Foxes, baseball bats, and gross stupidity...

Premium Gun Accessories - Ammo Fusion
Frank Homes said:
My uncle always told me never waste a shotgun cartridge on a fox in a snare.

F
Click to expand...
Your uncle obviously knew little about the legal snaring practices of today. You obviously have no awareness of the sensitivity of their use either in the current climate.
Your comments are nor positive or helpful to those who use snares legally on a daily basis as part of moorland management. This thread is nothing to do with snares.
 
Last edited:
Give it a few months I’ll be able to scroll any one of several Facebook groups and see cubs blown to pieces with their guts and brains hanging out.
If we want to look at bad publicity we should start there!
 
Slow news day. The fires in Australia rumble on. A plane crash in Kazakhstan is a bit remote and nobody British was on board. Something needed to outrage the public around the Boxing day hunting/shooting stuff that's a bit new. The Duke of Edinburgh is a bit past his fox kicking days now, so let's see. A toff clobbering a fox with a baseball bat. Ideal.
 
Tumble Annealing said:
Give it a few months I’ll be able to scroll any one of several Facebook groups and see cubs blown to pieces with their guts and brains hanging out.
If we want to look at bad publicity we should start there!
Click to expand...

Really facebook has been cracking down on that for some time. Which group in particular are you referring to? PM if you don't want it made public.
 
Dalua said:
Even if humane dispatch were not good reason enough, are you not allowed to have and carry whatever lawfully-possessible item you like within the curtilage of your dwellinghouse?
Click to expand...

That's questionable (in my understanding - (I am not a lawyer).
If you carry a kitchen knife around then you are committing an offence, unless you are in a kitchen, at this point you have 'good reason'.
If you hang a baseball bat by the front door or keep one by the bed with the sole purpose of bashing a burglars head in, (ie it was there for that reason) then it is a weapon used in a premeditated way.

If the Hon QC had used a piece of 2x2 that was simply laying around (from when he constructed the chicken shed) or an axe (that he used to chop wood) or a knife (from the kitchen) all would be well but if he has a baseball bat laying around, the prime purpose of which is to bash in unsuspecting heads (aka he's been watching to many mafia/street gang movies) then I suspect he's in deep sh*t, even though it was a fox and not a person....

Of course he/his son/daughter/partner may be an avid baseball player and using the bat was the nearest and most reasonable choice.

Remember Tony Martin ... linky
 
There's no law about having offensive weapons at home. (so long as it's not something that's illegal to possess anyway (a Bren gun, for example). The definition of being in possession of an offensive weapon includes "in a public place".

In theory, therefore, if you keep a baseball bat beside your front door, there's nothing (legally) wrong with that. Morally though? Perhaps another matter. And if you were to use it, other considerations come into play.
 
wirehair said:
It doesn't matter if he is a shooter or not, this type of publicity can and will be used as a tool against the shooting fraternity.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that the folks who read about this would all be saying that if it had to be killed then a gun would be better.
 
Miki said:
If you carry a kitchen knife around then you are committing an offence, unless you are in a kitchen, at this point you have 'good reason'.
Click to expand...
In public, yes - in your own home/garden you can do what you like, I think.

Miki said:
If you hang a baseball bat by the front door or keep one by the bed with the sole purpose of bashing a burglars head in, (ie it was there for that reason) then it is a weapon used in a premeditated way.
Click to expand...
Well, yes - it that's a use he had actually put it to then questions might be asked. However, I think we are all free to keep our sports-equipment wherever we like in out own homes.

Miki said:
If the Hon QC had used a piece of 2x2 that was simply laying around (from when he constructed the chicken shed) or an axe (that he used to chop wood) or a knife (from the kitchen) all would be well but if he has a baseball bat laying around, the prime purpose of which is to bash in unsuspecting heads (aka he's been watching to many mafia/street gang movies) then I suspect he's in deep sh*t, even though it was a fox and not a person.....
Click to expand...
I think the points here are
1. that he has not hit any person with the baseball-bat
2. That it is lawful to own a baseball-bat

Miki said:
Of course he/his son/daughter/partner may be an avid baseball player and using the bat was the nearest and most reasonable choice.
Click to expand...
Of course!


Miki said:
Remember Tony Martin ... linky
Click to expand...
I do - but I can't see any relationship between the two occurrences.
 
There's no law about having offensive weapons at home. (so long as it's not something that's illegal to possess anyway (a Bren gun, for example). The definition of being in possession of an offensive weapon includes "in a public place".
Click to expand...


PEDRO as usual is correct. Lord Lloyd 1953 Offensive Weapons Bill: "It should be noted a person who remains on his own property may with impunity go around positively festooned with weapons. He will be committing no offence under this Bill".
 
Miki said:

If you carry a kitchen knife around then you are committing an offence, unless you are in a kitchen, at this point you have 'good reason'.
In public, yes - in your own home/garden you can do what you like, I think.
Click to expand...
Sorry I wasn't clear in my musings .....
Yes, that was my point :)


Miki said:

If you hang a baseball bat by the front door or keep one by the bed with the sole purpose of bashing a burglars head in, (ie it was there for that reason) then it is a weapon used in a premeditated way.
Well, yes - it that's a use he had actually put it to then questions might be asked. However, I think we are all free to keep our sports-equipment wherever we like in out own homes.

We are - that was the point too (is it sports equipment, or, is it by its purpose a weapon ?)


Miki said:

If the Hon QC had used a piece of 2x2 that was simply laying around (from when he constructed the chicken shed) or an axe (that he used to chop wood) or a knife (from the kitchen) all would be well but if he has a baseball bat laying around, the prime purpose of which is to bash in unsuspecting heads (aka he's been watching to many mafia/street gang movies) then I suspect he's in deep sh*t, even though it was a fox and not a person.....

I think the points here are
1. that he has not hit any person with the baseball-bat
2. That it is lawful to own a baseball-bat

Your right again - he beat a fox to death with it, not a person ... (I did say that)
Yes it is lawful to own a baseball bat, even if you don't or never have played baseball, however I believe it's questionable if you have purposed that bit of sports equipment as a weapon and have intent to use it as such.

The question is will furry fox lovers leap to that conclusion .... and if they do he will be in a sea of bother.
Miki said:
Of course he/his son/daughter/partner may be an avid baseball player and using the bat was the nearest and most reasonable choice.
Click to expand...
Of course!
Then there isn't a problem ... :)

Miki said:

Remember Tony Martin ... linky

I do - but I can't see any relationship between the two occurrences.


It changed/defined the law . In that you can't use unreasonable force, your right perhaps not the best example of what I was trying to say. My point was that I don't think you can purpose a bat or a chainsaw, or a knife to use as a weapon if anyone were to attempt a break in and then (in this case) grab it to beat a fox to death.

Does that make more sense, or have I reached the bottom and should stop digging ?
:coat:
 
Rake Aboot said:
Struggling to see what he did wrong.
Most people put their daily doings on social media, this guy just did what most other would have done. God knows I've killed a few foxes with a spade, and now i've said it on the internet, !! omg vilify me , hurry !!
Click to expand...

exactly once again the shooting ilk getting their knickers in a twist over something nothing to do with them and hoping that if they don’t ever post on social media that they had the audacity to kill something the libtards will just give up and go home....
 
Miki said:
My point was that I don't think you can purpose a bat or a chainsaw, or a knife to use as a weapon if anyone were to attempt a break in and then (in this case) grab it to beat a fox to death.

Does that make more sense, or have I reached the bottom and should stop digging ?
:coat:
Click to expand...


I think the problem is the concept of a lawfully-possesed inanimate item in one's own home being turned by process of thought or intent into 'a weapon', a thing which seems somehow to be then unlawful, or at least morally questionable.

I think it's fair to say thay if one kept a baseball-bat by the bed with the intention of using it to beat an intruder and then did so, questions might be raised even if the beating were not an unreasonable use of force.

However, as it is lawful humanely to dispatch an animal in distress I think there might be a degree of inappropriate extrapolation from laws relating to one circumstance to those relating to this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
PSE Composites Limited - The next level Rifle Stocks
Back
Top