What is the best way to beat the antis?

  • Shooting organisations should work together to combat the antis

    Votes: 65 87.8%
  • Shooting organisations should work individually to combat antis

    Votes: 6 8.1%
  • Shooting organisations are a waste of money, do nothing instead

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Join at least one shooting organisation

    Votes: 34 45.9%
  • Write to MPs, news media etc.

    Votes: 35 47.3%
  • Use social media to promote shooting & counter misinformation from antis

    Votes: 48 64.9%

  • Total voters
    74
  • Poll closed .

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
Shooting in general is under constant threat, whether it is politicians and their ever more restrictive gun & wildlife laws, or from very well resourced campaign groups like Wild Justice, but how to we address this threat? Personally I believe that it helps to be a member of at least one shooting organisation and that collectively they should co-operate together like they have recently done successfully over the General Licences. But what do others think? Here's a short poll - more than one choice allowed.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
You will never "beat the Antis" but you might change a persons point of view through education.

I think it best to answer criticism with positive example and logic and on a one to one basis. The organisations are working on a different level but I can do my bit with the people I meet.

I have yet to meet any vegetarian who did not accept my moral stance on being a meat eater provided I was prepared to kill and butcher myself rather than delegate the nasty bits to someone else in order to buy a plastic wrapped joint from Tesco.

I argue the honourable status of the hunter gatherer and my natural kinship with such as the bushmen of the Kalahari.

We can only deal with people. By lumping them together as "Antis" and projecting negative stereotypes on to them, one is just running away from actual interaction which is the only opportunity we have to change any attitudes.

And we won't do it with the attitude that "they" are somehow sub-human.

The title of this thread is a case in point. And @timbrayford 's intro underlines it. There are those opposed to shooting for a whole variety of reasons, so the only way to persuade any individual issue is by arguing against those particular reasons with appropriate arguments. The invective we witness on here is akin to joining in with the school bully taunting the weak kid...childish and pointless and does nothing for us or our position. How many times do we see posts on here just name calling people with a different point of view as Scum, Unwashed, Townies, Spongers, Do-gooders, Tree huggers and the rest...what is the point? It is just prejudice of the same sort that those railing on here are accusing the "Antis" of.

The fox hunting with hounds opposition includes my 95 year old mum who has, and had, many friends who hunted. But nonetheless she was opposed to it even before she had her fences broken down and hens scattered and some missing when the pack went through the village and her garden...how and why is she scum?

We must also be aware of making it a black and white "them and us" situation. There are some things which I cannot support from a logical point of view, and I know that many others on here have their own misgivings about some activities...quite rightly so. We should not accept that our enemies friends are always our enemies or that our enemies enemies are always our friends! Too many nuances.

Some "Antis" are opposed to killing any Badgers, but I have had no problem getting agreement from them when I have said that I too believe the current cull policy is flawed because it ignores the findings of the DEFRA trials 20 years ago. DEFRA found that reactive culls were the most effective. Most who were initially absolutely opposed to any killing, seem able to accept the logic....that if you remove the likely infected Badgers in the area surrounding the farms/herds with TB reactors, you end up with a healthy population of both Badgers and cattle. With just a random cull, although you will reduce the incidence of TB exchange it will take much longer and be less efficient because you may just be killing healthy animals and making space for infected ones to come in. Sure the badger numbers are generally too high in my view from the bumble bee and hedgehog damage...but by defusing the emotive element with logic and science you do not create "Antis".

The increased complexity of the firearms licensing system is introduced in the wake of the media incited outcry after every misuse of firearms...but I have met no-one yet who is not able to appreciate that it is the person who commits the atrocity and not the implement. Ask why motor vehicles are not equally feared and ownership restricted after they are used to plough into a bus queue or Westminster Bridge pedestrians. And I argued that before the terrorists actually used them...I argue that while the politicians can divert public attention by creating further obstacles to legitimate gun ownership, they can ignore the need for investing in mental healthcare and disenfranchised communities which are creating the "them and us" situation exploited by the radicals.

There are as many factors and as many possible solutions as there are "Antis".

Our only hope is logic and persuasion on an individual basis, and for me like charity it begins at home.

Alan
 
Last edited:

countrryboy

Well-Known Member
A very good post by Alan above.

Just to add while in theory the 1 big club/org may seem a great idea, but it would never work in practice.
Ignoring internal politics and money, shooting or fields ports just covers far too wide a spectrum of folk and activities never mind class or budgets ( folk shooting driven grouse to pigeon shooters/wildfowlers/dog men who get the sport for free)

It really wasn't that long ago u only had 2 orgs anyway, bfss and basc, it's only in relatively recent times all these splinter groups started because the 2 big orgs weren't representing some members views ( some hunts and rifle shooters will often be at odds with each other) and sadly too often some are happy to throw other sports under the bus far too easily, ( sometimes when they even participate in the same sport but at a smaller scale, say commercial game shoots)

If u were to make up some wonder org chances are it would look very similar to basc, ie supposedly member led, regional staff/offices, offering advice education plus lobbying and educating non shooters

Just look on the hunting thread to see the massive differences off opinion and that's al by folk who do have deer stalking in common


As for the future, really ALL the orgs need to grow a pair and be far more proactive, both in the benefits for wildlife etc and in tackling 'fake' news.
Education is the key and the only way forward, both of kids and general public but also targeted at certain occupations/places ( say jornos, MPs and environmental bodies as well as universities offering those courses)
I don't think 1 org will ever happen esp now with social media, to easy for dissenting voices to be heard.
But I do think they should form a unified front/arm to help with the education and all pitch in, even charge a fee added to subs across the board off all orgs for an educational ffund
 

reloader54

Well-Known Member
but they are Sub-human,, in the sense of they are,
1, subversive= subversive definition - Google Search

and 2, human

and the majority are devoid of reasoning, they simply will not listen

they will turn up at perfectly legal venues often trespassing and disrupt it as violently as needed to get someone to retaliate and then film the result. many are indeed unwashed, almost all wear masks and often armed with bats,crowbars, ammonia in squeezy bottles which they claim is to mask the foxes scent but comes in handy to spray a riders and people trying to "reason" with them.
if the media showed all the antics and not just the in house edited version by the sabs people would have a truly different opinion of them.
I'm no stranger to a fight and I'm telling you from experience these are not the "victims" they pretend to be, these are accomplished thugs and bullies just looking for a target.

the general public are largely uninformed about most things until it's stuck under their noses, or it affects them directly and for the most part couldn't care less until that point. just take a look at the politicians of today,, everyone knows and has a comment about Boris,s hair or trumps gaffs, or moggs manner of speech, or Abbotts mathematical prowess, fewer could talk about their policies or party aims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
but they are Sub-human,, in the sense of they are,
1, subversive= subversive definition - Google Search

and 2, human

And?

What is the advantage to shooting to define "them" thus?

How does it defend shooting?

Who are the sub-humans to whom you refer? Those who are anti shooting foxes with rifles...like some members of the CA?

How is this thread not calling us to subvert the perceived "institution" of those opposed to shooting?

My point is that by failing to identify that there are individual arguments against aspects of shooting we have no hope of countering them.

Pointless generalisation and antagonistic and derogatory phrasing is not helping our position.

We cannot beat the "Antis" because they do not exist as a consolidated coherent body. Neither do we.

We can only deal with the individual issues one at a time.

Alan
 

TomT3

Well-Known Member
You will never "beat the Antis" but you might change a persons point of view through education.

I think it best to answer criticism with positive example and logic and on a one to one basis. The organisations are working on a different level but I can do my bit with the people I meet.

I have yet to meet any vegetarian who did not accept my moral stance on being a meat eater provided I was prepared to kill and butcher myself rather than delegate the nasty bits to someone else in order to buy a plastic wrapped joint from Tesco.

I argue the honourable status of the hunter gatherer and my natural kinship with such as the bushmen of the Kalahari.

We can only deal with people. By lumping them together as "Antis" and projecting negative stereotypes on to them, one is just running away from actual interaction which is the only opportunity we have to change any attitudes.

And we won't do it with the attitude that "they" are somehow sub-human.

The title of this thread is a case in point. And @timbrayford 's intro underlines it. There are those opposed to shooting for a whole variety of reasons, so the only way to persuade any individual issue is by arguing against those particular reasons with appropriate arguments. The invective we witness on here is akin to joining in with the school bully taunting the weak kid...childish and pointless and does nothing for us or our position. How many times do we see posts on here just name calling people with a different point of view as Scum, Unwashed, Townies, Spongers, Do-gooders, Tree huggers and the rest...what is the point? It is just prejudice of the same sort that those railing on here are accusing the "Antis" of.

The fox hunting with hounds opposition includes my 95 year old mum who has, and had, many friends who hunted. But nonetheless she was opposed to it even before she had her fences broken down and hens scattered and some missing when the pack went through the village and her garden...how and why is she scum?

We must also be aware of making it a black and white "them and us" situation. There are some things which I cannot support from a logical point of view, and I know that many others on here have their own misgivings about some activities...quite rightly so. We should not accept that our enemies friends are always our enemies or that our enemies enemies are always our friends! Too many nuances.

Some "Antis" are opposed to killing any Badgers, but I have had no problem getting agreement from them when I have said that I too believe the current cull policy is flawed because it ignores the findings of the DEFRA trials 20 years ago. DEFRA found that reactive culls were the most effective. Most who were initially absolutely opposed to any killing, seem able to accept the logic....that if you remove the likely infected Badgers in the area surrounding the farms/herds with TB reactors, you end up with a healthy population of both Badgers and cattle. With just a random cull, although you will reduce the incidence of TB exchange it will take much longer and be less efficient because you may just be killing healthy animals and making space for infected ones to come in. Sure the badger numbers are generally too high in my view from the bumble bee and hedgehog damage...but by defusing the emotive element with logic and science you do not create "Antis".

The increased complexity of the firearms licensing system is introduced in the wake of the media incited outcry after every misuse of firearms...but I have met no-one yet who is not able to appreciate that it is the person who commits the atrocity and not the implement. Ask why motor vehicles are not equally feared and ownership restricted after they are used to plough into a bus queue or Westminster Bridge pedestrians. And I argued that before the terrorists actually used them...I argue that while the politicians can divert public attention by creating further obstacles to legitimate gun ownership, they can ignore the need for investing in mental healthcare and disenfranchised communities which are creating the "them and us" situation exploited by the radicals.

There are as many factors and as many possible solutions as there are "Antis".

Our only hope is logic and persuasion on an individual basis, and for me like charity it begins at home.

Alan
Absolutely brilliant post Alan-knowledge is power, if certain people spent as much time educating antis or potential antis as they do slagging off shooting organisations and antis in general we may actually start to get somewhere . Everyone is entitled to their opinion (including antis unfortunately) it’s just the complete ignorance that most base their argument on that I hate.
 

reloader54

Well-Known Member
And?

What is the advantage to shooting to define "them" thus?

How does it defend shooting?

Who are the sub-humans to whom you refer? Those who are anti shooting foxes with rifles...like some members of the CA?

How is this thread not calling us to subvert the perceived "institution" of those opposed to shooting?

My point is that by failing to identify that there are individual arguments against aspects of shooting. Pointless generalisation and antagonistic and derogatory phrasing is not helping our position.

We cannot beat the "Antis" because they do not exist as a consolidated coherent body. Neither do we.

We can only deal with the individual issues one at a time.

Alan

you seem to want answers to questions that weren't asked, and add things that were not even referred to.

some people would argue with a woman about how to insert a tampon.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
and the majority are devoid of reasoning, they simply will not listen

You know this for a fact? You have evidence and are personally aware of the attitude and inflexibility of the majority of those opposed to shooting?

Do you Bollocks. It is a pointless generalisation.

Look in a mirror.

There are a number of philosophical concepts which I find useful.

Do unto others and you would be done by...give "them" the credit of similar intelligence and passion perhaps.

Look for the best in people and you will find it...look for the worst and you will find that too. I know which one I prefer to live with.

Alan
 
Last edited:

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
you seem to want answers to questions that weren't asked, and add things that were not even referred to.

some people would argue with a woman about how to insert a tampon.

This is a thread about how to counter the arguments of those opposed to shooting....it is a question that you have chosen not to answer or engage with for some reason.

What is with the Tampon reference?

Alan
 

Top