http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/uk-poll-finds-brits-want-to-repeal-gun-ban/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=May
Tuesday, 9 July 2013
UK Handgun Law Repeal ?
There was a recent poll hosted by the Telegraph Newspaper in the United Kingdom and surprisingly the majority voted to repeal the Handgun Ban as detailed in the below article:
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/uk-poll-finds-brits-want-to-repeal-gun-ban/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=May
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/uk-poll-finds-brits-want-to-repeal-gun-ban/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=May
Latest News on UK Lead Shot Ban
Here we have some new info. regarding the on-going call for a Lead Shot Ban in the United Kingdom as mentioned on our ''UK Law Watch'' Page (click Here)
Lead is under fire as almost never before as the material of choice for anyone who shoots, whether live quarry or targets.
On the face of it, removing lead from shotgun cartridges and rifle bullets might not seem like a bad idea. We have taken lead out of petrol, out of most paints and out of the pipes through which most of us receive our water. There is no doubt that it is a poison and the case against peppering the countryside with lead pellets is, at least so far as some environmental pressure groups are concerned, overwhelming. Alternatives are available.
The Campaign for Lead Shot is supported by all organisations involved with shooting sports and many land managers, including the Country Land and Business Association.
As the briefing notes with the Campaign for Lead Shot's website explain, those who shoot must make sure they are whiter than white if they want to avoid a ban on lead. "There is a concerted campaign to achieve a total ban on lead shot," it reads. "It is directed by powerful organisations with considerable financial and political resources. Although the current government has no desire to ban lead, politicians will be swayed by evidence and public opinion."
The rules, as they stand, are clear. In England the use of lead shot is banned over all foreshore, over specified Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and for the shooting of all ducks and geese, coot and moorhen – wherever they occur – whether on wetland or not.
It is that last point which has caused the most problems since it means those who shoot pheasant and other game must carry non toxic cartridges with them – which are much more costly than cartridges loaded with lead – if they also want to shoot duck. And, this campaign tacitly acknowledges, not everyone does that at the moment.
When the rules were first introduced some guns would drop a couple of bismuth or other non-toxic cartridges into their pockets to be sure that if they were challenged they could show they had both lead and non-lead options to use. Several even included spent cartridges in a pocket so that if they were challenged when they had a duck or goose in the game bag they could claim it was killed with the lead-free alternative. Few, however, bothered to switch from lead to non-toxic shot when a duck flew over.
Many guns broke the rules because they felt they were ridiculous. "What is the difference," one seasoned game shooter told me, "if I shoot a pheasant with my first lead cartridge and a duck with my second? Both birds are flying over the same field and the lead is going to fall in the same place. What makes it okay to shoot a pheasant with lead and not okay to shoot a duck?"
The answer, of course, is that it makes no difference at all. But the rules are the way they are to ensure that everyone who shoots waterfowl – that are primarily found near water – always uses non-toxic shot. And the extent to which those rules have been broken is all too clear from surveys undertaken by both the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Defra.
As the briefing notes for the lead shot campaign makes clear: "When the RSPB purchased shot duck from game dealers in 2002, shortly after legislation was introduced, it found that 70 per cent contained lead shot. A follow up by Defra eight years later showed that 73 per cent of game suppliers still sold duck containing lead.
"In 2010 a report commissioned by Defra revealed that 45 per cent of shooters surveyed did not always comply with the law and a similar percentage of shoot providers failed to make compliance a requirement for guns. That sustained level of illegal shooting is enough to secure a total lead ban."
Guns quote two reasons – price and the need to make clean kills – as the reason to stick with lead. The most effective non-toxic materials can be four or five times the price of lead. Duck hunters have no alternative but pigeon shooters, for example, who might fire off several hundred cartridges in a session, would quickly find their sport unaffordable and pigeon control – vital for crop protection – difficult to maintain.
A box of 25 12-bore cartridges loaded with lead can cost around £6. The same loaded with bismuth or other non-toxic materials, like tungsten, can be over £40. Cheaper materials, like steel, are available and widely used. But because they are less dense than lead they have less energy and, consequently, less killing power. That can result in more birds wounded, and fewer clean kills – a problem that many believe would be magnified if lead were banned for all shooting.
The essence of the campaign to get those who shoot to use non-toxic shot is an acceptance that for waterfowl and over all areas of foreshore and SSSIs it is perfectly justified and must be obeyed. In return for sticking to the law, the shooting groups hope, they will be able to avoid a ban on lead's use for the majority of shooting.
The campaign will be promoted at the CLA Game Fair at Ragley Hall, Warwickshire, which runs from July 19 to July 21.
The campaigners say: " In all other areas of shooting self-regulation works. Think how quickly we crack down on the selfishness or stupidity of others when it comes to safety. We know that breaking the firearms law will lead to harsher regulation.
"Lead is no different. We hold the future in our own hands. Comply with the law, and ensure that others do, and legislation is not an immediate prospect. Flout the law and we could face a ban within the next few years."
( Article from ''thisiscornwall.co.uk'' )
Lead is under fire as almost never before as the material of choice for anyone who shoots, whether live quarry or targets.
On the face of it, removing lead from shotgun cartridges and rifle bullets might not seem like a bad idea. We have taken lead out of petrol, out of most paints and out of the pipes through which most of us receive our water. There is no doubt that it is a poison and the case against peppering the countryside with lead pellets is, at least so far as some environmental pressure groups are concerned, overwhelming. Alternatives are available.
 |
| If a Lead Shot Ban takes place - protests must persist to stop it ! |
But, the shooting community argues, steps already taken to avoid contamination of sensitive areas and water courses in particular, are sufficient and there is a strong suspicion that those most vociferously pursuing efforts for an outright ban are really seeking to undermine all shooting because it is shooting they disagree with, rather than the use of lead shot.The Campaign for Lead Shot is supported by all organisations involved with shooting sports and many land managers, including the Country Land and Business Association.
As the briefing notes with the Campaign for Lead Shot's website explain, those who shoot must make sure they are whiter than white if they want to avoid a ban on lead. "There is a concerted campaign to achieve a total ban on lead shot," it reads. "It is directed by powerful organisations with considerable financial and political resources. Although the current government has no desire to ban lead, politicians will be swayed by evidence and public opinion."
The rules, as they stand, are clear. In England the use of lead shot is banned over all foreshore, over specified Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and for the shooting of all ducks and geese, coot and moorhen – wherever they occur – whether on wetland or not.
It is that last point which has caused the most problems since it means those who shoot pheasant and other game must carry non toxic cartridges with them – which are much more costly than cartridges loaded with lead – if they also want to shoot duck. And, this campaign tacitly acknowledges, not everyone does that at the moment.
When the rules were first introduced some guns would drop a couple of bismuth or other non-toxic cartridges into their pockets to be sure that if they were challenged they could show they had both lead and non-lead options to use. Several even included spent cartridges in a pocket so that if they were challenged when they had a duck or goose in the game bag they could claim it was killed with the lead-free alternative. Few, however, bothered to switch from lead to non-toxic shot when a duck flew over.
Many guns broke the rules because they felt they were ridiculous. "What is the difference," one seasoned game shooter told me, "if I shoot a pheasant with my first lead cartridge and a duck with my second? Both birds are flying over the same field and the lead is going to fall in the same place. What makes it okay to shoot a pheasant with lead and not okay to shoot a duck?"
The answer, of course, is that it makes no difference at all. But the rules are the way they are to ensure that everyone who shoots waterfowl – that are primarily found near water – always uses non-toxic shot. And the extent to which those rules have been broken is all too clear from surveys undertaken by both the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Defra.
As the briefing notes for the lead shot campaign makes clear: "When the RSPB purchased shot duck from game dealers in 2002, shortly after legislation was introduced, it found that 70 per cent contained lead shot. A follow up by Defra eight years later showed that 73 per cent of game suppliers still sold duck containing lead.
"In 2010 a report commissioned by Defra revealed that 45 per cent of shooters surveyed did not always comply with the law and a similar percentage of shoot providers failed to make compliance a requirement for guns. That sustained level of illegal shooting is enough to secure a total lead ban."
Guns quote two reasons – price and the need to make clean kills – as the reason to stick with lead. The most effective non-toxic materials can be four or five times the price of lead. Duck hunters have no alternative but pigeon shooters, for example, who might fire off several hundred cartridges in a session, would quickly find their sport unaffordable and pigeon control – vital for crop protection – difficult to maintain.
A box of 25 12-bore cartridges loaded with lead can cost around £6. The same loaded with bismuth or other non-toxic materials, like tungsten, can be over £40. Cheaper materials, like steel, are available and widely used. But because they are less dense than lead they have less energy and, consequently, less killing power. That can result in more birds wounded, and fewer clean kills – a problem that many believe would be magnified if lead were banned for all shooting.
The essence of the campaign to get those who shoot to use non-toxic shot is an acceptance that for waterfowl and over all areas of foreshore and SSSIs it is perfectly justified and must be obeyed. In return for sticking to the law, the shooting groups hope, they will be able to avoid a ban on lead's use for the majority of shooting.
The campaign will be promoted at the CLA Game Fair at Ragley Hall, Warwickshire, which runs from July 19 to July 21.
The campaigners say: " In all other areas of shooting self-regulation works. Think how quickly we crack down on the selfishness or stupidity of others when it comes to safety. We know that breaking the firearms law will lead to harsher regulation.
"Lead is no different. We hold the future in our own hands. Comply with the law, and ensure that others do, and legislation is not an immediate prospect. Flout the law and we could face a ban within the next few years."
( Article from ''thisiscornwall.co.uk'' )
Survival / SHTF ( Bush Skills )
 |
| make shift / DIY water purification method |
Bug Out Bag (Survival / SHTF)
Bug Out Bag:
 |
| Bug Out Bag with Solar Panel |
 |
| Bug Out Bag ( Multi Pocket / Camo ) |
Above and below, we show some examples of the contents of some people's Bug Out Bags, in this section we will advise some essentials which are not commonly seen in peoples 'inventories'
List of Items we feel should be in a Bug Out Bag:
- Cable Ties (at least 100),
- Diamond Knife Sharpener,
- Emergency Blankets (foil type),
- Extra AA and /or AAA batteries,
- Night Vision Equipment (Monocular is good enough),
- Soup Sache's, dried food / meat, if you must have tinned food let it be meat in small amounts ie: tuna, spam etc.
- Waterproof Gear,
- A few lighters (spares wrapped in plastic),
- Waterproof / windproof matches,
- General first aid kit with a good supply of disinfectant,
- Survival guide including info. on wild fruits etc,
- Water Disinfectant equipment,
- Spare ammunition for your firearm/s (especially .22LR),
- At least 2 torches with adjustable beams (preferably LED),
- Solar Panel setup for battery recharging etc. (for those expecting a longer stay in the woods),
- Bungee cord and para cord,
- Large knife or machete / Panga,
- Small knife / multi tool ( Swiss Army or Leatherman ),
- Hand Saw (Foldable),
- Super Absorbent Cloth or Shammy Cloth,
- Gaffer Tape,
- International Radio,
- Notebook with tare-out pages,
- Pens, pencils and permanent markers (black),
- Folding / camping spade,
- Tarpaulin (waterproof material / cover),
- Fishing line, sinkers etc.,
- spare socks, underwear,
- petroleum jelly,
- gloves,
- water flask,
- sleeping bag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)