Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Countryside Alliance response to firearm consultation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Wet Cold Downtown Leicester
    Posts
    18,523

    Countryside Alliance response to firearm consultation

    http://www.countryside-alliance.org/...onse_final.pdf

    - Short and to the point but certainly common sense.

    BASC's version is more detailed but also quite similar ;-) http://www.basc.org.uk/media/basc_final_response.pdf

    I'm impressed

    Richard
    A man can always use more alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

  2. #2
    RemMag is offline We're getting married, Weevie and me.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Newbury
    Posts
    4,622
    Have just finished reading the BASC reply. I am more than happy with that. Lets just hope that Blinkett goes crazy and carries out all of their recommendations!!

  3. #3
    Sid Guest

    Re: Countryside Alliance response to firearm consultation

    Originally posted by RichardH

    - Short and to the point but certainly common sense.

    I'm impressed

    Richard
    I like the return of pistols and self loading centrefires idea, but that's a bit optimistic IMO

    Also I trust that if the Government decide to ban our .22 semi's etc after all advice to the contrary then the CA will organise a huge march in our defence

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    South Devon.
    Posts
    1,823
    My favourite(just slightly edited) quote from the BASC reply concerning not allowing guns to be visble in gunshops to the passing public.
    "It would be farcical to ask a Second World War reenactment
    group to refrain from carrying firearms during its presentation to the public in case their guns had a baleful influence on the young. Such a notion would be akin to requiring classical ballerinas to wear trousers on the off chance that their exposed legs might cause undue excitement to young men in the audience. Or even asking athletes to wear duffle coats lest they happen to be peanut smugglers"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Wet Cold Downtown Leicester
    Posts
    18,523
    Sid - In actual fact I went to great lengths to speak at length with both Simon Hart (CA) and Bill Harriman (BASC) some weeks ago while composing my own fairly lengthy response to the "consultation".

    I wanted to be absolutely certain both organisations of which I am a paid up member were not prepared to "sacrifice" those with say .50 rifles, .22LR AR15's and long barreled revolvers for the greater good. If they actually banned everything they talked about my several (stacked) cabinets would be almost empty and very dull.

    You will remember the response from our very own NRA to a similar consultation in 1988 immediately after the Hungerford tragedy-

    "We see no reason why civilian shooters need self loading rifles"

    An absolutely staggering statement from the organisation professing to protect the rights of the target rifle fraternity which made pushing through the ban childs play for our elected government.

    If pushing the government for relaxations in respect of Section 5 guns simply neutralises their desire to add to that category its worthwhile for that reason alone.

    While I'm a realist there is perhaps, with the current Olympic fever just an very outside chance .22 pistols could move slightly closer to S1 again.

    Even worst case given the number of BASC requests for various commitee's and working groups to investigate the many different elements of the proposals, these proceedings should take us well into the next Parliment before any action is actually taken giving us all a little while longer to enjoy our freedom and an outside chance of a more sympathetic government of the day.

    While the CA may not be right up your street Sid ( ) they have both to my mind submitted a very constructive and supportive document at a time when they have huge issues of their own with the hunting bill. It would have been very easy for both they and to a lesser extent BASC to ignore the tiny minority of us remaining with such politically incorrect toys and protect the rights of Lord and Lady Smythe-Wynn-Thomas and their Holland and Holland shotguns and bolt action stalking rifles just as they did in 1988.

    I'd also be curious as to how many of us currently enjoying their support are actually members of these organisations, it seems to me such support should be a two way street.

    Just my thoughts for the little they are usually worth

    Richard
    A man can always use more alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

  6. #6
    Sid Guest
    Rich - I'm not a CA member, although I have chucked some small amounts of money in their buckets at various events.
    I'm opposed to legislation against foxhunting with hounds.
    I'm not even anti posh people ( I have met a few of the truly posh while selling expensive NV kit and much prefer them to the 'aspirational' middle classes, who need a good slapping IMO )

    BUT - I'm a natural born cynic and wonder if the CA will fight our corner as hard as they fight their own. If I'm convinced they will - then I'll join, but as yet I'm still undecided.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Wet Cold Downtown Leicester
    Posts
    18,523
    Sid for all their faults (and funding issues) no-one can argue the CA haven't done a fantastic marketing job and ****** good job of presenting a positive case for hunting to the media in a very short timeframe.

    Personally I can barely ride and have never ridden with the hunt yet I believe passionately that any ban would be a huge loss for our community, the CA was set up with the primary aim of fighting such legislation which personally I'm happy to contribute to.

    With regard to how far they would be prepared to push the issue perhaps not as far as I'd like but I'd guess further than the airgunbbs assault weapon alliance, certainly further than the NRA and definately further than the Govt's nonsensical "Charter for shooting". In short they are one of the very few friends with influence and marketing knowhow we have.

    Interestingly the other relevant organisations didnt see fit to return my calls I'm looking forward (with some concerns) to reading their submissions.

    Richard
    A man can always use more alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Wet Cold Downtown Leicester
    Posts
    18,523
    Some more responses from the other organisations -

    Wildfowling Magazine (Who?)

    NSRA (Rimfire target mob)

    Gun Control Network (Know thy enemy)

    Sportsmans Assoc

    National Rifle Assoc (UK)

    CPSA

    Impressive set of submissions yet sadly many conflicting views, surely it must have been possible for these organisations to meet, agree a common cause and present a united front?

    Richard
    A man can always use more alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

  9. #9
    Muddy Gumboots Guest
    From the GCN Proposal:

    Gun shops should not be allowed openly to display what they are selling. It is to be hoped that this would deter young people from treating guns as simply another consumer product. Guns on open display cause alarm to members of the public and reinforce a sense of insecurity
    And then something from yesterday's newspaper, about a Land Rover ad which was banned for including a woman firing a starting pistol.

    However, 348 viewers complained to the media regulator, Ofcom, earning the commercial a place in the top 10 of adverts to have attracted the most complaints. Ofcom ruled that it had breached guidelines on harm and offence and must not be shown again. It said: "Given regular coverage of high-profile shooting incidents and public concern about the wider social impact of the so-called gun culture, the glamorisation and normalisation of guns, even indirectly, is simply offensive to many people. "In this advertisement, the starter pistol was used in both an apparent casual manner and just for fun, to signal the start of the man's journey. The domestic setting, together with the gun simply lying in a drawer, normalised the ownership of guns.
    (full story at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/01/nad01.xml)

    1 - 348 people out of 50,000,000? Doesn't seem much, really??

    2 - Why shouldn't the ownership of guns be normal? We haven't got two heads and green skin. We're normal too. GRRRRRRR.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Derby
    Posts
    6,499
    From the GCN submission:

    "Tight control of guns is associated with low levels of gun violence."

    Yeah, right, that'll be why nobody ever gets shot in the UK any more!!! (bitter cynical laugh)

    Seriously, those fools shouldn't be allowed to some out with such blatant bull****

    "Tight control of guns" and "low levels of gun violence" are only ever "associated" by nutcases like them...

  11. #11
    Mohawk Guest
    For RichardH, regarding the membership of the "so called" shooting organisatsions, I agree that support is supposed to be a 2 way street. Unfortunately I have not bothered to join any of these organisations & left the CPSA after the last 2 major clamp downs on gun ownership by the politically correct politicians that are more interested in being seen to do something rather than actually doing it.

    As you rightly stated about the NRA, just letting it slide after Hungerford, the CPSA did the same after Dunblane as there were no shotguns involved ! Hence I did not renew with them. Unfortunately all of the other shooting organisations argue amongst each other, after all our memberships keep them in cushy jobs ! & as far as I'm aware no UK government have ever enacted any of their or the FCC's recommendations, or repeeled or reduced the intended legislation in response to the efforts of the shooting organisations !

    Thus your money is wasted & no politician gives a sh!t about a couple of hundred thousand S1 shooters rights or opinions & only slightly less about the 1/2 million shotgun users. As no one knows how many airgunners there are & who they are, then they don't even figure in the politicians minds at all. If there was one body representing shooting, that had elected leaders & could demonstrate to any government or potential government the ability to affect the voting of say 10million gun users, then they would listen, as they do in the USA, much to the antis disgust.

    Maybe these are the 10million missing from Muddy Gumboots 50M population figure

    If any of these shooting organisations make a difference, then I'd join & support them, at the minute its just a waste of cash. After all we live in a so called democracy & less than one million against around 40million voters is always going to be a no win situation. We can show skill & accuracy alongside responsibility to assist our vote. The antis can show bleeding/dead people & nice furry animals shot through (even if it was a clean kill) & joe soap public will pull out their tissues & vote with the antis ! Such is the way of life in the 21st century Nanny State. It will all change come the revolution, I don't think so.

    Bummer

    Chris W.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Seaford, Sussex, UK
    Posts
    4,542
    I suspect that before leaving for Athens Tony passed David a memo advising him to pose as gun friendly until after the election, thereby cashing in on the hoi polloi thirst for Olympic gold.

    I wonder if on receiving an Olympic sized wad of memo's in one bash, Blunko mistook them for this weeks backhander and filed them away in his retirement piggy unread.

    Well, it's a theory.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Aylesbury
    Posts
    3,412
    Originally posted by Muddy Gumboots
    From the GCN Proposal:



    And then something from yesterday's newspaper, about a Land Rover ad which was banned for including a woman firing a starting pistol.


    (full story at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/01/nad01.xml)

    1 - 348 people out of 50,000,000? Doesn't seem much, really??

    2 - Why shouldn't the ownership of guns be normal? We haven't got two heads and green skin. We're normal too. GRRRRRRR.
    I read that article. Ofcoms response was appalling. I felt it was so bad that I (with my mums help) sent them this e-mail:

    Dear Sir/Madam
    I understand that the advert for the Freelander sport has been classified by your organisation as unsuitable for showing on television due to the use of a starting pistol in it.
    While I do not have a problem with the advert being banned, I feel I must object to the reasons that your organisation gave to the press in support of the ban.
    I will now quote sections of your press release.
    The first phrase I would like to examine is "the glamorisation and normalisation of guns" I would like your organisation to explain to me how the advert glamourised guns. It did not feature the gun being used to get so called 'respect' by a gang of hooligans, nor did it show the woman threatening the man.
    Taking this point into account, I as a rifle, shotgun ,air rifle and air pistol shooter (both through my cadet unit and as an owner of a rifle) must register my concern at the level of knowledge shown by your review board. While I agree that the use of any firearm for any crime is completely unacceptable, it is clear that your agency did not research what a starting pistol would be used for, and neither did it apparently research any of the laws to do with starting pistols. Typically, a starting pistol is used only for starting sporting events (ie. the Olympic athletics)I have never heard of the affore mentioned pistols being used for crime. If, however, you have evidence that they have, I would be more than happy to accept it if you were willing to show your evidence. I presume if you do have any such evidence you made it clear in your press release, and that the source of the article merely edited it out (The Daily Telegraph). I also assume, that if the pistols have been used for crime, that there must be some licensing system that I am not aware of, and nor, according to the 2002 firearm reccomendations to the police, are the police forces throughout the country.
    You also state that "The domestic setting, together with the gun simply lying in a drawer." As an owner and user of various licensed firearms, I can assure you that if the starting pistol required a licence, that the pistol would not be in a drawer. Indeed, our armoury has a level of security comparable to a bank. However, the pistol was featured in the drawer, because the advert makers had obviously conducted research into the licensing systems.
    I believe that your press release took advantage of the fact that people have legitimate concerns about gun crime, which I find acceptable. What I do NOT find acceptable, however, is the fact that your press release contained the phrase "normalised the ownership of guns." I would like some clarification of why, as a responsible firearm owner myself, I am not normal, or why my use and interest in firearms is not normal. I am a student in full-time education, and come from a hardworking family that is perfectly respectable. I believe that if the advert had used a religious or sexual symbol in it, then you would not have said something akin to your comment. Can you honestly say to me that you would have included in your press release a phrase like "normalised the pagan religon" or "normalised homosexuality".
    I believe that your statement was unfair and simply re-inforced the general publics view that all firearm owners/users should be persecuted and have the weapons banned. Fortunately, as it happens, the government is conducting a firearms consultation at the moment, and perhaps you should respond to it, if you have real concerns, in a manner akin to the Gun control networks' manner. If you do consider their response acceptable and balanced, then I will be writing to my MP to inform him that the board is un-impartial in the way it deals with advertsing complaints.
    Awaiting your response with interest,
    Yours Sincerely,


    Me

    PS. Will you be reccomending a full-scale ban on starting pistols at all times, including athletic events?

  14. #14
    Barrie_G is offline It could be worse...............................
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashington, Northumberland, UK
    Posts
    2,364
    Reading the Gun Control Network's response I see that they seem to be asking for a "non lethal power limit of eg 0.5 joules of muzzle energy" and that they want everything else licensed, is it just me or is 0.5 joules about the amount of power that you could expect from a pea shooter.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    121
    Gun shops should not be allowed openly to display what they are selling. It is to be hoped that this would deter young people from treating guns as simply another consumer product. Guns on open display cause alarm to members of the public and reinforce a sense of insecurity
    Guns only reinforce a sense of insecurity in people who are already deeply insecure. Freud said something along the lines of "excessive fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual insecurity". I do wonder whether this is at the root of a lot of the anti-gun nonsense. Certainly out of the people I know the one who is really venomously anti-shooting is also the one with the major insecurity issues.

    Maybe we need to send all the anti-gun types for counselling. It's probably help them feel better about themselves and life too.

Similar Threads

  1. Countryside Alliance Membership now £39
    By RichardH in forum General Airgun.
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-09-2005, 07:41 AM
  2. BASC response to Home Office Firearms consultation
    By Simon Clarke in forum General Airgun.
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-05-2004, 07:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •