. Events of a given type would be kept together - all the boating events, shooting events, etc. - but the types would be split apart.

Now, how do we get into power to implement this?

How did we get from Olympic spirit to the right to bear arms and use them in self defense????

Richard H wrote:How did we get from Olympic spirit to the right to bear arms and use them in self defense????

Richard - tha answer is elementary - lawyers got involved.

I stand by the proposition that the state of the law in England today is such that a person faced with serious bodiliy harm or death may legally defend themselves by the use of deadly force including the use of a firearm. In that situation, he/she will NOT be prosecuted for the use of that force. This is and has always been a common law right.

If possession of the weapon was illegal to begin with, the victim could be prosecuted on the weapons charge - BUT NOT FOR DEPLOYING it in an otherwise appropriate self defense scenario. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

The common law right to self defense is dependent upon a finding that the force used in defense was reasonable in light of the perceieved threat.

Self defense including the use deadly force, is permissible if the actor is protecting themselves OR if the actor comes to the aid of another.

In the case of deadly force, the actor must not only show that the force used was reasonable in light of the threat, but there is an additional requirement of "retreat. Simply put, before deadly force is sanctioned as legitimate self defense, the actor must demonstrate that retreat was either impossible, impractical or created an unreasonable risk of injury.



For sure England has stripped it's citizenry of its rights to bear arms but it has NOT divested citizens of their rights to defend themselves in a manner reasonable in the circumstances.

You could argue that outlawing guns has had the effect of outlawing deadly force as a means of self defense. You could argue that, but you would be wrong.




F. Paul Figlia - Attorney at Law

By getting off point ;~) The Olympic "spirit" is tough to define. To some it means the best in the world period, to others the best amateur in the world. In colleges and universities many can argue rather convincingly that we would be better off with intramural sports instead of the feeder teams for the professional sports teams. There is value in participating in sports and perhaps too many have overlooked that. "Fair" is one of the most overused terms in sports.

Richard H wrote:How did we get from Olympic spirit to the right to bear arms and use them in self defense????

Good point.

To me, the Olympic Spirit is an extension of good sportsmanship - the pursuit of excellence for its own sake, and the idea of building amity through friendly competition.

Which is why the Olympic movement was primarily amateur. There WERE paid professionals in some early Olympic events - fencing comes to mind - but they were not pitted against amateur athletes, nor were the amateurs excluded to make room for the professionals.

It's not that paid professionals are bad people - the problem is that a professional HAS to win. Ultimately, if a professional athlete doesn't win, his kids don't eat. So sportsmanship and amity go by the boards, and cheating becomes rampant. You can't fault a professional for trying to win at any cost - that's his job - but if pure victory is not the object, professional athletes are not a workable approach.

Unfortunately, governments got hold of things, and started putting athletes on the government payroll, figuring that medals were cheap propaganda. Nazi Germany and the Communists were the most notorious, but most countries do it to a degree. There was grumbling from the IOC, but they never had the nerve to solve the problem.

Also, athletes became valuable celebrities, so the TV networks who paid money for broadcast rights put pressure on the IOC to allow high-profile professional athletes in to raise ratings (Shame Team, anyone?).

There is an answer - a return to strict amateur status. But defining this is VERY hard. It's too easy to put athletes on a government payroll somewhere. Personally, I like what the International Muzzle-Loading community has done - there is a requriement that all arms be privately owned. No government guns. It's not a 100% solution, but we haven't had a really big problem so far. The only gripes people have are about the German team - which has funding from the DSV so their members don't have to dig into their own pockets for travel expenses.

Hi

You know, I really assumed that all of the guns shot in the Olympics were privately owned. Well, not the Russians and Chinese, but everyone else's. I know people that are shooting guns that are on LONG TERM borrow, but still borrow and from some guy they know at the range.

Just my $0.02.

Mike
Wichita KS

After the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, the legislation for owning firearms, and allowing pistol shooting came to an end. so the legislation had to go before State Parliament again. It was, even then, a touchy subject, and a Hammerli 106model free pistol, used by the local man in the Olympics, was taken to Parliament, and the 'Pollies' passed it around the Chamber , from hand to hand. They were so intrigued by this "strange" pistol, that they said"Aye" instead of "No", and the legislation went through. This was the start of Pistol Shooting in Victoria.
My Hammerli 106 free pistol has the next serial number to this one! - and it still shoots well!!!! :))
In the 1960's, to show we were truly amateurs, we had to put the ammo in a shooting block, so the packet and brand name were not to be seen.
Also with uniforms - the 3 Adidas stripes and other brand identification marks were banned, on the range, on footwear, and clothing.
There was no advertisements on the targets. If they re-introduced that rule to all sports there would not be the money to run the Olympics.

By the way - I am an ex-Modern Pentathlete, recycled through Water Polo, Fencing and finally Pistol shooting!
Alex L.

Morning all,
looking through an old copy of the NSRA handbook recently I found part of the then UIT rules. Professionals were barred from competitions; a professsional was described as anyone who tested firearms for a living, or who had won a prize of more than 5 GBP. The cost of ammunition was limited too, the maximum was 25 USD per 1000, and it had to be freely available.

How things have changed.

Tim S

Exeter UK

For what it's worth, Olympic Rapid Fire pistols like the Walther OSP are already prohibited weapons in Canada. The only reason we can still have them is that they are exempted from the general conditions of prohibition as long as they're used for specific international competitive shooting. This being the case, once everybody goes to .22LR for shooting Rapid Fire, our OSP's will become worthless as you will only be able to sell them to a very small percentage of the gun-owning population who are "grandfathered" to own prohibited weapons. As a result of this draconian and totally senseless legislation, a .357 revolver with a 6" barrel, being only a "restricted" weapon, might sell for $500 on the used market. The very same model with a 4" barrel falls under the minimum barrel length and is classified as a "prohibited" weapon. On the used market you'd be darn lucky to get more than $250 for it.

Also... a comment or two has been made about the UN. One incorrectly indicated that the UN is only concerned with things like MP5's. Please make no mistake, the UN policy is very clearly aimed at ensuring that small arms, ALL small arms, are unavailable to ordinary citizens. In essence, the UN believes that only police and military should have access to firearms. I've read some of the position papers and they want to outlaw guns in the hands of citizens. They want to outlaw reloading components in the hands of citizens. Think about it, read and get informed. The UN policy on small arms must not be allowed to prevail or our sport will cease to exist, both internationally and nationally.

I hear you Richard. Sports and self defence are far apart. If even the firearms enthusiasts can't differentiate, how can we expect everyone else to. No wonder the shooting sports are disappearing everywhere.

Also... a comment or two has been made about the UN. One incorrectly indicated that the UN is only concerned with things like MP5's. Please make no mistake, the UN policy is very clearly aimed at ensuring that small arms, ALL small arms, are unavailable to ordinary citizens. In essence, the UN believes that only police and military should have access to firearms. I've read some of the position papers and they want to outlaw guns in the hands of citizens. They want to outlaw reloading components in the hands of citizens. Think about it, read and get informed.

I have, and I still don't see where the UN states that they are remotely interested in outlawing guns which are legally owned by private citizens for sporting purposes. These guns may be of concern to certain State or National Governments, but all of the material I have read from the UN points out that that is not their concern. The UN is concerned about the illicit trade in small arms of which you would have to have your head buried in the sand to not recognise the extraordinary suffering they cause throughout the world. There have been presentations made to the UN from various groups (NGO's mainly) which promote the anti-gun policy you fear, but not from the UN themselves.

Start with

http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/smallarms/facts.htm

but anything on

http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/smallarms

is worth investigating.

If anyone can direct me to a UN document from a reliable source (i.e. not from those who believe in Black Helicopter conspiracies) that specifically says that the UN is interested in banning the legal private ownership of small arms by private citizens of member nations, please post the link here.

Wow Mike - you really said it there!

I see more of the Olympic idealogy at homegrown matches than I do in the Olympics. At the homegrown match we see folks come out for the first time, shoot rotten scores, but go home with a smile on their face because they actually finished the match, something they thought they'd never do. I've shot beside world-class athletes and rank beginners, and have been mightily impressed to hear both of them say "I know I can improve on this performance - I know I can do better".

One of the best things I've ever witnessed in shooting was a high-performance shooter commisserating with a fellow who had just finished his first FP match. The champion put a real smile on the first-timer's face when he said, "If you think your score's bad, you should have seen my first match - I got less than 50 shots on the paper! You will get better if you keep practicing and shooting matches." The first timer has now become a regular FP shooter in our club, and actually sold some of his guns to finance the purchase of a brand new FP. This is the kind of spirit that's at the core of the Olympic creed. Sportsmanship will continue in the hearts of those who have the wisdom and fortitude to see past Olympic Greed!