Police & Crime Commissioners, Questionnaire.

Recently all the candidates for the position of PCC for Sussex were contacted with the questionnaire below: so far three of the five have responded. The results of the questionnaire will be published on or about Wednesday 7^th November. In the mean time please view the questions and think how would have responded. Comments are, as always, welcome.

Should you be voted into office what is your view on firearms being held by honest law abiding members of the public for use in any and all legitimate shooting sports?
A= agree strongly
B= agree
C=leave things as they are
D= disagree
E= disagree strongly
F=no view

The current waiting times offered by Sussex police in regard to a renewal of a shotgun or firearms license is approximately 14 weeks. Given that, should the individual concerned have committed any sort of criminal act in the life of the previous certificate they would no longer be in possession of said firearms, do you think this process should be speeded up?
A= agree strongly
B= agree
C=leave things as they are
D= disagree
E= disagree strongly
F=no view

This particular part of Sussex is relatively rural and enjoys a selection of traditional country sports. These sports are well managed by the owners, but their efforts can be undermined by poaching. Do you consider that poaching should be handled in the same way as any other crime?
A= agree strongly
B= agree
C=leave things as they are
D= disagree
E= disagree strongly
F=no view

Given that poaching is a problem in many rural communities, an activity that is often carried out by organised gangs; and often in the cruellest of ways causing much suffering. Would you support the prosecution of such individuals to the fullest letter of the law?
A= agree strongly
B= agree
C=leave things as they are
D= disagree
E= disagree strongly
F=no view

Given the distances needed to be travelled by the police to get to our area, do you think a homeowner defending themselves, should they be attacked in their own home, has a right to do so?
A= agree strongly
B= agree
C=leave things as they are
D= disagree
E= disagree strongly
F=no view

Do you think that more clarification is needed on the subject of the previous question?
A= agree strongly
B= agree
C=leave things as they are
D= disagree
E= disagree strongly
F=no view

W H Smith update.

With thanks to our friends at B.A.S.C. the following are the email addresses you will need to get in contact with the right people. Email to WHSmith chief executive at kate.swann@whsmith.co.uk to its chairman at walker.boyd@whsmith.co.uk and to its head of customer services atjuliette.cavilla@whsmith.co.uk and let them know that they have lost business, your business. You could write and complain but from past experiences these complaints will be logged and unless a huge amount occur on one day they will only be counted as a daily complaint. Conversely, loss of sales in these difficult times will have a greater impact on those that make the decisions.
So, now you have the right address, scan your receipts from purchases made from other retailers and explain that due to the current restrictions imposed by W. H. Smith, their staff and management you will continue to shop at other outlets. Should the restrictions be lifted you will be more than happy to return to their shop with your trade

Let W. H. Smith know what they’re missing.

The following link will take you to just one of the many articles currently doing the rounds regarding this infringement of civil liberties by W.H. Smith. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9606557/WH-Smith-bans-children-from-buying-shooting-magazines.html Now it is true that as a retailer they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to sell items to whoever they see fit. Some, like the countryside Alliance, have given a link to W. H. Smith's customer relations via email. A noble gesture and better than doing nothing but these emails will no doubt fall on deaf ears, as W. H. Smith is one of the largest magazine and newspaper retailers in the country. They do however have shareholders to keep sweet, with wise management, a far better course of action is to do the following, hit them in the pocket, it's what makes big businesses like this take notice. In an idea I picked up from our friends in the U.S., make contact with the company via the customer relations option or by directly sending your letter to the managing director. In the letter be polite and courteous, stick to the point, and explain that you will no longer be shopping at any branch of W. H. Smith due to their attitude towards young shooters in a legally undertaken sport and hobby. Then proceed to list the magazines papers books etc. that you would have purchased from them and the total you have spent but you are now spending with one of their competitors. The loss of sales is something that share holders hate and if enough people follow this route they may well change their mind.

Even if they do not, you should still be able to get your magazines from the local paper-shop or small independent newsagent who is always happy to serve your needs. Oh!, and by the way, in the states this very same form of action caused Block Buster video stores to change its mind on an issue regarding gun ownership. The pen may be mightier than the sword but when money talks, shareholders listen.

Home & Self Defence

The government says it is trying to make it easier for home owners to defend themselves against intruders, home invasion and situations where self defence is called for. At present the term "reasonable force" is applied, they are proposing that the new term be "not gratuitously excessive". At the end of day nothing has really changed, but what they have managed to do is, do nothing by doing something. Any act of self defence will still need to be judged by a jury as to whether it was either "reasonable" or "excessive" as you will still be deemed as a criminal until proven innocent. For example if you are unfortunate enough to have a home invasion, being prepared, is currently the worst thing you can be. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will determine that as you had, for arguments sake a baseball bat by your bed, you had malice forethought in harming the intruder. You had already determined that should the occasion arise you would defend yourself and family with the said instrument. However, the same scenario will play out differently should you use your nice onyx bedside table light. The difference being that it is assumed that a bedside light could be found in anyone's bedroom but not a baseball bat. This is despite the fact that you may well have the same pre-determination as what to do should the need arise. The bedside light may serve you well if there is only one intruder but if there are more you may well be out of luck.

Those who continue to see the criminal as the victim have stated that this new wording will encourage these criminals to now undertake their actives with more arms than before, in other words escalating the possible violence level. The last three cases, which have brought the issue to the fore, have involved a married couple, the victims, being overrun by a gang of up to four assailants all armed with knives and in one case firearms. The victims have been tied up and tortured in an effort to obtain details of items of value to be stolen by the criminals. If you are the victim at what point do you decide that, if I do something to them it will make things worse. Of course by the time you have been tied up and tortured it's a bit late.

In another argument the same protectors of the criminal classes state that, "this will lead to an American style of home protection and self defence", and that the streets will run with the blood of criminals being killed by home owners. What these people fail to realise is that for the past twenty years or so the American home defence system has been honed and in many states enshrined in law. These laws detail how and in what circumstances you can legally use up to and including deadly force. Shooting an invader through the door for example would land you in court and more than likely prison as would, shooting a fleeing invader or ejecting the invader then chasing after them and beating or shooting them. The "Castle Doctrine" accepts that your home is your castle and invaders do so at their own peril. But, these laws also offer protection to the invader in the circumstances given above. They identify that you may use what force is necessary to protect yourself and family but only whilst there is a clear and current threat. Once the threat has gone any subsequent action you take to harm or injure the invader, turns you into the assailant.

What the government needs to do is identify the parameters in which self defence is acceptable. This of course is not likely to happen with the scare mongering undertaken by the protectors of the criminals, but this issue needs to be addressed. After all, the boy scouts motto is "be prepared", something everyone should be in regard to home invasion but which is currently outlawed by the grey vagaries of the current legal system and its guidelines. You should be legally allowed to keep such instruments as you consider suitable on your person or within your property to afford you the ability to defend yourself and or loved ones and on the understanding that any weapons such as firearms are held in compliance with current legislation.

Living in a country where such thoughts of self defence of one's self, family and property are near heresy, little thought is given by many as to what they would do in a situation where they needed to defend themselves. The vast majority of those asked say they would run away. An admirable thing to do, but what if you can't, say you're in a wheel chair, on crutches, or there is a group of attackers, you may not be able to run quite as fast as them. Some others say that they have items such as a nail file, pen or small scissors in their hand bags or about their person. All well and good but this means that you will need to be in very close proximity to your attacker or attackers before you can utilise your weapon of choice. And the last group of victims reply "I would just give them what they want and then they would leave", there are many traumatised, raped and dead individuals who have thought that way, compliance to an attack is not an option.

I can hear your thoughts, "what I need is a gun!" no it's not, or rather yes it is. When you decide that you wish to protect yourself and your loved ones, having a gun will not solve the problem. There is a huge commitment and a great responsibility when handling any firearm and as such this option is not suitable for everyone. There is a great deal of training and practice needed, after all you practice driving your car every day so that when you use it you are able to handle it correctly and safely. The same applies to a firearm that you obtain for your protection. Should you ever need to employ your firearm in defence of yourself or others, you will be subject to a great deal of scrutiny and may well face a severe police interrogation with regard to the circumstances of the incident. Like I said it will not solve a problem but it does enable you to distance yourself from the threat and keep that threat at a distance. In the vast majority of instances where a firearm is produced by a victim, their attackers leave with all due haste and the firearm is not discharged. But if it doesn't work out that way, you must know how and be prepared to use your firearm.

At the end of the day, thankfully, attacks on the person and home invasion are still relatively rare. Then so are car crashes and house fires but we all wear seat belts and have fire extinguishers, these are the right tools for the job if you know how to use them properly. The best tool for your personal defence and the protection of those you love is a firearm but until attitudes can be changed and the nay say'ers silenced we will have to put ourselves closer to the danger and use what is available to hand. Of course you can always call the police, but when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Response times in my area for emergency calls are approximately 20-30 minutes, but as one local resident found out, tell them that you have a gun and are prepared to use it in your defence this time goes down to 6minutes 30 seconds; quicker but not quick enough. It was a calculated risk, but on this occasion the broom handle scared off the intruders, who were never caught.

Police & Crime Commissioners, who are they?

It would appear that I am not the only one who is wondering who the prospective candidates are for the new Police & Crime Commissioners office. After contacting both the B.A.S.C and the Countryside Alliance to see if they had any ideas I have received a reply from the B.A.S.C, they too are more than a little concerned with the lack of information pertaining to the candidates, after all it’s less than ten weeks before you get to cast your vote. Despite all the media covering the fact that you will be able to vote for the new Police & Crime Commissioner to the best of my knowledge none of them have presented details of any of the candidates. The following is an extract from the email I received.... “One of the problems with this election has been the lack of information available to voters and even now we do not have a complete list of candidates. With regard to Sussex we understand that the following are confirmed as candidates: Godfrey Daniel for Labour, Katy Bourne for the Conservatives and the following independent candidates: Ian Chisnall, Nigel Goodyear, Philip Jones, David Neilson and Matt Taylor. According to our information the Liberal Democrats have not yet announced a candidate.”

Why should this lack of information bother you? Well, whoever does get the job will be responsible for policy in the whole of Sussex. We have had in the past Commissioners and lower ranking officers making policy as they see fit, and then having to fight them in the courts, costing us, the tax payer money. Imagine if the man or woman in the Police & Crime Commissioners job was not supportive of either shooting or the rural way of life, and don’t get complacent, just because you do not take part in one aspect of the hunting or shooting sports don’t think for a minute that your particular branch of the sport will be safe. Those who would deny a target rifle will also deny a shotgun; anti hunting, anti shooting and anti civilian gun ownership groups all walk the same path. Often these individuals will be a member of many anti groups and they will use their position to promote their agenda. The wrong person sitting at the head of the Police & Crime Commission table could mean that resources better spent elsewhere will be used to prevent or stop you from being able to pursue your currently legal pastime or hobby.

As and when more information is available I will post the details for the world to see. I am not telling you to vote for anyone individual, but what I am asking you to do is get informed about the candidates and based upon what you think is important to you, cast your vote for the person you think will best help support and promote in a positive way what we hunters and shooters hold most dear, our way of life.

So before November 15^th get informed, make sure that you are registered to vote and then on the day itself, get out and VOTE!!

Firearms certificate application form reviews.

There are new forms being proposed to make the application for your firearms certificate. The BASC are taking the lead on this matter and on their web site the proposed new forms are available to view, or better still print and fill out. This link will take you to the relevant page BASC FAC.

At present there are no machine read forms and therefore no readers or scanners are employed in the issuance of certificates. This is due to the fact that forms are currently filled out using normal hand writing. So should form readers need to be employed, they will have to be paid for somehow and guess where the bill will end up.

Bizarre Liberal Thinking

Over the past weekend I was invited to a wedding, which all went perfectly swimmingly, with the bride and groom looking resplendent in their marriage clothes. After the ceremony there was a sit down lunch. At the table I was at were an insurance advisor, a student, aged approximately 21,both of these individuals were born and raised in the U.K., an executive of one of the largest software companies in the world, of Italian origins and an executive of a major hardware/phone company, of American heritage. All with the exception of the last were male and covered a span of around 30-40 years from the youngest to the oldest.

The insurance advisor and the student were based in one location but the two executives, as you would imagine travel the world, from Europe, the U.S. and out to the near and far east. The conversation was invariably diverse often revolving around finance and the current economic situation. Due to fact that I had been at work in the morning and had taken a half day leave of absence, gone straight from working to the venue and changed en route, I had missed lunch. So lunch was now at about 4p.m and I was more intent on refilling my tank than joining in the conversation. Although I was keeping an ear out, I was not that concerned with the vagaries of multi-national, multi-billion dollar finance and how difficult it was when market share was reduced by 0.5%. My interest was however peaked when the conversation turned to the recent abhorrent tragedy in Aurora, CO. The consensus was that there was no need for anyone to have in their possession or indeed to own a firearm. They then went on to espouse much of the inaccurate mis-information that they had read in the media and quoted it verbatim as fact. For example the individual concerned used an "Assault Rifle". They all agreed that this was awful, after all what would you need an assault rifle for apart from killing people and animals. The American then pronounced in an authoritative manner that back in her home state of Washington "You could hear them firing at the deer with their assault rifles during most of the hunting season". I was perched on the horns of a dilemma, what should I do? On one hand this was someone's special day and I did not want to start a debate which, judging by their current state, would, should a contrary point of be put forward become heated to say the least. On the other hand, I couldn't let such ill informed rhetoric pass by. So I decided upon another tack, I asked "Leaving aside the terrible Aurora incident did they not think that having some form of instrument for their own defence was a good idea. It need not be a gun as I appreciate that not everyone is comfortable near or around them?" The response was not a surprise given the previous state of conversation; their consensus was that no-one had a right to have any form of weapon, including a firearm, for self defence. All you need is access to a mobile phone, after all that is what the police are for. I countered with, "What if there are no police or you cannot get a signal, and additionally, even if you do get hold of the police who is say how long they will take to get there or if they will even turn up". The software executive chimed up with,"that is their job, it's what we pay taxes for!" Once again I was prepared stating that, "Whilst in the U.K there was still a possible avenue open in law to argue this point; in the U.S the police are under no legal obligation to assist you when you dial 911". The American lady took exception to this and stated that this was un-true. I suggested she use one of her company's products to research the point in question and obtain confirmation of her view point. The two younger individuals both asserted that, given that scenario, they would turn and run whilst dialling 999 on their mobiles. Not wanting to sound obtuse, I kept the encounter to a single attacker but countered with, "What if they can run faster than you, or you trip over?" "Then we would fight back", came the reply. Once again I stated "this person is armed, that is why they pick on people like you, they think they have the advantage", "they may not have a gun here in the U.K, but it is possible, they may have a knife or a length of 2" x 3". Despite your previous attempt to escape, you are now required to get closer to your attacker, what they want; in order to defend yourself". At this point our Italian gentleman retorted that "I was being deliberately confrontational in an effort to get agreement on my point of view". I replied "not at all, whilst I have never been in the situation being discussed, it is not a school yard tussle. There would be no teacher come to stop it. It would only end when one or the other protagonists were able to leave the scene. In the majority of instances this would be the attacker if the victim was unable to defend themselves".

In an attempt to change the direction of the conversation, the subject of the American second amendment was brought into play by our American lady. "So do you believe in the second amendment", she asked. I replied "I do". "How can you, it is an out dated piece law that has no relevance in our modern society. OK, its part of our heritage but it should be limited to the weapons that were available then, not all these assault rifles with high capacity clips". I responded by referring her to my previous stand point and by pointing out the difference between assault rifles and those generally held by most of the civilian population. I threw in, free of charge, the difference between a clip and a magazine. I finished with her first point last by saying "that I had no doubt all of the N.R.A members would concede her assertion on the second if she would pack up her and her friends business and revert to the use of the quill and printing press, as these items were all that was available at the time of writing the amendments, and therefore by extension, no computers or the internet would be miscible". Once again I was accused of being inflammatory.

As I had feared the temperature was beginning to rise, I had stood my ground, tried to pursue an intelligent debate and countered all their assertions with facts and data. At this point the main course arrived and talking gave way eating. As I neared the end of the main course I thought let's try something else, so I asked the table "What are your views on legalising cannabis and cocaine?" "Why do you ask" came the reply from the insurance advisor. "Just curious" I replied. This group, so keen not allow people the right of self defence, now opined that these, and other drugs should be legalised. Their argument being that, if legal, crime would go down, taxes could be levied by the government and after all who hasn't smoked a bit of weed. With nodding and agreement, especially from the student who went on to say "Pot is readily available at his university and so long as it is smoked out of sight, no-one does anything about it", there was much metaphorical back slapping. "I have never taken any of the drugs you are talking about and I am a non-smoker of over thirty years. How do you justify your stand point of agreeing to participate in drug taking, yet are prepared to deny people the right to defend themselves from a would be attacker, who is more than probably only attacking them to get money or goods to sell, to buy drugs". As they all started to speak the one thing that seemed common to all their arguments was the fact that there is such a proliferation of drugs out there the easiest thing to do would be to make it legal for everyone.

From this point on I kept my own council and the table took on a chilly atmosphere. I, or anyone else for that matter, was never going to change their view point. I hope that they are never unfortunate enough to be the victim of a mugger or home invasion. Should they live to tell the tale, they will more than probably berate the over stretched police force and demand more patrols especially around their neighbourhood. As I took my knife and fork in hand a small ironic thought crossed my mind, we had just eaten some very nice lamb roule and these people would be, if the occasion arose, "lambs to the slaughter". Though I pray that they never have to find out how their mis-placed reliance on others is no defence or excuse for self reliance and self defence, especially when entering a gun free zone.

Lead update.

The following is an update from our friends at the "Countryside Alliance" out-lining what the EU intends to do with regards to the use of lead ammunition here and all around Europe. In addition, so there is no mis-understanding with regard to the stand point of FACE, the following link takes you to their declaration on the use of lead FACE resolution

Lobby your MEP on lead shot

The debate over lead ammunition has been running for many years now. Domestically, those who oppose its use have consistently failed to produce any proven scientific evidence to support a ban. Moreover, faced with such a lack of evidence, opponents continually switch between environmental and health issues in a vain attempt to gain public support. 

A further threat comes from the European Union. The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) started to look into the issues of all uses of lead. As part of their research, they instructed a company to collect evidence as to the level of use of lead ammunition around Europe. This was responded to jointly by all the shooting organisations through European umbrella organisation FACE. 

The Countryside Alliance believes that these threats to lead are unjustified. As far as the shooting community is concerned, those who want it banned have consistently failed to produce evidence that would support a ban. Granted, if someone finds and proves incontrovertibly that lead causes serious damage to health or wildlife then we are willing to talk. Until that point the status quo must remain.

We further believe this threat from Europe could be greater than the one we face domestically. Shooting throughout the United Kingdom would be disproportionately affected if there were a blanket ban on lead use across Europe. Our shooting is too important to the environment and the rural economy to be decided by Brussels, which is why I am proud to announce our new e-lobby. This will give all UK shooters the ability to lobby their MEPs on the issue of lead when it comes up in the European Parliament. To lobby your MEP, just click here, it will only take a minute, but could secure lead for generations to come.  

Barney White-Spunner

Executive Chairman

From the information on the blog statistics we have many readers around the world. For some the lead issue is non-existent, for others the ill informed have prevailed and managed to ban lead totally. Here in the UK the debate is some where in the middle. If anyone can supply details that could be used in support of this cause please contact us or leave details in the comments section. Be assured once this has taken hold there will be no stopping the march of the banners.

Scots start their war on Firearms ownership.

Without even getting the go ahead for independence the Scots are already putting their toe in the water in an effort to restrict access to firearms by honest law abiding people. In a previous article "Age limit, NO" I opined that should the Scots get their independence, one of their first undertakings would be to remove all firearms from shooters. In this article by the "Express group", in a first of a set of common sense steps, that would in no doubt end in the removal of firearms as previously discussed, anti-gun activist Kenny MacAskill is asking for a limit to be applied to all owners on the amount of firearms they may possess. In a statement Mr. MacAskill shows his ignorance of the way that the UK licensing system works he says "It concerns me that gun owners can accumulate multiple firearms and that there is no apparent limit". To read the article, follow the link to Expess.co.uk

Lead Ban Update.

The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (W.W.T) proposes launching a mass media mis-information attack on the use of lead for all types of shooting. Despite a plethora of evidence to the contry the W.W.T and those from the R.S.P.B and other anti shooting organisations will push for futher restrictions on the use of lead shot. To read what their plans are from a leaked document go to http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/532578/SECRET_PLAN_TO_BAN_ALL_LEAD_SHOT.html
The use of the media, all to ready to be manipulated by these organisations, and celebrities who will get much coverage in that media will as usual not bother to get informed so long as they get their publcitiy shot.
It is therefore down to you to to get informed and then contact the media and the celebrities to let them know they are being used. As a friend of ours, Tom Gresham says "A lie left unchallanged becomes the truth", and he should know having been fighting for gun issues for nearly fifty years.

Age limit, NO!

Whilst there is much banter being traded over the border currently regarding when a referendum should take place over whether Scotland should leave or remain part of the UK, some MP's are continuing to put their own anti shooting and anti gun agenda forward. A Private Members Bill due to be read on Friday 20 January and being proposed by Thomas Docherty, Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, that seeks to introduce a minimum age for holding a shotgun certificate of 14-years-old. In an article written and available on the Countryside Alliances web site, an article which contains the relevant information so I will not duplicate the contents here.

However, for our shooting friends who reside north of the border, I would advise that they should be careful for what they wish for. For many years the Scots have been complaining about mismanagement and rule from London. A seat of power far removed from and out of touch with their ways and life styles. Now for a Southerner to be in agreement may come as a bit of a shock to some but those in the seat of government in the UK are also not in touch with the ways and life styles of those a mere 50 miles south of London. With this in mind I put it forward that on the whole the UK is London if you are a politician and therefore the further your seat is away from the capital the more out of the loop you are. Over recent years though there have a group of politicians that have tried to reverse this equation. Scottish Labour MP's and Scottish Nationalist MP's have been pushing for more restrictive and oppressive firearms laws. I make the assumption that with the Labour MP's attempts in this area, are borne more out of an ongoing class war that most of the party seem intent on pursuing. The greatest success in this attack on the classes was the hunting ban which even those who drafted the law concede that it has had little if any effects on hunting, with the possible exception of making more people attend hunt days than ever they did in the past. Still making assumptions, the SNP's motive seems to be more about getting rid of the English who own most of the land in Scotland, either as individuals or via business opportunities, where shooting by this group and their compatriots, would appear to cause them some discomfort. Either way many attempts to promote further restrictions upon firearms have emanated north of the border to be imposed upon those south of the border.

Should this or any other laws get enacted it will be a sad day for all those involved in any of the shooting sports. For our friends north of the border, be warned, with enthusiastic but unsuccessful attempts to pass laws in the UK, after a successful independence vote these same politicians will have a free hand to write new laws. The first of these will be such onerous firearms laws that, to the joy of the SNP, estates will be sold. As without a valid Scottish certificate, possession on any firearm, shotgun or rifle will be illegal. Labour will support these proposals and no doubt add bits they feel necessary just to make sure. The whole package will be wrapped up in a public safety blanket so that those who live in large urban or suburban areas will now feel safer walking the streets at night.

The upshot will be, there will still be as many crimes committed with firearms as the criminals will not hand them in and as there is no certificate to trace the owners the police will remain oblivious as to the amount of guns available to the criminal fraternity. Without those estates being able to offer shooting holidays the estates will be absorbed by the state and due to the lack of funds, slowly fall into disrepair. Of course this may not come to pass but when you have politicians who are prepared to play the waiting game and slowly erode the ability of new blood to enter into any of the shootings sports with such proposed regulations as envisaged Mr. Docherty, it is not if but when.

What will your government do today?

From a country perceived to be the freest country in world with regard to firearms and their ownership, despite actually having over 20,000 laws to the contrary, to one of the most oppressed. The difference between the US and the UK would appear to be great but they both have the same anti civilian firearms ownership ethos.

In the UK were certification is required by an individual to own any form of firearm and where the ownership of pistols has been banned to virtually all since 1997 the plan would appear to be that of complacency by the authorities responsible for the administration of the certificates in question. In the recent and tragic mass shootings the authorities have chosen to ignore medical information, information supplied by the public and members of clubs and even official police reports informing them the individuals in question have been to say the least, mentally troubled. In the most recent case we understand that the police removed the shooters certificate and firearms after an attempted suicide and violent behaviour. This is not an isolated case though, the Dunblane murders which prompted the pistol ban was undertaken by an individual who had been reported as unstable by many of the sources as previously mentioned but again the authorities chose to do nothing.

In the US, in an attempt to introduce a more British and European style of firearms ownership the incumbent powers there devised a fool proof scheme to assist in this legislation. The administration assisted by BATFE and other security services in the US appears to have compelled retailers to sell firearms illegally so that they could then be traced back to the US. But thanks to a few honest officers who blew the whistle on the operation many disturbing facts have been brought to light. The operation named "Fast and Furious" has deliberately endangered American lives by illegally arming Mexican drug cartels – all in a shameless attempt to blame law-abiding gun owners, and their Second Amendment freedom, for violent crime in Mexico. As a result of this disgraceful campaign, countless Mexicans, and at least one American Border Patrol agent, are dead

So what is the commonality of these two disturbing examples; well with all laws made by governments it is much easier to get them passed if the mass population of the country is in agreement with what government is promoting. With the case of firearms because those that are in possession of them are overwhelmingly law abiding and responsible members of society, statistical figures just do not add up to give a significant figure for greater control. As an example of this statistical short fall a group often recommend to give a reference when applying for a UK licence are doctors; yet this group has a higher statistical figure for causing deaths in society than firearms owners. Therefore criminal use of firearms by their owners is thankfully low. So, to get more restrictions passed or to completely remove them from individuals all together you need mass media coverage and to stack the deck. This is done by either doing nothing or instigating an illegal venture, then just sitting back and waiting. When it all goes wrong, as it inevitably will do, politicians and governments will then push their agenda of restriction and removal. The current UK government is fairly firearms friendly but in the US, with such a multi-agency operation, it would appear that the agenda is supported right from the top down. To this end a few deaths along the way is acceptable, so long as when you appear in public you wring your hands and come forward with the relevant platitudes, and announce that for the sake of public safety this new law should be supported.

One way or another, governments will do what they need too, too force their agenda but remember they can only do such things if you vote them into office.

Olympic Legacy?

Not that there is anything remotely political in the Olympic games and no-one has ever thought of trying to make any gain through their handling or management over the years. But after thirteen years of a political party whose very earliest piece of legislation was the removal of all legally held pistols for target shooting. And who's second and much later, over 700 hours of parliamentary time later, bill was to abolish fox hunting with hounds, it should come as no surprise to those of us who keep an eye on such infringements of our chosen leisure time that the same party would now be involved in using the Olympic Games to take another stab at those whose interests they do not agree with so vehemently.

Of all the Olympic venues specifically constructed for the upcoming games there are only three that will not pass on a legacy. At this point I feel it only right to say that the beach volley ball to be held in horse guards will be removed but as a few hundred tons of sand laid on the floor was pretty much it, Mother Nature would have removed it by the end of the summer anyway. The remaining two sport groups of shooting and equestrianism will have no legacy for those who already partake in the sport or for those in the future who would like to. The government of the day refused to accept that the recognised centres for both of these sports should have received any of the monies available to upgrade and improve their existing facilities. Instead the government in its wisdom decided that a total for both sports in excess of £30,000,000, and climbing, be spent to construct facilities and courses, then when the games were over remove all trace that either event ever took place. The reasoning for this decision was that both national centres were too far from the centre of the games, London. Despite this, football (soccer for our American readers) and sailing to name but two will cover the length of the land from Hampden Park in Scotland to Weymouth in the West Country.

A spokesman for the Olympic committee said that the legacy while not in a tangible form would be that both the shooting sports and equestrianism would benefit from greater television coverage than they would ordinarily receive. This may well be true for our equine friends who are only ever seen running around a race course somewhere. But given the coverage that the shooting sports received at the last Commonwealth games where the BBC had the rights; there was no coverage on terrestrial television, all though there was some on Sky. The BBC on its news channels only showed the shooting medallists after ten o'clock at night at the end of its news bulletin which meant it was closer to 10:30. The BBC web site had more coverage but would remove the video after 24 hours. This issue was raised at the time and the reasoning was that the space on both media formats was required for more main stream and popular events. Given that the current head of the BBC, to the best of my knowledge, is the same individual given the position by the government that undertook much of the administration and decision making for the preceding, I have little doubt that the 2012 Olympic Games coverage will continue in a similar vein leaving many shooters and horse riders out in the cold.