BASC, nobs, sacs, that is the question.

[JohnT]

I take great exception to being referred to as a "winger" because I have the temerity to refer to the fact that due to politicians currying favour following an horrendous episode that I am still thousands of pounds worse off. The supposed compensation scheme was woefully inefficient and inadequate to deal with the aftermath.
I know for a fact that the pistols that my sons and I surrendered were exported within the week and my RFD made a great deal out of it, in fact he " exported" himself soon after. We still await the due compensation. The police could find no trace of the three applications that we submitted. By the time we were able to establish that we had to reapply time was up. Yes I feel that no organisation stood up for what I thought to be right. That does not mean that I was wrong.
I still feel that no organisation has the courage to stand up to those that oppose shooting.
I belong to what I believe to be the least-worst,simply for what level of protection it may afford not in the misplaced belief that they will fight for my rights. They reserve those efforts to safeguard their jobs. I have no faith in BASC.

 

[BRYAN]

On the other hand, arguing against a ban on semi-autos because they were necessary for deer control was just clutching at straws...

I'm not saying that they should have argued against the ban on semi-auto's. I think they should have been purely interested in the use of legal,humane calibres and ammo for culling deer. It was before my time but,did they actively assist the bann?

 

[willie_gunn]

I'm not saying that they should have argued against the ban on semi-auto's. I think they should have been purely interested in the use of legal,humane calibres and ammo for culling deer. It was before my time but,did they actively assist the bann?

Interestingly if you read the Hansard report that was kindly provided earlier you will see that Douglas Hogg raised the input from the BDS following the comment of Bill Walker (Tayside North) that deer should be included under the classification of vermin, viz:

I mean all types of vermin, including deer. There is no question but that deer are a big problem to us in the highlands of Scotland.

To which Douglas Hogg responded:

My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) argued that it is necessary to have a small capacity self-loading rifle to deal with vermin. Within the definition of the word "vermin", he includes deer. I do not agree with him. I have before me, for example, a letter from the chairman of the British Deer Society, on which I addressed the Committee.

The full response is included above, but note that the BDS response was raised to deny the classification of deer as vermin. In my mind that rebuttal is something everyone on this site would agree with.

Interestingly BDS said that there is no heavyweight argument for these weapons to be used for deer management." Note that they do not say that there is no argument, just that there is no heavyweight argument.

Each can make up their own mind as to whether that constitutes actively supporting the ban.

 

[willie_gunn]

Maybe that is because the NRA of America actually properly defend shooter's rights in the USA? Obama has been, openly, a President with a determined gun control agenda. Yet the reality is that the NRA of America have now made political support for gun control by any candidate for Congress or Senate the equivalent of a political suicide note.

And Obama has been able to push through virtually zero gun control measures in his eight years of office. Such that now he has to result to threat of using an executive order. Which again the NRA of America will mobilise to resist and defeat.

Instead of as with the UK NRA simply either "rolling over" and accepting or in fact implicitly supporting further erosion of those right by selling out the interests of others in an attempt to deflect harmful legislation from their own niche interest.

For example there are ninety-two elected Members of the House of Lords. Elected from a base of over a thousand hereditary peers. Yet neither the British NRA nor the BASC has ever sought to canvass those peers on voting for a pro-gun candidate for those vacancies when they become due.

No-one objects to a high salary when payment brings results but the sad fact is that here in the UK many as shooters pay money to organisations whose results have been non-existent or, in truth, positively harmful to our interests as shooters. And among the guilty parties the BDS is historically in the top offenders.

92 elected peers is not a strategy that will save our sport!!!

How about the fact that the NRA in the US has annual revenues of $310m and annual expenditure of $345m?? That kind of money makes things happen.

Yet here in the UK we expect the same type of representation and effectiveness from an organisation that has an annual revenue of a shade over £5m.

Argue all day long about how our organisations have historically sold us down the river, but nothing will change until we have a realistically funded organisation to protect our interests. Do I think it will ever happen? Of course not, because nearly every member of the shooting fraternity in the UK baulks at paying a subscription in the first place, let alone a subscription high enough to properly defend our sport.

 

[old man]

To those of you moaning about BDS, BASC, NRA, etc. please enlighten me about one thing you're doing to improve the lot of shooters in the future that is anything other than whinging anonymously on the Internet about past perceived "injustices"?

Maybe just a tad over gunned there Willie?

My decision to leave the BDS was taken solely on my personal impression that their agenda for the future was not in harmony with mine?
They seemed to have become remote, so I voted as is my option with my feet?
I do not consider this as a moan and I do not care how they are paid. I wish them well.
I try to encourage new shooters into our sport where possible in the same way that I have received encouragement and opportunities to shoot from a few members on the SD. Involved previously in trying to train youngsters with airguns what not to and where not to shoot and shotgunning recently where they are usually better shots than me. This has not been easy due to the fact that the owners of the areas I have permission on, restrict permission to me personally for the usual reasons.

Long may this mutual situation continue.

Willie, my £50 is here and waiting.

 

[willie_gunn]

I do realise that individually many on here do a lot to encourage shooting and stalking, particularly amongst youngsters and newcomers to the sport. To them I am very happy to

My comment was more about people actively contributing to any of those organisations that are designed to protect gun ownership, our sports and our interests. Active means anything more than paying your annual fees, important though that is.

 

[old man]

I do realise that individually many on here do a lot to encourage shooting and stalking, particularly amongst youngsters and newcomers to the sport. To them I am very happy to

My comment was more about people actively contributing to any of those organisations that are designed to protect gun ownership, our sports and our interests. Active means anything more than paying your annual fees, important though that is.

I realised that Sir,

 

[Monkey Spanker]

I find it quite worrying that some folk on here would clearly see us slide down the slippery slope that America has! Some of you could do with a trip to USA or even South Africa for a bit of a reality check?
Have a look at some of the statistics here and maybe consider whether our gun controls are too harsh? (Best do the open page option rather than slide show)
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?IR=T
MS

 

[JohnT]

No-one in their right mind would suggest that we relax gun control. We have a stringent control over lethal weapons. Why should we do away with that? That would be illogical.
personally, I object, not to gun control, but the way in which it is imposed and implemented in our "democratic" society.
None of the policy makers seem prepared to work for the efficient and reasonable implementation of sensible and essential controls that would allow those that have demonstrated their suitability to persue their legal activities.
Are we perhaps losing sight of the original theme? Was it not the failure of the current organisations to agree to
clear-cut objectives led by their membership and to present a united front in defending our chosen legal persuits

 

[Dalua]

The mention of a slippery slope calls to mind this article, which might be of interest.
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn043.htm

What is the slippery slope the US has slid down? As far as I can tell they've slid nowhere; whereas our liberties with respect to firearms ownership have slid pretty much away without any apparent benefit in terms of public safety, or public anything else.

 

[Conure]

I find it quite worrying that some folk on here would clearly see us slide down the slippery slope that America has! Some of you could do with a trip to USA or even South Africa for a bit of a reality check?
Have a look at some of the statistics here and maybe consider whether our gun controls are too harsh? (Best do the open page option rather than slide show)
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?IR=T
MS

Nice choice of site and views. Obama would be proud of you. I suggest you look urther and check where the most gun troubles occur in the US. You will soon discover if you look with open eyes and an open mind that you morel likely to be victim on gun crime where the gun laws are tightest. Washington DC for instance has one of the worse gun crime and murder rates as the criminals know that their victies cannot defend them selves and stay inside the law. New York City is another an Califorinia not only has tighter laws on guns but almost none on illegal immingrants.

Yes I have friends in America one of those passed away last year of cancer after finally being driven out of his home by the illegals. It was no longer safe to work on his own ranch due to the illegals coming up across the border and when he did defend himslef he found himself in trouble so he sold up and moved way north. Of course Obama and co will not allow such incidents to be reported as it does not help their propaganda and views.

Those like Obama and his supporters are no doubt making gains and money from all this and that is all they care about. They do not care about the people only them selves and their agendas.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Nice choice of site and views. Obama would be proud of you. I suggest you look urther and check where the most gun troubles occur in the US. You will soon discover if you look with open eyes and an open mind that you morel likely to be victim on gun crime where the gun laws are tightest. Washington DC for instance has one of the worse gun crime and murder rates as the criminals know that their victies cannot defend them selves and stay inside the law. New York City is another an Califorinia not only has tighter laws on guns but almost none on illegal immingrants.

Yes I have friends in America one of those passed away last year of cancer after finally being driven out of his home by the illegals. It was no longer safe to work on his own ranch due to the illegals coming up across the border and when he did defend himslef he found himself in trouble so he sold up and moved way north. Of course Obama and co will not allow such incidents to be reported as it does not help their propaganda and views.

Those like Obama and his supporters are no doubt making gains and money from all this and that is all they care about. They do not care about the people only them selves and their agendas.

Surely the laws have had to become so tight in such areas because it is so far out of control? (Too far down the slippery slope?) Of course, it is then the "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" situation which is where they are now. We have not got to that stage yet. Would you seriously allow everyone in the UK to hold a firearm so that they can defend themselves from a threat that doesn't yet exist, or could it just spiral out of control and create that very threat? We have a chance here to learn from the mistakes of others, or should we just let history repeat itself?
MS

 

[willie_gunn]

They do not care about the people only them selves and their agendas.

I think you'll find that statement could probably be applied equally to both sides: People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year - The Washington Post

 

[Dalua]

Surely the laws have had to become so tight in such areas because it is so far out of control? (Too far down the slippery slope?)

You've said it again! Could you please explain the nature of the slippery slope down which you perceive the US has slid?

 

[Monkey Spanker]

You've said it again! Could you please explain the nature of the slippery slope down which you perceive the US has slid?

Do you perchance live under a rock? There's a tall black fella in America who kind of shares the same view. (I think he runs the place!) Although to be fair, maybe they didn't just slide there?
Maybe they were always there with the level of gun ownership, and the demand for violence has simply grown to meet the supply of guns?
I'll ask again - do you think that everyone in the UK should be able to hold any firearm they so choose so that they can defend themselves? Should we all carry them as we would our mobile phones?
MS

 

[willie_gunn]

You've said it again! Could you please explain the nature of the slippery slope down which you perceive the US has slid?

My two-penneth.

The gun lobby, as represented by the NRA, is absolute in its position on gun control. Whilst admirable in many ways, with it comes their opposition to safe storage (see my post above), background checks, etc. When you are an absolutist you don't get to pick and choose the legislation you oppose. You have to oppose it all, since any curtailment of "your rights" is clearly the first of so many salami slices that will eventually see abolition through the back door.

I read exactly the same argument here on SD.

Once you take that position then the slippery slope is that you end up having to oppose controls that would potentially reduce innocent victims of gun crime, the flow of illegal guns, and so on.

When people trot out the line that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", they'd better be prepared to accept that sometimes those people are going to be 2 or 3 years old, and that it is a price worth paying.

Not me.

 

[Dalua]

Do you perchance live under a rock?

That would be a better use of a rock than using one to keep my ears apart.

I'll ask again - do you think that everyone in the UK should be able to hold any firearm they so choose so that they can defend themselves? Should we all carry them as we would our mobile phones?
MS

I don't recall you asking that before, but since you ask so politely I shall tell you: 'no' to both points.
Let me ask in return, though - do you believe that this how things currently are across the US as a result of what we've now established is not actually a slippery slope?

If you want a slippery slope, the end of which as not yet been reached, then look no further than our own firearms legislation.

What W-G seems accurately to summarise is not actually a slippery slope, but an intransigent position adopted by the USNRA to prevent the US ending up on a slippery slope of the kind on which we find ourselves in the UK.
Interstingly. it is likely that their observation of our sorry history, and that of other countries where civilian firearms ownership is ongoingly under official threat, has encouraged them to maintain their position.

 

[bogtrotter]

My two-penneth.

The gun lobby, as represented by the NRA, is absolute in its position on gun control. Whilst admirable in many ways, with it comes their opposition to safe storage (see my post above), background checks, etc. When you are an absolutist you don't get to pick and choose the legislation you oppose. You have to oppose it all, since any curtailment of "your rights" is clearly the first of so many salami slices that will eventually see abolition through the back door.

I read exactly the same argument here on SD.

Once you take that position then the slippery slope is that you end up having to oppose controls that would potentially reduce innocent victims of gun crime, the flow of illegal guns, and so on.

When people trot out the line that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", they'd better be prepared to accept that sometimes those people are going to be 2 or 3 years old, and that it is a price worth paying.

Not me.

Nor me.

 

[bogtrotter]

Do you perchance live under a rock? There's a tall black fella in America who kind of shares the same view. (I think he runs the place!) Although to be fair, maybe they didn't just slide there?
Maybe they were always there with the level of gun ownership, and the demand for violence has simply grown to meet the supply of guns?
I'll ask again - do you think that everyone in the UK should be able to hold any firearm they so choose so that they can defend themselves? Should we all carry them as we would our mobile phones?
MS

I hope not.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Interstingly. it is likely that their observation of our sorry history, and that of other countries where civilian firearms ownership is ongoingly under official threat, has encouraged them to maintain their position.

Which position? Their position as the highest gun crime country in the world? Well done them for maintaining that! As a leading country in the developed world, they are not exactly setting a very good example are they? Is it any wonder that the rest of the world view them with such disdain at times when they try to police other nations when they cannot even police their own streets?
Just maybe it is exactly their observation of our 'sorry history' (which is incidentally theirs) which is driving the official threat to their gun ownership so that their gun violence statistic might become similar to ours?
Would you trade their level of gun ownership for our gun crime statistic? It seems fairly clear that you would which is rather concerning!
MS