Two EDM's

Ian points us to two Early Day Motions that shooters might be interested in. Go read about them here and here and, perhaps, get your MP to sign.

Caught in the Crossfire

A long time ago, when the blogosphere was a very different place and good people were still mainly relying upon the usual suspects for their news and commentary, I ran a protozoic online blog called FrontRank. It was about the shooting sports in the UK and all that which mainly meant passing commentary on government legislation and how it affected legitimate shooters and what us shooters could do about it by way of campaigning etc. Yes, yes, I know. It was an exercise in a hiding to nothing.

Well, some months back a couple of bloggers started whispering. What if, they wondered, we were to get together and start up a new blog? A blog about shooting and all that? Of course, having trodden this road before and having been exposed to the sheer will draining properties that speaking for an unpopular minority has I immediately agreed that it was a good idea and that we should proceed without delay onto the flat plains of despair that such an initiative would require us to walk (Ed: Get on with it and stop being so bloody miserable about it).

So a new group blog is born. My fellow travellers are Ian from An English Shooter’s blog and Mark from Gun Culture. It will in all likelihood be a slow burning blog but, frankly, one that needed to exist.

So, feel free to visit and link to Caught in the Crossfire. A blog about the shooting sports in the UK and the sportsmen and women caught in the crossfire between government legislation and a criminal element who are all too happy to ignore that legislation.

Airsoft news

Some airsoft news via Ian at An English Shooter's Blog.

Well it looks like Hazel Blears may be looking to make the sport of airsoft to be exempted from the provisions of the Violent Crimes Reduction Bill "as long as the airsoft weapon is not so realistic as to make it indistinguishable from a real firearm"

The question rightly asked by Ian is So what will the test be? who will decide?

I can tell the difference between any readily available airsoft gun and any real firearm. But what will the criteria be? There are many that are so realistic that it would take an in hand examination to tell the difference and, in truth, this is part of what makes airsoft so distinct and unique a hobby. It's extremely realistic with respect to the tools used to enjoy it. The uniform, which many people spend hundreds of hours piecing together to exactly match particular historical conflicts is part of that as are the replica weapons used.

They are realistic and that is, for many players, a great deal of the attraction. It's the point in many ways.

These people are not criminals. These people do not misuse their gaming equipment. These people are not breaking any law or regulation but it is these people who are going to have to modify their behaviour (and for some this will be significant and hurtful) so that the government can, yet again, be seen to be doing something.

For images of my TM KNIGHTS SR-16 M4 CARBINE, a tool I use for gaming, click on the "continue reading" link.

It's realistic and that's the way I like it.

Banning things is lazy and is not a solution

This is exactly right and it is why the problem will always be so accute.

Shut it Blair

The PM is encouraging us to import more cheap goods from China. I would be more than happy to oblige if it were not for the fact that the very thing that I am likely to import on a regular basis is to be made an illegal import by his government.

Of course the intent of his governments ban on importation is to protect society from people who would misuse such items. And yet....and yet what does the honest man really think will be the result of this significant limitation on the liberty on, perhaps, 10,000 airsofting individuals in the UK.

A reduction in gun crime? A reduction in the misuse of replica weapons?

Don't make me laugh. The thugs and the springer kiddies will simply move on to alternatives as I have suggested.

And what will we be left with? Another sporting/gaming activity in decline, a few thousand disillusioned individuals who have to find something else to do on the weekend and a few sound bites from a lobby who are anti anything gun shaped. I can hear them now:

"No crime has been committed with a legally imported replica since this legislation was passed. It has been a significant success."

And on the streets things will have got worse and then they will move onto the next target of their chronic failure.

For a failure it is. The effort and expense that has been put into limiting our ability to enjoy pastimes that were once perfectly legitimate is effort and expense that has been wasted. These people have failed everyone but never see themselves as needing to take ownership of any of the blame.

What if the millions were spent elsewhere? What if the time was spent more creatively? What if the same old formula of legislate and ban made room for something new?

What if, for instance, people are made more aware of what the actual existing legislation on replica guns is? You're a clever person, do you know? Are you a parent? Do you know what the law is regarding that realistic looking toy your child has? Do they know? Do you let them out with it? Many, many adults and children do not as is borne out by the sorry and truthful excuses we see these people give to the police down the station at 4am in the morning.

Could "accidental gun crime" be reduced by, oh I don't know, actually informing people?

That's just one creative aspect of the educational tool available to us that has not been tried to crack this particular nut.

But no, no. They use the same old formula again and again. And they fail again and again. They let everybody down, sporting gun users and each and every other member of the public.

Resurrect The Sport

Ian, from An English shooters blog has just launched his Resurrect The Sport initiative.

The things townies don't understand about the countryside......

Simon Kelner, in the Spectator (free subscription required) has a question. After highlighting the fact that a townie friend has stopped bringing him various stimulants now that this friend has moved to the country he wonders:

Why are people in the country obsessed with shooting everything that moves, from pheasants to burglars? And why do they try to camouflage their intentions?

Because if they don’t Simon, the quarry will spot them a mile off.

Airsoft and the Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Airsoft in the news.

Reload, fire, reload, fire

It’s been hectic. After coming back from holiday we had less than a day at home before we had to rush off to a stag weekend down south. The groom to be is my brother-in-law and the best man is to be my good lady. I suppose that little fact could be seen as confirming our credentials as new liberals who don’t hold with tradition. Nothing could be further from the truth which is that I am too frightened of Mrs. England Project to make an attempt at preventing this particular attack on the foundations that hold up this great country of ours.

Anyhow, to the point. This is a posting about shooting. With guns.

The stag was a day of events finished off with a large dose of extreme drinking. One of these events was a clay pigeon shoot and it was during this particular event that I had the pleasure of taking part in a couple of clay formats that I had not seen before.

Effectively there were two shooting points each containing a shooter (murderous and evil user of a deadly and easily converted into a machine gun shotgun user) and a scorer/loader. The single trap (thing that fires off clays) was placed far ahead of the shooting points and, on command, it would put two clays into the air simultaneously with one clay flying approximately towards each shooter. The idea was to break your own clay and then attempt to break your opponents clay.

What fun. The temptation to snap at the first clay was almost overwhelming because the longer you took to take the shot the more likely it was that your opponent would shoot your target out from underneath you.

The second interesting format also involved two shooters but this time the targets were rabbits. For those that don’t know these are clays that are rolled down an incline (in this instance from right to left). It’s an interesting discipline because the clays tend to jump off the ground at every bumpy opportunity sometimes to a height of a couple of yards or so. I’ve shot rabbits before but the particularly interesting thing about this format was the rapidity that they clays came out of the trap.

The trap operator was asked to fire 15 clays at his own discretion (as fast or as slow as he liked) which effectively meant as fast as he could load them into the trap. Meanwhile the two shooters were tasked with taking any clay at any time in any order whilst quickly breaking his/her barrels to allow the loader/scorer to replace the spent cartridges. It made for what seemed like a very brief spell of furious activity at the end of which each shooter was standing in an impossible pile of spent cartridges viewing a scene of orange rabbit armageddon.

Great fun and, if you run a shoot of your own, thoroughly recommended.

Dr Sean Gabb on gun control

Dr Sean Gabb has publised an mp3 of his latest interview on the subject of guns and gun control. You can get it from this page (05/07/05 - BBC Radio Lancashire) and this is the direct link to the file.

I understand that some clever little so and so has transcribed the interview and that this document may become available some time soon.

The transcription is available in Free Life Commentary - Issue Number 137. Many thanks, Dr Gabb, for the link.

London does not represent the spirit of the games, rather the ghost of a sport

So the IOC have decided to give the olympics to a country that has banned its own sportsmen from taking part in some of the olympic sports in their own country. I can't imagine why, what with all this talk of the spirit of the olympics, this didn't turn out to be an insurmountable stumbling block.

Sport for all? Encourage our youth to embrace sport? Our sporting heritage? All fine and dandy if it's the right sport.

Liberty, the freedom of the individual, the right to do as you please as long as you do not harm anyone else....you cannot hold all these things as dearly as you might think if you support this decision.

Via Ian

Hehe.

A rare victory and a rare consultation process

Here I wrote about a request by Royal Mail to Postcomm to allow them to ban the transportation of 'firearms' within their normal postal network. These were the reasons for the Royal Mail request:

Firearms cause significant disruption to Royal Mail and the police when they are found in the letters network.

Prohibiting the carriage of firearms in the post would help the police with firearms control.

The ease of access to Royal Mail’s pipeline and the anonymity of the senders make Royal Mail’s letters network the target for the transport of illegal firearms.

It would have been a disaster if Poscomm had allowed Royal Mail to go down this route.

There was a consultation period during which Postcomm invited people to make submissions in order that they could better understand the situation and come to a decision.

The result of this consultation process is that Postcomm has completely rubbished the Royal Mail request on the basis that there is no actual evidence to support the foundations on which the request was made.

Here is their report [pdf] and it is well worth reading if only to see how an organisation that bases its consultations and decision making on principle and evidence should work. This is just a small section:

The Gun Control Network’s (GCN) submission is lengthier and more concerned with the criminal element of Royal Mail’s application. They note increasing concern regarding the use of guns and imitation guns, argue that society as a whole would benefit from a reduction in the number of firearms transferred and traded for criminal use.

They further argue the interests of the few who shoot must be balanced against public safety and] the efficient running of the postal service’ and that the impact customers wishing to transport guns would be minimal.

Postcomm appreciates the GCN’s concerns, but still feels that it has been provided sufficient evidence to prohibit the carriage of firearms these grounds. There is little evidence as to how many illegal firearms transported and put to criminal use, so it is difficult to gauge the effects prohibition will have. What is certain is that for many firearm dealers individuals the prohibition would cause real hardship – in this Postcomm disagrees with the assessment by Postwatch, the DMA and the GCN -- that Postcomm cannot impose that hardship without evidence that prohibition on firearms would truly benefit a larger section of society.

This is a significant victory against those that would expect us to live our lives on the basis of knee jerk reactions made by those who would wish to be seen to be doing something instead of actually doing something.

On the Front Foot

Now this is interesting. The usual way that the defence of the shooting sports goes is that someone decides that instead of solving problems it would be far easier to ban the law abiding from doing something. Then the shooting organisations in the UK work behind the scenes. And then the particular branch of shooting that is under threat is made illegal or restricted in some other fashion. Then the problems that the gun-grabbers were trying to solve don't go away or, instead, get worse.

That's why I find this initiative from the Countryside Alliance refreshing. They call it On the Front Foot which offers a new way forward for shooting.

Here is the document that describes the initiative (pdf) and here is some of what it has to say:

The Countryside Alliance recognises that the time has come for a pro-active strategy to promote shooting rather than an old and failing reactive approach that relies only on defence rather than attack. Sometimes, reaction will still be necessary, but through tenacious PR, independent science and unimpeachable research, the Countryside Alliance aims to build the bricks to reinforce our house. Hard-hitting campaigns will take the good news about shooting to the public before they receive the ‘bad’ news from our opponents. Thankfully, the Countryside Alliance’s political and media teams are unrivalled in their level of experience and contacts but the post hunt ban political landscape, combined with the astonishing wealth of the animal rights movement, requires a new approach.

The Countryside Alliance’s strategy has been tailored to provide ammunition on every level for a powerful PR and advertising campaign designed to reach millions of people on a national and local level. More importantly, it will ensure that the messages we are sending are the right ones – hitting home
with maximum effect.

At last.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill - Second Reading

From Hansard (readable form of debates in Parliament) and via Cybershooters comes this little bit of fresh air regarding the government's current plan to restrict another shooting sport in the UK (Libertarians can refer to this entry after any abolition has taken place rather than actually doing something before it happens; it's a service we like to provide to help them document the demise of liberty and freedom in England):

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con): Finally, a word or two on the issues surrounding airguns and imitation firearms. Yes, we welcome clause 27. It is important that we have the offence of firing an air weapon beyond premises. It could have been introduced in an earlier statute but was not. In the context of imitation firearms, the point about the overselling of legislation, which was well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, can be made. Referring to the use of realistic imitation firearms to threaten others, the Government state in the notes to the Bill:

"There is a range of existing offences and controls in relation to firearms but they have not proved sufficient to halt this trend".

Of course they have not. Legislation on its own does nothing. It is a matter of proper enforcement of existing legislation.

The use of firearms and imitation firearms in pursuance of crime is increasing and it is a very disturbing trend indeed, but the Minister should remember that there are already a dozen existing statutes that allow the police to deal with those who commit offences with both real and imitation firearms. We need point only to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which has been law for over a year and is intended to deal precisely with the problems of possession of imitation firearms in a public place. Why not give it time, to see how it works out?

Let there be no confusion. Using an imitation firearm in the course of crime is treated very harshly by the courts, and rightly so. It is a subject for another day, but the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) put his finger on some interesting points about replica guns and the difficulties involved. We must discuss the matter again in the House.

The Government should address the problem of why the number of prosecutions against offenders with imitation firearms is so woefully low, compared with the number of such crimes that have been reported. I fear that those responsible people who carry out lawful activities—those who collect and deal in replica weapons as their hobby, those youngsters who play innocently with their BB gun, their cap guns and their cowboy guns, those many thousands who enjoy the sport of airsoft—may be punished under the Bill. Damaging them and their lawful activities will not alter the mindset of one single criminal. Who suffers most as a result of crime? Not us in the Chamber, not those who earn well and live in decent areas. Rather, it is the poor and the vulnerable, who are condemned to live in poor quality estates in our urban areas wracked with crime, who are the victims.

If the Government really want to cut crime, they should not simply listen to their advisers and pass more laws. They should listen to those at the sharp end of crime whose advice is simple: put more police on the streets; introduce a genuine zero-tolerance policy on all crime, including low-level crime; free the police from bureaucracy; maintain discipline at school; improve our appalling detection rates, which get worse by the year; and punish heavily those tens of thousands who regularly skip bail and who laugh at the court system and reduce it to chaos. None of that advice involves more legislation; it is all about proper law enforcement.

Let politicians listen to the decent, law-abiding people who live in lawless communities that are fractured by crime. Those people look to us to restore harmony and peace to their lives, which have got worse and worse in the past seven years. They do not look to us for more legislation, more headlines and more initiatives. They want practical action and real enforcement. In short, they need our help, and we must never fail them.

They fail and fail and fail and then they challenge us?

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation have been to see the Scottish Justice Minister regarding airgun controls. During this meeting the BASC and the government representative issued a challenge to the shooting community:

The specific challenge to the shooting community was that the responsible majority should help to find a solution.

On one of the airgunning forums that this challenge was issued I took the opportunity to reply and include my reply here.

The government thinks that smoking is bad for us and for all tax payers. It has spent years telling us so and has spent countless millions on educational material and on TV advertising. Only recently has it begun to push through legislation now that the majority have been educated out of the habit.

The government thinks that drinking should only be done in moderation. To do otherwise is unhealthy and a waste of state resources. It is also inconvenient to the local community. It has spent countless millions telling us so, a great proportion of which has been spent on TV advertising. Legislation in this area is conservative and does not generally change for very long periods.

The government wishes us to collect all benefits that we have coming to us. Tax credits galore. This grab-able bounty is seen as so important to society that the government has spent much of what is left of our cash advertising the fact on TV. Take what's coming to you; it's yours!

The mayor of London wishes us to share communal transport. Get out of your car! Look, your other one is a bus! He has spent a great deal of money telling us so and the government has spent the best part of the last 2 decades educating us on the evils of unnecessary car use. Legislation in this area is usually in the form of taking more of our money but does not prevent anyone wishing to use a car from doing so (they can use their collected tax credit bounty for petrol even).

The government’s track record on shooting and gun ownership does not follow the same criteria as these other state crusades. Some people are misusing equipment that millions of others use perfectly reasonably. Do they try to educate? Do they run TV ads? Do they make sure every school child knows about the issue and how evil it is to fire their airgun out of their bedroom window at passing strangers? The kids are already experts in all kinds of government sponsored areas of greater complexity than not to shoot at strangers.

No, they do not. Since 1921 they have done nothing but legislate, legislate, legislate while destroying at every opportunity the chance for kids to learn about safe usage of airguns. Scouts and cubs are now subjected to safe BBQ training and outbound courses on badger appreciation but the opportunity to be educated about safe airgun usage is diminishing with every passing decree.

Educate, educate, educate. This is the government’s preferred method of dissuading and encouraging all kinds of behaviour in its citizens and it should extend to safe and proper usage of airguns. Sheesh, they have been banging on at how much of a problem it is for long enough.

You “challenge” the “shooting community” to “help find a solution” (holy smokes, there is a phrase built for use by a politician if I ever heard one). Well, there it is. Above this paragraph in nice, easy to use text. Print it out (unless of course you don’t read these forums and hence don’t notice that your challenge has been taken up). Take it to our masters at toad hall and see if they have the credibility and the political courage to actually help solve problems instead of throwing more and more of us to the wolves.

ICR and its refusal to accept donations

I've not received a reply yet from the ICR about any appeals process to their refusal to allow me information about this issue under the freedom of information act.

What I can say is that, at last and to their great credit, another Cancer charity has accepted the donation. Well done Cancer Research UK, who in the eyes of the ICR must be either extremely brave or negligent in the protection of their staff. We at the England Project believe they are just doing what any reasonable charity would do when offered a big wad of cash. Once again, well done Cancer Research UK (please take note all shooters and sympathisers):

16:00 - 14 June 2005
A Fund-raiser is delighted after finding a cancer charity which will accept a £30,000 donation.

Hunting enthusiast Barry Atkinson raised a total of £60,000 through a series of bird shoots and wanted to give half to the Institute of Cancer Research.

But the charity refused to accept it, saying they did not approve of how it had been raised.

Mr Atkinson, 61, is now giving it to another charity - Cancer Research UK. He wanted it to go to a cancer charity because his father Arnold died of the disease and his dog Spider had been diagnosed with a tumour. The fund-raising drive was named Spider's Appeal.

A presentation has been arranged at Belvoir Castle, Leicestershire, at 10am on Thursday, June 30. The Duchess of Rutland will hand over the money on his behalf.

Mr Atkinson, an artist and recently retired teacher who lives in Norwell, near Newark, said:

"It is just a nice feeling that we seem to be emerging from this very negative and stagnant situation with the Institute. Things look far more positive with Cancer Research UK so I am assuming we are going to stick with them."

The other £30,000 raised in the shoots was given to the National Gamekeepers' Organisation's Charitable Trust.

The ban on replicas, the sport of Airsoft and airgunning

I frequent a number of shooting forums on the Internet. Here is a copy of my most recent posting to my local Airsoft forum, the members of which are just beginning to realise what it feels like to be lead up the long stone staircase to the alter of sacrifice:

I frequent another forum which is about airguns. On that forum I've seen talk about how this bill isn't so bad. There seems to be a general lack of support for airsoft in the same way that there was a lack of cross disciplne support when handguns were banned. There is one thing I cannot stand and that is a lack of cross disciplne support. It has been and will continue to be the death of all shooting in England. Here is my reply to one poster:

Let me say why the ban on imitation firearms will affect airgunning in the mid term.

The press believe that replica handguns are being banned. This is false for two reasons. Firstly it is the sale that is being banned not ownership and secondly the press believe that all air pistols and c02 pistols are 'replicas'. They are not, they are classified as firearms.

Now, criminals will continue to use replicas, air pistols and 'real TV' guns regardless of what the law says. They can be excluded from the picture completely.

What can not be excluded is the kids and idiots that want to carry these things in public and generally fool around. They will no longer be able to get hold of items such as airsoft replicas through any legal means. Have a think about what this means and what they will then do.

That's right; co2 pistols. Just as realistic as airsoft and the real thing and that is where they are going to satisfy their desires. Never mind that it breaks the law, they were doing that by carrying their replicas around in public without good reason.

These pistols are far more lethal than the airsoft variety. Incidents of dangerous injury or even death will increase. Incidents of the police out on the streets being faced with these lesser firearms but greater replicas will increase.

The press will start sounding off about loopholes allowing lethal guns on the streets when toy ones are banned.

ACPO will get all political again, the politicians will follow suit and sporting airgun users will be sacrificed again at the alter of political expediency.

That is why we should never give an inch. That is why our shooting organisations should fight like lions for all minority shooting rights.

That is why all shooters should do likewise.

If they don't they will loose in the end game.

On the subject of the proposed ban on airsoft the way this is happening is another example of why all shooters need to stick together.

When the goverment banned pistol shooting they compensated the shooters for their equipment. This turned out to be expensive and prompted the government to use a different tact when they decided to ban air cartridge weapons. Instead of banning them outright the government licensed existing owners and banned the sale and manufacturing of the guns.

They have chosen a similar tact for airsoft (excluding licensing) now that this precedent has been set. It was virtually unchallenged in parliament at the time and now means that the government can destroy virtually any shooting sport for political expediency without having it cost them anything.

Airsofters are now in the frame. It won't be long until it is Co2 (and other) pistols.

On a more personal note; I have been in this game of shooting and politics for a long time to the detriment of my health. My journey to the dark side of disaffection with the government and the political process is now complete. I will no longer cooperate with the state or any agent of the state unless by withholding my cooperation I am seen to be breaking the law. That is the result of decades belonging to a politically incorrect minority group in this country.

ICR and its refusal to accept donations

Further to this issue of the ICR refusing to accept a donation from a member of the shooting sports I have recently received this message from Philip Black regarding my request for information about how I might apply for further details about the refusal under the Freedom of Information Act:

Dear John,

Thank you for your further email of 25.05.05.

In importing the principle of freedom of information into our law the legislature recognised that there are occasions when access to information should be restricted. This is one such occasion as disclosure of the information being sought is potentially detrimental to the safety and welfare of our staff. In the circumstances we are not prepared to provide the information which you are seeking.

It seems that some of the information that they are holding in private that relates in some way to this refusal could be dangerous to their employees if the general public, or some members of the general public, were to be made aware of it. We can only wonder at what this dangerous information might be. What activity can the ICR have been involved in that has the potential to be dangerous to their employees if some others were to find out about it?

I am going to write to them asking about an appeals process.

Here is my mail:

Dear Philip,

Please advise me (or forward this mail to your information officer so that they can) on any appeals process that I might follow. Frankly I find it hard to believe that your refusal to accept this donation can be a danger to anyone.

What I can believe is that other cases of donations accepted by you can be seen as inconsistent with your ruling on this particular case and I am guessing that is where the danger lies.

And that, after all, is my point.

I think your organisation is being inconsistent here and has, for some reason, decided that this particular donation should not be accepted not because it involved subjective animal cruelty but because it comes from a politically incorrect minority group source.

We are still disgusted with the refusal.

The Violent Crime Bill and politically incorrect minority groups

The government's new violent crime bill is another of those government initiatives that seriously affects the interests of politically incorrect, and hence dispensable, minority groups. If it were to become law the UK Airsoft industry would be devastated and the personal freedom of a number of legitimate collectors and young airgun users would be significantly curtailed. Again.

From a personal perspective the bill will prevent me from enjoying a pass time that I have been taking part in for a couple of years now. It will make it illegal for me to buy replacement equipment and make it illegal for me to sell my existing equipment. It would do so even though no member of the public has ever been inconvenienced by my actions. Indeed, no member of the public outside of the airsoft gaming industry has even the slightest idea that the equipment I use even exists.

It will do this on the assumption that making it impossible for me to continue my sport is necessary to improve public safety. The government argues that plastic replica guns are being used by the criminal element in society to commit crimes. If they were to ban replicas it would help solve the problem. This is nonsense.

Criminals who prefer to carry replicas instead of real firearms (or who cannot for some reason beyond me get hold of real firearms) will continue to use replicas or move up to just as realistic Co2 powered air pistols (classified as firearms and, hence, not replicas) which, if used in commission of a crime, are far more capable of causing serious or even fatal injuries.

If this bill is passed expect these things to happen:

1. More injuries due to the reason I state above (moving to more lethal equipment in the commission of crimes). Many criminals will not even be aware of the change in the law so, hopefully, these incidents will be kept to a minimum.

2. Incidents of the general public falling foul of the law and being punished because they do not change their behaviour after the bill is passed and the government does absolutely nothing to raise public awareness of the ins and outs of the new legislation.

3. More news about ridiculous police action over kids in possession of toy guns in the back seat of their car or what-not.

4. No reduction in gun crime.

5. Articles in the press about loopholes allowing people to still own airguns, air pistols etc because they are "more lethal" and how much of a disgrace it is.

6. Pressure to have these loopholes closed therefore more pressure on the government to abuse minority groups in the pursuit of their religion of doing nothing but being seen to do something.

7. More disaffection with the political process, politicians and the police.

8. More miserable failure.

The following list of discussion points regarding the governments new violent crime bill has been compiled by Steve of cybershooters. If you are going to write to your MP on the matter it is worth considering these:

• Contains provisions prohibiting the transfer of realistic imitation firearms, which are widely and commonly possessed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, who will face criminal sanction if they sell their guns to someone. This would be very hard to enforce, and in the past the Government has made little attempt to warn people of changes in the firearms law. (The maximum prison term in England & Wales for this offence will be 51 weeks.)

• Does not contain compensation for businesses engaged in the trade associated with “realistic imitation firearms” or for collectors (many of whom have collections worth considerable sums). There are probably 3,000 businesses engaged in this trade to a significant extent, many of whom will be forced out of business, others will be significantly curtailed. Without compensation, they will face significant economic hardship.

• Contains provisions to raise the age limit for possession of air guns to 18 (even though the age limit was raised under this Government only two years ago to 17).

• The previous ban on air-cartridge guns contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 is generally accepted to have been poorly complied with, and indeed at least one court has criticised the Government for failing to properly inform the public of the changes when a case involving the possession of such a firearm came before them.

• Provides no exemption from prohibition for realistic non-firing imitations of antique firearms, even though genuine antique firearms in working order are exempt from firearm controls.

• Introduces an age limit of 18 on imitation firearms that are not realistic, which will probably mean toy guns, water pistols, etc. can only be sold to adults.

• Increases the age limit from 16 to 18 on when knives and other similar sharp objects can be sold, which will mean for example that people under 18 working in trades involving the use of a knife cannot acquire them.

• This Government has enacted a wide variety of firearm controls since coming to power, yet none of them have had the effect touted for them at the time. Given the huge number of imitation firearms in circulation already, it seems unlikely this Bill will have the effect the Government claims. It is notable that most “realistic imitation firearms” are made in Japan and intended for their domestic market – and Japan has a lower rate of violent crime than the UK.

ICR and it's refusal to accept donations

I’ve finally received a response from the Director of Fundraising at the ICR on their refusal to accept a £30,000 donation to their charity from a member of the shooting sports. This arrived soon after I requested details from the organisation on how I could go about using the Freedom of Information Act to gather information I felt was necessary to clarify the charities position:

Thank you for your enquiry. We are happy to confirm that The Institute's decision not to accept the Spider's Appeal donation was based on solely on our concern that publicity could give rise to an enhanced risk to the security of our staff and The Institute. We wish to state definitively that The Institute has no position on shooting.

With regard to your supplementary questions, any decision of this type is based purely on the perceived risk to The Institute or its staff.

I have replied asking if they had received any specific threat and am contemplating where to go with this. My thoughts are along the lines that if they have received information on a specific threat then all is well and good. If there was no specific threat and the decision was based upon their perception of the current climate of fear over criminal animal rights thugs then their refusal to accept donations should logically extend to every industry that is in some way detrimental to animal wellfare (eg food industry).

I am also inclined to draw the conclusion that their declaration that they have no position on shooting is not compatible with their statement. To maintain the foundation of their refusal they must surely continue to refuse donations from shooting sportsmen and women for exactly the same reasons they site in the response above.

I am not yet satisfied with their response on this matter. I would like to know why they would not continue, if they have refused this particular donation, to refuse donations from shooters.

Labour drops commitments to angling and shooting

New Labour have dropped their commitments not to put further restrictions on the sports of shooting and angling:

In addition the manifesto pledges to "tighten the law on air guns"

Look out for further attacks on minority groups in any third Labour incarnation.

The ICR and the refusal of donations from a member of the shooting sports

Regarding this issue. I have recently been informed that the response I received was likely a standard one. The same reply has been received by a number of people I have been in contact with. On this kind of issue it is not acceptable. Certainly not to me. I have sent out the following:

To: Philip DOT Black AT icr DOT ac DOT uk

Dear Mr. Black,

It has come to my attention that the above response you sent me has also been sent to other members of the shooting sports. I trust that it is not a standard reply sent to all enquiries about the ICR's refusal to accept Mr. Atkinson's request to donate £30,000?

I would be very interested to know in what manner my comments have been carefully noted as standard replies do not build the necessary confidence that they have been.

I would also like to receive answers to the questions that I asked in my previous email (I understand that you are on holiday on the date I sent this and my previous email in which my questions were asked and that you will return on the 11th April).

To aid you in this process I will include the content of my previous email here:

Yes, but what were the circumstances? Did you refuse this donation simply because the donation came from an aspect of the shooting sports? If so, does your refusal to accept donations go for the whole of the shooting community or just parts of it? If so, which parts?

Would you also refuse donations from industries that exploit animals for profit, such as various parts of the food industry? If not, why not?

I have a number of readers who are waiting expectantly and with some distress for some clarification on this issue.

Currently the fact that the situation is cloudy is resulting in further donations tragically being held back and this situation will only get worse as time goes by without clarification.

Sir, do not misunderstand my intentions. I would like nothing better than to receive from you a compelling (and consistently applied) reason why the ICR refused this particular donation. I could then explain to the people I have talked to that their looks of shock and their remarks of utter disgust were misplaced. It would make us all feel a great deal better.

Copied: Julie Mills, PA to Mr. Philip Black.

Those bizarre Liberal Democrats

From the Countryside Alliance:

The Liberal Democrats have spoilt an otherwise positive manifesto with a bizarre pledge to ban young people under the age of 14 from 'participating in shoots'. There is not, of course, any evidence that such a move would achieve anything other than discriminating against thousands of law abiding youngsters including game shooters, rough shooters, clay shooters, target shooters and service cadets. We have made it clear that the Liberal Democrats risk losing significant rural support by proposing such pointless and discriminatory legislation.

The BASC joins in:

While welcoming the Lib Dems assurance that they have no plans to introduce further regulation on shooting, BASC is dismayed at their intention to ban anyone under 14 from shooting, or even participating in a shoot.

This flies in the face of Home Office opinion that there are positive benefits for young people to be taught to shoot in a disciplined and responsible way. It would also damage Britain’s international sporting potential; shooting has brought a string of European, Commonwealth and Olympic medals.

Shooting in the UK has an exemplary safety record and this is widely attributed to the fact that the principles of safe shooting are drummed into those who shoot from an early age.

The ICR and the refusal of donations from a member of the shooting sports

I have finally received a direct response from the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) on this issue of their refusal to accept a rather hefty donation from a member of the shooting sports. Philip Black (Philip DOT Black AT icr DOT ac DOT uk), the Director of Fundraising, took the time to respond with the following:

We would really like to thank you for taking the time to write to us: your comments have been carefully noted. This was an extremely difficult decision for us to make but we did what we thought was best in the circumstances. Thank you again for your interest.

In reply I sent the following as I do not believe the situation has been satisfactorily resolved. It is in everyones interest that it is:

Philip,

Yes, but what were the circumstances? Did you refuse this donation
simply because the donation came from an aspect of the shooting sports?
If so, does your refusal to accept donations go for the whole of the shooting community or just parts of it? If so, which parts?

Would you also refuse donations from industries that exploit animals
for profit, such as various parts of the food industry? If not, why not?

I have a number of readers who are waiting expectantly and with some
distress for some clarification on this issue.

Currently the fact that the situation is cloudy is resulting in further donations tragically being held back and this situation will only get worse as time goes by without clarification.

Many thanks.

Where do you go when your money is not good enough?

This can't be good news:

The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) has turned down £30,000 raised by Barry Atkinson, a shooting enthusiast who carried out a record 148 days “beating”. The ICR speaks of its concern for “minimising pain and suffering in animals” but apparently told Mr Atkinson that it was worried about animal rights “activists”.

I would say to the ICR that it should be strong in the face of any kind of intimidation, imagined or not. There is a great deal at stake after all.

This is a terrible state of affairs and one has to ask what kind of message the ICR is sending the shooting community in Britain. Do they wish to turn down our donations because of their concern for species of pest and of game or do they wish to turn down our donations because they are worried about animal rights intimidation?

I already feel bad that I can no longer give to the RSPCA like I used to because of their stance on airguns. I almost canceled my monthly donations to Oxfam at one point but, thankfully, the message I was being given was confusing enough for me to gladly let that one slip by. What now with the ICR?

I have contacted the ICR to ask them to clarify this situation. I simply can't believe that the situation has been correctly reported by the Times.

The BBC also carry the story as does Tim over at An Englishman's Castle.

We all know what they mean

I fully expect the mainstream media to brand people as gun nuts for having their picture taken with perfectly legitimate and legal items. They often classify members of the public, political or not, in this manner to their own discredit. That's one of the reasons why the general advice to sporting shooters is to always turn down any MSM offered opportunity to have them take a picture of you holding your guns. They'll charm you and then crucify you.

It surprises me more when members of the blogosphere propagate this myth.

An old receipt for a fine gun

Here's a thing. Most of you will not be particularly interested in this but it's right up my street. The other day, during a visit to the old family home, my father said that he had come across the receipt for the John Wilkes side-by-side shotgun that he bought back in 1964. Naturally, now that I am the owner of the fine fitting and superbly fast gun, I immediately took ownership of the document which I reproduce here for the benefit of the one, perhaps, reader interested in such old ephemera.

John Wilkes still operate today in London

I've been told that the written over postage stamp in the bottom left of the receipt is something that was provided on many receipts of old, though I am not sure what it is there for.

Imagine my surprise when I realised the Wilkes was bought second hand. Naturally my father still retains the bought-from-new William Evans.

Heh, it turns out that Tim is the one interested reader. Mind you, he reads everything.

A reader writes - continuing the gun culture debate

I've received an email from Frank regarding my recent articles on gun culture. He goes into quite a bit of detail which readers may find interesting and takes exception at the idea that continuity of ownership is a requirement for the existence of a positive gun culture (as I suggested).

I include most of Frank's mail here and also respond to the continuity issue.

Dear John.

I write in response to your postings re gun culture. I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some, which I point out below. I also ask how are we to get to your stage one? So have a read and let me know your thoughts. This may appear disjointed, but it started as comments, but then I thought an email would be better and have produced something that is not fully at ease as either.

"I stand by much of what I wrote on the subject, particularly the reasons why gun culture has all but vanished (though no one has really called me out on that one yet)"

I believe you’ve hit it on the head as to why gun culture has all but vanished as you say:

"Then the state broke it. By degrees.

Gun culture was strangled to the point where continuity was lost and it is because of that loss that my full support for the liberalisation of gun ownership in the general populace is not forthcoming. I blame the state."

A key (I believe) point I will take issue with is the necessity of continuity you say:

"This culture was a learnt one. It required a continuity of ownership and the sharing of knowledge over each generation."

I agree the culture was learnt, I agree that it had continuity of ownership and the sharing of knowledge over each generation, and I agree that these are desirable and valuable aspects. I would disagree that continuity of ownership is required. I believe that people have the innate capacity to learn and develop in response to changing circumstances and environment, if it were not so we would never have coped with any technologies ever.

Of course, I agree with Frank here. There is no doubt that people are perfectly capable of learning all that is necessary to re-introduce a beneficial gun culture to the UK. Continuity of ownership, as he points out, is not a pre-requisite. What I was trying to express, very badly, is that continuity of ownership positively encouraged the gun culture that prevailed to continue to do so. It's a bit self fulfilling I know, but breaking that continuity (and the benefits it provided) was a great deal easier than creating it again will be.

If you are a government, or an anti-gun organisation, your biggest enemy is public perception. If that perception is that guns are useful tools then you are on a hiding to nothing. That positive perception of guns is often built through experience and observation and, I think, it is more likely that these things will occur if continuity is maintained across generations. You will be brought up experiencing the positive aspects of gun ownership and your perception will be that opposing views (guns are the cause of gun crime etc) will appear odd.

Frank was right to bring me up on the continuity issue. It is not a pre-requisite as such.

So from my point of view I do have a problem with the idea that gun culture that requires a continuity of ownership, but that is irrelevant because the issue for me is more liberal gun laws coupled with responsible gun ownership.

Quite clearly regardless of my personal view any campaign or practical attempt to change the gun laws will need to set out its goals and those goals have to be sensible and achievable. The idea of a no licence required, simple criminal check at point of sale as I believe might be advocated by some American commentators is simply unachievable in this country at present; and without criticising anyone because we’re all different, I think that scenario might frighten a lot of people. So when you say:

"Let’s say the state, as stage one, began to issue licenses for gun ownership on the pre-requisite that prospective owners passed a proficiency test. This is an example of the kind of structured approach I would support."

I say excellent I’d be happy with that. When you continue on and talk of the state never subscribing to measures that will help re-introduce a beneficial gun culture we part company again somewhat. If we take your scenario, the big difficulty will be in getting the state to change the law; if we were to campaign for a liberalisation of the gun laws, it could only win public support with the likes of a proficiency test. Once that law change was in place there would be no need of state intervention for either the training or the test (although it may be considered desirable for the actual test to be carried out say by a police officer, if that is so it shall be catered for in the legislation, and the state will have to do it); basically the free market will take over, people will either join existing clubs, form new clubs, trainers either working with or retired from the army/police would become available via the free market mechanisms to offer that training. If it were a popular measure, chances are the police and army will find their trainers haemorrhaging to the private sector in the short term.

I think it is important that the law in our country is changed and I don’t think we can ever get the culture back without first getting the gun ownership back; but as you rightly point out we wont simply be able to put the clock back to the 19th Century when people could simply walk into an ironmongers and buy a gun (I believe that scenario would work (from a practical viewpoint), and if I read you correctly you do not, but as I don’t believe that scenario can be successfully fought for (from a political viewpoint) and not for say 50 years minimum, the sensible route for me is the scenario you suggest) . It could even be that a goal like that (to return to 19th century gun liberalisation) is simply impossible and it could even be undesirable.

Moving forward I think the gun culture we need would develop from your stage one proposal. So I’m going to be cheeky and ask: "How do we get to stage one?"

My view is that in the first instance there is the need to set up a campaigning organisation that will need to develop a sensible detailed policy proposal (probably along the lines of your stage one) and go out and campaign for it. Whilst I accept that the likelihood of short-term success is remote, unless and until a group is putting out a sensible message on gun legislation it simply will not happen. I accept that any such organisation is unlikely to have funds to hire professional staff and advertising, but even if it could start to put the case it might succeed in raising public awareness. Obviously if it is something the public have no interest in then it’s never going to get anywhere anyway, but at least it might be able to get people thinking about the idea.

I’m tempted to ask if I may, if you would be prepared to put on your website a request for expressions of interest in joining and helping to run such a group, just to see if such a thing might be feasible. I’m not actually asking you to do this at this stage, but within me I feel it is something worth campaigning for, and such group is worth setting up.

I know I've jumped the gun here a little by posting Frank's request but I have done so because I believe some organisations may already exist in the UK with this agenda. The one I do know of is Cybershooters which exists

To distribute information which is relevant to the campaign against unreasonable UK and world-wide gun controls; to provide a co-ordination forum for UK and overseas shooters and shooting organisations; to disseminate other information of general interest to shooters and gun owners.

They take a pro-self defence stance on gun ownership. It's not about sport only.

Perhaps readers in the know might like to suggest others and/or, perhaps, comment further upon this debate.

[Comments open]

From here to there - continuing with gun culture

Ah ha! I wondered how long it would take Mr. Gun Culture himself to blog me about the head with his own posting on my Gun Culture and how we might get it back musings.

I stand by much of what I wrote on the subject, particularly the reasons why gun culture has all but vanished (though no one has really called me out on that one yet) but there do seem to be a number of areas of contention.

The central theme to my position can be summed up by this one sentence in my posting:

I think that people do have the innate right to have guns for self defence but I do not believe that, in general, the population is prepared for it.

I stand by that. If it were down to me and I could flick a switch that would allow anyone (without a criminal record lets say for arguments sake and also, say, at or over the age of 18 or 21) to go out and buy a gun and keep it at home or carry it about in public would I flick that switch? No. I don’t think I would.

The thrust of my article then went on with the theme of how people might become prepared.

I said:

A structured approach to the rebuilding of a gun culture in the UK would get my support and a gradual re-introduction of general firearms ownership might well be possible but I do not think that this is something the state will ever subscribe to.

To elaborate on this let’s consider a situation where the state, due to political pressure from the people decide to embark upon a structured approach to general gun ownership by those who would choose to take up arms for the purposes of self defence (basically the politicians are persuaded that there is political capital in supporting the re-introduction of a gun culture). Let’s say the state, as stage one, began to issue licenses for gun ownership on the pre-requisite that prospective owners passed a proficiency test. This is an example of the kind of structured approach I would support. More than this, I would endeavour to get qualified to join any training team and do my bit.

Remember, the issue that I have is that it is my opinion that the general population (of course with exceptions) is not prepared for ownership not that I don’t believe in the actual concept of general ownership. As Giles in the comments said, it’s all about how we get from here to there.

I do not think that this is something the state will ever subscribe to I said. Anyone who would agree with this particular statement is left with a dilemma.

If the state does not subscribe to practical measures that would re-introduce a beneficial gun culture ie a preparedness to own firearms then what else will?

My suggestion that the only alternative is the shooting sports is a bleak one. I fully accept that. If it is the only alternative I do not expect it to work out, but I wrote that it might:

What might do it is sporting shooting.

How might it? If it ever became really big business perhaps, but who really knows.

The real killer for me was when I wrote this:

A consistent increase in the use of firearms for sporting purposes is, in my opinion, the only way that a gun culture can ever be reintroduced into the UK.

If one accepts that the state will never subscribe to a re-introduction then I believe this to be true. I would like to hear of any other suggestions given that as a premise. I never said that it is likely to succeed.

I think the real area of contention, the very core of the issue is how pessimistic or optimistic you are about the likelihood of the state deciding that the public should be armed for reasons of self defence. Currently I am pessimistic. This led me to look for an alternative method of reintroducing gun culture. That does not say that I would not do what I can to alter that likelihood. I will still, on occasion, write about how this or that persons life could have been saved if they had a gun or, perhaps, another sufficient item of self defence. My position is not, I think, incompatible with that. Again, it’s about how we get from here to there. Perhaps, some time in the future, and perhaps with continued contribution by bloggers, writers in the Telegraph, authors and anyone else who catches the groove I will become more optimistic. Who knows? Don’t confuse pessimism with a lack of desire to contribute to the debate and, perhaps, help make sunshine where there is none at present.

Lurch at gunculture.net ends his post with:

To summarise; I believe that sporting shooting is doomed in the UK and no amount of good behaviour will change this. The recognition that self defence is the most basic human right that there is and that a firearm is the best tool for this is the only thing which can possibly save private firearm ownership. Not just in the UK but across the globe.

He may well be right.

If pessimism were a duck, we’d all be spitting lead shot.

Royal Mail propose a ban on the carriage of firearms and ammunition

I've just received the following from Steve over at Cybershooters:

Postcomm are currently considering a proposal from the Royal Mail to ban carriage of firearms and ammunition and anything else that resembles a firearm or ammunition.

You can download the consultation document from:

here [pdf]

As those of you who have ever attempted to use another company for carriage can probably attest to, if this proposal goes through it will be an utter disaster for shooting in this country, because most other carriers won't carry firearms or ammunition either. As far as I can see, if it goes through, Parcel Force would be the only option to many places - if Parcel Force won't do it, you're stuffed.

The whole thing is predicated on a "request" from ACPO that the Royal Mail should notify them if they find firearms in the post, which is screwing up the whole distribution chain. Obviously such a request has no real basis in law, and ACPO are not a law enforcement agency.

However, regardless of that, the total lack of alternatives to many destinations makes it absolutely paramount that changes are made to this proposal. My suggestion would be to have trained postal inspectors who could tell the difference between something lawful and unlawful going through the post, which would negate the need to call the police immediately, as the package could be held back until the police can get there.

I'm sure there are other ways to solve the problem though.

It is VITAL that people make submissions. I'd especially concentrate on explaining your experiences with other carriers (try phoning a few and asking, if you haven't got any) and how unworkable the proposal is on that basis. I'll post my submission on the website once I've written it.

As Steve says, it's vital that shooters take part in this consultation process and I urge all of you to make a submission.

Who broke gun culture and how might we get it back?

It has come to my attention that some fellow bloggers consider me a Libertarian. I’m not sure that this is true. I would certainly describe myself as someone who is distinctly pro-freedom but my pro-freedom stance has boundaries and it may be that some of those boundaries would exclude me from holding the Libertarian mantle. For instance I do not believe in the legalisation of all drugs. I do believe in immigration control. Also, and this may come as a shock to some, I do not yet believe in the liberalisation of gun laws to the extent that all and sundry should be able to have them for self defence.

Considering the last of these points, which I am sure is the most shocking of my few revelations and I have to say is a relatively recent position, this is not because I do not believe in the principle of self defence or that guns (often hand guns) are not the best tool for the job. On the contrary, I believe in the use of lethal force where necessary to protect ones own life, family, friends, strangers and, if necessary, property. My inability to “go the whole way” on this issue is based on what I believe is the un-preparedness of our society for a more liberalised approach to firearm ownership.

Firstly let me make some declarations. I believe that the handgun ban in this country was a knee-jerk reaction; it should never have taken place. I believe that the laws governing the ownership of rifles and other section one firearms are too draconian. I believe that the laws governing the ownership of shotguns is too restrictive (for instance the list of acceptable signatories, or people of good character who can support an application, is too limited). I believe that at home storage and security requirements are too high. I believe that the only restriction on replica weapons should be that they are not carried openly in public (unless they are toys carried by kiddies playing cowboys and Indians and the like; and yes, I am aware that the area of definition in these circumstances is fraught with danger; this is the kind of thing that parents are for). I believe that anyone should be able to carry an airgun from their home to their shooting club as long as the airguns are carried unloaded in closed and securely fastened cases or gun slips. This is not an exhaustive list.

What I do not believe in is that all have the right to firearm ownership unless it can be proven that they are not suitable and I am not just talking about criminals or those with recent or serious criminal records. Actually, that’s not quite true (and this is the point where I would get a little evasive and shady if we were to be chatting about this down the pub) I think that people do have the innate right to have guns for self defence but I do not believe that, in general, the population is prepared for it.

Yes, it’s a prejudice. 100% unadulterated prejudice and I accept and recognise that completely. However, I believe that it is a practical prejudice.

In this recent article in the Telegraph the author, Richard Munday, almost gets it. He correctly states that Britain has much less of a “gun culture" now than it did approximately 100 years ago:

A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials". Conan Doyle's Dr Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

What he misses here, and the thing that is central to my current position of practical prejudice is that gun culture is not about guns; it is about peoples attitude to guns, and more importantly, their respect of firearms in general and their ability to treat and use guns in a responsible manner. The gun culture that permitted wide ranging license free gun ownership in this country without significant and disastrous consequence was one of understanding. People understood firearms. They grew up in households that had always had them. They were taught from an early age how to treat them and use them. They were fully aware of what they could do and were fully prepared to take on the responsibilities of what firearms ownership entailed.

This culture was a learnt one. It required a continuity of ownership and the sharing of knowledge over each generation. There were no public training videos, no TV ads, no school indoctrination on the responsibilities of firearms ownership and yet the culture was there. It was there because children learnt it from their parents and/or from other adults. The culture was maintained and passed on and persisted and it allowed for common gun ownership without disastrous affects. In general, everyone (except criminals) benefited from it.

Then the state broke it. By degrees.

Gun culture was strangled to the point where continuity was lost and it is because of that loss that my full support for the liberalisation of gun ownership in the general populace is not forthcoming. I blame the state.

This is not to say that there are not many, many people out there who are not perfectly capable of owning all manner of weaponry. Even those that have never held a gun before could be perfectly responsible gun owners with a little training. We see it often in the sport, with new people becoming shooters (predominantly shotgun) because they have tried it and liked it. Generally, they also recognise the fact that they need training and seek it out (shotgun ownership is indeed up and continues to rise steadily).

It is the notion that suddenly all and sundry should be permitted to own guns or are indeed capable of responsible gun ownership and use that I cannot accept. Hah, look, there is a man that does not trust his fellow citizens (subjects, whatever). Indeed, true to some extent.

The gun culture I refer to does still exist in some small respect but it is no longer a wide culture. It is now limited to a significantly smaller number of families and wider associations. You know who you are and probably still use one or two of your father’s (and, dare I say it, mother’s) shotguns or rifles.

As I have said though, the wider culture has been interrupted by the state and we are all now reaping the whirlwind to some extent for their actions.

A structured approach to the rebuilding of a gun culture in the UK would get my support and a gradual re-introduction of general firearms ownership might well be possible but I do not think that this is something the state will ever subscribe to.

What might do it is sporting shooting. A consistent increase in the use of firearms for sporting purposes is, in my opinion, the only way that a gun culture can ever be reintroduced into the UK. There may come a time where a tipping point is reached. A time where a few million shooters manage to rebuild enough of the continuity that such a culture might be reborn.

Deriding sporting shooters for their approach to gun ownership (ie for sport and not for the principles of self defence and the rights and freedoms of the individual) might be fun for some but they might be the only possible way that these rights and freedoms will ever be reintroduced.

Who else will rebuild the continuity and the culture that I think is necessary?

Over at his place Kim writes:

John's suggestion that the shooting sports will head a revival of the gun culture is heartening, but not entirely correct. Because, let's be honest, the tools of hunting are mostly shotguns and rifles -- remember, no one "needs" to hunt with an "assault rifle", and even less so with a handgun.

At best, using John's prescription, gun ownership will belong to an ever-dwindling group of people, until it finally disappears like a candle burning out.

He may well be right and I am far from convinced that the shooting sports in the UK will achieve any significant revival of a positive gun culture. However there is practically nothing else on the horizon, other than a growing familiarity with guns for sport, that acts as an educator on the subject in this country.

Continued here.

The wisdom of one sly old fox

The sports of their forefathers
To baser tastes shall yield;
The vices of the town displace
The pleasures of the field

"The league's agenda was always to move on to attack shooting once they had got a ban on hunting, and it is quite clear that the agenda is being adopted by the Parliamentary Labour Party,"

BASC welcomes the new Home Secretary

From here:

16th December 2004……………………….immediate release.

The appointment of the Right Honourable Charles Clarke MP as Home Secretary has been welcomed by the UK’s biggest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) which will be writing to him to arrange a meeting on the review of firearms law.

Mr Clarke has previously served as a Home Office minister with responsibility for firearms law and has gained a reputation for being an approachable individual with a pragmatic view of shooting sports.

When commenting on firearms laws as Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr Clarke said “We are also aware that many people enjoy properly conducted shooting sports and we celebrate their competitive success. We have sought to strike a balance and to target our controls fairly and proportionately – our primary concern is to protect public safety.”

John Swift, BASC chief executive said “We welcome Mr Clarke to his new role and look forward to working with him on issues such as the current Home Office review of firearms law. His pragmatic reputation is well deserved. We share his aim of protecting public safety and will work towards developing his support for properly conducted, safe and legal shooting sports. We will be writing to Mr Clarke to arrange a meeting at his earliest convenience.”

I wasn't aware of Mr. Clarke's reputation with respect to the shooting sports. I wonder what his actual track record is?

The fifty seven thousand

It's good to see that the unfair ban on the sport of pistol shooting is back in the news:

To add to the concerns of the London bid team, another bit of lobbying has begun which could influence IOC members when they vote next July. This will highlight the way in which the Government have treated the Olympic sport of pistol shooting. The Sportsman's Association have written to the director general of the IOC, explaining how British pistol shooters (unless living in Northern Ireland) are severely discriminated against if they wish to compete in the pistol-shooting events in the Olympic Games.

Joe Kelly, chairman of the Sportsman's Association, in his letter asks the IOC "to use what influence they can to persuade the British government to amend the two Firearms (Amendment) Acts, 1997, so that at least the British and county pistol squads, and all shooters aspiring to such positions, may prepare themselves properly for competitions such as the Olympic Games".

Shooting is a major sport worldwide and the French have already made the treatment of shooting sports by our Government as an issue to lobby behind the scenes against London. The International Shooting Sport Federation are an influential governing body and will not be keeping silent either. The sport is second only to athletics in terms of numbers of countries affiliated and at the Sydney Olympics shooting had the third-highest numbers of countries competing.

During the Commonwealth Games two years ago in Manchester, a military operation was mounted to guard the competitors' pistols on their journey from the airport to the competition venue at Bisley in Surrey. As Joe Kelly points out in his letter to the IOC, if the UK wishes to host the Olympics in London in 2012, the Government will have to again introduce these special arrangements, which, he says, were a costly farce.

In the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy and the knee-jerk response to ban all handguns, no consideration was given to the plea of the legitimate shooting sports that competition shooting should be able to continue. Despite the ban, there are more illegal weapons on the streets than ever and the only people being punished are our talented athletes, who have to keep their pistols abroad and travel to Switzerland to train. This is an expensive undertaking and means that the opportunity to compete internationally is denied to many.

Both the current Labour government and the conservative party are fully to blame for the current ban on the sport of pistol shooting in this country and it is not something that many of us can easily forgive them for.

When it suits the suits, they argue that one should not overreact and legislate on the basis of isolated incidents. Bad law is often the result. Yet, when it comes to the private ownership of firearms for sport, they seem to lack the moral stature to stick to their guns.

The unfairness of the legislation is made worse by the almost immediate increase in the criminal use of firearms that came after the ban.

Of cour