achosenman

I'm aware of the claims and counter claims of the numbers of civilian deaths. I personally don't buy it. "Innocent" people who harbour, supply or otherwise give succor to these animals, are more likely to get caught up in the crossfire. Having some experience of terrorist methods first hand in a previous career, experience tells me many are not as "innocent" as portrayed by NGO's with an agenda, or terrorists with an agenda.

I got an XT a few weeks ago for my partners son. It worked right out of the box. I put a Tracer Led Ray on it as its for short range rabbits on an air rifle. The NM 800 is overkill for anything less than 100m. I used Sports Match adjustable rings for coarse zero and a couple of clicks on the scope to fine tune. Some shooters have run out of adjustment using other rings. I Personally went Longbow after struggling with dedicated and add on for years. I spent years searching and trying different units...including military offerings. It's the best out there by a big margin in my experience. I can drop foxes well beyond ranges typical for day shooting let alone at night. The big downside is it's pricey if you want an XD4 tube or better and they are built to order, so you get to wait. I do switch it out on 3 rifles using Recknagel Picatinny QD's with no loss of zero so far. Drone Pro has had issues from memory as well as other offerings in NV. Improvements are happening on an almost yearly basis. IME the Yukon is a remarkable bit of kit for its price point. Good luck

I believe that's absolutely correct..to an extent. The trouble for me is it assumes the only reason for terrorist attacks are due to the "intervention" Their stated aim is to rule the world under their particular ideological interpretation of Islam. The attacks will not stop until Sharia holds sway in the west...period.

She's sounding more gullible than smart, to me. The £10 minimum wage will mean the young lass I have just employed will be on reduced hours at best, or redundant at worst. As for hitting small business with higher corporation tax...ahh no. We are smart enough to run a company, we are smart enough to prevent the government from robbing us blind. Also it's prudent to remember, higher operation costs mean increased prices for the customer. JC still doesn't understand, there is no magic money tree.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Every action/decision has a consequence. If you invite the fox into the chicken coop on Monday, don't expect to have any chickens left by Tuesday. Why should we give up basic privacy to cure poor, politically correct decisions, made by politicians too stupid to smell the coffee?

I believe the most besieged nation on Earth has to be Israel. They have procedures and processes that must be hugely effective, considering the staggeringly high proportion of the Islamic world population who wants them wiped off the face of this planet. Of course the big no no for our left leaning luvvies, is those procedures more than likely contravene "uman rites" so are unacceptable in modern day UK. A much better idea is to get someone else to pick up the body parts, while the "great and the good" bravely make heart signs and walk across a bridge.

No we don't just have to live with it. That's just a wet hand wringing sheeple mindset. BTW, punctuation is your friend. I almost run out of breath trying to read your posts

You only have to look to realise that some have not grown up in "English society" Multiculturalism has enabled them to be indoctrinated from early school age onward in a medieval barbaric faith. There is very little integration in some parts of society in this country. It's about time all public office and schools were secular by law.

Internment has been tried. The sad fact is, the general public have short memories and even shorter attention spans.

The 48ft lbs of the .25 is not required, nor desirable for my needs. I have a 22lr if I need that kind of power. As has been mentioned, the .22 option is still useful enough at decent range, but not too powerful that it restricts the user to just 22lr type applications. IE into trees, in and around barns and in enclosed area's. The other consideration is that I have never found any reduced power 22lr round that could hit the proverbial barn door, so air it has to be.

On my patch I eradicate the problem area's only. I can sit back at 300yds + and clear out a warren in a few days if pushed. I've had to do this on a couple of occasions on my main patch due to the damage being inflicted. These days all they need is controlling. If there is a problem crop and there have been several over the years, I can eradicate in excess of several hundred over a few days with a 22lr and a Longbow NV unit. This is purely vermin control, nothing sporting about it. TBH, the logistics of dealing with the carcasses takes more time than shooting them. As for the FAC .22 slot that I have just acquired, I want to fill a niche in the power bracket between 12ft lbs air and .22lr. I have some area's that are close to A roads that I cannot shoot safely with a rimfire. A center fire rifle is simply not suitable. ATM, walking around with the NV unit on a sub 12ft lbs air rifle has proved somewhat effective, but IMHO is far to limited to be truly useful at the ranges I need for rabbit control. Atb

For vermin control I use whatever makes me more effective. I have a lot of land to cover and only so much time to do it in. The Farmer wants me to do the job, he doesnt trust anyone else after several bad experiences. For deer stalking I would never dream of using thermal or night vision, (except for the yearly census) I am not clearing problem pests, rather managing and maintaining a valued asset.

The trouble with the internet is you only get a view designed to reinforce the authors prejudices. As I said, the law allows the use of firearms in certain circumstances. The government publication Guidance on firearms licensing law (guidance to Police) states: Dogs 14.61 Section 9 of the Animals Act 1971provides a defence for killing or injuring a dog if the defendant acted to protect livestock, and subsequently informs the police within forty-eight hours of the incident. The defendant can only act in defence of livestock in such a way if the livestock, or the land on which it is, belongs to them or to any other person under whose express or implied authority they are acting. Note that the Animal Act 1971 does not extend to Scotland – see section 13(4). And below is section 9 of the animals act 1971: 9 Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock. (1)In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove— (a)that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and (b)that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station. (2)For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if— (a)the livestock or the land on which it is belongs to him or to any person under whose express or implied authority he is acting; and (b)the circumstances are not such that liability for killing or causing injury to the livestock would be excluded by section 5(4) of this Act. (3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either— (a)the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or (b)the dog has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs. (4)For the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief. (5)For the purposes of this section— (a)an animal belongs to any person if he owns it or has it in his possession; and (b)land belongs to any person if he is the occupier thereof. As I previously stated, I think any prudent firearms user should get proper legal advice, not rely on internet chatter.

Ordnace there you go with the cut'n'paste. As I said, I am happy with my position and will do what is lawful. You must do what you are happy with, but then again I suspect you have never had to make a decision where there are profound consequences if you get it wrong. Again, I'm not going to debate this with you.

The truth is always the from the POV of the person telling it. That is why there is frequently discrepancies about the same incident from differing witnesses. If you are tacitly suggesting I would lie and needlessly shoot some-ones dog, you couldn't be more wrong. The dog I mention above could have been shot by me and no-one would have been any the wiser. I don't do that sort of thing, just like I don't shoot peoples pet cats. Atb