Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Hunter safety training and licensing in the UK question
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gkbiv



Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not receiveing notifications of replies to my topic so I had no idea I had received this many answers.

Thank you for your replies.

I was surprised to hear that there are no set standards for training in Great Britain. I spent four years in Germany and completed the training for a foreigners yearly hunting license. I know Germans have a longer and harder class than I did. The only reason I could take the class and apply for the license was my US. military service. When I was twelve I took a class in Connecticut. In my 20s I took an archery class in Idaho.

I understand Great Britain and Europe don't have public land to hunt on. That is a benefit to living out here in the west.

I try to have some knowledge of foreign gun laws because we have people in this country who would like to enact them here.

It is possible for an foreigner to purchase long guns in the US even if they are only visiting. With the restrictions in the program I am sure that it is rare for anyone to qualify. I understand some Royal Air Force members have been here long enough to qualify but then they would have to make arrange ments to dispose of them here (easy) or take them them with them which I would assume would be difficult.

As far as shotguns being lethal we had a shooting here recently where an individual shot and killed a court house security guard with a 12 gage. The shooter was a felon with domestic abuse convictions so there is no legal way he could buy firearms. The distance had to have been close; his first shot was inside the building and the guard was by the metal detector. In one of the articles I read he was using "birdshot". I know how accurate the media is at describing firearms topics so I I'll take that with a grain of salt. I know he was using a pump which I would expect to be controlled in your country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
probably because you have mass shootings with rifles (clock tower comes to mind) and not with shot guns (off the top of my head). One is lethal over a mile, the other isn't.

I hardly think that's much of an argument. Is someone fit to own a shotgun which is lethal out to 50 or 100 yards, but too dodgy to own a rifle lethal to a mile?

It might not be an argument to you, but to many others it will be a legitimate argument, the lethal range. After all, they banned handguns because they're easily (or more readily) concealable.
Rob wrote:
The only reason for the different treatment is that in 1920 the authorities wanted to keep military style weapons out of the hands of the great unwashed, but were not bothered about shotguns. It was an exercise in mass disarmament, nothing to do with whether an individual might cause more mayhem with a rifle than a shotgun.

Hardly mass disarmament. All you do is apply for a firearm certificate even in 1920, and you could have it for personal protection. Also, the mindset of the time seriously considered there could be a revolution. If Ireland hadn't kicked off, it may have been a different story 'comrade.'
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gkbiv wrote:
As far as shotguns being lethal we had a shooting here recently where an individual shot and killed a court house security guard with a 12 gage. The shooter was a felon with domestic abuse convictions so there is no legal way he could buy firearms. The distance had to have been close; his first shot was inside the building and the guard was by the metal detector. In one of the articles I read he was using "birdshot". I know how accurate the media is at describing firearms topics so I I'll take that with a grain of salt. I know he was using a pump which I would expect to be controlled in your country.

Birdshot will kill you just as easily as slug at close range. Pumps, depend on overall lenth (less than 40" prohibited), then it goes on mag capacity ie more than two rounds Section 1, same as a rifle; otherwise same as a shot gun of the double or single barreled variety.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
West Mids had quite a few differences, but i can't see them upholding the club membership for people who want to shoot vermin. It may have happened in one or two cases when you genuinely have concerns.

Seemed to be pretty general to me from talking to other FAC holders, I even applied once for a .22 rifle for pest control in West Mids at one point and the FEO told me they probably wouldn't even entertain it if I wasn't already a member of a gun club, same thing happened to my cousin. The only people I'm aware of who had pest control authority without being members of a club were people who had moved into the area from somewhere else. Not sure if this is all still happening since Bucknall retired as he was often the origin of some of the more wacky decisions they made.

Biddle I think you mean. Your friend from Staffs has the job now Smile
cybershooters wrote:
Quote:
I've got a film clip of French hunters firing at a wild boar. let's just say if they were actually trying to hit each other, they wouldn't have done a better job.

If it's more popular, they're more likely to have accidents, obviously.

Nope, it's a mindset, shoot first. If their training hasn't discouraged that ........
cybershooters wrote:
Quote:
If that's training, I've been doing the wrong kind of 'facilitation' for over thirty years!

No, it's not training, it's an assessment as to whether they're safe.

You said it was

cybershooters wrote:
Assessment could be part of a training requirement. If you had a good training course followed by a test then you could safely assume the applicant knows where it's safe to shoot and under what circumstances, so the FAC restrictions would be unnecessary and unified section 2-style controls would be a possibility.

I thought BASC Proficiency Award scheme was some good training. they no longer do it. Same as UKPSA Pistol (as was) and PSG, all good. DMC is hard in my view. Saw plenty of professionals failing it.

I personally don't have a problem with undertaking properly constructed training. The problem is the shooting organisations in general (yes, I know in private they want it so they can run the courses and get more money) don't want it and seeing the accidents that happen abroad, i understand some of their reservations.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It might not be an argument to you, but to many others it will be a legitimate argument, the lethal range. After all, they banned handguns because they're easily (or more readily) concealable.


And there was me thinking handguns were banned because of naked political expediency, thanks for updating me.


Quote:
Hardly mass disarmament. All you do is apply for a firearm certificate even in 1920, and you could have it for personal protection. Also, the mindset of the time seriously considered there could be a revolution. If Ireland hadn't kicked off, it may have been a different story 'comrade.'


No, mass disarmament exactly. Not many proles were going to queue up for firearm certificates were they? That was the whole point of the exercise, it was, as you said, the mindset of the time. There is no reason why a system of control introduced in 1920 so as to forestall a bolshevik revolution should be fit for the purpose of regulating sporting shooters in 2010. As far as s1 of the Firearms Act is concerned, we are still in the era of silent movies and the Model T Ford. Time for some fresh thinking perhaps?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
Hardly mass disarmament. All you do is apply for a firearm certificate even in 1920, and you could have it for personal protection. Also, the mindset of the time seriously considered there could be a revolution. If Ireland hadn't kicked off, it may have been a different story 'comrade.'
Cheers
Mick F


Only if you knew a suitable member of the establishment to approve your getting a firearm certificate with a counter signature. Not something the unwashed masses could necessarily do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
It might not be an argument to you, but to many others it will be a legitimate argument, the lethal range. After all, they banned handguns because they're easily (or more readily) concealable.

And there was me thinking handguns were banned because of naked political expediency, thanks for updating me.

Of course it was, but the reason given is readily concealable.
Rob wrote:
Quote:
Hardly mass disarmament. All you do is apply for a firearm certificate even in 1920, and you could have it for personal protection. Also, the mindset of the time seriously considered there could be a revolution. If Ireland hadn't kicked off, it may have been a different story 'comrade.'

No, mass disarmament exactly. Not many proles were going to queue up for firearm certificates were they? That was the whole point of the exercise, it was, as you said, the mindset of the time. There is no reason why a system of control introduced in 1920 so as to forestall a bolshevik revolution should be fit for the purpose of regulating sporting shooters in 2010. As far as s1 of the Firearms Act is concerned, we are still in the era of silent movies and the Model T Ford. Time for some fresh thinking perhaps?

What evidence do you have that there was widespread possession of SMLE's etc that were surrendered or hidden under the floorboards in 1920? That's disarmament.

Couldn't agree more on some fresh thinking. However, as mentioned many, many many times, there is no political will. Even BLUNKETT's list of things to change is sitting in a cupboard gathering dust. That's why there's some Regulatory Reform Orders going in on stuff Police, Home Office and shooting organisations agree on. Just an amalgamation Act and putting things in a logical sequence would help. No longer 5(1A) (d) but 5 (1) (x) for example.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Hardly mass disarmament. All you do is apply for a firearm certificate even in 1920, and you could have it for personal protection. Also, the mindset of the time seriously considered there could be a revolution. If Ireland hadn't kicked off, it may have been a different story 'comrade.'
Cheers
Mick F

Only if you knew a suitable member of the establishment to approve your getting a firearm certificate with a counter signature. Not something the unwashed masses could necessarily do.

Exactly, so it was a 'rich mans' game, same as possession of firearms before the legislation. The 'proles' couldn't afford them. Mass disarmanent means there was widespread possession and I have no evidence there was. Do you?
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
The 'proles' couldn't afford them. Mass disarmanent means there was widespread possession and I have no evidence there was. Do you?
Cheers
Mick F


Well, yes actually. It's quite well known that during the pursuit of the two payroll robber Russians in the "Tottenham Outrage" of 1909, (they were both armed with semi auto pistols.) The police came piling out of Tottenham cop shop armed with . . . . . . cutlasses. They asked passers-by if they were armed, and something like 12 people produced a revolver. These were obviously law abiding pistol-packers.

As for the villainry and dacoits, Blackwell quotes evidence from the police which strongly indicates that there was widespread possession - in England and Wales between 1908-1912 47 cases occurred in which 92 police officers were shot at, 6 killed, 24 injured. We don't get anything like that, even now.

The "Bolshevik Threat" canard so beloved of contributors to forums like this, and often quoted as a reason for the introduction of firearms controls after Colin Greenwood's "expose" doesn't really stand up to proper historical scrutiny. On a fair and empirical evaluation it was certainly a contributory factor and a balance tipper, but controls very similar to the 1920 Act had been seriously mooted and tabled on several previous occasions, notably 1911, during the Edwardian era. At that time though, the class most likely to have engaged in armed conflict with the government would have been the "monied" classes, as they were outraged by the Liberal reforms and the taxes imposed to pay for them. The subsequent experience of firearms controls under DORA also weighed heavily. You have to remember that Ernley Blackwell - a civil servant - had been dropped in it by the Home Secretary over the matter of the 1918 police strike - more properly, a mutiny - shortly before his committee sat, which was enough to realistically alarm anybody about the mood of the nation. Between then and the passage of the 1920 Act there had been yet another police strike, principally centred in Birmingham and Liverpool, with the army shooting rioters in the streets, warships in the Mersey, tanks in Glasgow, so the perception of threat was by no means alarmist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What evidence do you have that there was widespread possession of SMLE's etc that were surrendered or hidden under the floorboards in 1920? That's disarmament.


I think the fear was that revolutionaries would amass stands of arms, and the 1920 Act was designed to forestall such a scenario. As it was, we know that ownership of pistols was widespread for self defence, and most of these were simply kept by their owners. The good thing is that most of these pre 1920 items should, in my opinion, now be seen as antiques.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
What evidence do you have that there was widespread possession of SMLE's etc that were surrendered or hidden under the floorboards in 1920? That's disarmament.

I think the fear was that revolutionaries would amass stands of arms, and the 1920 Act was designed to forestall such a scenario. As it was, we know that ownership of pistols was widespread for self defence, and most of these were simply kept by their owners. The good thing is that most of these pre 1920 items should, in my opinion, now be seen as antiques.

I'll reply to the second point to Carrot Cruncher. The first ie mass disarmament means there was mass aramament to start with, which there wasn't.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Mick F wrote:
The 'proles' couldn't afford them. Mass disarmanent means there was widespread possession and I have no evidence there was. Do you?
Cheers
Mick F

Well, yes actually. It's quite well known that during the pursuit of the two payroll robber Russians in the "Tottenham Outrage" of 1909, (they were both armed with semi auto pistols.) The police came piling out of Tottenham cop shop armed with . . . . . . cutlasses. They asked passers-by if they were armed, and something like 12 people produced a revolver. These were obviously law abiding pistol-packers.

Time and place old chap. Now the streets of Tottenham are hardly the same as the streets of bow bells are they? As I said the rich had and the others did not.
Carrot Cruncher wrote:
As for the villainry and dacoits, Blackwell quotes evidence from the police which strongly indicates that there was widespread possession - in England and Wales between 1908-1912 47 cases occurred in which 92 police officers were shot at, 6 killed, 24 injured. We don't get anything like that, even now.

Are they not just statistics proving that criminals were prepared to use firearms?
Carrot Cruncher wrote:
The "Bolshevik Threat" canard so beloved of contributors to forums like this, and often quoted as a reason for the introduction of firearms controls after Colin Greenwood's "expose" doesn't really stand up to proper historical scrutiny. On a fair and empirical evaluation it was certainly a contributory factor and a balance tipper, but controls very similar to the 1920 Act had been seriously mooted and tabled on several previous occasions, notably 1911, during the Edwardian era. At that time though, the class most likely to have engaged in armed conflict with the government would have been the "monied" classes, as they were outraged by the Liberal reforms and the taxes imposed to pay for them. The subsequent experience of firearms controls under DORA also weighed heavily. You have to remember that Ernley Blackwell - a civil servant - had been dropped in it by the Home Secretary over the matter of the 1918 police strike - more properly, a mutiny - shortly before his committee sat, which was enough to realistically alarm anybody about the mood of the nation. Between then and the passage of the 1920 Act there had been yet another police strike, principally centred in Birmingham and Liverpool, with the army shooting rioters in the streets, warships in the Mersey, tanks in Glasgow, so the perception of threat was by no means alarmist.

I keep forgetting about the Police strikes and tanks on the street. Such an anathema nowadays. It was in my 'book of revolutions' as a lad. Wonder where that is now ......... Anyway, who can say whether it stopped a revolution or not. It's like saying if we'd opposed Hitler when he marched into the rhineland would there have been a WW2?
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The first ie mass disarmament means there was mass aramament to start with, which there wasn't.


It's a rather semantic argument. The purpose of the 1920 Act was to prevent an uprising by the armed working class. It was designed as a disarmament measure, and was nothing to do with the regulation of sporting shooting. I would imagine that most of the guns in Britain in 1920 were either shotguns, which were not affected, or pistols, which by and large were just kept by their owners without paperwork.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The "Bolshevik Threat" canard so beloved of contributors to forums like this, and often quoted as a reason for the introduction of firearms controls after Colin Greenwood's "expose" doesn't really stand up to proper historical scrutiny. On a fair and empirical evaluation it was certainly a contributory factor and a balance tipper, but controls very similar to the 1920 Act had been seriously mooted and tabled on several previous occasions, notably 1911, during the Edwardian era. At that time though, the class most likely to have engaged in armed conflict with the government would have been the "monied" classes, as they were outraged by the Liberal reforms and the taxes imposed to pay for them.


I think you will find that prior to 1914 the authorities were worried about eastern European revolutionaries, usually seen as Jewish malcontents, armed with automatic pistols. After the Great War, the fear expanded to a more widespread Bolshevik revolution.

It must also be remembered that in 1920 the Empire was a major consideration for policy makers. It was also seen as being threatened by Bolshevism, and the template for British civil disarmament was copied throughout the Empire. Again, not a template which makes a lot of sense when dealing with sporting shooters in 2010.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Quote:
The first ie mass disarmament means there was mass aramament to start with, which there wasn't.

It's a rather semantic argument. The purpose of the 1920 Act was to prevent an uprising by the armed working class. It was designed as a disarmament measure, and was nothing to do with the regulation of sporting shooting. I would imagine that most of the guns in Britain in 1920 were either shotguns, which were not affected, or pistols, which by and large were just kept by their owners without paperwork.

It can't be disarmament if there wasn't armament. You can argue semantics if you wish, but it simplay cannot be called disarmament.

I'd imagine most were from the previous century, then air guns, then shot guns and finally rifles with the rich having handguns for personal defence.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 3 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group