kent Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 One 'super organisarion' wouldnt make an iota of difference to the effectiveness of shooters as a significant body with real clout anyway, not unless ALL shooters start singing from the same hymn sheet and are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder to counter each and evey threat to gun ownership. We don't have the numbers to pose a political threat and even if the numbers were there, there is still the matter of all for one and one for all. Without political clout we have no real influence I'm afraid. it don't matter what threat we pose to the UK Government of the day election wise as so much now comes from the unelected in Brussels. Wildlife directive on its way, gun control etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Personally I am not quite so sure about that. Without the efforts of the main shooting associations: Pigeons would be subject to a long closed season A game licence would still be required Pistols could not be owned or used for humane dispatch There would still be a ban on selling game outside the shooting season Firearms laws would be even tighter than they are now Licences would by now be £200 or more None of the political parties in the UK would have commitments to keep shooting safe Lead shot would probably be totally banned and more David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Personally I am not quite so sure about that. Without the efforts of the main shooting associations: Pigeons would be subject to a long closed season A game licence would still be required Pistols could not be owned or used for humane dispatch There would still be a ban on selling game outside the shooting season Firearms laws would be even tighter than they are now Licences would by now be £200 or more None of the political parties in the UK would have commitments to keep shooting safe Lead shot would probably be totally banned and more David very true ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matone Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 The greatest shame are the huge proportion of shooting people who are not members of ANY organisation ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Should I now list all the things we have lost and had imposed on us regardless of the efforts( and in one or two notable instances due to the lack of effort, or even deliberate hostility)of our shooting organisations? I understand perfectly your reluctance to be negative about an organisation which is paying your wages, and I'll admit us shooters need representation as much as those representatives need us, and I would gladly pay double membership fees if those representative bodies were as effective as they would have us believe, but it isn't so sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 The greatest shame are the huge proportion of shooting people who are not members of ANY organisation !But it matters not to the effectiveness of the lobbying capabilities of an organisation. All membership ensures is income, and while I can't deny money helps,the strength of any body or organisation to ensure a sound political lobby is numbers and unity. We have neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) Hi Scully, yes by all means list all the things that have been lost due to the lack of effort by the shooting organisations if you honestly feel this brings anything to the debate, but may I ask please that you back up your accusations of lack of effort with factual evidence, rather than just opinion? Please remember I have been in this industry for almost two decades and seen some significant restrictions / bans imposed on handguns and before that automatic weapons for example, and I know full well how hard handguns were fought for, I remember how the NPA were practically absent from the fight, and how only BASC were prepared to go on TV the day of the disaster, and how it was BASC that put staff on TV that day the next day the day after.... the day after and so on...., I know how hard we fought and yes we lost pistols, but at least we were there for the fight.... And lead, another favourite, I know how hard we fought to delay the restrictions, effectively too as we prevented any restrictions for 10 years, and stopped a total ban on lead to boot, if we had not done this all lead would have been banned in the 90's,and we would all be having to use alternatives now Could have done or do more? yes we could if we had more members.... Edited May 8, 2014 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 In order for any of the organisations representing shooters to have an effective voice they simply have to have the weight of numbers behind them, otherwise they are toothless. You could have the most committed, erudite and eloquent representative lobbying on our behalf, but if there are only small numbers behind that voice then it carries absolutely no political weight. I am a member of the BASC and SCTA; of those I support the BASC as a body representing the rights and interests of shooters, along with some of the additional benefits to me as a member, and the SCTA because it suits my purposes as a Scottish based clay target shooter. It is easy to throw stones at the shooting bodies and suggest they should do more, but all of us that shoot for pleasure, competition or livelihood need to add our weight to any debate through membership. If you feel that the body does not represent you as a member then challenge them via the mechanisms open to you as a member, but standing on the outside throwing stones benefits nobody at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 It's called a 'non-contribution' clause - a legally defined get out clause which some orgs use to keep costs down. Basically the second (often cheaper!) insurer step away once they have established there is other cover in place. The original intention here by insurers was to cut admin where two covers existed for good reasons eg personal belongings are covered anywhere in the world (for 60 days usually) under your household policy but then you take out travel cover which overlaps - the latter often has a non-contribution clause. Of course it should prevent more than one claim for the same loss - not that PW members would even think of doing that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Personally I am not quite so sure about that. Without the efforts of the main shooting associations: Pigeons would be subject to a long closed season A game licence would still be required Pistols could not be owned or used for humane dispatch There would still be a ban on selling game outside the shooting season Firearms laws would be even tighter than they are now Licences would by now be £200 or more None of the political parties in the UK would have commitments to keep shooting safe Lead shot would probably be totally banned and more David I am not sure on what you are "not quite sure of" David. The above is some of the things BASC and others have campaigned for, my comments directly relate to our government in the UK loosing control of its law making to a centralised unelected EU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Fair enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Hi Scully, yes by all means list all the things that have been lost due to the lack of effort by the shooting organisations if you honestly feel this brings anything to the debate, but may I ask please that you back up your accusations of lack of effort with factual evidence, rather than just opinion? Please remember I have been in this industry for almost two decades and seen some significant restrictions / bans imposed on handguns and before that automatic weapons for example, and I know full well how hard handguns were fought for, I remember how the NPA were practically absent from the fight, and how only BASC were prepared to go on TV the day of the disaster, and how it was BASC that put staff on TV that day the next day the day after.... the day after and so on...., I know how hard we fought and yes we lost pistols, but at least we were there for the fight.... And lead, another favourite, I know how hard we fought to delay the restrictions, effectively too as we prevented any restrictions for 10 years, and stopped a total ban on lead to boot, if we had not done this all lead would have been banned in the 90's,and we would all be having to use alternatives now Could have done or do more? yes we could if we had more members.... I agree with all of the above, the last statement though very, very true indeed needs balancing against alienation of some 7000? of them seemingly quite needlessly. Perhaps we will get the real reason for that sorted out, fix it once and for all and march on together? A point of question when was the threat to Automatic weapons? As far as I remember there was but one real that followed the tragic events at Hungerford August 19th 1987 and the aftermath that lost us all but the .22 rf (the loss was mainly down to the NRA and its own bias towards TR) that's getting on more towards the three decades. I firmly believe the Semi auto could have been saved if it wasn't for their denial that it was of real use to the disabled and a legitimate target rifle in its own right, there are still PR and Hi-power, tactical target shooters bearing up with this fact in international competition not to mention a few who liked them for foxing (some of this kit is ideal for NV gear and single handed lamping on foot). This brings the real importance to standing shoulder to shoulder and sacrificing nobody. I believe this should be firmly written in is as a given, we cannot have an Anti other disciplines attitude within our orgs or council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomov Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 It's called a 'non-contribution' clause - a legally defined get out clause which some orgs use to keep costs down. Basically the second (often cheaper!) insurer step away once they have established there is other cover in place. The original intention here by insurers was to cut admin where two covers existed for good reasons eg personal belongings are covered anywhere in the world (for 60 days usually) under your household policy but then you take out travel cover which overlaps - the latter often has a non-contribution clause. Of course it should prevent more than one claim for the same loss - not that PW members would even think of doing that! What this man said!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Hi Scully, yes by all means list all the things that have been lost due to the lack of effort by the shooting organisations if you honestly feel this brings anything to the debate, but may I ask please that you back up your accusations of lack of effort with factual evidence, rather than just opinion? Please remember I have been in this industry for almost two decades and seen some significant restrictions / bans imposed on handguns and before that automatic weapons for example, and I know full well how hard handguns were fought for, I remember how the NPA were practically absent from the fight, and how only BASC were prepared to go on TV the day of the disaster, and how it was BASC that put staff on TV that day the next day the day after.... the day after and so on...., I know how hard we fought and yes we lost pistols, but at least we were there for the fight.... And lead, another favourite, I know how hard we fought to delay the restrictions, effectively too as we prevented any restrictions for 10 years, and stopped a total ban on lead to boot, if we had not done this all lead would have been banned in the 90's,and we would all be having to use alternatives now Could have done or do more? yes we could if we had more members.... You obviously feel your list brings something to the debate David, otherwise why else print it, but sound sceptical mine would? While several of those you listed are obviously just your opinion and not fact as you require of me we'll see how this thread pans out as regards the effectiveness of the shooting organisations prior to me posting my list, but here's a few to ponder. The effectiveness of the NRA following Hungerford was appalling. This was the NATIONAL Organisation for the representation of rifle shooters in this country. Where were all the other organisations? (We'll see if your facts match mine on this.)They were so effective CF semi automatic rifles were banned, and a two tier shotgun licensing system was created, by the introduction of qualifying high magazine capacity as S1, plus legislation introduced to require each shotgun possessed to be itemised on SGC.That latter is no biggy I'll admit; but then again neither was the abolition of the game license, which cost more to administer than it gathered in revenue but you felt worthy of inclusion in your list despite many shooters not even bothering with it. Following Dunblane our organisations were so effective the need was felt for another organisation to take the helm as representation wasn't forthcoming until the established organisations were embarrassed into it. Even so, some ran away and hid. Whatever happened to SAGBNI ? I've been shooting in one form or another (my choices becoming less and less) since the early 1970's. We now have more shooting organisations than we've ever had, yet we have less shooting disciplines. than we've ever had, and more legislation than we've ever had, and more to come. You and me have very different opinions as to what constitutes effectiveness David. I'm not denying we need representation, but that works both ways; our representatives need us, but are we being represented in a way which matters to us? BASC for example, now have a very expensive, paid for by its members(?) media center down country. Does it operate on a daily basis? Was it used to contact the BBC to ask why Amber Hill was totally ignored by a programme (Newsround) which claims to be for todays British youths, or was this left to the CPSA because she is a dedicated trap shooter? If a response was not forthcoming, did any organisations contact other media to declare their outrage? Did the CPSA enquire of the BBC along the same lines? Has BASC been in touch with any of the other organisations to ask what they were doing about it, or vice versa? Or have all our organisations simply let pass a fantastic opportunity to make the most of what could have been a major PR coup for British shooting? Amber Hill. An intelligent, pretty, teenaged girl who just happens to be one of the top shooters we have, on a national TV programme? Shame on all of us. E petition for the return of .22rf pistols; stalled at a tiny percentage of the numbers of people who shoot in this country. Shame on us. The lobby against the licensing of air rifles in Scotland; 20,000 something voices out of how many? Shame on us. I could go on, but I'm too embarrassed. I'll give you facts David, if that's what you want, after consulting my extensive collection of 'Guns Review' and 'Handgunner' magazines (something else we lost) but you wont be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) I used to enjoy both magazines in the past Scully, is Colin Greenwood still around? Amber Hill was interviewed on the BBC programme Inspire: The Olympic Journey, it might be on Iplayer. Edited May 9, 2014 by BlaserF3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 I used to enjoy both magazines in the past Scully, is Colin Greenwood still around? Amber Hill was interviewed on the BBC programme Inspire: The Olympic Journey, it might be on Iplayer. I honestly don't know. He wrote a book about Firearms Crime and legislation(?) in the early '70's so must be a good age if he's still with us. I find it interesting that two of the most outspoken people regards our illogical firearms laws and legislation happen to be ex coppers. Colin Greenwood, Mike Eveleigh. There may be more. I may be wrong but I think one of the top men in ACPO is a shooter also, or at least a re-enactor; runs around in military dress shouting 'bang bang, you're dead'. Didn't know about the 'Inspire' programme. Will see if I can catch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Yes the media center is in use every day, and as to Amber I ma please she has worked with us and other shooting organisations as she is a great ambassador Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.