Benjamin is making a film.

[Fedaykin]

Also I think saddler made a very good point, if Benjamin wants to know about self defence with guns in the UK with pistols then he should go to Northern Ireland. Also while he is there the fact that pistol shooting continues without a threat to public safety should be investigated.

Exactly what we suggested he should do. You see, we engaged with him. Most here just tutted their disapproval.

If we get a bad rap from the documentary then so be it. At least, being on a 'mainstream' outlet we might just get some coverage for our sport - instead of hiding ourselves away like we always do.

FFS
do I take it that you have spoken to this bloke ?
what is the point in discussing fantasy concealed carry or self defence, when the great British public DO NOT trust YOU with a pistol....did IQs suddenly drop round here? did you discuss der 9mm's man, and der Uzis as well??

Oh I get it

[SevenSixTwo]

You assume I "spoke" with him. I was asked if I'd be interviewed (about all matters shooting, not only SD). I declined.
See my previous.
Let's just see how it goes shall we - or are we in defeat mode already? Again.

[Gazoo]

You assume I "spoke" with him. I was asked if I'd be interviewed (about all matters shooting, not only SD). I declined.
See my previous.
Let's just see how it goes shall we - or are we in defeat mode already? Again.

762
Sorry if I got that wrong but it was the " Exactly what we suggested he should do. You see, we engaged with him", that threw me, I must have drawn utterly the wrong conclusion from that short basic statement in English, my bad.
As for defeatist, well there is defeatist and there is the intelligent interpretation of things that happened in the past and resulting consequences, something I like to call " learning" ie, the acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.
It was Einstein who said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
we shall see what we shall see but I don't expect the media to have suddenly grown morals or ethics any more than I expect our politicians to have suddenly grown a set.
I do not however wish to fall out with a brother shooter and think we should walk together, but carefully, because we are in a mine field you know!

[Fedaykin]

The problem is I just don't trust a program editor on the BBC (an actively anti shooting organisation IMHO), on a show with a format like Victoria Derbyshire with the short time available for any report to actually do a fair job.

You could spend an hour talking to this guy making cogent, reasoned and cohesive arguments for self defence with guns and have it all edited down to a a few seconds worth of soundbites that totally twist your arguments and make you look like a dangerous loon.

There is certainly an argument to be made with self defence with guns, Northern Ireland could be talked about. The use of proportional reasonable force to defend yourself which is perfectly legal in the UK. If a mob of criminals armed with baseball bats start smashing their way into your house with the direct intent to cause you harm then you are within in the realms of reasonable force to go to the cabinet and extract a gun. But you are on a very narrow legal line and after defending yourself could not chase them down the street and shoot any of them in the back. Now that is a cogent and reasoned argument, a savvy program editor with judicious use of cut away (nodding head) shots could twist that into something very dangerous and unhinged.

I want fair TV coverage especially from the BBC! I want it in an Olympics when there is a shooting final with a British sports shooter that BBC sport don't decide to instead show a repeat of a woman's hockey match between if I remember correctly Sweden and Spain (in other words no home nation)...yes that really happened! I want them to show different sports shooting disciplines on their daytime shows without having to wheel one of the four members of the GCN or MAG to provide some form of narrative balance. Something that happens to pretty much no other sport except UK shooting! I think our shooting organisations NRA, BASC, CPSA and others should put far more effort into monitoring what is depicted about sports shooting on British television and be prepared to lawyer up and take complaints to the television regulatory bodies when dodgy editing is used to twist meaning. I think when British TV asks to film at British shooting sites then our shooting organisations should be recording what happens to make sure there is evidence of unfair editing which can then be used for defamation cases.

I want fair television reporting about British sport shooting!

[dromia]

The problem is that to work in the media and be a journalist you now need to have no sense of integrity or honesty, and if you do then it must be surgically removed before your enter that cesspit masquerading as a profession.

The media makes a big thing, rightly so in my view, about the freedom of the press and their ability to hold people and institutions to account. Unfortunately they want it one way, with that freedom they do not want the responsibilities of honesty, integrity, factual unbiased reporting and they in no way want to be held to account, they see themselves in their arrogance as above that which they think others should be subject to.

At the end of the day all they are interested in is firstly making money by getting people to watch, read and listen so that they can sell advertising and secondly abusing their positions of power and influence for their own self serving agendas.

They are just the same as our politicians who they claim to hold to account which is why our political class is failing us just as much as our professional and intellectual classes, they are so far up each others arseholes that there is absolutely no difference between them other than the spelling of the names they call themselves.

Despite the arrogance of their own importance the only thing that you can decently do with them is hold them in complete and utter contempt.

[SevenSixTwo]

The problem is that to work in the media and be a journalist you now need to have no sense of integrity or honesty, and if you do then it must be surgically removed before your enter that cesspit masquerading as a profession.

The media makes a big thing, rightly so in my view, about the freedom of the press and their ability to hold people and institutions to account. Unfortunately they want it one way, with that freedom they do not want the responsibilities of honesty, integrity, factual unbiased reporting and they in no way want to be held to account, they see themselves in their arrogance as above that which they think others should be subject to.

At the end of the day all they are interested in is firstly making money by getting people to watch, read and listen so that they can sell advertising and secondly abusing their positions of power and influence for their own self serving agendas.

They are just the same as our politicians who they claim to hold to account which is why our political class is failing us just as much as our professional and intellectual classes, they are so far up each others arseholes that there is absolutely no difference between them other than the spelling of the names they call themselves.

Despite the arrogance of their own importance the only thing that you can decently do with them is hold them in complete and utter contempt.

I'm sure they all feel the same way about all shooters. Who all murder innocents every weekend.

My irony klaxon just exploded. brb

[dromia]

I'm sure they all feel the same way about all shooters. Who all murder innocents every weekend.

Thank you for stating the obvious, unlike my view of them they have no evidence to base that opinion on other than their own twisted sense of unreality.

You don't work in the media do you?

[JSC]

I wouldn't get too excited about this regardless of how it turns out. 'Victoria Derbyshire' ratings have been dire. The programme struggles to get 100k viewers most days and has been as low as 39,000.

The audience is probably made up mainly of the sort of people who will spend the rest of the morning on Mumsnet moaning about anything and everything and then tuning into 'Loose Women' to find out who Kerry Katona thinks they should vote for at the next election.

I doubt it will do us any harm or good and it's virtually impossible to ensure a subject such as shooting is covered by the mainstream media in an unbiased way, so there's little point in worrying about it.

[breacher]

The problem is I just don't trust a program editor on the BBC (an actively anti shooting organisation IMHO), on a show with a format like Victoria Derbyshire with the short time available for any report to actually do a fair job.

You could spend an hour talking to this guy making cogent, reasoned and cohesive arguments for self defence with guns and have it all edited down to a a few seconds worth of soundbites that totally twist your arguments and make you look like a dangerous loon.

There is certainly an argument to be made with self defence with guns, Northern Ireland could be talked about. The use of proportional reasonable force to defend yourself which is perfectly legal in the UK. If a mob of criminals armed with baseball bats start smashing their way into your house with the direct intent to cause you harm then you are within in the realms of reasonable force to go to the cabinet and extract a gun. But you are on a very narrow legal line and after defending yourself could not chase them down the street and shoot any of them in the back. Now that is a cogent and reasoned argument, a savvy program editor with judicious use of cut away (nodding head) shots could twist that into something very dangerous and unhinged.

I want fair TV coverage especially from the BBC! I want it in an Olympics when there is a shooting final with a British sports shooter that BBC sport don't decide to instead show a repeat of a woman's hockey match between if I remember correctly Sweden and Spain (in other words no home nation)...yes that really happened! I want them to show different sports shooting disciplines on their daytime shows without having to wheel one of the four members of the GCN or MAG to provide some form of narrative balance. Something that happens to pretty much no other sport except UK shooting! I think our shooting organisations NRA, BASC, CPSA and others should put far more effort into monitoring what is depicted about sports shooting on British television and be prepared to lawyer up and take complaints to the television regulatory bodies when dodgy editing is used to twist meaning. I think when British TV asks to film at British shooting sites then our shooting organisations should be recording what happens to make sure there is evidence of unfair editing which can then be used for defamation cases.

I want fair television reporting about British sport shooting!

Re the self defence in the home -
I have discussed this with barristers while i often had to wait around courts waiting to be called in my previous careeer.

Pretty much all of them said the same thing - if you have enough time to retrieve your key, go to the cabinet, take out the gun, open the second cabinet ( if you use one ) to get the ammo, open a cardboard box of rounds, load a few into a mag etc - then you had enough time to run away. God help you if you had a loaded mag in the cabinet !

Most jurors will be asked by the judge to consider if you were in fear for your life. Were you so TERRIFIED that you considered the HUGE step of taking life. And therin lays a big catch 22 !!

You see - if you were that scared a " normal" ( not trained like Mil or Police etc ) person would flee. If you were so terrified why did you not flee ?

And if you were "calm" enough ( as an untrained non mil/ police ) to go and arm yourself and consider taking on the attacker/s, you could not have been THAT terrified ?

Barristers regard certain crimes as an absolute pain in the ass / more trouble than they are worth - this scenario is one of them !


And it gets worse...............

Reasonable force and safety will be argued .........

Imagine you have just one rifle in the safe. Its a .308 or even a .338 - if you shoot the bad guy with that - it will likely pass through them AND a brick wall behind. Will you have a backstop ? If you live in a urban area, you probably have houses all around you !

I am not saying whats right and wrong - just what a good barrister will try !!


If it WAS me - I know I can get to my garden shed as fast as my gun safe. I have no end of blunt instruments there. Not to mention cans of brake cleaner ( more effective than cs ) at short range !

And a drawer full of big carving knives.

All in all, my firearms would not enter my head if under attack by "guys with baseball bats".

[Fedaykin]

The problem is I just don't trust a program editor on the BBC (an actively anti shooting organisation IMHO), on a show with a format like Victoria Derbyshire with the short time available for any report to actually do a fair job.

You could spend an hour talking to this guy making cogent, reasoned and cohesive arguments for self defence with guns and have it all edited down to a a few seconds worth of soundbites that totally twist your arguments and make you look like a dangerous loon.

There is certainly an argument to be made with self defence with guns, Northern Ireland could be talked about. The use of proportional reasonable force to defend yourself which is perfectly legal in the UK. If a mob of criminals armed with baseball bats start smashing their way into your house with the direct intent to cause you harm then you are within in the realms of reasonable force to go to the cabinet and extract a gun. But you are on a very narrow legal line and after defending yourself could not chase them down the street and shoot any of them in the back. Now that is a cogent and reasoned argument, a savvy program editor with judicious use of cut away (nodding head) shots could twist that into something very dangerous and unhinged.

I want fair TV coverage especially from the BBC! I want it in an Olympics when there is a shooting final with a British sports shooter that BBC sport don't decide to instead show a repeat of a woman's hockey match between if I remember correctly Sweden and Spain (in other words no home nation)...yes that really happened! I want them to show different sports shooting disciplines on their daytime shows without having to wheel one of the four members of the GCN or MAG to provide some form of narrative balance. Something that happens to pretty much no other sport except UK shooting! I think our shooting organisations NRA, BASC, CPSA and others should put far more effort into monitoring what is depicted about sports shooting on British television and be prepared to lawyer up and take complaints to the television regulatory bodies when dodgy editing is used to twist meaning. I think when British TV asks to film at British shooting sites then our shooting organisations should be recording what happens to make sure there is evidence of unfair editing which can then be used for defamation cases.

I want fair television reporting about British sport shooting!

Re the self defence in the home -
I have discussed this with barristers while i often had to wait around courts waiting to be called in my previous careeer.

Pretty much all of them said the same thing - if you have enough time to retrieve your key, go to the cabinet, take out the gun, open the second cabinet ( if you use one ) to get the ammo, open a cardboard box of rounds, load a few into a mag etc - then you had enough time to run away. God help you if you had a loaded mag in the cabinet !

Most jurors will be asked by the judge to consider if you were in fear for your life. Were you so TERRIFIED that you considered the HUGE step of taking life. And therin lays a big catch 22 !!

You see - if you were that scared a " normal" ( not trained like Mil or Police etc ) person would flee. If you were so terrified why did you not flee ?

And if you were "calm" enough ( as an untrained non mil/ police ) to go and arm yourself and consider taking on the attacker/s, you could not have been THAT terrified ?

Barristers regard certain crimes as an absolute pain in the ass / more trouble than they are worth - this scenario is one of them !


And it gets worse...............

Reasonable force and safety will be argued .........

Imagine you have just one rifle in the safe. Its a .308 or even a .338 - if you shoot the bad guy with that - it will likely pass through them AND a brick wall behind. Will you have a backstop ? If you live in a urban area, you probably have houses all around you !

I am not saying whats right and wrong - just what a good barrister will try !!


If it WAS me - I know I can get to my garden shed as fast as my gun safe. I have no end of blunt instruments there. Not to mention cans of brake cleaner ( more effective than cs ) at short range !

And a drawer full of big carving knives.

All in all, my firearms would not enter my head if under attack by "guys with baseball bats".

Totally agree I have heard exactly the same when I have inquired with friends in the legal and law enforcement professions. The reason I raised it as an example was it is a scenario where in theory there is a possibility of reasonable force.

My point was more that reasoned arguments could be made but forget any hope of a program editor on the BBC putting any nuance to what they show on screen.

On a side note breacher I was going to contact you someday about the Tactical bipod that you have on your website, I toying with filling the .308 slot on my ticket in the next few months with something like the Ruger Precision Tactical and I think it would look the business. It is something you make in batches or import in?