Op Titanium

PSE Composites Limited - The next level Rifle Stocks
nun_hunter said:
The difference is how easy and impersonal a firearm can make it. Having had to finish off a badly shot fox cub with a knife is something that has stayed with me ever since while shooting foxes doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Click to expand...
That's interesting.
It makes no difference to me emotionally how I kill something, provided that it's done as efficiently as I can with what I've got to hand under the circumstances.
In the situation you describe, I would have been emotionally affected by the poor shooting (because that caused the suffering) but not the finishing off with a knife, because that was act of mercy. And there's been plenty of times I've killed large animals with just a knife, no firearm being handy.
 
VSS said:
That's interesting.
It makes no difference to me emotionally how I kill something, provided that it's done as efficiently as I can with what I've got to hand under the circumstances.
In the situation you describe, I would have been emotionally affected by the poor shooting (because that caused the suffering) but not the finishing off with a knife, because that was act of mercy. And there's been plenty of times I've killed large animals with just a knife, no firearm being handy.
Click to expand...
Agreed, its more about the guilt involved in a bad shot not resulting in a humane dispatch.
I was with a guy once who took a fox at around 100 yards, we both walked over to retrieve it, and approaching it , the once immobile animal it started to drag itself around, he had hit it in the pelvis, I had no gun , no knife, I had to strangle it with my boot rather than see its suffering prolonged.
It didnt bother me as I hadnt caused the situation, but the man who shot it, was frozen and remarked he wasnt cut out for fox control.
He wasnt, and didnt come out again on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VSS
VSS said:
That's interesting.
It makes no difference to me emotionally how I kill something, provided that it's done as efficiently as I can with what I've got to hand under the circumstances.
In the situation you describe, I would have been emotionally affected by the poor shooting (because that caused the suffering) but not the finishing off with a knife, because that was act of mercy. And there's been plenty of times I've killed large animals with just a knife, no firearm being handy.
Click to expand...
It was early on on my shooting career and a small fox cub so very cute looking and yes the poor shot (well a very tough bullet on a ting animal didn't help) did sharpen up decision making in the future. Since then I've dispatched many chickens, turkeys, sheep and pigs (some very young too) and none of that has bothered me but for some reason the cub stays with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VSS
Rewulf said:
Agreed, its more about the guilt involved in a bad shot not resulting in a humane dispatch.
I was with a guy once who took a fox at around 100 yards, we both walked over to retrieve it, and approaching it , the once immobile animal it started to drag itself around, he had hit it in the pelvis, I had no gun , no knife, I had to strangle it with my boot rather than see its suffering prolonged.
It didnt bother me as I hadnt caused the situation, but the man who shot it, was frozen and remarked he wasnt cut out for fox control.
He wasnt, and didnt come out again on them.
Click to expand...
Did you only have one round of ammo with you that night :-|, completely serious, I'm not trying to be a clever dick, it's just that if I wound a fox at night, and it happens to the best of us, I'm happy to do a point blank dispatch if needs must.
 
C h r i s said:
Maybe no "hidden" agenda, but certainly an agenda. 1. Reduce the number of firearms in civilian hands. I've been advised of this by numerous FEO's across the UK over the last 3+ years, some are taking it to extremes.
Click to expand...
This is such complete and utter rubbish. There are several serving (and retired) FEO’s on this forum who will all tell you that this is complete twaddle.
 
Bo Diddley said:
Did you only have one round of ammo with you that night :-|, completely serious, I'm not trying to be a clever dick, it's just that if I wound a fox at night, and it happens to the best of us, I'm happy to do a point blank dispatch if needs must.
Click to expand...
It was a 200 yard round trip back to the guns, across a sloped muddy field in the dark , you have to work with what you have.
If I had any inkling it was wounded, I would have told him to put another one in it , or bought my own gun for despatch.
I shoot a lot of foxes, and other stuff, they very rarely need anything other than the one bullet.
 
ColinJ said:
This is such complete and utter rubbish. There are several serving (and retired) FEO’s on this forum who will all tell you that this is complete twaddle.
Click to expand...

Really, so are these FEOs just blatantly lying to me? Or you are saying I'm just making this up on a public forum? How dare you.
 
Last edited:
I don't feel that FEO's are being asked to reduce the number of weapons owned by people. I know one client who has over 150 rifles, all ex military, all working. I have also personally never had a refusal of any rifle I have asked for, and that includes 2 of the same calibre.

So lets stop the petty arguments on this thread please.
 
BobJones said:
Hi,

So section 11(5) of the 1968 Act & section 16 of the 1988 Act (entitled; “Borrowed rifles on private premises”) has been repealed and replaced with section 11A (inserted by the Policing & Crime Act 2017). Section 16 was referred to as the ‘estate rifle exemption’ but it was an unofficial description.

The term ‘servant’ is not relevant to lending rifles (it is only relevant to employees of firearms dealers) and nor is ‘occupier’ as this was a term in section 16 (now repealed). It was a word that caused so much upset that it led to the new 11A to avoid use of what was viewed as an ambiguous word.

11A has three parts to it…..

S11A (1) - A person (“the borrower”) may, without holding a certificate under this Act, borrow a rifle or shot gun from another person on private premises (“the lender”) and have the rifle or shot gun in his or her possession on those premises if—

(a) the four conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) are met, and

(b) in the case of a rifle, the borrower is aged 17 or over.

(2) The first condition is that the borrowing and possession of the rifle or shot gun are for either or both of the following purposes—

(a) hunting animals or shooting game or vermin;

(b) shooting at artificial targets.

(3) The second condition is that the lender—

(a) is aged 18 or over,

(b) holds a certificate under this Act in respect of the rifle or shot gun, and

(c) is either—

(i) a person who has a right to allow others to enter the premises for the purposes of hunting animals or shooting game or vermin, or

(ii) a person who is authorised in writing by a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) to lend the rifle or shot gun on the premises (whether generally or to persons specified in the authorisation who include the borrower).

So there we have it. A clear new rifle exemption that you can now easily apply to every quarry or target situation whether it be shooting over land or ranges, indoors or out.

Hope this
Click to expand...
 
VSS said:
The question I was talking about referred specifically to a "joint" bank account. A joint account would be accessible by both partners, equally. Nothing there to do with control. In fact, I would say that where partners keep all of their money in joint accounts this is indicative of a trusting, loving, sharing relationship. There is no need for partners in a stable relationship to have separate bank accounts. To me, if partners feel that they need separate bank accounts, that indicate that perhaps the relationship isn't so stable after all.
Click to expand...
I was always of the same belief as you but by my understanding is if one of the couple needs care you will have to spend a lot of the joint money before the government steps in. So my belief is you should keep the money 50/50 in separate accounts.
 
At my last renewal in 2021 my other half happened to be at my house. Coincidentally she knew the FEO they having been work colleagues some years before. In conversation he asked how she felt about me being a shooter, having guns etc. Her positive reply that it was 'my thing' and 'what I did' was received and acknowledged without comment. If correct the Op Titanium questions would seem a bit of a step too far especially if they are sprung on an unprepared respondent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
STOLEN VANS !
Replies
0
Views
311
jall55
J
Just when you thought Countryfile was softening towards shooting…
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
hendrix's rifle
hendrix's rifle
Introduction
Replies
3
Views
98
Chris Richardson
C
Bag of guns
2 3
Replies
41
Views
1K
tackb
tackb
BASC announced as official partner of The Stalking Show
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
4K
palmer_mike
palmer_mike
Savage 110 Carbon Tactical - Unmatched Precision - Viking Arms
Back
Top