Evilv

Ah - it went off accidentally did it laddie. Well then, let me see. That probably means you can't be trusted to have a gun without endangering the public. Hand it over here then like a good lad eh. Evenin' all.

NORAID North American Aid to the IRA. Protected by the Kennedy's and others in Congress, massively supported in Boston, New York by ex-patriot Irish, (though not in general the Irish themselves) and the main source of funding for a thirty year war against the Irish government and the UK by terrorist scum (notwithstanding the fact that the UK should have handed Ireland back a hundred years ago except that power is all corrupting and governments often don't do the right thing). If John is offended by my robust commentary on his opinions that's a shame. The publishing of naive exhortations to war with major powers (or warlike responses and threats of the use of force) is very likely to elicit strong responses. It has been my experience that the most warmongering people on the Internet are rarely inclined to put themselves in harms way, and since I have family in the British forces who are very much in harms way at this very moment, I take a strong view of anyone from a more or less pacifist nation who advocates the ratcheting up of tensions with by far the largest and most dangerous nation in Europe, which would were they to come to pass involve people close to me coming into a lot more trouble. If you advocate the John Wayne style of settling problems John, and post a picture of John Wayne as an avatare, don't be shocked and offended if someone offended by your exhortations to force, refers to you as John Wayne. Still - I have no intention to offend, but am by nature obnoxious and unpleasant. I tell it how it is though ALWAYS.

This is true, (also taking into account the accurate remarks about Stalin of Starlight32). And never forget that Americans sponsored the IRA for decades until 2001 when paying for people to set of bombs suddenly became unpopular for some reason one September morning. It was the Russians that defeated the Nazis, not us, though people of my mother's generation like to take the credit themselves since she and my father were both in the forces at the time. Russia has always been a formidable power in Europe, and mostly, we have been rivals. We fought the Russians in the mid nineteenth century in the Crimea and the Afghan wars of the mid and late nineteenth century were really over Russia and drawing a line to stop their spreading influence. Large and powerful countries effect their neighbour and they always have. The idea that in these matters we can get the lion to lie down with the lamb is a joke, unworthy of serious consideration. Show me the large power on the planet that is not dominating its neighbours.... And please John Wayne - an obvious recipient of American bull **** and propaganda, don't tell me that America isn't throwing its weight about everywhere on the planet... Tell that to the Iraqis and the Afghans, or the Iranians, or the South Koreans or anywhere that sells stuff cheaper than they can, or doesn't want their corporate rapists into their markets. America prefers to let its corporations invade and dominate. If countries don't allow that, they get big time force let loose. Interestingly, Iraq's oil is now being extracted (for the benefit of Iraq's people of course) by American oil corporations.

It doesn't matter whether their neighbours like them or not. The REALITY is that Russia is there, has dominated the whole region for hundreds of years (not just seventy) and who is going to stop them besides you John? Why crisis this is not an open and shut case: BBC VIDEO ON BACKGROUND TO CONFLICT

Get an HMR. You'll never want to go back to anything less once you've tried shooting with it. The idea of shooting rabbits at 80 meters with an air rifle is not the best I'd say. The precision of shot placement required even witha rifle at 20 ft pounds at the range you mention would be very exacting, especially given the trajectory of a projectile travelling at maybe 750 fps. That would be a very tall order for me in practical field conditions. 'Is that rabbit at 75 or 80 meters or is it 70?' The answer to that question being correctly resolved would dictate whether you maimed the thing or killed it. Not so with an HMR. The question is then, 'Is the cross anywhere on the bunny's front half?' The animal is then instantly dead as soon as you pull the trigger. You can't fire an air rifle if the backdrop is a road or a cow anyway, so that makes no difference. The HMR is very much better than 22LR for ricochet, but there will always be plenty of places you dare not fire, whatever you are using.

In the old days, you had to have a referee of professional standing like a doctor, solicitor, MP etc. Nowadays you can ask anyone who is sensible and of good character who has known you for the specified time. I think it is three years. If you are concerned that the previous referee might object, you can ask someone else. Just pick a sensible person who can vouch for you. I asked the farmer who was the owner of my named piece of land. She was a very ordinary lady with no pretentions, but she has known me a good while. You could even ask your keeper friend. The questions asked refer to stuff like whether they think you are of good character and trustworthy, how you handle firearms and your experience of them and are you responsible, as well as whether you have mental health problems, personal difficulties in relationships and whether you abuse alcohol. Your keeper mate if he is of good character might be ideally placed to answer these since he obviously trusts you. I don't think the Scottish legislation is any different on this, but check with your firearms dept about what kind of people are eligible as referees where you are. Hope that helps.

Since 2001, and before that as well, western idealogues allowed their rhetoric about 'freedom' to over-rule their heads about what is practical and sensible. They spout Hollywood bullsh it ideals about 'standing up to', 'freedom', 'evil empires', 'better dead than red', and other such clichés. In America, this cra p goes down a storm. That's because they are utterly naive. Sad to say, our idiot ex-Primeminister led us into a war to promote this kind of neocon nonesense. What happened? We made a bad place VERY much worse. I am reading the same kind of stuff here, standing up to bullies, letting these people be 'free'. Sadly, what this nonsense is free of is REALITY. We neither have the power, nor right to dictate to Russia. Any serious attempt to force the hand of Russia by 'standing up to' them militarily would be a disaster. In my experience, the people who advocate this kind of intervention are rarely the ones who stand behind a rifle, ready to disembark from a troop carrier to go into battle - that's a job for other people. All we can do is seek out other energy resources and cease trading with a belligerent Russia, but I doubt that this would work for reasons earlier stated, they have something that is in high demand. Russia has its sphere of influence like we do. If the Bear were to be installing anti-missile equipment and forming alliances with our partners in Europe - lining up against us, we would take issue with it. It is the same for them. Had not Saakosville sent in troops and killed 2000 people in South Ossettia, none of this would have happened. It amazes me that some people don't see what a catastrophic move that was.

Yeah - I see why you have John Wayne as your avatare now. Growing some balls and other macho references are not what is needed. Russia is nasty. I know. Russia has vast energy reserves and is selling huge amounts of gas into Europe- we go elsewhere, but God knows where that is. We should stop interfering with Russian satellites and leave well alone in my view. I don't care a F for these places and their ambitions. I have a strong interest in a continued stable and prosperous UK and Europe. We can talk to the Russians and we can if practicable stop buying their product to run our power stations and heating systems, but we can not seriously seek out conflict with them.

I brought in Ulster as an illustration of how not to treat minority peoples. Ulster is a done deal now between the UK and Ireland and it ws solved by discussion, not invasions or warfare. There is some sensible commentary on here about this subject: BBC - Have your say

Well what will we do when they shut off our gas? Russia is belligerent, I agree. The only thing we can do with them besides getting back into a cold war situation is to isolate them economically. But that won't work because energy - something they have more of then Saudi Arabia is the most in demand product on the planet. If we don't buy it, the Chinese will. So where do we go? I think the resurgence of belligerent Russia is a result at least in part of the humiliation of Russia by the west in Yeltzin's time. There is a pattern here: Germany humiliated by the treaty of Versailles in 1918 and up comes Hitler. Russia humiliated by America and intrusion into its vassal states by NATO in the period between 1990 and 2000, and Putin gets tough as his economy rises through energy sales. Russia's wealth and power can only increase as they sell more and more hydrocarbons to a world that will pay nay price to get what they have.

It may well not be clear cut and with one side entirely innocent and the other totally at fault, but I'll tell you this, had this been happening on the edge of the USA, they would have done exactly as the Russians did. Great powers or even once great powers have natural sphere's of influence that they regard as THEIR TURF. People who start trouble right on their doorstep can expect them to come rampaging out and they will get trampled. EVERYONE should know this and just as the Russians would have no business becoming militarily involved in a territorial dispute between the UK and Ireland over the status of Ulster, neither do we in the west have any business at all other than some finger wagging, over what happens in Georgia. I happen to believe that the Americans have been very stupid in meddling in Russia's back yard. Military conflict with Russia is unthinkable for NATO, I mean I ask you - we can't even handle some raggey ar sed brigands in Afghanistan, so how would we do there? Military conflict is in almost all cases a bad idea and often hideously so in situations that don't involve us fighting for our own territory, or that of our immediate neighbours in defence. We should not get involved in protecting the Baltic Republics, nasty little countries in the Middle East or anywhere else that is not a vital interest of our own. I have relatives in Afghanistan and I'd hate to see them blown away over some stupid plan to make the willdest land, most Godforsaken land on the planet into a representative democracy. It ain't going to happen, and neither am I going to get excited if Saakosvili gets a black eye after launching full scale military attacks on Russian Militia in a part of his territory that doesn't want him and mostly wants to be Russian. That would be as foolhardy as the UK fighting America to try to keep N Ireland British when the majority of its inhabitants wanted to become independent. Totally stupid in other words. EDIT: By the way the references to Ireland were not a cheap jibe at all. I happen to believe that the UK's interference in Ireland at the behest of a bunch of radical Ulsterites has been a disaster. In the same way, if South Ossettians see their future with Russia, so be it. Now you may think I'm being inconsistent, but I'm not. The groups who want to escape some colonial power like in one case the UK or in another 'Mother Russia' had better take care before they start military operations against them or their proxies. Neither power will allow military attacks to go unpunished. It is one thing to say that South Ossettia, ought to be able to free itself of Georgian influence, or that Georgia should of Russia's, but it is quite another to think that Russia will allow a Georgian assault on a Russian population in break away South Ossettia to go unpunished. It is simple 'real politigué' that Russia would always have responded as it did, and it is nothing to do with us. Can you imagine the implications on us and our economies of any kind of war with Russia? Also - now I'm on my ranting box - since there are only about three countries in NATO prepared to actually fight anybody (USA, UK & Canada) in the wars we are already involved in, the call for NATO involvement is rather amusing. We seem to have a lot of NATO countries that like to have their people do admin roles. They won't even supply helicopters to us Brits in the Afghan badlands. NATO is full of big mouthed hangers on - lots to say, but no stomach for a fight themselves.

It may well not be clear cut and with one side entirely innocent and the other totally at fault, but I'll tell you this, had this been happening on the edge of the USA, they would have done exactly as the Russians did. Great powers or even once great powers have natural sphere's of influence that tey regard as THEIR TURF. People who start trouble right on their doorstep can expect them to come rampaging out and they will get trampled. EVERYONE should know this and just as the Russians would have no business becoming militarily involved in a territorial dispute between the UK and Ireland over the status of Ulster, neither do we in teh west have any business at all other than some finger wagging, over what happens in Georgia. I happen to believe that the Americans have been very stupid in meddling in Russia's back yard. Military conflict with Russia is unthinkable for Nato, I mean I ask you - we can't even handle some raggey ar sed brigands in Afghanistan, so how would we do there? Military conflict is in almost all cases a bad idea and often hideously so in situations that don't involve us fighting for our own territory, or that of our immediate neighbours in defence. We should not get involved in protecting the Baltic Republics, nasty little countries in teh Middle East or anywhere else that is not a vital interest of our own. I have relatives in Afghanistan and I'd hate to see them blown away over some stupid plan to make the wildest ladn on the planet into a representative democracy. It ain't going to happen, and neither am I going to get excited if Saakosvili gets a black eye after launchung full scale mimlitary attacks on Russian Militia in a part of his territory that doesn't want him and mostly wants to be Russian. That would be as foolhardy as the UK fighting America to try to keep N Ireland British when the majority of its inhabitants wanted to become independent. Totally stupid in other words.

Yeah John - that's just what we want, a war with Russia. Will you be going yourself, or is it other people and their sons you want to die? I have three sons who would be eligible and two nephews currently serving in Afghanistan. How about you? We had a fantastic opportunity with Russia in the 1990s and we, or more precisely the Americans humiliated them, by psuhing NATo and missile defence right into their backyard. Why is it that we can invade countries half a world away 'with justification' and Russia can not step into a war situation on its very doorstep involving its own citizens coming under attack without being denounced for monsters. Always remember that in this matter Saakashvile sent forces into South Ossettia and created mayhem there among Russian citizens in a province who want nothing to do with his corrupt and villainous government. The casualties among the south Ossettians from Saakashvili's attack amount to around 2000 dead civilians, and 35,000 displaced, by the way, but maybe that's OK eh? Sarkosville is a villain, who provoked the whole problem and thought NATO would step in and protect him. Well it didn't and neither should it. By the way, as an Irishman, I am sure that the situation of the South Ossettians wish to escape from the control of a larger and more powerful neighbour - Georgia, unpopular among its patriotic people, will not escape you as a parallel of that of Eire and Great Britain in the early to late twentieth century. I think you may be backing the wrong side old chap. Independent article on causes of the conflict

I saw some of the progamme and was completely revolted by the scenes in China. There was a skinned animal blinking and moving its face - some kind of dog or maybe a fox. I never saw such barbarity in my life and turned it off. The Chinese are worlds apart from us in their attitude towards animals and cruelty. Clearly, many of us here would be regarded as cruel barbarians by some in our own society for shooting animals for sport. I don't think I was cruel last evening in shooting 21 rabbits. Most died within a second, and one where I got the windage wrong, received a second shot within thirty seconds as soon as it stopped moving so I could shoot again. Whatever those who disapprove of shooting would have thought of that, the focus of the activity was to bring instant death to the rabbits. In this film, they deliberately didn't kill the creatures quickly, because they didn't want to spoil the fur. They were simply subdued by a few blows and then completely skinned alive and conscious. This was a vile thing to see and I turned it off. I am usually very much against government intervention in almost anything because they mess up so much of what they do and just bind us all up in regulations, but in this case I would favour an ethical fur trading scheme where it is against the law to source fur from any non accredited source. Acreditation would involve animal inspectors being present on scene wherever fur is produced to ensure that humane conditions apply from beginning to end. So fur would cost a lot more? Good. No harm in that. At least we could be confident that animals were not being skinned alive and that dogs were not being tortured to death which is what happened.

I'm not a vet, but I wouldn't even think about a sedative myself. The problem is the bitch is deciding to act this way. Doping her won't help in the long term. She needs to re-learn her reactions to the pup. She needs to do that in her right mind, and not while zonked out on something. I doubt anyone learns much while sedated anyway. Aggression can occur because the animal feels uneasy and restless. Sorry about these questions - I'm not implying anything, but does she get plenty of attention and regular outings for exercise? If she was locked up a lot and bored and full of energy or feeling left out and too much in the kennel, she might have good reason to feel aggrieved about an interloper pup. Maybe we should go back to the most basic thing of all; does she obey you absolutely when you give the command NO!! in a firm voice? That is the very first thing to get sorted. If she won't obey you in everything, even when she feels she needs to sort out another dog, she is not in your control. If there is a problem of her doing what SHE wants rather than obeying you and accepting your pack leadership status, it could be that some fun training with her ON HER OWN would help her behaviour. Take her out, just you and her and do exercises like - sit, stay, lie down, fetch, but only when you give the order. Give her plenty of attention and commands and DEMAND her full attention and COMPLETE compliance to your authority, but use rewards when she does right as well as a stern voice when she does not. Make her run beside you totally at heel, basically anything that makes her give total and unquestioning attention to you and what you want. Make her mix with strange dogs and COMMAND NO!! at even the slightest sign of aggression (hair going up on her shoulders, head down looking aggressive anything that precedes her actually breaking into violence. They always give signs by their posture before they kick off - you need to be sensitive to those signs and she needs to know you wont tolerate them for a second. So - after this kind of training, bring on the puppy and stop her if she in any way starts to give the signs, hair, head down, ears back any sign of tension, bring her up short and command NO!!. When she stops the bad behaviour in any of the training, make a fuss of her, girly voice, good dog, that's a good dog, loads of patting and rubbing her fur. She will eventually get the idea that you are pleased when she's nice and very strong on her when she isn't. REMEMBER TO GIVE HER MOST OF YOUR ATTENTION WHEN SHE AND THE PUP ARE TOGETHER. THERE WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO TRAIN HIM WHEN SHE ACCEPTS HIM, BUT PART OF THAT WILL DEPEND ON YOU NOT RUBBING HER NOSE IN THE FACT THAT SHE HAS TO SOME EXTENT BEEN REPLACED. Have you ever watched a guy called Caeser Milan on Sky 3? He is often on there at about six in the evening. He's a mexican American in California and he does a lot of training with dogs that are showing aggression. Some of them are totally out of control, large dogs biting owners and family members and savaging the neighbour's dogs. he seems to get them totally submissive and nice in a few minutes. Watch that guy and study his methods. He is the most effective socialiser of really bad dogs that I've ever seen.

Bitches are usually quite tolerant of pups, especially male ones. I think that if you let them interact while you are there and use shock tactics like the water squirter or a rattle with a storng command like NO!!! at the first sign of aggression from your old bitch, she will stop. The key things about dog training in cases like this are: a) that you have full authority over the bitch. She must accept you as totally in control or stopping the behaviour will take longer b. ) you have to be completely consistent; first sign of aggression, you REACT with your shock tactic and the command. The instant the behaviour starts, you REACT, and do the same thing all the time (as long as she is shocked away from the aggression with the pup) if not, find a new way to get the bitches attention and her submission to you over the matter. DOG BORSTAL ADVICE

This is the kind of activity that serial killer types would enjoy. Sad to say there are people who have twisted souls and enjoy that ind of thing. They probably like torturing women to death as well. A long time ago I read in Shooting Times of a comical incident supposed to hav happened in East Germany or Russia where they were organising canned hunting for rich businessmen. In this case, the outfit had been having trouble getting bears for hunters to shoot. The story goes that the wealthy West German businessman was set up in a hide near a cottage in the woods and he was promised a bear would come soon. Sure enough a brown bear ambled out of the woods towards the cottage. Businessman gets ready and is about to shoot when the bear grabbed an old bicycle which was leaning against the cottage wall, mounts it and rides off on it...... That's the gist of the story printed about 1979 in Shooting Times - probably too far fethced to be true, but I really wouldn't put it past these kinds of outfits to lay on retired circus animals for souless people to shoot at.

Could he have fouled he trigger with his clothing - a button maybe? I once saw a guy shoot himself through the hand when loading a flintlock Scottish pistol that had no trigger guard. He had the damned thing on full cock and it blew a great big hole in his right hand as the .75 bullet and ramrod went right through his palm and up in the air. Tough one that - he was a gunsmith. Fortunately, this fool had the gun pointed skywards there were dozens of people around at the time. When I was starting out it was impressed on me that you don't even close a shiotgun until you are ready to shoot. With a semi auto this is not possible, but presumably you can carry it without a round chambered and then cycle the gun when ready to fire. I would never trust a man who let of an accidental (negligent) discharge. It is a heinous offense in my book and is always avoidable. If the chamber /chambers are unloaded until ready to shoot, you're never going to have this potentially tragic experience. About thirty years ago a mate let of a twelve bore right behind me and blew a dirty great hole in the mud. The hole was less than a foot behind my leg. I was covered in mud, but otherwise very luckily undamaged. I still occasionally go out with this guy, but I have never trusted him since and watch him like a hawk. I could have been hobbling around with an artificial leg for the last thirty years. That would have been a truly life changing event. Unless I am shooting alone, I never walk with a round chambered and I never remove the safety catch unless a shot is imminent. Even alone, I unchamber loaded rounds before crossing a fence or a gate, or when in some situation where a fall is likely. I shoot in some rugged terrain so slipping is perfectly possible.

Hi Flash. Good to be starting out so young. Think of all the fun you have ahead of you mate. I just want to chime in with something about the .17. I just got one and it's a hell of a lot of fun. I've been shooting .22 rimfire for 28 years on and off and working out hold over can be a right pain. My misses are usually either over or under because the terrain has deceived my judgment of distance. Not so with the HMR. Just point it and squeeze and the bunny drops or explodes. I'm really loving mine and 100 yard rabbits are now commonplace instead of a dubious, unethical gamble. Got another one at 140 yards last night and that's with a naff little Nikko Sterling 4x32 scope I got free with an air rifle. I still get out the old CZ452 and stroke it. I even cleaned it yesterday. Anointed it with Hoppes No 9 and put it back in the cupboard. Then there's the cost of ammo to think of. Twenty pence a shot as against a lot less. Good luck anyway mate - having the land and a good character means you'll almost certainly get whatever you decide you want. EDIT: By the way, 17HMR as you likely know already has a safety advantage over .22 - lower risk of ricochet. When I applied for my recent hmr variation, I just wrote a short letter saying there were situations on some of my shooting places where the high risk of ricochet meant I needed an HMR. I got it back 8 days later, duly altered. I think in some ways, the cops like them better than .22, and listening to some of the whining ricochets I got in July when the ground was dry, I'm not surprised.

LOL - they'd turn on you like a pack of hounds and you'd be torn to pieces in a minute. Your mangled remains would later be found under a heap of pop corn and spilled buckets of coca cola.

Look - I enjoy shooting and have done for a good while, but the 'evil' nature of the fox was well tolerated by farmers in areas where there was an active hunt. When I was a lad looking for and finding shooting permission in the 1970s, I received two distinct sets of instructions about foxes depending on whether there was a hunt or not. They were: 'If you see a fox, you be sure to give the bu gger both barrels. Just get him.' and ''Whatever you do - leave the foxes alone.' The difference depended on whether they had connections with the local hunt or not. Also, a very good friend of mine and dodgy country woman tells me how people from the hunt used to bring her tiny fox cubs to bring up when they had been dug out. They then paid her good money for them as weaned and ready to go cubs. For sure the fox can be a nuisance, of course, but the idea that they are evil incarnate is nonsense. Shoot them by all means, but let's not kid ourselves. We do it because we like it and not because he's Satans pet dog. And yes - I was annoyed when I found five of my chickens dead after I delayed locking them up one evening.

Only if you tied it by the leg to a stake. I've seen these things they are hyperactive.

This discussion can easily be settled by looking over the homicide figures for countries where people habitually carry fire arms. You can look at civilised places like the United States, or at wild and wacky ones like Brazil, Columbia, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Wherever there is large scale carrying of firearms for protection, there is a massive murder rate. Even the States which is clearly a civil society with a great majority of decent people in it has a murder rate at least five times the European average. That's a a percentage rate which takes account of the fact that the USA has a big population. In Britain, the number of firearms related murders is down at the level of 59 in 2006 - 7 which is up from the previous year in which 50 people were shot to death. What more do we need to know? And yes - most of this in gang banger black hooligans, just like in the States, but the level of mayhem is vastly less. Even multiplying that number by 5 which would put us along side the USA in terms of population (the USA has five times the UK population) the number would be under 300 gun related murders. It may well be that once we open Pandora's box like in the States so that all kinds of intemperate people have handguns, that people feel the need to be armed, but that is just not our situation. Do we have armed criminals? Yes. Is there a highly remote chance that any Brit will end up staring down the barrel of a gun and get shot? Yes - but it is literally less than one in a million, and so small that you are far more likely to be killed by a falling tree branch or get struck by lightening and fried in your boots. I respect the historical heritage of the States, but anybody with any sense at all knows that unrestricted hand gun ownership and accessibility brings mayhem with it. You don't believe me - then go and talk to the 15000 American families who lose a loved one through gun violence every year. This petition is not only misguided, it is plain stupid and publicity about it will do nothing to enhance the position of those owning sporting firearms. Home Office Figures see page 39 -> Homicde in UK

That's the thing that always awes me about owl when I've seen them. The wings are totally silent - they fly like velvet. I was once up in the Pyrenees with my son and we'd sat down just below a ridge line. After a bit this huge vulture swooped over the ridge and passed maybe fifteen feet above us. The wings were open and still as it glided by but there was a vibrating noise from the feathers on the trailing edge like you can get with a kite on a windy day

Sorted the problem I think. Rimfire Central Thirty five rounds through faultlessly this afternoon.