Latest F.B.I statistics.

In the early part of January of this year the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I) released the latest data regarding the use of firearms in murders in the U.S.A. Now these figures are compiled from official data, received from all the states, the information is released every year regardless of the incumbent president's personal agenda.

The latest figures, for 2012, show that more citizens in the U.S were killed by being punched or hit with a blunt instrument of some description, like a hammer for example, than were killed by shotguns or rifles. The total number of deaths committed with fists, hammers and other blunt objects 1196. That breaks down further to 518 murders by people using hammers and other blunt objects, and 678 were killed by people who used their fists.

You may wonder why this information is important, well the figures relate to the U.S, not here, but at least their government publishes the figures for all to see in an open and readily available manner. Now the U.K government also publishes figures, which are available if you know where to look, but they are not so specific. Firearms crimes are not broken down in the same way so as to be able to draw any concrete conclusions. They include all firearms, whether legal or not, I am more than cognisant of the fact that if you do happen to be unfortunate to a victim of a shooting, the legitimacy of the firearm is pretty immaterial at that point, but that's the trouble. The use of legitimately held firearms being used in a criminal activity is negligible to say the least.

To put it another way, not so many years ago it was proposed that seat belts be fitted to trains, so that in the case of a train accident, the occupants would be held securely and lives saved, just the same as when you drive your car. The mathematicians got their calculators out and opined that the chances of being involved in a train crash were so small, that the risk was inconsequential. The cost of fitting the belts and enforcing their use would cost far too much to the rail operators and for no discernable gain.

The statistical chances of being harmed in way by a legitimate firearms user are as rare as a train wreck, let alone being shot by them. However, the chances of you being harmed by a criminal, should you be unfortunate to encounter one, are at best 50/50. All criminals have weapons which they will use to achieve their aim, they may punch or kick the target of their attention, these weapons when used cause minor abrasions all the way to death for the victim. Some criminals will have a knife, and on the whole this is not the tool that hunters, shooters or fishermen and fisherwomen use, it is the utensil that we can all find every day in our homes. A small minority of criminals, certainly here in the U.K, will carry a gun, and again not the sort that hunters, clay shooters or target shooters use, but usually an illegally imported, un-regulated firearm.

Politicians here in the U.K like to keep these statistics in this vague, all-encompassing manner, as it enables them to introduce ever more stringent and onerous laws and regulations on law abiding members of society. Cases of "illegal" knife possession appear on a regular basis, but when you look further into the case, it's often some poor fisherman, who has grabbed their coat, or been driving their car, having left their pocket knife in the glove box or boot, and then not having a legitimate reason for being in possession of said knife at the time of arrest. It is not limited to the perceived appearance of a knife either, Swiss army knives, Leatherman's and multi tool owners have all fallen foul of the "proper reason for possession". Placing all of these, up until this point, law abiding members of society in the same statistical figures as muggers, burglars, rapists and criminals of all description, allows them to produce figures saying how well they (the politicians and police) are doing in stopping crime, which in the real world could not be further from the truth.

So do not forget that at the end of day, whether it's a hammer, knife, gun or any other inanimate object, the object commits no crime. The crimes are committed by the person, using the objects in a criminal manner, and the most common weapon used is the one, that at present, the political classes have not found a way of controlling.

Up-Coming Elections.

Not long to go now before the next round of elections are upon us. Here at the N.S.A. we're not afraid to put our vote where it will do the most good. We advise that you take care when you vote and do not rely on the mainstream media, either in the printed press, the radio or television, as on the whole our sport is generally misrepresented by all these mediums.
To find out if the candidates in your area are supportive of your sport, why not contact them at Write to them it is a very simple process and takes just a few minutes and you should get a reply within a few days. After all, these candidates are after your vote, and are elected to represent your view; a little thing that so many in recent years seem to have forgotten as they ride the gravy train for all it's worth. The observant amongst you will have noticed that I said "view" and not "views". This is because life is so very complex these days, and right from my very earliest days of being able to vote I had problems trying to find any candidate from any party that thought the same as I did. Not surprising really, and things have got a whole lot more complicated since then. So, I decided to make a list of all the things that were important to me, then went and sought out the information on the candidate's views, on my top ten reasons to vote for someone.
As times have changed, so have some of the things that I consider important, but my core values are the same; one thing that has come in, and slowly over the years worked its way to the top of my list, is a candidate's views on shooting and rural affairs. These two issues form the basis for a candidate to get my vote and to a certain degree they go hand in hand, for most shooting is undertaken in the outdoors, and the outdoors (the countryside) is what we need to protect to continue to shoot.
Over the years successive governments, from all parties, have imposed more and more onerous restrictions on the civilian ownership of firearm's and invariably in the name of safety. This is despite the fact that any sort of injury or fatality is almost unheard of by those within any of the shooting sports, legally possessing such firearms. That is not to say they never happen, they do, but they are so rare that when it does happen the main stream media is all too keen to exploit the situation in an effort to get even more restrictions on ownership. With the removal of handguns for any and all purposes, though here in the U.K they were sporting only, no right to self-defence here, you would be forgiven in thinking that death by hand guns would be zero, and yet the last figures that were available to me showed that there were 39 deaths, and over 150 non-fatal injuries, solely down to hand guns. When you look at the figures for legally held firearms, this figure drops considerably to 15 deaths, with less than 50 non-fatal injuries. But even this figure is misleading, as the government includes in these figures, but without breaking them down, suicides, members of H.M. forces killed or injured whilst not on active duty, and shootings by the police.
With this skewing of figures, shooting and the shooting sports need to have informed politicians at every stage and level of the political process to argue our case to enable us to continue to undertake our chosen sport. The European elections are no different, there are those across Europe that are pushing for stronger regulations, and one or two that advocate that only the army and police forces have firearms. From a shooting perspective there are groups all across Europe that are busy working hard to help protect our sport; but this will count for nothing if the elected officials in the European parliament, or the house of commons will not listen, or enter into a dialogue on the issue.
So in these European elections get out and "Vote Your Sport", then once you have, remember what you did, for the next 2 years are full of elections, local elections, parish elections and finally the general elections, they all need your vote to stay in power. And remember, whoever you vote for, they are there to work for US, and not the other way round.

What is a democracy?

Part 1

Here in the United Kingdom we supposedly live in a democracy, but far too often this system is under mined by those that would suppress or remove the “rights” of the populace. At present politicians are debating the removal of organisations right to lobby government. This system is a tried and tested way for small groups, as well as large groups, to get their voice heard on a subject matter that is the heart of their organisation.

For example, the gay rights movement spent many years campaigning and lobbying in all areas to make its case heard. Under the proposed new rules their voice would have been silenced. In addition, the proposals go further, organisations would not be allowed to take part in any political events or make what could be discerned as political statements, 12 months prior to any national election. This is the point when these groups do their best to remind you just what was promised last time and how much of what they said they would do they have actually done.

One slightly bizarre thing has emerged from this, in the un-intended consequences category, old enemies have, and are agreeing to put their differences aside, and work together on this one issue. Once again the adage “my enemies, enemy, is my friend” finds a home with the un-likeliest of partners. You will be hard pressed to find a group that is not calling a truce for the duration on this issue.

So where did this removal of an accepted right emerge from, some dictatorship in a far off land, well no, dictatorships do exactly what they say, so this would be part of the normal running of any dictatorship. What you have here is a group, elected by the people, trying to suppress that same electorate in order to proceed with its own agenda. This masterful piece of thinking has its roots in the United States of America. The administration, in an effort to stop certain groups, was prepared to remove the rights of all its citizens with the exception of one group. To be able to comment during any election period all you needed was a media outlet, a newspaper, radio station or T.V. network for example. Now given that the mass media in the U.S. is predominantly supportive of the Democratic Party, this left any group that was opposed to or un-supportive of their ideals, pretty much without a voice.

There was however one group that that was not going to take this abuse of power lying down. So with much haste, the National Rifle Association cobbled together an ad hoc radio and T.V. station, much to the chagrin of the incumbent administration. It would appear that no such loophole will exist in the current bill being put forward, as only the current media, with a history in the field will be permitted.

Part 2

To borrow from part 1, “Here in the United Kingdom we supposedly live in a democracy...” but there is a group of politically motivated, un-elected, by the populace, or from within their own organisation, individuals who are working tirelessly to remove the rights of the individual and groups. This organisation is the Police, or more precisely, the Association of Chief Police Officers, here after called ACPO.

This autonomist group of un-elected individuals have, over the last 20-30 years, gone from a group liaising with politicians and informing them of how the police are managing the civil population, to an organisation making policy recommendations, amendments to laws and making new laws, were they feel the current legislation is lacking. Or, put another way, a lobbying group, ACPO will also be exempt from the current proposals should they become law.

ACPO is currently in the process of debating the current “occupier” definition applied to land where people shoot. They are contemplating proposing that for an individual to be an occupier that person should either own the land or rent the land, with official, legally binding contracts. In short you either buy the land or lease it and register that leasing with the land registry office. Apart from the paper work involved, the cost to the average shooter would be prohibitive. This is just one of many areas that ACPO has set itself up as the law maker regarding firearms ownership, laws and shooting.

I am not so naive as to expect that there should be no governance of firearms, but ACPO and their political allies in this matter have slowly and systematically eroded the system in their efforts to make it almost impossible for someone to enter the sport now, and with every subtle amendment to the guidelines a little more gets eaten away.

The police should do the job for which they were created, the upholding of the law of the land, and leave the creation of those laws to the duly elected officials. After all, the elected individuals can be removed every four years or so if the masses deem it necessary, these self appointed individuals are there until they decide to leave.

Gun carrying celebrities!!

Despite what many in Hollywood would like you to believe, not all those that make the action movies are supporters of gun rights, gun owners or the second amendment. They feel that it is their right to enact their first amendment rights in an effort to remove the second amendment rights of others. Others will play lip service, but this link will take you to a page where you can see those who not only support ALL of the bill of rights but actively let others know their thoughts, and in this instance, also carry their own protection. To see if your favorite celebrity is there, or if you just are just interested click HandGuns Mag.

Have your say in EU firearms questionnaire

This just in from our friends at B.A.S.C. The European Commission has launched a consultation entitled “A common approach to reducing the harm caused by criminal use of firearms in the EU”.  The questionnaire is biased towards approving more restrictions on firearms, and B.A.S.C is asking all shooters to respond. Click here for details.