Is shooting finished

[BobbyH]

I don't want it to be banned, i love my guns and love shooting.

But what will be, will be. I as one person cant do anything to prevent it if it happens, but i sure as hell will do what I can do promote the sport and try and influence the way people see the sport and gun ownership in the UK.

 

Our sport and gun ownership does not need banning or looking at, its perfectly fine as it is.....and as soon as the higher powers see that, the better.

 

 

 

To that end, i will/would happily invite my Labour MP on a clay shoot, to show that it is a good way to enjoy the outdoors, to have a hobby that sustains thousands of pounds and hundreds of jobs.

I just dont know how to exactly invite them on a shoot.

[Fellside]

In answer to the topic title: NO!

The very notion is a load of scaremongering nonsense. 

Any discussion of all firearms being banned etc is a waste of hot air. It hasn’t happened in any other European country. Even Denmark, which has many restrictions, still has a strong shooting community. We might get thumped with a few more costs (?!), but whoever said shooting was a cheap sport?

[Pushandpull]

Just by the way, Denmark has had a ban on lead shot since about 1996, but they seem to cope.

[Fellside]

5 minutes ago, Pushandpull said:

Just by the way, Denmark has had a ban on lead shot since about 1996, but they seem to cope.

Indeed. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

On 08/07/2024 at 00:17, Smudger687 said:

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.

Thanks for taking the time to outline all this. As regards access to land, shooting cubs and syndicates including wildfowling clubs are probably the closest to what you outline where land is owned or leased by those clubs. Then there are also leases for public forest. For BASC's part it runs deer stalking schemes and the wildfowling permit scheme. There is also a pest control scheme in NI. Buying land funded by members for the use of members has been looked into over the years.

3 hours ago, BobbyH said:

To that end, i will/would happily invite my Labour MP on a clay shoot, to show that it is a good way to enjoy the outdoors, to have a hobby that sustains thousands of pounds and hundreds of jobs.

I just dont know how to exactly invite them on a shoot.

You could talk to the clay shoot owners and see if they would be happy to have the MP visit, then write to the MP inviting them and work out the details from there. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

12 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?

Thanks. Is this the proposal you were referring to?

https://basc.org.uk/bill-to-restrict-pump-actions-will-not-become-law/