Gun training

the mad cyclist · Post by **the mad cyclist** » 01 Oct 2010, 08:17

I’m sure we would all agree that Woodpecker’s first post was nothing to do with self-defence or killing anybody.
The ownership of guns has always been an emotive issue with strong arguments for and against, but without the ability to trap or shoot, humans make very poor hunters. If circumstances get as bad as a number of people on this forum believe, having a gun and knowing how to use it, could make the difference between you or your family eating or not.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Oct 2010, 08:26

Haggis wrote:There are no simple facts beyond that a lot of the talking on this thread about things most of you have no experience of.

Please keep your discussions on topic, that is if you have no knowledge of firearm legislation or training in this country then please butt out.

Does having been a private tutor to a boy from my village, traumatised by killing his friend with his father's shotgun, count as experience?

Is engagement in a discussion about a subject of which one knows little not a valid function of internet forums?

the mad cyclist · Post by **the mad cyclist** » 01 Oct 2010, 09:45

biffvernon wrote:Does having been a private tutor to a boy from my village, traumatised by killing his friend with his father's shotgun, count as experience?

Is engagement in a discussion about a subject of which one knows little not a valid function of internet forums?

I am not disagreeing with you at all Biff, but if this lad had killed his friend using his fathers car, I’m sure it would have been considered a far more acceptable accident. The carnage on our roads could be considerably reduced, but the measures needed would take some of the fun out of motoring, and we can’t have that.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 01 Oct 2010, 09:47

the mad cyclist wrote:I’m sure we would all agree that Woodpecker’s first post was nothing to do with self-defence or killing anybody.
The ownership of guns has always been an emotive issue with strong arguments for and against, but without the ability to trap or shoot, humans make very poor hunters. If circumstances get as bad as a number of people on this forum believe, having a gun and knowing how to use it, could make the difference between you or your family eating or not.

Exactly. A traditional double barrel 12b is time proven to put meat on the table, keep foxes away from the chickens and dogs away from your sheep. Imagine the amount of feral dogs there will be once peoples priorities switch from feeding their pets to feeding themselves. Nobody will be neutering them, they'll be breeding and wanting your chickens / goats / children for dinner. As rubbish builds up rats and foxes will move in, digging up your veg patch, killing your livestock. Pigeons will soon target your peas and beans.

I have to ask, given all this, why wouldn't you want to own a shotgun ?

woodpecker · Post by **woodpecker** » 01 Oct 2010, 10:25

the mad cyclist wrote:I’m sure we would all agree that Woodpecker’s first post was nothing to do with self-defence or killing anybody.
The ownership of guns has always been an emotive issue with strong arguments for and against, but without the ability to trap or shoot, humans make very poor hunters. If circumstances get as bad as a number of people on this forum believe, having a gun and knowing how to use it, could make the difference between you or your family eating or not.

There are many 'tools' I would like to learn to use, guns being just one. A friend of mine drew up a list of things we should be able to do, and this also included milking an animal (if you consume milk), and slaughtering and preparing an animal (if you eat meat). And she's not even a survivalist! Also on the list is being able to write well.

Guns have become so very emotive. I've actually been severely injured by (a) a train, (b) vehicles and (c) dogs, but none of these are up for banning AFAIK. We trade some conveniences and associated risks, although the balance sometimes seems to favour particular groups e.g. 20mph zones in urban areas (to help reduce the hefty number of child deaths) are classed as a 'war on the motorist'.

I don't think that the strict laws we have on guns in the UK are particularly good at keeping guns out of the hands of wrong 'uns e.g. the disaffected youth around these parts that indulge in drive-by shootings as part of their daily gang warfare etc. These people all have guns.

PhilSage · Post by **PhilSage** » 01 Oct 2010, 11:27

I've been following this thread with some interest as I decided, for various reasons, to start shooting as a sport about 6 years ago. I have no regrets.

I doubt that I will ever want or need to put these skills into practise outside of a rifle range, but as a European citizen (I live in France now) I feel that keeping arms is a political statment. If citizens do not exercise their existing rights, they tend to lose them..

I find that the story of gun control in the UK since 1968 is a tragic one. At best it failed to improve public security, and there is some justification in supposing that it contributed to making things worse. In France by comparison, the legislation is equivalent (roughly) to the pre-1968 UK situation, but a. the murder rate is not significantly different to the UKs, b. violence against the person seems to be rarer (my personal impression in the latter case).

As for the child safety issue, any accident is one too many, but children ought to be taught gun safety, just as they need to be shown how to cross the road. My 10 year old son has handled rifles under supervision, and now that his curiosity is satisfied he shows little, if any, further interest. I understand that In the UK I might be considered a criminal for allowing him to touch a firearm, but as with so many well-intentioned rules, application without common sense can be as bad as no rules at all. (I'm not suggesting that basic safety rules should be ignored BTW.)

To anybody on here considering taking up shooting, I would say go for it, even if it means a lot of paperwork and hassle. It's a noble sport that is worth preserving, and might contribute to your food or physical security one day, (or that of your descendants if you pass your skills on to them).

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Oct 2010, 14:02

Violence towards wild animals, just for the fun of it, is even worse in France than in the Uk.

PhilSage · Post by **PhilSage** » 01 Oct 2010, 17:02

biffvernon wrote:Violence towards wild animals, just for the fun of it, is even worse in France than in the Uk.

My post was not particularly about shooting at animals (I don't) and I won't comment on non firearms-related aspects of animal cruelty as this seems a bit off-topic.

But I'm not sure if access to firearms makes that much that difference to animal welfare, or if it does, the difference cuts both ways..

To take a small example, hunting with any air weapon is considered inhumane in France, and is illegal. In the UK it is acceptable and sometimes officially encouraged (anything to reduce the number of FAC weapons in circulation!). In this respect UK legislation apparently does not favour animal welfare. But to shoot humanely at 12 ft/lb needs a skilled marksman, so all the more reason to promote marksmanship.

Kentucky Fried Panda · Post by **Kentucky Fried Panda** » 02 Oct 2010, 22:50

biffvernon wrote: Does having been a private tutor to a boy from my village, traumatised by killing his friend with his father's shotgun, count as experience?

No it does not. You were not there, it was his experience not yours.

ArowxGames · Post by **ArowxGames** » 02 Oct 2010, 23:58

Taking a side step here but what about a bow and arrow or crossbow, both good PO weapons for hunting and protection against wild animals and even people and I believe legal in the UK.

You could take it a step further and consider spears, with a simple pistol grip launcher they can be very effective weapons and hunting tools.

I think the media overhypes the ability for humans to kill other humans, I believe considerable training is required to desensitize soldier to fire at another person, training them to engage a target.

Previous wars have shown that efficient battlefield soldiers are not easily found in normal society (disregarding metally disturbed individuals).

For example how many people are murdered in the USA with a population of 307,006,550 only 15,241 people were murdered (in 2009) seems like a lot but is about 0.00496438937 percent of the population.

In contrast it should be noted that in history people were more willing to torture/kill/maim others or watch such activity (in the form of punishment) as their lives were in theory harsher/shorter but also their communities were arguably closer knit?

featherstick · Post by **featherstick** » 03 Oct 2010, 15:32

A bow takes a lot of practice indeed. Compound and recurve are fiddly to set up and true in, and a longbow/flatbow needs constant practice and tuition from someone who knows what they are doing.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 03 Oct 2010, 15:35

Surely it would be easier to use a pistol ArowzGames?

PhilSage · Post by **PhilSage** » 03 Oct 2010, 15:52

ArowxGames wrote: You could take it a step further and consider spears, with a simple pistol grip launcher they can be very effective weapons and hunting tools.

Spearguns work for fishing, but the ballistics of a spear in air are not encouraging (pneumatic arrow guns seem like an idea, but then we're back to air weapons).

Most spear hunting is done on horesback, or in a situation where the quarry can be provoked into charging the hunter. That's how the european boar spear was used, and how the continental battue originated.

The best legal alternative small-game taker might be the humble slingshot. I think there was a thread about pigeon hunting which covered a lot of these alternatives a while back.

See also:

http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Practical-Guide ... 790&sr=1-1

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 03 Oct 2010, 17:42

I have a compound bow now, it's a lot easier to use than my previous recurve bow as it has a "peep-hole" sight fixed into the string. This makes aiming much more consistent. I'm pretty confident I could hit a rabbit with it at 40yds, although this is illegal in the UK. In the USA they regularly hunt deer and boar, even bear, with a bow like mine but I consider this inhumane and wouldn't consider it unless I was starving and had run out of bulllets.

When I belonged to an archery club I saw the top shots put their arrows into the size of a saucer at 100yds, plenty accurate enough to hunt small quarry with.

A catapault might do if you're desperate, but it will take more practice than anything else.

featherstick · Post by **featherstick** » 03 Oct 2010, 21:42

which club did you belong to Catweazle? Ours has a policy of only letting "top shots" use compound because of their extra power. Compounds are certainly powerful - an American woman killed an elephant with one a while ago, but that was by wounding it and letting it bleed out, which I find abhorrent.

My point was that compounds take a lot of upkeep and fiddling with, and I'm not sure that post-fall they'd be practical.