Old farrier Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 15 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: There are BASC staff and cartridge reps and others at the events - I think it differs from event to event so maybe gunsmiths also at some of those. Keep an eye on the BASC events page for events near you and contact the regional team organising them with your query/request. Also perhaps come along to any BASC event or a general show/fair and pop into the BASC stand at that event and seek advice there. As I said in my post geographically very difficult to get to and there are rarely any events near me to attend a event costs me a considerable amount of money and time so I will make the effort to get to one although for it to be worthwhile it would be useful to know if there was a competent gunsmith/choke regulator to talk to on the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 (edited) 2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said: Yet another opportunity lost then to discuss your concerns and queries. What a pity given your ongoing tirades on this forum which based on the feedback I have had are neither constructive nor helpful. It is also a pity that you are not a man of your word (assuming you are male from your username), having stated "I have no intention of spending my time repeating myself ad nauseum" and here we are again for maybe the fifth time with you breaking your word. Rather ungentlemanly behaviour if you ask me. I haven’t been repeating myself ad nauseum but countering your posts on different points. That fact has obviously escaped you. You may consider my responses as tirades but they have served to highlight your inability to reply to straight questioning. I consider it ungentlemanly to make baseless accusations then not have the ability or courage to back them up ,obviously you do not. Furthermore I would not consider that you are very familiar with gentlemanly conduct, you strike me more as a cut price politician type ,unable to answer a straight question and more familiar with twisting the conversation to deflect from your inability to debate in a gentlemanly manner. Why on earth would I wish to spend any time in conversation with such a fellow. Thankfully all posts remain on line enabling those who wish to judge to do so. As this is part of your job Conor I think you are failing spectacularly in maintaining any professional credibility. Edited January 18 by Konor Addition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weihrauch17 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 22 minutes ago, Konor said: I haven’t been repeating myself ad nauseum but countering your posts on different points. That fact has obviously escaped you. You may consider my responses as tirades but they have served to highlight your inability to reply to straight questioning. I consider it ungentlemanly to make baseless accusations then not have the ability to back them up obviously you do not. Furthermore I would not consider that you are very familiar with gentlemanly conduct, you strike me more as a cut price politician type unable to answer a straight question and more familiar in twisting the conversation to deflect from your ability to debate in a gentlemanly manner. Why on earth would I wish to spend any time in conversation with such a fellow. Thankfully all posts remain on line enabling those who wish to judge to do so. As this is part of your job Conor I think you are failing spectacularly in maintaining any professional credibility. To question your gender is perverse but he has done it before, you will get no answers from him because we have been sold down the river by his organisation initiated by John Swift. He has the Gall to list the biggest threats to shooting in 2024, BASC should top it. I wouldn't waste any more time on him, I truly believe he is simply on a wind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 43 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: Yet another opportunity lost then to discuss your concerns and queries. What a pity given your ongoing tirades on this forum which based on the feedback I have had are neither constructive nor helpful. It is also a pity that you are not a man of your word (assuming you are male from your username), having stated "I have no intention of spending my time repeating myself ad nauseum" and here we are again for maybe the fifth time with you breaking your word. Rather ungentlemanly behaviour if you ask me. Oh Conor, come on please! For crying out loud! It’s become very apparent that when faced with difficult questions or queries BASC cannot or would rather not confront, you have been advised to only refer to company policy, exactly like those responses made by politicians when confronted with blunt and to the point questions which are uncomfortable and for which they have no answer. Where is the ‘voice of shooting’? There are several on here whom have ‘ongoing tirades’ which are neither constructive nor helpful, but what do you expect when you refuse to or evade giving straight answers to straight questions? Immature sniping does you no favours whatsoever. Grow a pair and answer the questions you created by posting on a public forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) The issues raised in the “No logic to lead ban “ thread and again in this thread have remain unanswered. There will be a reason for this no doubt. As the personal responsible for speaking on behalf of BASC seemingly prefers personal attack in an attempt to silence any dissent rather than clarifying BASC’s position and fails to state any evidence of an active opposition to further legislation other than stating that they disagree with it I can only conclude that their claim to be the voice of shooting is greatly exaggerated. That there has been no evidence of attempts to negotiate concessions to allow the continued use of lead in vintage guns especially short chambered small bores or Damascus barrelled shotguns is evidence of a lack of commitment to ensure the protection of our shooting heritage. That there has been no move to create concessions for the continued use of lead shot over ground infrequently shot over by low cartridge usage walked up shooting as has been the case in Norway and similar to the acceptance of air gun shooting of quarry with lead pellets is further proof that not much imagination has gone into finding a compromise that minimises risk rather than eliminates it. It seems that ,contrary to their statements ,BASC is willing to accept the loss of lead shot in sporting shooting and it’s promotion of steel shot seems to confirm this. While accepting that long chambered semi automatics enables the use of steel cartridges with a payload suitable for downing geese and ducks that has little common ground with lightweight short chambered shotguns where it appears that the problems of recoil, effective range and heavily shot birds not fit for the table becomes an issue. I think we are sleep walking into a future that will see uncompromising legislation being introduced which will change sporting shooting in a manner that is disproportionate to the risks that are being eliminated and that this will embolden anti field sports supporters in their fight to eradicate field sports completely. I find it odd that BASC is not promoting ideas that would see the risks surrounding the use of lead shot being minimised while at the same time creating a niche for the limited use of lead shot that would enable shooters to continue enjoying vintage sporting guns. Surely any move to minimise the effect of lead shot should be tackled by embracing compromise rather than attempting to appease those who will only be happy when live quarry shooting is consigned to the history books Edited January 19 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jall25 Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 6 hours ago, Konor said: The issues raised in the “No logic to lead ban “ thread and again in this thread have remain unanswered. There will be a reason for this no doubt. As the personal responsible for speaking on behalf of BASC seemingly prefers personal attack in an attempt to silence any dissent rather than clarifying BASC’s position and fails to state any evidence of an active opposition to further legislation other than stating that they disagree with it I can only conclude that their claim to be the voice of shooting is greatly exaggerated. That there has been no evidence of attempts to negotiate concessions to allow the continued use of lead in vintage guns especially short chambered small bores or Damascus barrelled shotguns is evidence of a lack of commitment to ensure the protection of our shooting heritage. That there has been no move to create concessions for the continued use of lead shot over ground infrequently shot over by low cartridge usage walked up shooting as has been the case in Norway and similar to the acceptance of air gun shooting of quarry with lead pellets is further proof that not much imagination has gone into finding a compromise that minimises risk rather than eliminates it. It seems that ,contrary to their statements ,BASC is willing to accept the loss of lead shot in sporting shooting and it’s promotion of steel shot seems to confirm this. While accepting that long chambered semi automatics enables the use of steel cartridges with a payload suitable for downing geese and ducks that has little common ground with lightweight short chambered shotguns where it appears that the problems of recoil, effective range and heavily shot birds not fit for the table becomes an issue. I think we are sleep walking into a future that will see uncompromising legislation being introduced which will change sporting shooting in a manner that is disproportionate to the risks that are being eliminated and that this will embolden anti field sports supporters in their fight to eradicate field sports completely. I find it odd that BASC is not promoting ideas that would see the risks surrounding the use of lead shot being minimised while at the same time creating a niche for the limited use of lead shot that would enable shooters to continue enjoying vintage sporting guns. Surely any move to minimise the effect of lead shot should be tackled by embracing compromise rather than attempting to appease those who will only be happy when live quarry shooting is consigned to the history books Morning Konor So many of these threads become a bit - well hard to read and follow Could you for clarity list the questions that you would like answering Maybe just simply 1 2 3 It will then perhaps really help those looking in Hope that makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, jall25 said: Morning Konor So many of these threads become a bit - well hard to read and follow Could you for clarity list the questions that you would like answering Maybe just simply 1 2 3 It will then perhaps really help those looking in Hope that makes sense Thanks for taking the time to address simplifying the content of my posts to clarify any issues for those who haven’t the stamina to read through the whole thread. It’s been frustrating at times to say the least. My last post was an attempt to gather my points together ,or repeat myself ad nauseum if you go along with Conor’s interpretation. The main thrust of what I am saying is that despite all the expertise at BASC’s disposal and despite all the time that has been available to tackle the problem of lead ammunition use here we are far down the five year voluntary ban road and little effort has been made to propose compromise that would see the main concern of tons of lead deposited in small areas dealt with while allowing the use of lead in circumstances that would see comparatively little lead spread over a wide area and as a consequence create a niche for all those old short chambered vintage weapons unsuited to the use of steel shot. For example if I’m off to the foreshore I’m taking a 3 1/2 inch magnum 12 and heavy load stee If I’m off to a driven shoot I’m taking my over and under multichke with either steel shot or bismuth if I’m wealthy enough to afford it. If I’m out for a wander with the dog to bag a rabbit and perhaps a brace of pheasant and a woodcock I am free to use lead shot in my old Damascus barrelled shotgun or my 2 1/2 inch chambered .410 or any of a multitude of old vintage 16s or 20s unsuited to the use of steel shot both from the gun’s and the quarry’s perspective. This lack of vision from those representing our best interests is my main concern. It seems that the only way forward is reflected in the polarisation of opinion with resulting arguing both amongst ourselves and with those against us when it should be about dealing with the problem and minimising the risk of depositing lead shot into the environment while allowing a limited amount of lead use under limited circumstances that permit us to continue enjoying using the old vintage shotguns this country had a world wide reputation of producing. Let compromise take up the main ground of our argument and let’s consign the intolerance from both extremes of the argument to the margins where it belongs. I’m sure Conor will be along soon to discredit any such approach to the problem as unrealistic or naive, his perspective seems to promote appeasement as a means of securing shootings future or should that perhaps be securing BASC’s future. Edited January 19 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 Simple question for Conor Did BASC make a voluntary move towards the banning of lead?? Yes or no...................... Can't get much simpler than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, Graham M said: Simple question for Conor Did BASC make a voluntary move towards the banning of lead?? Yes or no...................... Can't get much simpler than that. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: No. Perhaps address the points raised in my posts now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 5 minutes ago, Konor said: Perhaps address the points raised in my posts now No. You have had your opportunities and threw it back in my face umpteen times. I don't intend engaging further with you on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) NO!!!!!! Who wrote this then???? "BASC remains committed to the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for shotguns used in live quarry shooting". Edited January 19 by Graham M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) 4 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said: No. You have had your opportunities and threw it back in my face umpteen times. I don't intend engaging further with you on this thread. Let’s be honest here Conor you never had any intention of addressing my issues on this forum hence your continual pleas for a personal phone call to ,let’s be brutally honest, shut me up. That you are choosing to refuse to engage further is welcome as frankly I find you both tiresome and evasive. Your refusal to engage suits your narrative and allows you to conveniently ignore the points laid out in my posts. I think you have made your position abundantly clear it’s a pity you do not do the same regarding the views of the average shooter you claim to represent. Edited January 19 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, Graham M said: NO!!!!!! Who wrote this then???? "BASC remains committed to the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for shotguns used in live quarry shooting". You asked me to answer a simple question and I answered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: You asked me to answer a simple question and I answered it. So let me be clear on this ....BASC "Remains committed to the voluntary move away from lead", but didn't volunteer to move away from lead. I now give up and won't be posting on this subject any more. It's like an excerpt from Alice in Wonderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: You asked me to answer a simple question and I answered it. I asked you , and have been asking you from the beginning of my posts , to comment on a simple compromising approach to the problem of lead shot use and you have refused. It seems that you are not only not representing my views but are finding it difficult to represent the views of BASC regarding the issues I have raised. Edited January 19 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mellors Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 I'm sure nearly everyone has read this and a lot have contributed to this and other similar threads for some time now and it has got nowhere. Unfortunately BASC in there wisdom considered it was a no win situation from the start rightly or wrongly and now the result is out of there's and our hands. I'm sure if compulsory membership through local clubs were to be abolished BASC would possibly have had a reason to commit fully and try and fight it on behalf of members and show they wish to be "the voice of shooting" . After over 50 years with WAGBI and BASC i see no point staying next renewal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 There are a few lengthy posts, which Conor O'Gorman seems to have difficulty comprehending. However, Graham M summed up the main issue into one simple question. Conor - answers "No", but can't make a sensible reply when confronted with BASC's own words, contradicting him. It is beyond pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted January 19 Author Report Share Posted January 19 35 minutes ago, mellors said: I'm sure nearly everyone has read this and a lot have contributed to this and other similar threads for some time now and it has got nowhere. Unfortunately BASC in there wisdom considered it was a no win situation from the start rightly or wrongly and now the result is out of there's and our hands. I'm sure if compulsory membership through local clubs were to be abolished BASC would possibly have had a reason to commit fully and try and fight it on behalf of members and show they wish to be "the voice of shooting" . After over 50 years with WAGBI and BASC i see no point staying next renewal. BASC has been fighting the HSE lead ban proposals since 2021 and had successes and this has been communicated regularly and at length on BASC website, magazine, emails, social media (including PW). However, there are a few people on here who have made their minds up about BASC a long time ago and continue to post misinformation and try to make things personal and deflect from the focus of every topic on lead twisting the narrative to their own view of things. That is the issue - not BASC's position and work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 45 minutes ago, mellors said: I’m sure if compulsory membership through local clubs were to be abolished BASC would possibly have had a reason to commit fully and try and fight it on behalf of members and show they wish to be "the voice of shooting" . After over 50 years with WAGBI and BASC i see no point staying next renewal. I am in the same position regarding linked in BASC membership with my wildfowling club membership. I value the membership of the club over my disappointment with the feeble attempts that BASC are making to retain the use of lead shot for vintage guns as previously mentioned so I will be retaining membership though I am not enamoured with BASCs performance on the issues I have previously highlighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HantsRob Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 Conor, I will ask the question differently. Question 1: Did BASC propose the transition to steel, and then supported that proposal? or Was the transition to steel proposed, then BASC remains/remained committed to that proposal? I can see how it could be that BASC didn't propose the transition, rather to lead the commitment to transition away? Question 2: I note with:https://basc.org.uk/lead-vs-steel-a-question-of-lethality/ it answers some questions in a more scientific manner of shot size and patterning by Cranfield university. I note especially with excitement: Quote In addition to the testing Cranfield University has conducted on penetration, we also want to look at various other areas where answers are needed. Testing pre-1954 non-nitro-proofed guns with steel shot is high on the agenda. We have already performed some preliminary studies into this area, but more testing is required to give guidance. Testing new sustainable ammunition as it appears on the market will also be a priority. We want to look at the capability of high-performance sustainable ammunition compared to standard steel and lead shot. We will continue to test Damascus-barrelled guns and see how they perform with the new loads being developed so we can offer accurate guidance. With that in mind and it was written in 2021, have any of those additional tests been performed independently by Cranfield University? I would be keen to see the results for lead in various shot size, Vs steel, vs HP Steel, vs "sustainable" ammunition. The above is trying to remain as objective and not old-farty or biased, but hopefully to give a sightly different angle with a view of clarification and maybe more information that I haven't read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said: BASC has been fighting the HSE lead ban proposals since 2021 and had successes and this has been communicated regularly and at length on BASC website, magazine, emails, social media (including PW). However, there are a few people on here who have made their minds up about BASC a long time ago and continue to post misinformation and try to make things personal and deflect from the focus of every topic on lead twisting the narrative to their own view of things. That is the issue - not BASC's position and work. BASC’s past successes are not in dispute. In previous posts I have congratulated BASC on the success of its Wildlife Habitat Trust fund which has enabled wildfowling clubs to have a greater stake and voice regarding wildfowling in their area and also the Young Shots schemes that enable youngsters to take their first steps into field sports participation. The problem in this thread lies with Conor’s refusal to answer straight forward questions on issues relevant to the form any future lead shot legislation may take. Conor is now attempting to deflect the issue away from his fairly poor performance on this thread onto a misrepresentative blanket condemnation of BASC when in fact it is actually largely if not totally a condemnation of his representation that is the issue under discussion. To sum up the issue may or may not be BASCs position and work but it most definitely is your failure to specifically address the issues raised. I think I’ve made myself quite clear in explaining that to you but you continually either fail to understand or conveniently fail to understand. The fight for the widespread ability to continue to enjoy using vintage guns is more important than your hurt feelings about how you are being criticised and you should be working to incorporate those proposals mentioned into your agenda rather than wasting your time on circular arguments which I think we can both agree are largely a waste of time. Edited January 19 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teal Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 I have just read the last couple of pages on here, and there are a couple of posts that I have removed. I understand there are strong feelings however, as always on the forum please be respectful of others. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 52 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: BASC has been fighting the HSE lead ban proposals since 2021 BASC proposed it 'voluntary' phase out of lead shot for live quarry in 2020, as has been discussed, at length, without consultation , from its membership, and without any input from cartridge manufacturers. It continued to tout the 'toxicity' of lead, and the benefits of using steel shot...A lot. Then coincidently , a year later, the HSE announced it would be looking at banning lead for firearm projectiles across the board.. I asked Conor at the time, if BASC had any forewarning of this inquiry, after some pushing and shoving , he said no. So 'coincidently' a lead ban is on the cards for all shotgun use, yet BASC are now rigorously 'fighting the HSE lead ban proposals since 2021' ? I would ask , what went wrong, did you have an agreement with government, that they have reneged on ? Is it all smoke and mirrors ? 1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said: However, there are a few people on here who have made their minds up about BASC a long time ago and continue to post misinformation and try to make things personal and deflect from the focus of every topic on lead twisting the narrative to their own view of things. No Conor, there are a LOT of people on here, and elsewhere who are not happy at all with BASCs stance and behaviour around this matter. Its contradictory, seemingly dishonest and evasive, to say the criticism of BASC is misinformative is clearly a deflection from your own stance. To say its personal, after you yourself have made various insults and personal attacks is laughable. People ask you straight forward questions which you evade, or 'refer to BASC press release' which does not answer the question, when pushed, you resort to the personal attacks. Ill give you this , you are persistent , maybe thick skinned, but your obvious anger shows through in some highly unprofessional ways at times, its not just here , you get the same if not worse on the SD. Why you dont just ignore the dissenters and preach just to the converted Im not sure. Maybe you like the conflict, but its one youre losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 Amen to the above, Rewulf has it nailed. I do hope we can respectfully point out the strength of feeling to the poor explanations offered by Dr O'Gorman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts