Firearms in Britain?
Shurely some kind of mistake.
Firearm = AR-15, not some dual tube device to shoot fowl.
One thing the British state does well is waste money – as evidenced by its pouring of taxpayers' cash into millionaire model Lily Cole's online wishing well Impossible.com, or, say, fining itself hundreds of thousands for its pisspoor data security practices. Yet when it comes to firearms licensing, surprisingly few people see …
Speaking as a gun owning American... ;-)
Home defense is relative.
Yes a 12 gauge pump with a pistol grip, 18" barrel with a night sight and ghost ring would be better than an AR for home defense, there are other options.
The issue with the AR is that you have to worry about over penetration.
Of course the AR is a platform and you could switch out the 5.56 (no .223 here) and go to a 9mm carbine.
There are other carbine options too.
(If you live in a state where you can own Class III and you have the $$$ you could get an MP-5 suppressed. ) Now that would be a great home defense gun. ;-)
".....Firearm = AR-15, not some dual tube device to shoot fowl." It's a popular misconception that firearms in the UK are limited to BB guns and .22 target rifles and only fowl have anything to fear. Whist handguns are effectively banned (unless you want to mess around with black powder muzzle-loaders) shotguns are definitely not restricted to the classic double-barrel. Semi-auto rifles are supposedly banned in the UK, though there are some loopholes around 'historic' weapons (one collector I know shoots a WW2 Garrand rifle). Non-sport shooting also includes pest reduction, which includes foxes, badgers, rabbits, rats, and some bird species (crows, magpies, etc.). You can even go to specialist ranges and fire large-calibre rifles such as the Barrett .50s, a weapon that would reduce any fowl to mush. More practical calibres are used for legal deer stalking where the law sets a minimum calibre and muzzle velocity to reduce the chances of only wounding the animal. As a rule of thumb, any rifle that is judged suitable for killing a deer would be very capable of killing a person.
Which does bring us to an interesting point. One copper told me years ago the reason they had not implemented a computerized system was because paper is tangible - it's simply harder to lose a piece of paper - whereas computers seemed quite good to him at losing data. It's the old 'a filing cabinet does not have downtime' argument. Having the ability to find the owner of every potentially lethal firearm was what they wanted, not a system that could do it fast but only 99% of the time. He believed that, even if the system was to be computerized, it would only be as a back-up to the same paper forms, so adding the computerized system might actually require additional cost and therefore an increase in license fees.
"paper is tangible - it's simply harder to lose a piece of paper"
You sure about that?
1) We are talking about government here
2) We are talking about the government
The US at one time couldn't account for $6.6 billion. They say it has now been accounted for, but is that truly the case?
". . . paper is tangible - it's simply harder to lose a piece of paper . . ."
It's not specifically some kind of permanence so much as paper being seen in some circles as possessing magical qualities that instantly transform something from questionable to legitimate.
Millions of dollars can be whisked around the world electronically but, for some reason, when you buy a house, you must present the money in an odd, antiquated format called a 'cheque'.
Signatures are so outdated (and clearly flawed as a security measure) that in Australia we can't use them for credit card purchases but the government accepts them as a big stamp of approval when a friend marks similar scribbles on the front of your passport application and the back of the photo.
"See that, Bob? This chap was able to generate acceptably similar lines of ink at different sizes and on various paper stock!""That's pretty formidable John - clearly someone of outstanding character and well-developed fine motor skills. I think we should trust him."
Sometimes I think that paper is preferred by lawyers and governments because it makes it easier to charge per action. Receive the paper, read the paper, notarise the paper, file the paper, retrieve the paper, copy the paper, certify the copy of the paper, send the copy of the paper . . .
"One copper told me years ago the reason they had not implemented a computerized system was because paper is tangible"
Well that, and mailing in a paper cheque also gives them access to your name in it's most human form (signature), your true essence (DNA from licking the envelope or shed skin cells), and your trapped breath (the air sample inside the envelope).
Traditionally, in witchcraft, any one of those things could be used to control or harm you or your family...
>>One copper told me years ago the reason they had not implemented a computerized system was because paper is tangible - it's simply harder to lose a piece of paper
On the renewal before last the Firearms Officer had a record of one more gun than I actually owned, I explained that the count was wrong, and my certificate only listed the weapons I owned, fair enough he said, which for me is fine, but what about the gun I didn't own? is that floating around unrecorded somewhere?
Computers *should* be much better!
"Computers *should* be much better!"
Should be!
Unfortunately it took me 6 months to convince them my semi-auto rifle wasn't a bolt action. The home visiting officer wrote down all the guns correctly on renewal (me being a dab hand at reading upside down), and then went away and whoever did the data-entry bollocksed the whole lot up beyond all recognition. Wrong serial numbers vs the wrong manufacturer, vs the wrong action.
Given they were all in the system correctly before, I'm not even sure how they managed to break it that badly. Should have been a matter of clicking "All present and correct on inspection". No real data entry or amendments required!
> One copper told me years ago the reason they had not implemented a computerized system was because paper is tangible - it's simply harder to lose a piece of paper
His experience of the losability of pieces of paper is different to mine.
Even if you agree that paper is harder to lose, it's also harder to find. If you're trying to find out about a particular firearm, it's not a lot of use to know that the information you seek is on an unlosable piece of paper in one of 50 filing cabinets spread across the country.
We seem to have learned to store quite a lot of important information on these new-fangled computers over the last half-century, without the needing the backup of "paper forms." Why should firearms licences be any different?
He's talking about renewing his license, not the sort of situation a cooling off period is required for.
I'm not sure, but I'd assume that the time it would take to get a firearms license in the UK is probably far longer than the cooling off period in any US state. Over here a gun is a privilege, not a right.
"I'm not sure, but I'd assume that the time it would take to get a firearms license in the UK is probably far longer than the cooling off period in any US state. Over here a gun is a privilege, not a right."
To get a Firearms Certificate you have to demonstrate "Good Reason". There are two good reasons - Target Shooting and Hunting. Self Defence was discounted as a good reason by the Home Office in the 50s or 60s.
To demonstrate Target Shooting, you need to be a Full member of a Home Office Approved Club. Full membership can only be granted after a mandatory 6 month probationary period, during which time you shoot club guns. This means the committee have got to know you and are satisfied you're not a nutter.
Also they tell the Police that you have joined as a Probationer, who will get back to you if they're not happy. They won't tell you why - that would infringe the applicant's privacy, merely that "They would have concerns if full membership were offered".
For Hunting, you have to show you have somewhere to shoot - permission from a Landowner or something. If you're asking for a larger calibre - say for deer - straight off the bat they will ask what experience you have and might require you to find a mentor for the first 6 months.
It's all down the individual merits of each case, your background and what you're asking for.
In both cases you have to provide character references, and give the Police authority to approach your GP and access your medical records, though they only usually do that if they have reason to suspect they ought to (based on something a referee has said, something you have told them, or the results of their trawl through Police Intelligence records). In the case of Target Shooting, they also call the Club Secretary and do a quick phone interview, confirm they are a member (such confirmation would have barred Thomas Hamilton from having pistols as he wasn't a member of the club he claimed to be part of) ask how you've found them as a person, whether they've done anything strange or concerning, etc.
It's certainly not a matter of walking into a store and having a background check done - even if you do have to sit through a cooling-off period whilst that check is completed.
I will say at the outset that I am quite anti gun but not really in any lobby group etc. However I think the writer makes many good points but it comes across as a moan and a rant - and you don't get things changed by ranting.
However if the idea was sold more on its positives I think it could gain more traction - if the 'shooting community' (if I can call it that) was to recommend to Government that a computerised system of payments would free up time and resources for better vetting of those who wish to have gun licenses and bring an improvement to the overall security of gun ownership (i'm sure it could be better worded) then it would be much better received. Don't go on about how inefficient paper and cheques are , but how much more efficient a computerised system would be (I'm not going to argue about it getting hacked etc - someone else can have that dig)
A colleague used to go on and on about speed cameras not improving safety - I told him he should have 'sold' his theories to safety campaigners rather than moaning on about the government limiting his 'rights' - it feel on deaf ears though as ultimately it just came down tot he fact that he wanted to drive fast being an ex-rally driver.
A colleague used to go on and on about speed cameras not improving safety - I told him he should have 'sold' his theories to safety campaigners rather than moaning on about the government limiting his 'rights'
You cannot "sell" these theories to "safety campaigners" because they not not doing "safety campaigns" to be convinced that they are barking up the wrong tree. Then safety campaigns are forever and the people involved are an easy vote to buy simply by giving in to their demands. On the other hand, "not doing anything" is always a hard sell because it necessitates to convince politicians and people that may weigh in on the discussion that there is not really a problem in the first place. As these people are not in the safety campaign in the first place, they really are not interested in hearing about it. And then you get accused of not thinking of the children.
Plus you are not allowed to apply firearms to the safety campaigners either.
Whenever something bad happens, or is percieved to have happened, politicians need to be seen to be doing something.... anything...
What they do need not actually have any positive effect. It just has to push the right buttons with the citizens to placate them.
That's why government is incremental.We very rarely see them saying a rule does not work, or is pointless, so they strike it. Generally the best they do is tweak it. That is all governments - the world over.
That's how we end up with daft laws that permit the use of headsets when driving when they are as distracting as hand held phones which are banned.
Does having gun licensing reduce gun crime? Maybe, ut unlikely by much. Criminals don't bother themselves with licenses etc. Toff paying 10 quid per year seldom rob banks. But what it does do is placate a whole swath of anti-gun people who tut-tut that at least it is better than in USA where any maniac can get gun.
Of course they don't realise that USA has a vast amount of gun laws - restricting all sorts of things - many seemingly very stupid. You can buy a whole rifle at Wallmart, but you need a federal firearms license to buy some parts (triggers, bolts,...).
In USA you need a special $200 permit to buy a supressor. In Australia they are illegal. In UK you can get it one with a regular license. In NZ they are unrestricted - anyone can buy one through the post or in a shop.
As a license holding NZ gun owner, I don't mind the idea of a gun license at all - even though it costs be about $10NZ per year. It does perhaps weed out some nutters, but mainly it makes the naysayers happy so they get out of my hair.
>>better vetting of those who wish to have gun licenses and bring an improvement to the overall security of gun ownership
Perhaps you could suggest addressing problems that actually exist? Gun crime from licensed owners in the UK is so rare that when it does happen it's front page news, I think the large background checks, 1 to 1 interviews of family members, access to medical notes, gun safe inspections, credit checks etc. are pretty comprehensive, that, coupled with a requirement of "because I want a gun" being insufficient justification.
@No, I will not fix your computer
It's just a knee-jerk unthinking reaction:- exactly the sort that politicos pander to when rushing through ill-thought out and badly written legislation (has there been any other kind in the last 50-60 years?).
Both gubmint & plod have a visceral dislike of the populace having any access to any sort of arms, as a totally unarmed population is much easier to control and presents much less of a threat to the establishment.
Presumably the new site will be implemented with HTTPS and include Google Analytics along with a plethora of other trackers including but not exclusive FaceAche, Twatter and Gibber + buttons.. Plus people will get the opportunity to pay via EBAY PayPal and comment on the service via Disqus. Thus gifting all data about Fire Arm owners in the UK to the US Whilst improving your Fire Arm Browsing experience. Complaints will be ignored until you moan on Twatter and then any issues raised will be ignored. The associated site will not be targeted for SQL injection or other attacks by 'subversives' in search of easily liftable weaponry and munitions and when 'the database' gets powned the ICO will descend on them like flies on shit because it means they can look good by fining The Taxpayer.. again..
Clearly, it has to be done right.
I am not going to exclude the possibility of a filing cabinet with the printed list as back-up, but a reliable database on this scale isn't a problem that has never been solved before.
I haven't found any recent figures, but a couple of million legal guns in the UK is about right.
With multiple driving licences, a neighbour has ordinary car, motorcycle, and HGV licences, it doesn't surprise me that there may be over 60 million driving licences to keep track of. And 35 million vehicles.
Computerisation of the records looks a relatively small job. Plenty that might go wrong, but not even close to pushing the envelope.
Those are the sorts of number that Randall Munroe might use. And name-and-address info for every gun could plausibly be fitted onto one HDD, though that might be pushing it.
It's much harder to steal a filing cabinet.
It needs to be done right, and broadly speaking has been, though it was waaay over date and over budget. And they had to stuff "National" on the front because the Firearms Licensing Management System had become known as "FLIMSY". So now it's NFLMS, which ruins the backronym fun.
That was brought in after Dunblane when it became apparent that Thomas Hamilton had had adverse contact with the Police over the course of decades - but the regular beat bobbies had never thought to ask the Firearms Licensing lot to check their filing cabinets for whether he had guns (it wasn't really relevant). And then when they finally twigged, top brass wouldn't yank his certificate, even though there were a bunch of reasons they could have (wasn't a member of a Home Office Approved club for a start, which is a requirement to get a licence for Target shooting. Hunting is a bit different). Dunblane was truly a failure of Policing, not of the prevailing legislation, so the licensing process was tightened up. They also took away the pistols, but that was media grandstanding. The bit that made the difference was actually following the licensing procedure to the letter (I only mention Dunblane as it's important to understand how it came to happen and the reasoning behind the introduction of NFLMS. Anyone trying to make Political headway in either direction based on such a bloody appalling incident is a sicko).
So now if you're logging intelligence against a person, if they have a Firearm or Shotgun Certificate that'll pop up too, which is broadly a good thing.
And if you're pulled over, they can instantly check that your Firearms Certificate isn't a forgery designed to pass casual muster as they can get check from the roadside that it actually exists in the Police records, even if you're a shooter licensed by Devon and Cornwall Police, being pulled over by Surrey police on your way to Bisley or whatnot. This is a good thing.
Of course it only works if the person in the office actually logs all the records the firearms owners are dutifully sending in - that Person A has sold gun 1 to Person B, etc - and isn't just diverting the post into the bin whilst they spend all day playing Solitaire, which seems to be what happened in South Yorkshire.
Given some of those transactions must have involved certificate holders in other regions, it makes you wonder why NFLMS didn't start flagging when a transaction had been entered by, say, North Yorkshire Police, but not confirmed by South Yorks for their end of the transaction.
"...Anyone trying to make Political headway in either direction based on such a bloody appalling incident is a sicko..."
Agreed:- but that hasn't stopped the Westminster Slimes (of all party hues) milking all appalling incidents for narrow political purposes in my living memory - and I'm over 60!
They're about as trustworthy as a Hamas ceasefire.
"£10 a year" is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum comparison - you don't say that your annual rail season ticket costs £14.30 a day when you're actually coughing up £5,000 upfront. It's a fixed statutory cost that must be met in full; shooters don't have the luxury of depreciating it over a number of years.
Ammo - for competition grade ammunition that I shoot in county level matches I'm looking at between 96p and £1.01 per round for top-grade factory stuff. By shopping around and compromising a bit on quality I could probably knock 10 or 15p per round off that price; more if I handloaded my own ammunition. Practice ammunition runs at anything between 35p/rd for dodgy ex-military stuff recycled from machine gun belts and 40-50p/rd for ammo that will at least hit the target reliably, if with little consistency.
A typical match for me is between 24rds and 50rds fired in a day, and some matches last for a full weekend; that could be up to £100+ that literally goes up (off) in smoke.
Even for pottering with my old Enfield, I'm still paying 45p+ per round. That adds up quite quickly when you're playing with the world's fastest bolt-action rifle...
The point is:
a. Shooters should not necessarily cover the entire cost of the license - if the PUBLIC want shooters to be licensed for the PUBLIC benefit, then they can feel free to chip in. I'm not suggesting licensing is a bad thing - it's very important. But it does not benefit me as a lawful shooter in any way. It's an extra bit of paperwork I have to faff with in the process of going about my lawful business.
b. You don't pay if your licence application is refused. The charge is for the grant of a licence - even though the Police have done the legwork! A lot of shooters feel annoyed that they are subsidising the cost of refusals as well as their own certificates.
c. Even if we do concede that shooters should cover the whole cost, I seriously object to paying £200 if the actual cost is £60. I don't mind it going up a bit - it's been where it is for a decade and with inflation the value has depreciated. However, it needs to be realistic and proportional.
d. There are many costs that can be trimmed at the admin end.
I had a home visit for a variation - noone has a home visit for a variation. Not for a second rifle in a calibre I am already cleared for, with my "Good Reason" for needing a second rifle clearly explained in the application (a completely different target discipline that requires a different type of rifle).
If the Police want shooters to put more money then they need to show a bit of good faith by not wasting their own time and resources! We can talk about increases once they've stopped squandering the money they've got!
I know Staffordshire Firearms Licensing got mucked about around 2012ish when top brass were looking to cut costs. First they got moved into a vacant council office so they could close a separate Police office and move that unit into Police HQ, then they got moved back, then something else. In the end it took them 4 months to process a certificate renewal. Home Office say it should take no less than 2 months.
Since some counties renew in a couple of weeks, this means anyone taking 4 months is doing it wrong - not that the shooters aren't pitching in enough cash.
I think the feeling amongst a lot of shooters is they don't mind a proportionate, inflation-linked increase, but in some areas the service and turnaround times need to be a hell of a lot better.
Some areas do an amazing job, so those that aren't up to snuff need to take a good hard look at themselves, not just instinctively stick out their paw and say 'We need more money".
For hundreds of years England not only allowed its citizens to have weapons they expected them to have them and be good at it. You don't think those archers at Agincourt just picked up their bows and started shooting do you ?
At some point England became afraid of its citizens. And it went from a country where the police were known for not carrying guns to a country where more and more of its police carry weapons.
That moment was right after world war 2, when the incoming labour government decided that they were going to fundamentally reorganise society. They nationalised what major industry had remained in private hands and began introducing a whole series of acts with enabling provisions that allowed amendment without parliamentary oversight. Since then we've seen our freedom gradually but progressively stripped away all over the place.
Would you allow me to reply for Ivan4?
First off left and right as political terms have no meaning for me. The Government always tries to increase revenue, so why not charge you for a gun license? A dog license. A license for your sign that says you are having a garage sale.....
When I buy a fishing license the funds are supposed to go to the Texas Parks and Wildlife fund. The reality is it goes to the general funds. It is in reality a way to tax only sportsmen. The same for the Gun license. It is just a way to tax only gun owners.
I don't remember the politician who said it but it goes something like this.
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the fellow behind the tree."
This post has been deleted by its author
> For hundreds of years England not only allowed its citizens to have weapons they expected them to have them and be good at it.
Yes, and they had to go and practice the archery every Sunday after Church and be available to be summoned to fight when needed, so people *knew* who they were.
However (judging by your name) you appear to be of the Left-Pondian persuasion (ADDENDUM: Ah, I note from your follow up post that you are indeed) and seem to think that letting anyone have a gun without a licence, without anyone in authority knowing who they are, without background checks, without proof that they actually know how to use it safely and, indeed, without any proof they are actually mentally stable is a good idea.
Then, of course, we get to the situation where everyone has the right to bear arms and thus, many feel the need to do exactly that to protect themselves from all the others who have exactly the same right...
Some of us still do have bows, and practice. Mines a 60lb Grozer biocomposite recurve - yes I shoot trad, no sights, no arrow guide, not even gloves. Arrows are wood, fletchings feather with linnen bindings and the nocks are horn and not dayglo plastic.
No licence required, not even club membership needed if you have somewhere to shoot.
A 60lb draw bow is considered adequate to hunt deer in the states so will seriously inconvenience/kill a human. However it is not exactly a concealable weapon and can't be left strung and ready to fire.
Just a pity bow hunting is illegal in the UK - even for grey squirrels.
Left Pondian?
LOL...
As a Yank, I can tell you what it's like going through owning a gun...
Gun laws vary state by state.
When you purchase your gun, you will go through a background check and you will have a waiting period.
Long Guns (rifles and shotguns) are different from handguns (pistols and revolvers).
In Illinois, since the late 60's you had to apply to the state to get a FOID card. You could not touch a gun, or purchase ammo without a card. It didn't mean that you owned a gun, only that you have gone through the background check to show that you can own a gun.
Then you go to your gun store, purchase the gun. The gun store takes your money, helps you fill out the paperwork, and you wait. They process the paperwork, do a background check and after the waiting period, you can pick up your gun.
So its not as simple as just saying I want a gun and I get to go in to the store and buy it.
Although for rifles in certain states, it can be that easy. (Again, it depends on the state.)
Suppressors, Short Barreled Rifles (SBR), Automatic Weapons all require special permits and this depends again on where you live.
Conceal Carry? All of the US now have some form of constitutional carry and conceal carry permits in place. Illinois was the last holdout.
In Chicago, there are several shootings a day. All clustered in to two regions and all tend to be gang related with some robbery attempts. (Even those tend to be gang related.) In all cases, the guns are unregistered and those caught by police end up having prior felony convictions and could not legally possess a gun in the first place.
But if you want to shoot. Plenty of options, including Perry OH.
I think many people ARE afraid of their fellow citizens...politicians who seek to limit our freedom are only pandering to a sizeable chunk of public opinion. There are not many people I'd trust to own a hand gun responsibly. But it goes far wider...the public don't even trust their neighbours to trim their hedges properly; they don't trust them not to blot the landscape with ugly new buildings, or chop down native trees...hence local councils are given the job of policing all this. The bureaucracy interfering with all aspects of our lives goes on and on, but we asked for it because we distrust other people more than we value our own freedom.
>>it went from a country where the police were known for not carrying guns to a country where more and more of its police carry weapons.
Actually, less police carry weapons now than before, back in the 80's firearms authorisation was reduced, from a peak of around 17% of police carrying weapons (London) this has reduced to less than 10%, in fact only 7% are trained, and not all of them carry weapons all the time - this is the Met Police, the largest police force in the world, other British police forces have significantly less (NI excluded obviously).
>>At some point England became afraid of its citizens.
Guy Fawkes is one of our heroes, we know how to keep our government in line, do you?
Guy Fawkes a hero? Um, is that why we burn him on 5th November?
Until "V for Vendetta" came out, Guy Fawkes was clearly always the baddie. Bonfire night celebrates Parliament being saved from him and his fellow Catholic plotters.
In Lewes in Sussex, they burn effigies of the Pope too!
"...we know how to keep our government in line..."
Pure cobblers. We might think we do - well, those who swallow the bilge emanating from Westminster might - but in fact the government - any government - views & treats us with the greatest of contempt, and they carry on doing exactly what they want, or what their globalised masters tell them to.
".....At some point England became afraid of its citizens....." Not all it's citizens, just returning 'Red' soldiers in 1918-20. The difference between the end of the Great War and previous wars was the very common incidents of agitation by Communists and Socialists who were upset that Britain was still involved in an undeclared war against Red Russia. The greater ease of communication - newspapers, reliable and functional postal system, and the easy availability of printing for pamphlets - made the agitators quite effective at spreading discontent amongst British troops just wanting to go home. There were mutinies amongst the Royal Navy and in British Army camps in France, especially when the soldiers were told they might have to stay in Europe to enforce the Armistace for another two years. The Government of the day was worried at the idea of the conscripted masses, now well-trained in soldiery, returning home to face the unarmed Police and much reduced peacetime forces. As the bitter revolutionary fighting escalated in European countries like Germany the UK Government decided it would be a good idea to introduce control of firearms. Having seen the chaos of the Spartacus revolution in Germany, the Red threat was taken so seriously it resulted in the one occasion tanks were deployed on British soil to threaten protestors (the short-lived but violent 'Glasgow Soviet' of January 1919). After that, the firearms controls gradually escalated until we get to today's very controlled system.
If the author has a look at his current / previous firearm and shotgun certificates he'll spot they all appear to have been spewed out of a line or dot matrix printer (No scribes were bothered in their creation). As far as I know the last certificates to see a pen hit a post box some time in 1980's. So from the printed certificates one premises of the article is destroyed, all his details are sitting in several local and national databases / CRM systems, tis primarily a National electronic payment system that's missing.
The other point the author has failed to note is that certificates are issued by the relevant LOCAL Police authority, which with the exception of the: Met, Scotland and N.I are just a branch of the local / county council. And as I'm sure you are all aware each council has it's own procedures, back end and payment system (Council tax / Parking fines .....). So any new national payment system would at the very least need to communicate / be integrated with the 50 odd proprietary council back end systems, to simply transfer the payments into the correct bank account / set of accounts. Organising a gathering of all the interested parties from: central, regional and local government along with the applicable providers of the existing kit and prospective vendors of a new national payment offering will take months and cost many beer tokens, I'm guessing more than the day a week of clerical backoffice time most forces employ at present, to actually handle the current payments.
Here in Canada, with 90% of the land area being wild amd hosting a variety of predators capable of killing a human (black bears, brown bears (grizzlies), wolves, coyotes, rattle snakes, sasquatch, we have no problem issuing licenses for long guns. Hand guns are basically illegal in Canada so only the criminals own them. The fact that Canadians own legal rifles/shotguns has not deterred the RCMP fromn trying to confiscate them, even using a flood as a pretense to break into peoples homes and steal their weapons. Governments SHOULD fear the populace rising up - voting doesn't seem to be keeping them in check.
I cannot imagine the anti-gun lobby allowing any form of progress with the firearm licence. Unfortunately the opinions of people who have guns ranges from head in the sand (nobody around here has one) to anyone with a gun must be a nutter. How long ago was the BBC article about the buck that had been shot and left by some cruel, soulless monster with a gun? Until of course the truth arrived and it was a necessary act to maintain the species. And even then I couldnt believe the number of people who advocated reintroducing predators to rip these things to shreds because that was better because it was 'natural'.
This is a good article and I wish such common sense and progress could be made. But unfortunately that is not my experience with people because few of them know anything about guns beyond video games and the news.
"And even then I couldn't believe the number of people who advocated reintroducing predators to rip these things to shreds because that was better because it was 'natural'.
The reintroduction of a top level predator (wolf) to help control the red deer population makes perfect sense. Red deer and many other species of deer are kept at artificially high numbers to fund the stalking industry. With no predator large herds can stand all day eating the vegetation on the hill to the peat creating a desert and large fat lazy deer which over breed. From around 150,000 in the 60's Scotland now has around 400,000 red deer. The wolf invokes a genetic response to keep on the move so the herd can't eat all it sees and the weak and the excess young get culled. The alternative is forced culling by shooting and if you think that's better then you have not witnessed the wholesale carnage required to take out the 50,000 per year that the Forestry Commission take and they only manage 9% of Scotland's deer forest.
Shooting is indeed a necessary evil and poor second best to re-introducing a natural Top Level Predator, ideally wolves. Aside from deer though, shooting is a hell of a lot quicker and more humane for rabbits (a non-native invasive species to the UK) than the horror of mixy.
One might hope that such a reintroduction of Wolves would not only help the Deer populations but have the happy side effect of also controlling the surplus population of Ramblers (Latin: porter horribilis) who are sadly not on the Natural England General License and thus not considered fair game.