Think "paying Danegeld" of promoting the end of lead will make anti-shooting campaigns go away?

[opticron1]

To get back to the original post - will it make the anti's go away? Nope.......the avoidance of a potentially toxic substance in the environment (lead) was never aimed at satisfying the anti field sports brigade. The gullible and deluded clowns who follow Packham and Wild Justice will never care about anything other than a complete ban on shooting/hunting and eventually fishing.
The whole lead free ammo debate is more from the Health and Safety Executive and is purely to avoid even more lead being put into the environment to reduce the impact on birdlife in particular and nature in general. We can argue until we're blue in the face, but the rules are changing whether we like it or not - fishermen had this years ago and all (lead) split shot was banned above "dust shot" (size 8) - end of. Same arguments about the alternatives being less effective, but ultimately it made no difference.
If it makes selling venison and game easier to the general public all well and good. If you saw a piece of meat in a butchers saying it was killed with non toxic ammo, it might just encourage some new purchasers.
Arguing with each other isn't going to make any difference whatsoever as the legislation is coming whether we like it or not. What we should be doing is demanding the manufacturers start producing good, well priced alternatives, the clock is ticking towards 2029........

 

[enfieldspares]

I've always called them "weapons" as a generic term when it is easier to use (use one word rather than a half a dozen) that word than alternatives.

I have a "gun cabinet", I own "air rifles", I use "gun oil" and I clean my "12 bore" with "shotgun patches". I carry with "rifle" using a "rifle sling" and it and my shotguns travel in my car in their individual "gun slip" or "gun case". Or some shotguns get the benefit even (of what I am told is an incorrect term as they were used before cars were invented a "motor case").

But the boot of my car is where I lock my collective "weapons" - rifles, shotguns, air rifles, and once upon a time "pistols" - when travelling to and from a shoot, a range or a clay ground.

So there are times when I do use, as above, the collective word "weapons".

And FWIW before the Tory "handgun" ban the word "pistols" for many of use never used the Americanisation "handguns" but the one word "pistols" (a good British word is that) to describe BOTH self-loading and revolver type "weapons" designed to be held and used single handed.

So there's another thread tangent. Is it "handgun" or "pistol"?

 

[timbrayford]

I kind of agree with their statement that training should be completed prior to buying and airgun (or any). More specifically, firearms handling and safe shooting should be a compulsory (preactical) subject in every primary and secondary school without any option for the school or parents to opt out.

ps. And run by someone who knows what they’re talking about, like shooting the organisations, each their own part of the curriculum.

I agree, however right at the moment there appear to be enough contentious issues dividing the shooting community, the challenge bigger than lead bans will be the same kind of nonsense restrictions being placed on S2 that exist on S1 at the moment

 

[timbrayford]

"The whole lead free ammo debate is more from the Health and Safety Executive and is purely to avoid even more lead being put into the environment to reduce the impact on birdlife in particular and nature in general."
It does rather make the exclusion of the military from the phase out rather more puzzling given the presence of red listed birds, SSSIs and SPAs in and around military ranges, perhaps we can have access to their supplies of non-toxic lead, or is it just another ecological blind spot being ignored by our Government?

 

[timbrayford]

I've always called them "weapons" as a generic term when it is easier to use (use one word rather than a half a dozen) that word than alternatives.

I have a "gun cabinet", I own "air rifles", I use "gun oil" and I clean them with "shotgun patches". I carry with "rifle" using a "rifle sling" and it and my shotguns travel in my car in their individual "gun slip" or "gun case". Or some shotguns get the benefit even (of what I am told is an incorrect term as they were used before cars were invented a "motor case").

But the boot of my car is where I lock my collective "weapons" - rifles, shotguns, air rifles, and once upon a time "pistols" when travelling to an from a shoot, a range or a clay ground.

So there are times when I do use, as above, the collective word "weapons".

And FWIW before the Tory "handgun" ban the word "pistols" for many of use never used the Americanisation "handguns" but the one word "pistols" (a good British word is that) to describe BOTH self-loading and revolver type "weapons" designed to be held and used single handed.

So there's another thread tangent. Is it "handgun" or "pistol"?

Firearms Act uses the term "Pistol"

 

[VSS]

I agree with you on much of this, but is it the use or the original reason for the design that determines the term used?
Whatever, it doesn't matter to anyone else, the argument is not between non-shooters, only shooters seem to have an issue with this. It takes our focus away from any issue that is way more important.

To anyone else not in the shooting community it will be seen as a dangerous item whatever it is called, and highlighting the difference for them only draws more attention to the negative. The powers-that-be will always see them as weapons as that is what they were originally designed for (and what they are used as, in the majority of the non-FLD interactions with them), and hunters intend to cause harm (not unnecessary suffering) so all their/our firearms are not only designed as weapons, but are intended to be used as weapons.

We need to get over it and move on to more important things that can actually make a difference, and stop wasting time arguing amongst ourselves about this.

While we're at it, we could spend loads of time arguing if it is a licence or a certificate? After all, it is a Firearms Licensing system, and from a Firearms Licencing Department, but it is a Firearms Certificate I have in my hand.

I understand your point, but I do feel that the perpetuation of inappropriate language and incorrect terminology is far more damaging to the long-term continuation of our sport than the impending ban on lead ammo.
At the end of the day, it's public opinion influenced by perception that shapes policy, and it's up to us to ensure that the public's perception of what we do is both correct and positive.

 

[enfieldspares]

If it makes selling venison and game easier to the general public all well and good. If you saw a piece of meat in a butchers saying it was killed with non toxic ammo, it might just encourage some new purchasers.

Yes.

The housewife will be much encouraged when in three years time it is a labelled "lead free - but may likely contain shards of copper"

 

[timbrayford]

I agree with you on much of this, but is it the use or the original reason for the design that determines the term used?
Whatever, it doesn't matter to anyone else, the argument is not between non-shooters, only shooters seem to have an issue with this. It takes our focus away from any issue that is way more important.

To anyone else not in the shooting community it will be seen as a dangerous item whatever it is called, and highlighting the difference for them only draws more attention to the negative. The powers-that-be will always see them as weapons as that is what they were originally designed for (and what they are used as, in the majority of the non-FLD interactions with them), and hunters intend to cause harm (not unnecessary suffering) so all their/our firearms are not only designed as weapons, but are intended to be used as weapons.

We need to get over it and move on to more important things that can actually make a difference, and stop wasting time arguing amongst ourselves about this.

While we're at it, we could spend loads of time arguing if it is a licence or a certificate? After all, it is a Firearms Licensing system, and from a Firearms Licencing Department, but it is a Firearms Certificate I have in my hand.

Its a certificate, a conditional right under law, HO guidance might claim otherwise but within the firearms act it details your right of appeal against a refusal to grant, renew or a revocation and if successful the chief of police must comply with the court order

 

[timbrayford]

Yes.

The housewife will be much encouraged when in three years time it is a labelled "lead free - but may likely contain shards of copper"

The public don't want shards of metal, splinters of bone or a.o. foreign object in their food

 

[moeggesit]

So there's another thread tangent. Is it "handgun" or "pistol"?

Or short firearm, since neither pistols nor handguns were banned. You may as well just call them rifles, since befitting S1 they are rifled and don’t fit the bill for either pistols or handguns..

 

[enfieldspares]

Or short firearm, since neither pistols nor handguns were banned. You may as well just call them rifles, since befitting S1 they are rifled and don’t fit the bill for either pistols or handguns..

Yes! That's the, new post-1996 Tory handgun ban isn't it. These "short firearms" (or was it "small firearms" with barrels under 12" and overall length under 24".

And Lance Corporal Jones had his "bandooks", Which in his day were a lot lot longer than those carried by his modern counterparts in the today's Army.

 

[moeggesit]

I agree, however right at the moment there appear to be enough contentious issues dividing the shooting community, the challenge bigger than lead bans will be the same kind of nonsense restrictions being placed on S2 that exist on S1 at the moment

There are differences of opinion between groups, however the only solution is education, which is why the government so desperately wants to ensure children remain ignorant of the real world use of firearms.

By instilling safety and handling, people are a lot less likely to do stupid things.

 

[User00056]

So, don't you think it would be better to control the fwits instead?

This is the problem in a nutshell. As per usual though, the powers that be ago for the easy target (the law-abiding) and get an instant win while congratulating themselves on how clever they are.

Meanwhile, in the real world criminals just laugh at the law and carry on as they were.

 

[Sika98k]

Offs...

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Hornet]

I suppose it's the same thing as people using the term "heads" to describe bullets, no it doesn't really matter, and I agree it's certainly not something to get our collective knickers in a twist about.

 

[M@tt]

Firearms Act uses the term "Pistol"

But not in the definition of a firearm.

In the Firearms Act, the term 'firearm' is defined as "a lethal barrelled weapon" (and includes air weapons giving more than 1J KE) or even "a relevant component part in relation to a lethal barrelled weapon".

 

[timbrayford]

But not in the definition of a firearm.

In the Firearms Act, the term 'firearm' is defined as "a lethal barrelled weapon" (and includes air weapons giving more than 1J KE) or even "a relevant component part in relation to a lethal barrelled weapon".

To put the matter into context the word"pistol" was used as opposed to "handgun"

 

[Smellydog]

The word "pistol" originates from the Middle French term "pistolet," which means a small firearm, and it first appeared in English around 1570. Its etymology may also trace back to a Czech word for early hand cannons or to the Italian town of Pistoia, known for gunsmithing.

 

[Apthorpe]

Having dealt with a lot of cats injured by fwits who think they are a legitimate target, I'd support greater control. I wouldn't advocate banning them, so regardless of controls the fwits will still shoot cats.

Slightly controversial, but if this country wasn't so overregulated the "fwits" would probably have shot the cats with an effective firearm thus avoiding the welfare issue of wounded cats and, as a bonus, the massive environmental harm caused by ignorant cat owners letting their cats roam freely across everybody elae's property slaughtering songbirds. I realise this opiniom will be particularly unpopular with urban vets.

 

[BryanDC]

Yes.

The housewife will be much encouraged when in three years time it is a labelled "lead free - but may likely contain shards of copper"

Sorry Enfield, but this comment is up there with the likes of " but don't they know copper kills trees. Think of all the trees that will be killed by using copper"
What on earth is it that surrounds the lead core on most lead ammunition?
You are potentially just giving the powers that be another avenue to go down.