S Yorks Show & Game Fair ad in BASC magazine

[matone]

5 hours ago, London Best said:

My RFD friend tells me that his best selling .22 rifle is not a CZ or Tikka as you might imagine, but a semi auto made to look like an AK47. 
 

                           WHY?

Too many Walts being granted tickets.

12 minutes ago, Centrepin said:

The picture is of an obvious Walt, note the SAS badge on the butt and desert camo clothing.

A picture posed to impress his mummy or young girlfriend and not a serious picture.

Why they would use it to advertise I've no idea, I would use it to make fun of the person in it.

BASC,you know the ones who are looking after our interests........

[Centrepin]

1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Once again, it's in BASC magazine, not Country Life!

As for 'used separately' - I've just gone on their website and clicked through several pages.  Nowhere did I see that image.

Bad man with a gun.

The fact that the gun is a 'military gun' and not a 'toffs gun' would likely not concern me

 

Here's the ad in full, not the OP's redacted version.  My highlight:

So your 'Walt' is a full blown "I was on that balcony" Walt.

Oh yes, definitely a balcony walla, in fact he was only the 109,261st in the queue to get in. Armed with his AK47 sunglasses and bayonet, not to mention his old issue G10 watch and strap to complete the picture.  

No doubt he could tell you all about it if he was allowed but on this occasion he'll make an exception and tell just you🤣

2 minutes ago, matone said:

Too many Walts being granted tickets.

BASC,you know the ones who are looking after our interests........

Yup those same people who offered to give up lead on our behalf.

[matone]

A pattern emerges with every move they make.

[udderlyoffroad]

8 minutes ago, matone said:

Too many Walts being granted tickets.

This attitude is precisely why shooting is in for a rocky ride in future.  We're all far too keen to put the boot into each other.

And seeing as we're all so concerned about how this looks to outsiders, this looks very much like the Jedean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea....

 

[matone]

5 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

This attitude is precisely why shooting is in for a rocky ride in future.  We're all far too keen to put the boot into each other.

And seeing as we're all so concerned about how this looks to outsiders, this looks very much like the Jedean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea....

 

Well if the image being discussed made it to the tabloids do you think shooting would have a brighter  future?

[clangerman]

it looks exactly how it is the last face we want joe public to see us as who needs antis when this stupidity gets put out 

[stuartyboy]

21 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

This attitude is precisely why shooting is in for a rocky ride in future.  We're all far too keen to put the boot into each other.

Shooting is in for a rocky ride as there's no public support for it. Shooters arguing over different types of guns won't make a difference in the great scheme of things. 

If you break down the figures, and humour me here as there will be some guesswork, I will try to explain why public perception is so important. In my opinion anyway. 

Around 1% of the UK population is licensed to hold a firearm/shotgun. Say, for talking sake, another 9 % support shooting as their businesses may depend on it, family members shoot, they may have air guns that aren't licensed etc etc etc. Thats 10% of the population that support shooting sports in some form.

And then you might have another 10% totally against shooting and guns for whatever reason. Might be a higher percentage,  might be lower, but its a reasonable guess.

So laws are generally changed by public opinion influencing politicians who in turn change policy or law. 

There's no point in reaching out to the 10 % of shooters. They support shooting and understand the benefits. Theres no point in reaching out to the 10 % of antis. There minds are made up and unlikely to be influenced. 

So that leaves the 80% of the population who have no knowledge, bias or interest in shooting. They are the ones who would support further restrictions or not, which would ultimately influence policy and law. And it will always be easier for them to say 'ban guns' as their default position as they don't use them, need them or have any interest. 

Thats why shooting has to come across in the best possible way for everyone. I'm not just referring to the picture, though I don't think its well chosen and does give the wrong impression. But we need to promote all aspects of what we do sensibly. Starting from the organisations pushing forward a good environmental reason to each and everyone of us acting as ambassadors for our sport. 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

 

Subjective reasoning from experience. Forgive me for not dashing out to conduct a market survey (?!).

Subjective? No need for a market survey if you’ve already made up your mind. 
I’m assuming these Rambo fantasists have been vetted by licensing in exactly the same manner as you or I? 

1 hour ago, matone said:

Too many Walts being granted tickets.

 

Here we go, it was only a matter of time. 🥱

Go on then, how many, and how do you know they’re Walt’s? 

[saddler]

4 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

I think you're right in what you say regarding who the picture is aimed at but still don't see what having a fixed bayonet has to do with any form of shooting... 

In al your decades of shooting, I take it you have never done any form of classic target shooting, using military rifles?

For YOUR education into this "form of shooting" - military rifles normally have the sights regulated to be correct for "x" distance with the bayonet fitted
Quite a lot of classic UK comps. run by the HBSA, LERA, etc. do have specific competition categories for various patterns or military rifle, of assorted vintage, which require the issued bayonet to be fitted during the course of fire!!

More than happy to defer to your broader knowledge and experience though if you have information to the contrary?

[Fellside]

37 minutes ago, Scully said:

Subjective? No need for a market survey if you’ve already made up your mind. 
I’m assuming these Rambo fantasists have been vetted by licensing in exactly the same manner as you or I? 

Here we go, it was only a matter of time. 🥱

Go on then, how many, and how do you know they’re Walt’s? 

Find out how many of those Rambo guns have been sold - and you will have the approx’ number of fantasists / Walts. If your really interested you can do the digging.
 

By the way do these guns have lights that flash when you pull the trigger? And do you get an ‘action survival knife’ in the package? You know, the type that have matches and a needle / thread in the handle. Handy for stitching wounds in the jungle 🤣

[saddler]

1 hour ago, stuartyboy said:

Shooting is in for a rocky ride as there's no public support for it. Shooters arguing over different types of guns won't make a difference in the great scheme of things. 

If you break down the figures, and humour me here as there will be some guesswork, I will try to explain why public perception is so important. In my opinion anyway. 

Around 1% of the UK population is licensed to hold a firearm/shotgun. Say, for talking sake, another 9 % support shooting as their businesses may depend on it, family members shoot, they may have air guns that aren't licensed etc etc etc. Thats 10% of the population that support shooting sports in some form.

And then you might have another 10% totally against shooting and guns for whatever reason. Might be a higher percentage,  might be lower, but its a reasonable guess.

So laws are generally changed by public opinion influencing politicians who in turn change policy or law. 

There's no point in reaching out to the 10 % of shooters. They support shooting and understand the benefits. Theres no point in reaching out to the 10 % of antis. There minds are made up and unlikely to be influenced. 

So that leaves the 80% of the population who have no knowledge, bias or interest in shooting. They are the ones who would support further restrictions or not, which would ultimately influence policy and law. And it will always be easier for them to say 'ban guns' as their default position as they don't use them, need them or have any interest. 

Thats why shooting has to come across in the best possible way for everyone. I'm not just referring to the picture, though I don't think its well chosen and does give the wrong impression. But we need to promote all aspects of what we do sensibly. Starting from the organisations pushing forward a good environmental reason to each and everyone of us acting as ambassadors for our sport. 

So, some of that dross was NOT 100% guesswork??

I can easily counter the BS re: "laws are generally changed by public opinion influencing politicians who in turn change policy or law... " - to pick just one
The Scottish AirWEAPONS Certificate was 100% driven by SNP policy and party interests - in the form of one or two acerbic individuals. A public consultation prior to the new law coming onto the statute books was overwhelmingly against any further airgun controls in Scotland... So, which "public opinion" influenced the politicians here?

[Fellside]

1 hour ago, stuartyboy said:

Shooting is in for a rocky ride as there's no public support for it. Shooters arguing over different types of guns won't make a difference in the great scheme of things. 

If you break down the figures, and humour me here as there will be some guesswork, I will try to explain why public perception is so important. In my opinion anyway. 

Around 1% of the UK population is licensed to hold a firearm/shotgun. Say, for talking sake, another 9 % support shooting as their businesses may depend on it, family members shoot, they may have air guns that aren't licensed etc etc etc. Thats 10% of the population that support shooting sports in some form.

And then you might have another 10% totally against shooting and guns for whatever reason. Might be a higher percentage,  might be lower, but its a reasonable guess.

So laws are generally changed by public opinion influencing politicians who in turn change policy or law. 

There's no point in reaching out to the 10 % of shooters. They support shooting and understand the benefits. Theres no point in reaching out to the 10 % of antis. There minds are made up and unlikely to be influenced. 

So that leaves the 80% of the population who have no knowledge, bias or interest in shooting. They are the ones who would support further restrictions or not, which would ultimately influence policy and law. And it will always be easier for them to say 'ban guns' as their default position as they don't use them, need them or have any interest. 

Thats why shooting has to come across in the best possible way for everyone. I'm not just referring to the picture, though I don't think its well chosen and does give the wrong impression. But we need to promote all aspects of what we do sensibly. Starting from the organisations pushing forward a good environmental reason to each and everyone of us acting as ambassadors for our sport. 

Good comment. 👍

11 minutes ago, saddler said:

So, some of that dross was NOT 100% guesswork??

I can easily counter the BS re: "laws are generally changed by public opinion influencing politicians who in turn change policy or law... " - to pick just one
The Scottish AirWEAPONS Certificate was 100% driven by SNP policy and party interests - in the form of one or two acerbic individuals. A public consultation prior to the new law coming onto the statute books was overwhelmingly against any further airgun controls in Scotland... So, which "public opinion" influenced the politicians here?

Yes there are exceptions unfortunately - especially re Scotland’s dictatorship.

[saddler]

3 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Yes there are exceptions unfortunately - especially re Scotland’s dictatorship.

I'd not say Scotland has any exclusivity on that type of government - and as someone who entered the sport in the late 70's before getting a first FAC in 1982 or so, I've been fortunate enough to experience first hand the nature of such government directives, deeming inanimate objects as worthy of outright bans due to media opinion being steered to match in with existing back-burner projects (i.e. 1973 Green Paper)

One of the sad issues with UK shooting today is lack of better education of the shooter themselves, as to what their rights ARE - as used to be commonly the case with the Guns Review editorials, etc. from the late Colin Greenwood.

Aside from this - it's also apparent on this thread (& the PW Forum in general at times) that a few folk ARE purely reactive: a bad picture of a horrible horrible gun "think of the children" when it's been pointed out in this thread that the main photo used HAS been cropped, and the image is of an older ex-SAS veteran using what is more than likely a fully functioning AK which would fall under Section 5 rules here if in public hands.

Maybe in this case, the show organisers thought that the show's attendees may, strangely to some on here, want to meet such a man in person, given the general attraction to that regiments history and the veterans from it? (as can be seen from several TV shows, movies, books, etc, etc.)
 

[stuartyboy]

28 minutes ago, saddler said:

So, some of that dross was NOT 100% guesswork??

I can easily counter the BS re: "laws are generally changed by public opinion influencing politicians who in turn change policy or law... " - to pick just one
The Scottish AirWEAPONS Certificate was 100% driven by SNP policy and party interests - in the form of one or two acerbic individuals. A public consultation prior to the new law coming onto the statute books was overwhelmingly against any further airgun controls in Scotland... So, which "public opinion" influenced the politicians here?

An educated guess, I would say. As I clearly stated. And you obviously never picked up on my comment that laws are 'generally' changed by public opinion/pressure. Not always. In the case of the SNP, they are anti gun. And they know they have the support of the public.

 I've tried to be reasoned in my argument advocating that all shooters need to be ambassadors of their sport and not resorting to calling posts 'dross or BS' if you disagree with them. That says more about your character than anything. 

41 minutes ago, saddler said:

In al your decades of shooting, I take it you have never done any form of classic target shooting, using military rifles?

For YOUR education into this "form of shooting" - military rifles normally have the sights regulated to be correct for "x" distance with the bayonet fitted
Quite a lot of classic UK comps. run by the HBSA, LERA, etc. do have specific competition categories for various patterns or military rifle, of assorted vintage, which require the issued bayonet to be fitted during the course of fire!!

More than happy to defer to your broader knowledge and experience though if you have information to the contrary?

Thats the first I've ever heard of any civilian rifle shooting that requires a fixed bayonet. Every day is a school day. If that's what you're in to, good luck. Just to clarify, 4 decades of shooting for me. Both professionally and recreational. 

[Fellside]

7 minutes ago, saddler said:

I'd not say Scotland has any exclusivity on that type of government

No certainly not with exclusivity. However, they have shown some outstanding recent examples of zilch public engagement, especially re land use and field sports. 

[Centrepin]

1 hour ago, saddler said:

In al your decades of shooting, I take it you have never done any form of classic target shooting, using military rifles?

For YOUR education into this "form of shooting" - military rifles normally have the sights regulated to be correct for "x" distance with the bayonet fitted
Quite a lot of classic UK comps. run by the HBSA, LERA, etc. do have specific competition categories for various patterns or military rifle, of assorted vintage, which require the issued bayonet to be fitted during the course of fire!!

More than happy to defer to your broader knowledge and experience though if you have information to the contrary?

Wow, Walt shooting is now a sport?

Do the Walts line up with "Military" type weapons complete with bayonets, grenades, motar shells(2) a 66 launcher plus 200 belt for the gpmg, webbing, ration packs and get soaked and partially froze before being shelled, motared and shot at before being ordered to fix bayonets and charge the targets?

Proper Walting playing with bayonets.

Oh, and I'm into my 6th decade of non walting and shooting

[oscarsdad]

9 minutes ago, Centrepin said:

Wow, Walt shooting is now a sport?

Do the Walts line up with "Military" type weapons complete with bayonets, grenades, motar shells(2) a 66 launcher plus 200 belt for the gpmg, webbing, ration packs and get soaked and partially froze before being shelled, motared and shot at before being ordered to fix bayonets and charge the targets?

Proper Walting playing with bayonets.

Oh, and I'm into my 6th decade of non walting and shooting

Possibly the same people I’ve seen turn up when I was zeroing my deer rifle who turned up with long barrel pistols and cowboy hats and boots and proceeded to wave said pistols about all over the place making me decide to go home to avoid getting shot. I’m sure such dress works and is practical in Wyoming and Montana, but when they turn up in a Vauxhall Corsa and have Brummy accents it seems really rather strange! 

[udderlyoffroad]

3 minutes ago, Centrepin said:

Wow, Walt shooting is now a sport?

 

Yes. 

They've been deemed fit to hold an FAC.  That (and demonstrating good safe conduct) is all they should need to enjoy your support.

Let people who want to legally play army do so.

Let clay shooters shoot clays

Let pheasant shooters etc.

Or is only your type of sport acceptable?

By the way, it's rather off-topic, but some people on here seem to be conflating a public consultation with public opinion.  Two very different things. 

[Fellside]

50 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Let people who want to legally play army do so.

Absolutely. They can dress up as Long John Silver for all I care. The point is however, most of us don’t want this Rambo type imagery to be promoted. For ample reasons listed above by others - it just doesn’t put on a good show. 

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Fellside said:

Find out how many of those Rambo guns have been sold - and you will have the approx’ number of fantasists / Walts. If your really interested you can do the digging.
 

By the way do these guns have lights that flash when you pull the trigger? And do you get an ‘action survival knife’ in the package? You know, the type that have matches and a needle / thread in the handle. Handy for stitching wounds in the jungle 🤣

Ah, so you don’t know then, I thought that would be the case. So sweeping generalisation it is then. 👍Unfortunate however, ( but by no means rare ) to find it aimed at shooters by another shooter. 
What is a ‘Rambo’ gun anyhow, and how does one go about getting such a thing? Is a ‘commando roll’ similar to a bread roll? 

From reading your second paragraph it is obvious you know much more about these things than me. 
 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

That is a poorly thought out image, presumably taken on an air rifle range.

I no longer get the BASC magazine!

Edited May 7, 2021 by TIGHTCHOKE

[udderlyoffroad]

5 minutes ago, Fellside said:

The point is however, most of us don’t want this Rambo type imagery to be promoted. For ample reasons listed above by others - it just doesn’t put on a good show. 

I say again, the type of gun really doesn't matter.  Those that would take against it, are taking against it because it's a gun.

By the way, you lot all seem happy to knock over deer and foxes with a 'military gun' from a hundred years ago (bolt action centre fire)

 

[JDog]

7 hours ago, Ultrastu said:

Maybe the show is trying to attract another set of shooters other than  the purdy buyers who will already be going to the show .

I'm not sure that many toff game shooters are going to be put off by that picture .

But a picture of a load of land-rover drivers  infront of a castle  is more likely to aillentate  the fun shooters of bb.guns  

Not many Toffs go to that particular show. The Game Fair perhaps but not this one.

[Fellside]

38 minutes ago, Scully said:

Ah, so you don’t know then, I thought that would be the case. So sweeping generalisation it is then. 👍Unfortunate however, ( but by no means rare ) to find it aimed at shooters by another shooter. 
What is a ‘Rambo’ gun anyhow, and how does one go about getting such a thing? Is a ‘commando roll’ similar to a bread roll? 

From reading your second paragraph it is obvious you know much more about these things than me. 
 

To answer your points.

No I don’t have actual figures.

Yes it’s a generalisation / observation.

A ‘Rambo’ gun is the type shown in picture top of thread.

I wouldn’t know how to go about getting one. 
 

A commando roll is a type of stunt used by kids playing soldiers or actors in films - when for dramatic effect they roll on the ground before firing their gun. 
 

..... and yes I am entitled to my opinion (with every other free born Brit’). I happen to be  uncomfortable with naff ‘tough guy’ army type weapons and promo imagery thereof and have said so. I don’t have a problem with that. 

[Scully]

10 minutes ago, Fellside said:

To answer your points.

No I don’t have actual figures.

Yes it’s a generalisation / observation.

A ‘Rambo’ gun is the type shown in picture top of thread.

I wouldn’t know how to go about getting one. 
 

A commando roll is a type of stunt used by kids playing soldiers or actors in films - when for dramatic effect they roll on the ground before firing their gun. 
 

..... and yes I am entitled to my opinion (with every other free born Brit’). I happen to be  uncomfortable with naff ‘tough guy’ army type weapons and promo imagery thereof and have said so. I don’t have a problem with that. 

Wow! You’ve made a lot of assumptions there on the basis of one photograph! Do you know the reason such a photograph has been used? Maybe it’s just aswell you aren’t in charge of firearms licensing! 
You acquire a ‘Rambo’ gun by applying for a firearms certificate, just like we all do, then after you’ve shown good reason and jumped through a few hoops, which includes a background check, and then paying for the privilege, just like we all do, you then legally buy one from a legal source along with the relevant ammo, and then go about killing birds and animals for entertainment, just like you and me. 🙂
So tell me, what makes you any better than, or gives you the right to ridicule anyone who wants to do it with a copy of a military firearm?