Gordon R Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Dennis - so far. among your points:- 1. the heavy handedness of the police when dealing with someone that is a clayshooter, 2. the time has come for every shooter that is in our sport to belong to one of the national shooting bodies 3. that shooter as a pre condition takes a competence test armed with that certificate to go forward to make full application for a gun licence. 4.I firmly believe that every shooter has to belong to a national shooting body, has to have third party insurance and be competant in the use of handling and shooting guns 5. The Pistol ban was a direct result of what happened at Dunblane, It was this failure of communications between the local gun club and the police that had tragic results. If there had been better links this tragic outcame may have just been avoided. 6. Unfortunatly as we all know there are some people in this sport that own guns and have no use for them other than the kudos factor.. 7. There is an element drawn to gun ownership as a power trip 8. i am not one of the persons that can back down from a situation. Building has always confrontational and sometimes it can be diffuclt to keep your cool. 9. As for clubs, i was at a shoot a few weeks ago and a guy was there who 15 years ago stuck one on a women Ref , he knocked her out and broke her nose, the police were called and stated that it served no purpose for the sport if it went further, so they went, we thought then that we would deal with this in house, the region committee decided there wasn't enough direct evidence to ban him from the sport. Some shooters at the time gave evidence to an offical only to withdraw it later. 10. There is a long way to go on this, it may be that some of the aims get taken on board, reading some of these posts i don't think it will be well supported by shooters, but it may get better support from the general public. I think everyone really agrees that we need a form of provisional training and certification before letting someone loose with a firearm. 11. The police treat us like a bunch of cowboys and some remarks on these forums only reinforce that view. 12. The day will come when all guns will have to be kept in shooting ground armies, yes you will be allowed to check out your gun to shoot another ground or event, but your time with it will be limited and the gun will have to be returned when you have finished. 13. Game shooters will be treated differently but only slightly, method statements and notification will be the norm, the wearing of camo gear will be kept strictly for the hunting scene 14. The police do not want guns of any discription where the general public has access. 15. We cannot rely on Tory support, remember it was John Major that done the most damage to this sport. 16. I never declare guns through border posts its far too much hassle. 17. How long do you really think you can just sit in a hide and shoot pigeons without doing a method statment on direction of shot , public footpaths, water course, potential crop damage. 18. I have seen a shooter die at a shoot, struggled to try to save him, he could have been saved had the ground had some basic medical backup. At all major events we now have medical staff . 19. But now its time for the rest of the sport to catch up, no big deal, a shooting syndicate of perhaps 40 odd participant are in a remote area and not easily assisted should have basic medical facilities, one of the organisers should have attended a First aid course, this can be a stressful situation where members may have heart attacks, break a leg, a bad fall in the field. All that money that these events costs and you don't have a basic refibulator in the land rover. 20. Some years ago we had a situation in the CPSA where they thought they were exempt as well, there was problems at one ground, but the problems were common throughout the sport. As one of the officals and an expert in construction i felt it was my duty to flag up the problems and get them dealt with. It was felt that i was unhelpful and the Exec Officer wrote to me expressing that i should resign my position. I did 21. I have never shot game since and always wary of poor transport 22. What happen to me was an eye opener, like many i never thought that there would ever be such an abuse of power by a few officers and it gets worse, which i cannot go into because some officers acted outside there powers and has become a disiplinary issue. 23. Support the E-petition , it makes sense, Dennis, I re-read the thread just to make sure I was following your reasoning in full. I still see no coherent argument in favour of what you propose. It has been a scattergun approach, hitting out in just about every direction - very few of which cast the sport in a good light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denniswebb Posted September 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Not Really Gordon, its about us being directly involved in the management of our sport, thats all, everything else is irrellavent, its really what the police the shooting associations and government agencies want as well...Every other sport in the country has self regulation so why not ours. The police contract out the licence application, the policticians end making knee jerk responses to events that happen in the sport and the police use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut....Doesn't everything that i have said make sense. Every other sport in this country requires some form of test, training and membership to part of it, but not shooting, just pick up the licence and the gun and you are free to wander at will . We are not trusted members of the community. We have to change the publics perspective, our recent success in the Olympics is one of them. Our National Bodies such as BASC and the CPSA have to do better PR jobs to promote the benifits to the fabric or our society that shooting brings, but that is only by having everyone in it. A band of brothers. Vote for the change, even if it got enough votes, it still would be mission impossible. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 I know there was a big fuss made about both sets of rules coming in. While personally I think it's utterly stupid to not wear a seat belt, I'm not convinced that it should be mandatory for anybody old enough to understand the risks and make their own decision. My point was that forcing a clay shoot (by law) to have people with medical training, and forcing people by law to wear shooting glasses, is simply not OK. While it may be stupid not to wear protection, in a hobby like clay shooting people should be able to make their own choices. Forcing these things upon us would do no good. Fortunately, there is someone looking after your best interests. Whereas you may have opted to wear a belt, others, somewhat selfishly, may not have. Be pleased that someone has legislated to prevent an uncontrolled 15 stone weight travelling at 30 mph while you are all but stationary driving your chest ino a steering wheel and putting your head through the windscreen. This was not uncommon pre compulsary belt legislation days and was the cause of many unnecessary deaths or severe injuries and is but just one example. You are at the clay range watching someone about to shoot while waiting your turn when a fragment of clay hits him in his unprotected eye. He flinchs from the excruciating pain, dropping his gun which discharges on hitting the floor and two ounces of No.8 catches poor old Bedwards in the chest. As he drops dead his safety glasses fall from his pocket....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Doesn't everything that i have said make sense. Dennis - that is my problem. I disagree with most of what you have said. Some makes sense, but the rest is a rambling diatribe against the Police, Politicians, the building trade, fellow shooters (more than a few times) and the CPSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Fortunately, there is someone looking after your best interests. Whereas you may have opted to wear a belt, others, somewhat selfishly, may not have. Be pleased that someone has legislated to prevent an uncontrolled 15 stone weight travelling at 30 mph while you are all but stationary driving your chest ino a steering wheel and putting your head through the windscreen. This was not uncommon pre compulsary belt legislation days and was the cause of many unnecessary deaths or severe injuries and is but just one example. You are at the clay range watching someone about to shoot while waiting your turn when a fragment of clay hits him in his unprotected eye. He flinchs from the excruciating pain, dropping his gun which discharges on hitting the floor and two ounces of No.8 catches poor old Bedwards in the chest. As he drops dead his safety glasses fall from his pocket....... I hear what your saying, but I really don't feel that there is enough risk to justify any kind of legislation. Shooting grounds may impose their own rules, with good sensible reasons, but it's not the law. When you start making everything a legal requirement freedom suffers, and it doesn't help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denniswebb Posted September 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I never thought for one minute that the support for this E Petition would come from clay or game shooters and never relied on it, that is why i decided to word it in such a way as to draw wider support....We have this uncanny attidude that somehow we are in control and as long as we don't screw up too bad everyone will understand us and allow us to continue to take part in this unsocialable activity. The root of all thats wrong with this E Petition is simple, many shooters don't want to do anything that will cost them money, the thought that a condition of the E Petition is compulsary joining of one of the National Shooting bodies to protect the future of this sport is something they cannot accept. I know because i see so many shooters that are not in one of the organisations , how we deal with that i don't know. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 us to continue to take part in this unsocialable activity Dennis - it's just a bit disappointing for someone who is in our sport to describe it as unsociable. I find that view astonishing. The "wider support" has upped the signatories to 3. :good: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denniswebb Posted September 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I'm sure if there was a refendium on removing all guns from society tommorrow , we would loose it...After all its only a pastime, take up golf, sailing or fishing. What we do as a pastime there are those amongst us that have other agenda's. Its those that we need to weed out. i won't go into details on a public website, but we still have a few scumbags that need to be removed from the sport. Its nowhere near as bad as it used to be but some are still there. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I never thought for one minute that the support for this E Petition would come from clay or game shooters and never relied on it, that is why i decided to word it in such a way as to draw wider support....We have this uncanny attidude that somehow we are in control and as long as we don't screw up too bad everyone will understand us and allow us to continue to take part in this unsocialable activity. The root of all thats wrong with this E Petition is simple, many shooters don't want to do anything that will cost them money, the thought that a condition of the E Petition is compulsary joining of one of the National Shooting bodies to protect the future of this sport is something they cannot accept. I know because i see so many shooters that are not in one of the organisations , how we deal with that i don't know. Dennis Hmm, I've paid my money to become a member of a shooting organisation, which gives me insurance. It's BASC, I've joined the one that (hopefully) is doing the most to protect shooting - and yes, I pay for it. That kind of rules out your theory that we don't want to pay - it's simply that to force it on people is not needed, and it will damage the number of new shooters. Fact! You must realize that aiming a petition at the non-shooting public, which almost every single shooter cannot support, is not going to help us? If none of us feel that it would help the sport in any way, how can it possibly be a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2000e2000e Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Every other sport in this country requires some form of test, training and membership to part of it, but not shooting, just pick up the licence and the gun and you are free to wander at will . We are not trusted members of the community.I played football with out any interaction with the FA, I've even driven a motorboat and had no license for that, so I don't recognise what you're saying there.But what we really need to tackle! I'm a trusted member of my community! ! But I have guns and I as a trustworthy member of my community recognised that there is risk involved and have study safe gun handling and joint BASC which gives me insurance aswell as knowledge and representation. We need to be open about shooting and get others to come and try so they can see what its all about so that they recognise that we are not all rambo wannabes, but people involved in a legitimet legal sport. I think the main thing most of us have trouble with is we can't see what this petition is trying to achieve, as it isn't very clear, why not restate you petition as reforms to the firearms legislation and then bullet point the changes, 1)a competence test, 2) all shooters to have insurance 3) a single license for all firearms. Etc because it just seems at the moment that all your saying is we can't go on like we are now. Which we all struggle with because we haven't come across alot of the problems you are mentioning, because as you say we just sit in a hide and shoot pigeons and that seems to work out well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denniswebb Posted September 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 There are perhaps nearly a million people that shoot in some form or another, and there are around 125,000 shooters in one or another of the shooting bodies. so what you currently have in this sport around half a million shooters that for whatever reason doesn't want to be part of it, they consider its not for them , they may just shoot clays but because they just want a bang at week ends and don't shoot competitivly think why join a shooting organisation. They are not even in a club, for many this is justification to own and use gun. If shooting went tommorrow they would just shrug there shoulders and take up golf, and that is the dilema we have in this sport....Its probably the same in Rough / Game shooting. Should somebody have the right to own as gun and rarely use it or have anywhere to shoot. Do we have a right to bear arms and how many shooters are out there where guns are just kudos. Would it be alright that 100,000 licences went tommorrow because the owner rarely if ever went shooting, should we have flexable gun licences, if there are periods of non use perhaps through ill health should those guns still be in circulation. Should we just focus on real sporting shooters who are passinate about the sport, want to be part of the system or should we still continue being a broad organisation with a mixed problem. Even if we got though the first barrier with the E Petition, its doubtful if it would get much further but i believe that we should try, but if we did get though it i'm sure those that run this sport will take over and try to reform licence applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Dennis - you clearly have issues with many sections of society. However, you seem to be particularly scathing about people in the sport:- What we do as a pastime there are those amongst us that have other agenda's. Its those that we need to weed out. i won't go into details on a public website, but we still have a few scumbags that need to be removed from the sport. Its nowhere near as bad as it used to be but some are still there. You should either devote your energies to getting rid of the "scumbags" - legally of course, or stop airing your dirty linen in public. It is vague - no detail is ever forthcoming, so is an easy assertion to make. You are strong on rash generalisations, but very short - read zero facts - on detail. It is harmful to the sport. Just what are your motives for continually slagging off all these people? Please do not give me the patronising junk about wanting to save shooting. Edited September 19, 2012 by Gordon R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHE Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I think you may be missing the point. Shotgun ownership is a right, for people who meet the requirements - permanent address, good character etc. The police have to come up with a good reason to refuse or revoke that right. Your proposals would help to remove that right, and that is the main reason why I won't support your petition. Yes, people do need training, especially in safety. Fellow shooters provide that at clubs, we don't need extra training from an official body of any kind. Training won't do anything to prevent SGC & FAC holders from going on killing sprees. It's possible that nothing can ever stop that, but it's a popular belief that Ryan, Hamilton & Bird were all people that shouldn't have been granted certificates in the first place and certainly shouldn't have been allowed to keep them. The fact that they were allowed to have shotguns and firearms is the fault of the police in each case, it has nothing to do with training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Dog Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Some of the ramblings here seem to be very similar to those made on a now defunct clay shooting website me thinks ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 I think you may be missing the point. Shotgun ownership is a right, for people who meet the requirements - permanent address, good character etc. The police have to come up with a good reason to refuse or revoke that right. Your proposals would help to remove that right, and that is the main reason why I won't support your petition. Yes, people do need training, especially in safety. Fellow shooters provide that at clubs, we don't need extra training from an official body of any kind. Training won't do anything to prevent SGC & FAC holders from going on killing sprees. It's possible that nothing can ever stop that, but it's a popular belief that Ryan, Hamilton & Bird were all people that shouldn't have been granted certificates in the first place and certainly shouldn't have been allowed to keep them. The fact that they were allowed to have shotguns and firearms is the fault of the police in each case, it has nothing to do with training. and i think thats the best said thing on here so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Last two posts are on the money. :good: :good: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 I used to sit on an outside slate shelf and slam my back and head against a brick wall when I was a six-ish year old kid and my father used to persistently beat me and my brother up for next to nothing and I still have the scars to remind me of those days. Sad to reveal that but true and it's took a bit for me to say that. But Dennis, I soon learned that it acheived nothing. You are effectively doing the same except that those you are trying to convince are giving very tolerant and reasoned opinions about why they don't agree with you. I'm really surprised anyone is trying any more because my feeling on this is best not said because the debate has been so polite and rational. Sometimes you need to just give something up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denniswebb Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I rarely give up on anything, if I think its what’s right, it doesn’t make me popular with some sections of the sport and at times I do wonder if perhaps its best to bow out and go fishing. But little things that happen in it give me hope that perhaps we can change things . I have been instrumental in many changes in this sport and there has been hostilities from shooters who really think I was responsible for those when all I did was flag up and in some case expose the things that were going on and force changes that make the sport a better and safer environment. Many of the proposed changes in the E petition make real sense and are advisory by the national shooting bodies, they want to be part of the Licencing process, they want to work with the police as demonstrated by the police being involved with the game fair. We do need a better understanding in this sport between the general public, the police and the shooting community. What happen to me in my arrest would never have happened if the police had proper intelligence drawn from every sections of the sport, but that information is not available because they only gather negative information. Why should we be treated as pariahs just because we follow a sport. You only have to look at recent events in the news to see just how dislocated the police are at dealing with situations. Every time there is any crime involving guns we get tarred with the same brush. Many of us still have a cavalier attitude towards gun use and ownership, do not take proper care, are unsafe in public areas. We have to be self-regulating because if we don’t someone else will be doing it for us, maybe one day you won’t be trusted to take your gun home, kept in a registered safe at a shooting ground or farm. That is the future boys and girls. What have we really got to loose by signing the E petition, it only gets us on the first rung, those empowered will make their case not me, The governing bodies will take over from there, it may be only a small part goes forward such as compulsory membership of one of the national shooting bodies. We all know that because we are weak and un represented in the sport we are soft targets, we don’t speak with one voice and cannot defend ourselves, we need to be united fully committed to the preservation of this sport… .Vote for the E petition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e2000e2000e Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 maybe one day you won’t be trusted to take your gun home, kept in a registered safe at a shooting ground or farm. That is the future boys and girls. It was suggested after the Cumbria shootings and the politicians saw how impracticle it was and dismissed it! You saying its the future dosn't make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHE Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Dennis, I'm sure that your motives are good, and personally I do accept that the current situation isn't perfect. I personally have come across shooters who are unsafe, unskilled or both - but your proposals would do nothing to change this, because these people are not unsafe or unskilled because of lack of training. Many of the proposed changes in the E petition make real sense and are advisory by the national shooting bodies, they want to be part of the Licencing processAnd the RSPCA want all dogs to be microchipped (good idea) and they want themselves to be the body that organises it and gets the income from it (bad idea). Not that I'm suggesting that BASC is in it for the money, but the fact that they would like to be involved doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea. You may get signatures on your e-petition from shooting organisations, from FEO's, from the crazy woman at the gun control network and from ignorant members of the general public, but you won't get mine. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Of course BASC want to be involved with the police at all levels, from the Home Office, ACPO, Ch. Constables, Firearms licensing mangers and their teams – with the objective of them ALL to sticking to the letter of the Home Office Guidance and ACPO best practice. That does not mean for one moment that BASC wants to get involved in the licensing process! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denniswebb Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 So David if by some miracle these proposals got to the starting blocks and it was agreed that as a pre-condition of gun licence applications that you had to take a competance test prior to a licence application, Basc would not be part of that process, or they would not wellcome shooters being part of Basc or some umbrella organisation . At this time reading between the lines of your post, there are problems with the current system in that some Counties do go beyound there brief and its become all things to all chief constables. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) With regard to BASC’s position should your ideas come to fruition, that would be a matter for the members of BASC to decide, not me. I do not for one moment think you can fix the stupidly inefficient inconsistency we are subject to in firearms licensing by introducing compulsory training or compulsory membership of a shooting organisation or super group. I am afraid, to put it bluntly, anyone who thinks so is totally divorced from the reality of the politics of shooting and perhaps more importnatly the will of the vast majority of shooters in this country. David Edited September 21, 2012 by David BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 David - the voice of reason. :good: Dennis - why are you still flogging this dead horse? You professionally evade any direct question, whilst going off on another rambling tangent. It does neither you nor the sport any credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manton Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I never cease to wonder why shooters in Britain always seem to be want to be one step ahead ahead of the opposition in trying to introduce more hurdles for shooters to jump through. One example of a similar scheme is the deer stalking certificates which police in my area are now treating as compulsory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts