BASC, nobs, sacs, that is the question.

[enfieldspares]

Problem with statistics is that you can prove pretty much anything with them. US "homicides" do include "justifiable homicide" (that is where the police shoot and offender) or a security guard, person on the street, or householder acts in self defence.

Also it is never, or rarely, compared on a "murder per legally owned HANDGUN" basis. For on that basis the USA has a very low rate compared to Japan or Jamaica or other countries where legal handgun ownership is either most strictly regulated or, indeed, totally prohibited. However be aware that some countries the figures may show a higher gun ownership rate as airguns and such may be licensed there (there's no 12 ft/lbs limit in the USA so they are included in the USA but are in the UK figures) and so included as these "firearms".

This is from The Guardian. Not known as a newspaper that prints pro-gun propaganda.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Indeed we only have to look across the water to Ireland in the troubles to see that such overall statistics are not of much use. In fact we have only to look to Manchester or parts of London in recent times. Sub-machine guns used on the streets....yet these have been prohibited weapons in the UK since 1920! Yet when recovered none of them appear to have been made other than well after 1920. So much for that prohibition then.

The "sorry history" I am guessing is that the NRA of America has seen how the most innocent, the most reasonable,the most sensible (as they were all called at the time) gun control measures have inexorably lead in the UK to gun confiscation. Willie Gunn pretty much sums up the NRA of America's logic. An argument, that of the NRA of America, that I also happen to agree with.

My grandfather went to war in 1914 with his legally owned Webley pistol. There was no gun control in mainland Great Britain at that time (save the Gun Licence which like today's Television Licence was a revenue measure not a control measure....so like the old Game Licence in that if you could pay you were given one....yet where was the gun crime then?

So here's my "swap". I'll swap you 1914's gun crime levels and 1914's gun control for 2014's gun crime levels and 2014's gun control. We have, as no doubt the NRA of America sees as our "sorry history" surrendered liberty for security and ended up with neither. And yet in 1914 Great Britain was almost "awash" with guns. I've seen Webley's original ledgers (after they were sold by Webley to Arms Research Company) and it is amazing how many people in Leicester and where they lived it gives their addresses (for example) owned pistols or revolvers. Church vicars even figuring in that!

And that is ingrained in the American pysche since Benjamin Franklin...he on the US $ 100 banknote. No wonder they hold that his dictum of "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" still to be true today

But I'll ask this of MS and WG.

If it were put to you...as eventually it will be that "if we end any right of the general public (other than "farmers") to own guns then we'll significantly reduce gun crime" would you agree to that? To see your Browning, Beretta, Boss, Purdey etc., etc., prohibited?

Because eventually that IS the argument that will be put and probably sooner than you think. I was old enough to remember no control on shot guns. I have seen the original Shot Gun Certificate (I had one) and I have seen some shot guns that pre-1965 and pre-1967 were unlicensed now on s1 control OR TOTALLY PROHIBITED. I am certain that within my lifetime I will see ALL shot guns on s1 and the s2 category sudsumed by this or become and air gun control.

The start has begun in Scotland with air gun licensing as eventually someone will say that it is illogical that a shot gun can be held in Scotland on a lesser form of control than an air gun is subject to.

But....this can be argued on and on. And has been on this Forum. And we'll never agree.

So can we put these aside and discuss what OP asked and what the various organisations give for their money

And where...discounting the BDS and the CA as neither is a "shooting organisation" per se as primary purpose....you'd spend his money in 2016 and why?

 

[Taff]

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 don,t know how much time you have spent in the USA ( I don,t mean Disney) but the majority of people don,t carry guns on a daily basis. As you will know most gun deaths are gang on gang, or police/ guard on criminals. I have visited East St. Louis, where if you wander in the wrong area, you have a very good chance of being mugged, usually at knife point, even though guns are freely available, mind you I also found Brixton, perry bar and moss side to be just as intimidating.
Try working in some of the worst parts of Sutton where they attempt to drop paving slabs and TVs on the grass cutters below, yes the UK is a peaceful place to live.
We have very strict gun control in the UK, is it preventing gun crime ? If you mix in the wrong circles or want to commit a crime, no.
Should we allow people to carry guns like Mobil phones to defend themselves, No , and much like the USA , we don,t need to defend ourselves.
And as for Obama, remember his words " we will close quantanamo bay" because it would get him elected, it's still there.

 

[willie_gunn]

So can we put these aside and discuss what OP asked and what the various organisations give for their money

And where...discounting the BDS and the CA as neither is a "shooting organisation" per se as primary purpose....you'd spend his money in 2016 and why?

I thought that's where I was with posts #63 and #64

If you look at the current organisations it is very much the case of choosing the best of a bad job.

BASC, BDS, CA, GWCT, NGO, NRA, SACS - each is a compromise, each has its own strengths and each has its own weaknesses. Discussing any will inevitably lead to a "yes but" rebuttal for why they might be the best. If asked why we've ended up with this number of organisations, I'd say it's largely because the UK shooting community is divided, dissatisfied and disorganised, and seemingly happier to focus on the problems of the past than the challenges of the future. So when it comes to shooting organisations we largely get what we deserve.

The inevitable result is that the OP is very unlikely to find one organisation that "ticks all the boxes", so he should not rely on what he reads on Internet forums but instead do a little objective and independent research and settle on the one organisation that is most closely aligned with his particular interests and opinions. Like many, he may then find this results in belonging to more than one of the above.
Whichever he invests in, he deserves a for giving it some thought and caring about where his money goes and what it's used for.

 

[BRYAN]

Hello Chaps.
Thanks for the contributions,it has been most interesting.
We have quite a line-up of orgs inthe UK and as mentioned they each cater to differing views and shooting types etc.
From the USA we only really hear of their NRA. Does US NRA speak for everyone whatever type of gun/firearm,disipline?
I am happy to carry on with BDS for it's work with "deer welfare" until such time that they blatently go anti-shooting, which they invariably will as soon as it suits them to do so.
I wish the UK NRA had not gone down the snobby/creeparse route of anti-auto and anti pistol that they did.
The UK orgs just don't seem to get out there on our behalves which is a bit gauling with Basc that like to think of themselves as the leader. And they asked us for extra cash to pay for a comunications centre,did that ever get up and running.
At the moment I am leaning towards BDS,NGO and the two shooting clubs that I belong to. And just remembered I joined the US NRA but yet to receive anything.

Thanks for inputs Bryan.

 

[willie_gunn]

The US has more than just the NRA - Ducks Unlimited is just one example - but US culture (and money) has led to the NRA being the dominant force to be reckoned with.

 

[Dalua]

Which position?

You are a mischeivous fellow! I refer, of course, to the position that their citizens may own guns, in most parts of the country at least, with relatively little interference from the State.

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?

I'm sure they'll be touched by your concern as to the view the world takes of them, but this is all red-herring stuff distracting us from the assumption that as the US has high gun-crime rates and there are lots of firearms lawfully held by the public; that therefore if they reduced the number of lawfully-held firearms in the hands of the public, gun-crime would come down.
I'm not at all persuaded that something as complex at 'gun crime' rates can really be boiled down to so simple a remedy.

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?

I've posted this link before, but it bears repeating http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn043.htm
It is fairly clear that our firearms laws, even those introduced ostensibly in response to particular horrific and high-profile gun crimes, have never been particularly targeted at 'gun crime' in general. Nor is it possible reasonably to conclude that our rates of gun crime are lower relative to those of the US because of our current legislation.

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

I hope that this interpretation of my position is clear only to you.
I think my persistent arguement that lawful firearms-users should not sell other lawful firearms-users down the river simply because they don't see a need for the others' firearms of choice is quite a long way from this imputation.

 

[Conure]

Something to bear in mind is this secure storage of firearms that the authorities are very keen on. A firearm locked away is of little use when the home invasion happens. The Police are seen as the clean up crew that arrive nearly always after the event if they arrive at all. Home invasion is a term in some states laws it seems. Drugs are often at the root of the prblems and crime and these very drugs are illegal yet that does not stop it happening. I think you will find that self defence used to be a good reason to own a pistol in the UK.

Back onto the original topic I find myself wondering as to who I should join and give my money to. Many years ago it was the CPSA, NRA and BASC as I held membership of all three but have not held any for a long time now.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

No MS I think there is a welfare issue shooting with in the laws as they are and when asked BDS will not answer because there main man up to recently filled his boots shooting with DCS. So we have a welfare charity that has its hands tide behind its back because it sipped from the golden virgina. NOT GOOD and I will say it again the BDS is now not fit for purpose in Scotland.I also now there are good men in the charity that have been hushed.
I don't read there Mag or go on there web site I will wait till they return to there old values.

So what deer welfare issues to you perceive there are within the current laws?
Surely you have approached the DCS (SNH) direct?
MS

 

[kes]

A single organisation is needed IMHO if only for the lobbying power. For me its not BASC but some new body which takes shooters from all the existing orgs. NGO came about because of BASC's lack of focus on keepers and for me its learnt the lessons BASC has yet to.
I prefer my experts to be non-salaried and eyes wide open. But thats just my view.

 

[countrryboy]

No MS I think there is a welfare issue shooting with in the laws as they are and when asked BDS will not answer because there main man up to recently filled his boots shooting with DCS. So we have a welfare charity that has its hands tide behind its back because it sipped from the golden virgina. NOT GOOD and I will say it again the BDS is now not fit for purpose in Scotland.I also now there are good men in the charity that have been hushed.
I don't read there Mag or go on there web site I will wait till they return to there old values.

Ur entitled to ur opinion but i really cannae see any welfare issue. Mibee the BDS are of the same opinion??

I persume ur refering to night licences but really can't see any welfare issues is done following best practice that don't exist in daytime.
Not that i want to start/bring up night shooting again or derail thread any further if that was possible but wot are these serious welfare issues?? Not sure u've ever enlarged on them


Amazing how a thread about which org is best can go from that to rights/wrongs of americain firearms law and night shooting

 

[sikamalc]

Gentlemen,

As you will see I have removed one post as it is in my opinion verging on slanderous. BDS is a charity, it is a non profit making organisation, having run a charity myself I can tell you that it is not easy. YES it is very similar to running a business with one arm tied behind your back, that defines a charity I am afraid.

Any further accusations on an open forum will be dealt with.

 

[jimo]

You are a mischeivous fellow! I refer, of course, to the position that their citizens may own guns, in most parts of the country at least, with relatively little interference from the State.
Nor is it possible reasonably to conclude that our rates of gun crime are lower relative to those of the US because of our current legislation.


I think it is. If firearm ownership without secure storage is high surely more will fall into the wrong hands.

 

[Dalua]

I think it is.

OK, but why do you think that?

If firearm ownership without secure storage is high surely more will fall into the wrong hands.

That might also be true, but I don't think it explains why gun-crime rates are higher in the US than here - unless availability of guns to criminals is the rate-limiting step for gun-crime - which as far asI can tell it really isn't, otherwise we'd have more gun crime here.

Anyhow...

But....this can be argued on and on. And has been on this Forum. And we'll never agree.
So can we put these aside and discuss what OP asked and what the various organisations give for their money

As Mr Spares says:
I don't know which organsation to be with, really. My default since age 15 has been BASC, but I wonder whether a change would be a good idea.
I was a member of the Shooters' Rights Association as well as BASC in the mid '80s, but I allowed this and the BASC to lapse while at university and renewed the BASC when I had the cash to do a bit of shooting again a few years later.
I'm interested to read the views of those who've experience other than BASC.

 

[countrryboy]

To be honest Dulua, i've been in BASC for almost 30 years as well as BFSS when i was a boy and now SGA as well as basc.

U get a better mag with BASC (althou i often don't really read it) and there is a lot of back up advice if u need it.
Some will debate how pro-active they are but there not bad really.
A lot of folk like to kick basc for some quite strange bizzare reasons, and its easy, they sometimes don't help themselves

The CA deserve some praise for the way they dealt witth LAG, i previously would off thought they would sell shooting down river to save hunting but are targetting shooters far more.

Both SGA/NGO do a lot of good behind scenes working with governments and half price of basc for similar ins. So if u want to save money they're still doing a bit for shooting.

 

[nick.308]

BASC cover at £72 a year isn't that bad is it?
I pay over £3000 for my professional insurance every year!

 

[Dalua]

BASC cover at £72 a year isn't that bad is it?
I pay over £3000 for my professional insurance every year!

Have you asked BASC whether they can extend their cover to your professional practice as well? It might only be £10 extra, and then you'd have saved £2990 per year.

On the other hand, perhaps the actuarial risks associated with you professional practice make the higher premium a commercial necessity.
Worth asking though?

 

[Monkey Spanker]

I left BASC a couple of years ago as their insurance didn't cover me for professional activity. BDS did cover up to £5000 earnings at the time, but I ended up with Cliverton for pro stalking insurance. As I result I had some good communication with BASC (David on here) and I suggested how they should maybe look at different levels of insurance to suit individual needs. Well bugger me if they didn't then come up with 3 different levels of insurance much as we discussed! So they clearly do listen and react to their membership! I'm still with Cliverton at present (and BDS just as a member), but I'll review the BASC one when it comes up for renewal and probably give them my support once again as they do give substantially more than just insurance!
MS

 

[kes]

Anyone got a profile of membership cost increases over the years ? Worth a look one might suggest.
Membership of the ICE only cost £130 annually.
Professional indemnity insurance is a whole different ballgame by the way. As if you didnt know that !

 

[Taff]

I think I am losing the will to live, bugger the insurance, people need to be members so we can fight to protect our rights. I am a member and I don,t even live in the UK.

 

[PointBlank]

I think I am losing the will to live, bugger the insurance, people need to be members so we can fight to protect our rights. I am a member and I don,t even live in the UK.

Same here. My opinion is if most of these organisations truly cared about being the strongest voice for shooting they would amalgamate as being in smaller groups trying to poach each other's members isn't going to do anyone any good other than their Chief Executive.
I am with BASC because they have always seemed the most professional offering to represent shooters, that is in addition to me having separate commercial insurance. Cancelled my BDS membership a couple of years ago as I couldn't see what they actually did for me.