Is shooting finished

[Genghis]

4 hours ago, armsid said:

Ghengis good post but if it was possible i would like to see ALL the shooting orgs, form a body with a rep. from each Firearms dept. of these orgs. act together as one to challenge any legislation from Labour and Defra 

This would be the ideal. There’s not a single shooter who won’t be affected negatively, so I would hope this would be the catalyst to get the orgs working together.

2 hours ago, old'un said:

I don't think its just money that is holding people back from taking up shooting as a hobby.

40% of shooter are 50+, the 18 to 30 year olds make up just 13% and 14 to 17 make up just 0.1%, the Generation Z, 18 to 30 year old had at totally different childhood/upbringing to the 50+ shooters, Gen Z are more likely to-be the ones opposed to gun ownership and shooting and less likely to take the hobby up even if they had the money to-do so.

I might be proven wrong on this one day, but the most vocal antis that I see are middle-aged women who post on Facebook a lot.

[PeterHenry]

24 minutes ago, Genghis said:

I might be proven wrong on this one day, but the most vocal antis that I see are middle-aged women who post on Facebook a lot.

I have also observed this 

[old'un]

18 minutes ago, Genghis said:

This would be the ideal. There’s not a single shooter who won’t be affected negatively, so I would hope this would be the catalyst to get the orgs working together.

I might be proven wrong on this one day, but the most vocal antis that I see are middle-aged women who post on Facebook a lot.

Most of the people I have seen running across fields to disrupt game shoots and the hunt have been in the Gen Z bracket.

[Conor O'Gorman]

23 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Couldn't agree more Conor, but access to hunting land and the good reason licensing requirement are far bigger obstacles for most of us. 

Thanks. What do you suggest that we could collectively do to remove obstacles to access to hunting land and good reason licensing requirements? There are different approaches in mainland Europe for example.

[Conor O'Gorman]

9 hours ago, Genghis said:

Conor, I support BASC. I want to ask you this in good faith.

 

If the proposals from 2021 rear their ugly head again, is BASC prepared in how to address them? There’s a lot of people in towns and cities who aren’t expressly ‘anti-shooting’ but they have no understanding as to why someone would need to ‘own’ a gun, never mind keep it at home. Given that the idea of guns being banned from being kept at home has been floated around numerous times, especially since 2021, I think this is something that BASC should be prepared in how to answer to.

 

Different kinds of shooters will have different reasons, but I think it would be worth polling membership on this to collate all views. I hope that you can pass this feedback along.

 

Addressing the merits of pump-action shotguns would be worthwhile too.

Thanks, we have already countered such proposals several times and will do so again if need be. In terms of polling members for views what did you have in mind?

Edited July 7 by Conor O'Gorman

[Smudger687]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks. What do you suggest that we could collectively do to remove obstacles to access to hunting land and good reason licensing requirements? There are different approaches in mainland Europe for example.

The good reason licensing requirement is in my opinion completely superfluous: I don't need a good reason to own a shotgun - yet curiously I don't seem to have shot anyone with it yet. It makes precious little difference to public safety.

What it does do is make it difficult for those without land access to even get a rifle in the first place;

It also acts as a significant barrier to new rifle clubs getting established - people need to be a member of a club to get a rifle for target shooting, but new clubs won't start up if an area doesn't have any rifle shooters in it. 

It makes it more difficult to buy and sell rifles, with all the knock-on effects that come with it;

Perhaps worst of all is that your guns can be taken if, through no fault of your own, your land permission disappears;

And it's yet more off-putting bureaucracy that we could all do without.

If you want new blood in shooting, then the licensing restrictions need to ease up.

BASC should have been lobbying to get rid of the good reason requirement a long time ago, however, better late than never? It's an easy argument to make as the police could reduce their workload, it won't make a significant difference to public safety, and in all honesty a lot of firearms officers are clueless anyway.

Worst case scenario a rifle/hunters safety course would be preferable to the good reason requirement, and would be more useful for all parties involved. 

As for hunting land - it's difficult because all land in the UK is privately owned by a wealthy few and they usually don't want us plebs on it without paying a nice premium for the privilege. Ideally we'd have a Scandinavian model where the hunter is free to hunt even on land they don't own iirc, but I don't see said landowners being so obliging. 

Some form of nationwide club membership might be an alternative, whereby the club buys land with member funds and then allows said members to shoot there. This model seems to work quite well in the US,  Ducks Unlimited being a prime example. The more people that get into shooting then the more people will pay member fees, which then helps land purchases etc etc.

[Houseplant]

9 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Some form of nationwide club membership might be an alternative, whereby the club buys land with member funds and then allows said members to shoot there. This model seems to work quite well in the US,  Ducks Unlimited being a prime example. The more people that get into shooting then the more people will pay member fees, which then helps land purchases etc etc.

 

That is a brilliant idea! I'm sure the strategy of anti-gun politicians and officials is to remove access to hunting and even places to shoot making it harder to justify gun ownership. 

As I read these threads, the more lucky I feel to be in New Zealand. There are millions of hectares of public land which can be hunted by anyone free of charge with almost no rules or limitations. We must be unique in the developed world, if not the whole world in this respect. It's not perfect by any means, but next time I'm having a moan when climbing up a bluff or fighting dense bush, I'll have a word with myself! 

[Westley]

First off, if is absolutely ridiculous to take guns out of shooters homes and store them under one roof. Ask Politicians if they keep ALL of their money in one bank, it is spread about to conceal it. The same applies to guns. It needs to be pointed out that reducing private gun ownership will NEVER stop criminals obtaining and using illegally held guns, it is just an easier thing to address or target. The last figure that I saw was less than 0.02% of legally held guns,  ending up in the hands of criminals.

I can envisage attempts being made to increase the cost of licence fees. The Police have been using this one to cover up their failings for some time, and Crime Commissioners see it, as a vote grabber.

The one BIG factor going against us, is the fact that ALL of the major shooting incidents have involved legally held guns. This is why they are trying to pass the onus onto the Medical Profession, and of course no Doctor is going to state that this person IS fit to have a gun. They will only disclose the medication that a licence holder is taking or has taken, in the past. You only have to look at the number of Police Forces now using a team of Police Officers and Physciatric Nurses together on the streets, in an attempt to deal with the ever increasing number of people, being deemed fit to be released on society. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say that a person is unlikely to flip at any given moment and no Doctor will put their name to that one.

The problem is, we are, and always will be, an easy target to blame for the failings of others. We are in the minority and will therefore be treated as such. The only plus side is that I have recently seen a big increase in Corporate days, which have included shooting of one form or another. I have personally helped 4 newcomers to the sport in the last 18 months, including getting them their first gun. If EACH of us introduced 1 newcomer per year, be they friend or relation, to our sport, we could help secure our future. 

[wymberley]

21 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

I know your post didn't put a time frame on it - but i'd be very suprised if that happened in the current parliament.

No, I didn't, deliberately so and I agree with your assessment.

You're right, of course, tastes do change as do opinions. However, in this case, I've held my opinions forever it seems since I was more active so can appreciate that the opinions of others may well have changed from those which were expressed and  which formed the basis for mine. Having said that and although now based more on social media comments as opposed to previously 'face to face' I see no evidence of any real change. Consequently, again I believe you are right and I share your opinion about  shooting being an 'enthusiasts'' pastime.

[wymberley]

25 minutes ago, Westley said:

We are in the minority and will therefore be treated as such

No, surely not. Our new Prime Minister has said that even if we didn't vote Labour, he would still represent us. After all, in a democracy it is the duty of the majority to protect the interests of the minority. 

[BobbyH]

I agree with alot of comments.

I am VERY passionate about the sport, and im currently training to become a CPSA instructor, and just started to dabble in BASC courses, Safe shot etc.

Im doing this because i want to pass on my love and big passion for the sport, guns and everything inbetween.

Once/If qualified, im aiming at the younger generation 14-20's for example , just to bolster the ages in the sport and start young people off in the sport with the passion i was shown.

It is such a shame that there is so much negativity around the sport at the moment with steel shot vs lead, potential new PM issues, licencing issues....
But if we all just gave up shooting, then what would be the point?

We all shoot because we enjoy it, a few of us may have to do it for work, but the majority of us do it for fun, so why should we give up?? We buy our guns, we buy our ammunition, we pay for our clays and syndicate days.....

Recently, i did think BASC had a slight bad rep, BUT,  if we want our beloved sport to flourish as much as i do, then i for one will be supporting every single shooting organisation i can, so i signed up as a member.

If we all became CPSA/BASC or other members, then I'm sure that the politicians would see it as a positive?

 

Im not after arguments or hatefull replys, i am open to debate, but there is my 2p's worth.

***Shooting should only be finished, if we let it be finished***

Edited July 8 by BobbyH

[PeterHenry]

18 hours ago, old'un said:

Most of the people I have seen running across fields to disrupt game shoots and the hunt have been in the Gen Z bracket.

I've been giving this some thought and come to the conclusion - hasent it always been like this? Uni students and other people of around the same age doing the actual disrupting, with a few hard baked die hards dotted around for good mesure / as the 'brains'.

It's funny really - the only first hand experiences of sabs I've had in my sheltered shooting career was (a) with an obnoxious retiree, and (b) a middle aged woman in a van.

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

No, I didn't, deliberately so and I agree with your assessment.

You're right, of course, tastes do change as do opinions. However, in this case, I've held my opinions forever it seems since I was more active so can appreciate that the opinions of others may well have changed from those which were expressed and  which formed the basis for mine. Having said that and although now based more on social media comments as opposed to previously 'face to face' I see no evidence of any real change. Consequently, again I believe you are right and I share your opinion about  shooting being an 'enthusiasts'' pastime.

👍

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, Westley said:

First off, if is absolutely ridiculous to take guns out of shooters homes and store them under one roof. Ask Politicians if they keep ALL of their money in one bank, it is spread about to conceal it.

Of course, it's a completely impracticable idea that does nothing for  public safety, but it appeals to the chattering classes in suburbia, in the same way they think that Scotland should be rewilded, or banning mixed agriculture because cow burps somehow are destroying the planet.  When you ask them what problem imposing any of these draconian, impractical, solutions would solve, there's usually just a silence or blank stare.

On 07/07/2024 at 07:06, Feltwad said:

It  most likely be gone by the next election so five years at the most  the writing was on the wall after Hungerford  then all shooting organisations should have been under one roof but no the attitude was if it does not concern me not  interested.

Feltwad

What tosh you write.  Hungerford was in 1987.  That's 37 years ago.  They are taking their sweet, sweet time.  And speaking of attitude, what have you done to protect the future of shooting, in this decade that is?  Introduced any youngsters?  Invited your new MP out?  Anything?

I will concede that you are of course correct when you suggest that united we stand, divided we fall.  But frankly BASC merging with NGO and GWCT is the sort of upheaval we just haven't got the time for, now that Yvette 'Refugees Welcome' Cooper has been let loose at the Home Office.

Frankly, I think the biggest risk to shooting is not so much that it's high on anyone's political agenda, but banning things is cheap in terms of tax money and scores points with Guardian-readers in terms of 'doing something'.

There's also this; not just a threat to shooting but the countryside in general.

[Feltwad]

24 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Of course, it's a completely impracticable idea that does nothing for  public safety, but it appeals to the chattering classes in suburbia, in the same way they think that Scotland should be rewilded, or banning mixed agriculture because cow burps somehow are destroying the planet.  When you ask them what problem imposing any of these draconian, impractical, solutions would solve, there's usually just a silence or blank stare.

What tosh you write.  Hungerford was in 1987.  That's 37 years ago.  They are taking their sweet, sweet time.  And speaking of attitude, what have you done to protect the future of shooting, in this decade that is?  Introduced any youngsters?  Invited your new MP out?  Anything?

I will concede that you are of course correct when you suggest that united we stand, divided we fall.  But frankly BASC merging with NGO and GWCT is the sort of upheaval we just haven't got the time for, now that Yvette 'Refugees Welcome' Cooper has been let loose at the Home Office.

Frankly, I think the biggest risk to shooting is not so much that it's high on anyone's political agenda, but banning things is cheap in terms of tax money and scores points with Guardian-readers in terms of 'doing something'.

There's also this; not just a threat to shooting but the countryside in general.

So you think I  write a lot of Tosh well wait and see  shooting changed  because of Hungerford when shooting gone fishing will be next I have been  shooting for 76years  with different classes of people  most likely before you were born and seen many changers on gun ownership  so keep  your insults to yourself.

Feltwad

[udderlyoffroad]

Just now, Feltwad said:

So you think I  write a lot of Tosh well wait and see  shooting changed  because of Hungerford when shooting gone fishing will be next I have been  shooting for 76years  with different classes of people  most likely before you were born and seen many changers on gun ownership  so keep  your insults to yourself.

Feltwad

I'll take your swerving of my question, of what you've done for the shooting, in this decade, as you've done sweet FA.

 

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Hungerford was in 1987.  That's 37 years ago. 

Like it was yesterday and it grabbed my attention.

To digress for a moment, did you read and inwardly digest Feltwad's post. An open invitation for you to come back when you're 86 yoa or thereabouts and tell us what you've done for shooting in the passed couple of years.

This most certainly is NOT a poke at Bobby H - he wasn't even born -  and anyway, all credit to him. I had read his post and had looked at some of the detail behind his activities when the 1987 popped up. Comparing the shooting organisations from then and now one could make a case that with regard to the financial implications of the sport, the biggest threat to shooting is the shooters.

Edited July 8 by wymberley

[Feltwad]

15 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I'll take your swerving of my question, of what you've done for the shooting, in this decade, as you've done sweet FA.

 

I am not swerving from your question I have done more for shooting than you ever know and I have no intention of getting in a slanging match

Feltwad

[Fil]

On 06/07/2024 at 09:24, ditchman said:

Yvette cooper (aka Pixy Balls).....is totally untrustworthy................

Couldn't agree more. One minute she said on live tv the elctorate will decide brexit and she will accept the decision. Next minute she's throwing everything at it to try and stop it going through at the end. Nope. I'm no fan of her. 

[Fil]

On 07/07/2024 at 11:45, Genghis said:

Addressing the merits of pump-action shotguns would be worthwhile too.

If I was only allowed one gun it would be my Smith and Wesson pump. It will shoot the lightest of loads on clay right through to 3" magnum. And no jamming to worry about.

[Smudger687]

6 hours ago, Houseplant said:

 

That is a brilliant idea! I'm sure the strategy of anti-gun politicians and officials is to remove access to hunting and even places to shoot making it harder to justify gun ownership. 

As I read these threads, the more lucky I feel to be in New Zealand. There are millions of hectares of public land which can be hunted by anyone free of charge with almost no rules or limitations. We must be unique in the developed world, if not the whole world in this respect. It's not perfect by any means, but next time I'm having a moan when climbing up a bluff or fighting dense bush, I'll have a word with myself! 

It's so bad here

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

To digress for a moment, did you read and inwardly digest Feltwad's post. An open invitation for you to come back when you're 86 yoa or thereabouts and tell us what you've done for shooting in the passed couple of years.

You'll have to wait a while, but ok.

2 hours ago, wymberley said:

Comparing the shooting organisations from then and now one could make a case that with regard to the financial implications of the sport, the biggest threat to shooting is the shooters.

Agree wholeheartedly.

 

1 hour ago, Feltwad said:

I am not swerving from your question I have done more for shooting than you ever know and I have no intention of getting in a slanging match

Feltwad

Then by your own admission, you've wasted your time.  As shooting's finished anyway, and you've known that for the past 37 years.

Once again, I understand why you feel that way, but coming on a forum quoting Private Fraser ("We're all doomed"), is just defeatist in the extreme, and doesn't get us anywhere.

[Feltwad]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

You'll have to wait a while, but ok.

Agree wholeheartedly.

 

Then by your own admission, you've wasted your time.  As shooting's finished anyway, and you've known that for the past 37 years.

Once again, I understand why you feel that way, but coming on a forum quoting Private Fraser ("We're all doomed"), is just defeatist in the extreme, and doesn't get us anywhere.

So what are you  and the shooting organizations  going to do if it comes about the same has what the last 37years,  concerning   shooting which now is like a mouse and  piece of cheese with  pieces nimble of  till there is not much left  .It is  time that the shooters worst enemy  his fellow shooter and the shooting organization  see what is  coming in the near future

The gun is part of our heritage

Not to dispose of has we please 

We  hold them  in trust 

For those that come after

Feltwad

 

[Genghis]

On 07/07/2024 at 21:24, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks, we have already countered such proposals several times and will do so again if need be. In terms of polling members for views what did you have in mind?

A clay shooter would have a different answer to a wildfowler as to why they need to own a gun and keep it at home. Some reasons have already been covered here, but it would be good to hear all views.

 

For example, competitive clay shooting would be all but finished. If you have to keep your guns at one shooting ground, as was previously suggested, then how would it work when you want to shoot at a different ground? Would we have to pay for a RFD transfer every time we want to shoot anywhere other than our ‘home’ ground?

[Feltwad]

8 hours ago, Genghis said:

A clay shooter would have a different answer to a wildfowler as to why they need to own a gun and keep it at home. Some reasons have already been covered here, but it would be good to hear all views.

 

For example, competitive clay shooting would be all but finished. If you have to keep your guns at one shooting ground, as was previously suggested, then how would it work when you want to shoot at a different ground? Would we have to pay for a RFD transfer every time we want to shoot anywhere other than our ‘home’ ground?

This is not new   like the lead shot ban  it is a ban that will be treated like a bad smell hoping it will go away . It has happened before   it is history repeating itself  when the militia  soldier kept his gun at home  but because world activities a certain part of society  had it banned and the Territorial Army was formed  and all guns stored in the one place. Yes it was a 100 years ago  but has far has gun ownership today is concerned it is just the same

Feltwad

[old'un]

This is a cut and paste from another website, I have not verified the facts but interesting to see that the Con’s were the party who seems to have done the most banning.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

First of all remember that no political party that stands any chance of being elected is "friendly" to the shooting community.

Secondly look at who was in power when all the bans have come in:

1988 act banning full bore semi auto's etc - Conservative

1997 act banning centrefire pistols - Conservative

1997 Act (second amendment) banning rimfire pistols - Labour

2003 ASB act "the Brocock Ban" - Labour

2019 OWA banned lever release and mars rifles with the attempted .50 cal ban - Conservative

So the conservatives banned full bore semi auto and pump action rifles, converted rifles, made high capacity shotguns section 1, banned centrefire handguns, lever release rifles and MARS rifles.

Labour banned .22 rimfire pistols and TAC air pistols.

Which one should i be more afraid of?

As someone that had a firearms certificate pre 1997 the public mood made sure there would be a ban. The rules for .22 rimfire pistols the conservatives put in place was a ban in all but name, they were placed under what are now section 7.3 restrictions and it was inevitable it would either be exceptionally limited or just die a natural death, My local pistol club which was a private business open 7 days a week closed their doors as soon as the ban came in, they didn't bother to wait for the rimfire ban.

I do think labour went to far in banning Olympic pistol shooting but again, public mood at the time made it inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edited July 9 by old'un