S Yorks Show & Game Fair ad in BASC magazine

[oscarsdad]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

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? 
 

There is a simple answer to that. Military firearms are designed and intended for killing people. Sporting guns and rifles are not. I like many am of the opinion that “tacticool” and replica military firearms are preferred by those who in my view want them for how they (as in the firearms and the shooter) look when using them and this in my view attracts people who are questionable in terms of their suitability and in my experience safety. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by oscarsdad

[Fellside]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

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? 
 

Why - because along with a lot of others I find it distasteful when used for promo purposes. This is a forum for amongst other things sharing opinions. That’s my opinion and it won’t change because you want it to. 

[oscarsdad]

 

an example from a quick search - toy / replica military kit mish mashed together and worn and played with by grown men running around pretending to be soldiers. Just sign up (or try to). This one is particularly odd with the bloke having ready made tie wraps as if he thinks he’s going to capture Bin Laden. 
 

this one is even more amusing and sadly appears to be British

Edited May 7, 2021 by oscarsdad

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Gordon Bennett!

[London Best]

None of this sort of stuff has anything to do with shooting.

Much as we need to encourage new people into the sport the shooting community does not want these people, or the paint ballers, or the quick draw exponents. And we certainly don’t need them.

[matone]

32 minutes ago, oscarsdad said:

There is a simple answer to that. Military firearms are designed and intended for killing people. Sporting guns and rifles are not. I like many am of the opinion that “tacticool” and replica military firearms are preferred by those who in my view want them for how they (as in the firearms and the shooter) look when using them and this in my view attracts people who are questionable in terms of their suitability and in my experience safety. 

Well said.

[WalkedUp]

This thread is conflating so many issues. 

1. The image used is poor because of a combination of the gun chosen, the tiny caption which is cluttered with equally weighted random other messages (poor graphic design), neither of these would be a problem on their own but combined with the almost down barrel the perspective without context of a target etc it becomes very “aggressive”. 

2. Historic military weapon target shooting sounds quite interesting, it isn’t for me but I am pleased that it occurs. Look at “Forgotten Weapons” on YouTube. Some great engineering and history in his talks. The range stuff is a bit boring to me.

3. Tactical guns are still just guns that conform to the same UK laws as sporting guns. They are not to my personal taste but there is no need for everyone to think like me. 

4. Airsoft and military reenactment are not shooting and so not really relevant to this discussion. 

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, oscarsdad said:

There is a simple answer to that. Military firearms are designed and intended for killing people. Sporting guns and rifles are not. I like many am of the opinion that “tacticool” and replica military firearms are preferred by those who in my view want them for how they (as in the firearms and the shooter) look when using them and this in my view attracts people who are questionable in terms of their suitability and in my experience safety. 

Sporting and military firearms developed simultaneously and not independent of each other. Sporting firearms have been used in military scenarios and military firearms in sporting scenarios; there has never been a time when one has been developed separately from the other until about the late 19th early 20th century, and even then their specific design didn’t stop them being used in each scenario. 
UK Firearms licensing shows no  distinction between one or the other, as long as it falls within UK legislation its appearance nor magazine capacity plays no significant part, nor should it. 
From your post above it is fortunate you also aren’t involved in licensing; you make assumptions based upon appearance and your own biased opinion. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Scully

[WalkedUp]

 

[Scully]

44 minutes ago, oscarsdad said:

 

an example from a quick search - toy / replica military kit mish mashed together and worn and played with by grown men running around pretending to be soldiers. Just sign up (or try to). This one is particularly odd with the bloke having ready made tie wraps as if he thinks he’s going to capture Bin Laden. 
 

this one is even more amusing and sadly appears to be British

Oh come on, please! Unless they’re in the US those guns aren’t even real! 😀

They’re playing at soldiers, that’s all! Some grown men play football, some cricket, some soldiers. 
BASC’s Bill Harriman is a re-enactor, as is his local ( or former I believe ) Chief officer of Police. 
As well as being a re-enactor, Bill Harriman also has quite an impressive collection of REAL guns, especially handguns! He must pose a real threat if we follow your logic! 

[Fellside]

Hilarious images above, but a little tragic at the same time. 
 

I was at a clay shooting ground a couple of years ago. A chap turned up and proceeded to get dressed up by his car ..... in similar garb to the pics above. He then put a holster round his waist and put a pistol in it ........ which appeared to be some sort of flashy silver hand gun.....turned out to be an air gun to everyone’s great relief. 
 

He then looked himself up and down in his wing mirror, turned for a sideways look at his image and then walked in to the club house, holster and all. My friends and I did a good job of not laughing audibly. He purchased an air rifle range ticket and went plinking with his similarly attired mates (no face paint though). 
 

Harmless maybe,  but couldn’t help thinking ‘glad it’s only an air pistol’ and hoped the police didn’t ever give him a licence. 

[oscarsdad]

10 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Hilarious images above, but a little tragic at the same time. 
 

I was at a clay shooting ground a couple of years ago. A chap turned up and proceeded to get dressed up by his car ..... in similar garb to the pics above. He then put a holster round his waist and put a pistol in it ........ which appeared to be some sort of flashy silver hand gun.....turned out to be an air gun to everyone’s great relief. 
 

He then looked himself up and down in his wing mirror, turned for a sideways look at his image and then walked in to the club house, holster and all. My friends and I did a good job of not laughing audibly. He purchased an air rifle range ticket and went plinking with his similarly attired mates (no face paint though). 
 

Harmless maybe,  but couldn’t help thinking ‘glad it’s only an air pistol’ and hoped the police didn’t ever give him a licence. 

Exactly my point. 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

Why - because along with a lot of others I find it distasteful when used for promo purposes. This is a forum for amongst other things sharing opinions. That’s my opinion and it won’t change because you want it to. 

I’m not interested in changing your opinion, simply pointing out that it’s just as well licensing isn’t based on the same narrow minded arrogance. 

[Fellside]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m not interested in changing your opinion, simply pointing out that it’s just as well licensing isn’t based on the same narrow minded arrogance. 

OK, OK, calm down, my hands are up, lower your AK47 style air rifle, and we can talk about this sensibly. 🤣

 

[redial]

I gave up on BASC after the lead fiasco. I wouldn't want free membership after that.

[Smokersmith]

14 hours 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. 

I think this is the most aligned post to my thinking..

[Centrepin]

12 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

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.

 

Funnily enough I agree, however, I reserve the right to laugh out loud and make fun of whoever I want whenever I want, especially Walts who think they were on the balcony along with at least 150000 others.

I don't have to like what everyone does but I defend the right for them to do it.

13 hours ago, oscarsdad said:

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! 

I though all cowboys were Brummy .........or scouser

Oh dear, worms, can, springs to mind🤣🤣🤣

 

[udderlyoffroad]

9 hours ago, Centrepin said:

I don't have to like what everyone does but I defend the right for them to do it.

'Fair dinkum' and with you on that.

20 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

This thread is conflating so many issues. 

1. The image used is poor because of a combination of the gun chosen, the tiny caption which is cluttered with equally weighted random other messages (poor graphic design), neither of these would be a problem on their own but combined with the almost down barrel the perspective without context of a target etc it becomes very “aggressive”. 

2. Historic military weapon target shooting sounds quite interesting, it isn’t for me but I am pleased that it occurs. Look at “Forgotten Weapons” on YouTube. Some great engineering and history in his talks. The range stuff is a bit boring to me.

3. Tactical guns are still just guns that conform to the same UK laws as sporting guns. They are not to my personal taste but there is no need for everyone to think like me. 

4. Airsoft and military reenactment are not shooting and so not really relevant to this discussion. 

New contender for post of the week. 👍

 

20 hours ago, Scully said:

Sporting and military firearms developed simultaneously and not independent of each other. Sporting firearms have been used in military scenarios and military firearms in sporting scenarios

Once again, all you lot looking down your noses at people like this are perfectly happy to use 'military weapons' from 100 years ago (centre fire bolt-action rifles) for hunting.   

'It was designed to kill people not animals/targets' is an argument borne out of historical ignorance, frankly.

The AR-15 in the states might 'look' military but it is nothing more than a self-loading rifle platform (not capable of full auto) and is popular precisely because it is 'military surplus' technology from, er, the 60s not the 1910s, and is cheap.

Finally, if you're going to eschew technology just because it was originally developed for the military...just what are you doing on the internet?  That was developed to support the ultimate weapon...nuclear war.

 

20 hours ago, London Best said:

None of this sort of stuff has anything to do with shooting.

Much as we need to encourage new people into the sport the shooting community does not want these people, or the paint ballers, or the quick draw exponents. And we certainly don’t need them.

You're a gentleman LB but on this point you're wrong.

In fact, worse, you're doing the anti's job for them - the 'not our sort' attitude, driving a wedge between us and them is classic divide and conquer. 

To survive, shooting must be a broad, welcoming church.

If you see unsafe behaviour at a range, you politely, (discretely safety permitting)  call them out on it.  Doesn't matter whether they're dressed in DPM or tweed.

[London Best]

I am saying we do not need them because their interest in shooting is (playing at) shooting at people.

[Fellside]

17 minutes ago, London Best said:

I am saying we do not need them because their interest in shooting is (playing at) shooting at people.

They also present a significant image problem - per the original point of this thread. 

[clangerman]

20 minutes ago, Fellside said:

They also present a significant image problem - per the original point of this thread. 

won’t find a bigger image problem than shooters being portrayed as a bunch of champagne charlies yet still the pics appear good old double standards 

[udderlyoffroad]

28 minutes ago, Fellside said:

- per the original point of this thread.

The original point of this thread was somebody from the SWS (Special Walt Squadron) is giving a talk at a northern shooting show and the ad used to promote it was a hot mess of poor copy+imagery.  Some objected to it, and some far out posts evens suggested this is all part of BASC's masterplan (to do what I'm not sure).

It then deviated into the air-hard fraternity and how we don't want their sort here thank you very much.

I find this depressing because

1) it shows how a determined government could quickly walk all over us as we're too busy sneering at each other to get our act together, collectively (see: Handgun ban '97)

2) it was an amateur ad in a magazine no-one but a small section of the 'choir' read.

[Centrepin]

21 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

 

Now that Sir, in my opinion is the finest Military weapon ever designed. I also consider it one of the best personal weapons ever produced. But not the Mk 1.

First in .303 then 7.62 and I truly belive if it wasn't for the cost it would have been re introduced in 5.56.

I have used it in both .303 and 7.62 on the range and live. My choice of weapon when given the option.

One of the most accurate and reliable weapons in existence. I morn its passing. 

[WalkedUp]

I didn’t select that video by accident 👌

[Fellside]

33 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The original point of this thread was somebody from the SWS (Special Walt Squadron) is giving a talk at a northern shooting show and the ad used to promote it was a hot mess of poor copy+imagery.  Some objected to it, and some far out posts evens suggested this is all part of BASC's masterplan (to do what I'm not sure).

It then deviated into the air-hard fraternity and how we don't want their sort here thank you very much.

I find this depressing because

1) it shows how a determined government could quickly walk all over us as we're too busy sneering at each other to get our act together, collectively (see: Handgun ban '97)

2) it was an amateur ad in a magazine no-one but a small section of the 'choir' read.

Don’t worry about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and to take the Micky out of pseudo (or real) action heroes if they want...... and to express concerns about image problems. I don’t think this means we are hopelessly divided. I think there is actually a great sense of solidarity when significant challenges present.
 

In it’s true and proper context - this forum is little more than a bunch of shooting people around the internet equivalent of a pub table, having a chinwag. Of course there will be debate and banter etc.... but as long as there isn’t an unsightly brawl we’re doing alright. Get the beers in. 😀