[iapetus]

Here's how we're dealing with the proliferation of semi and full-auto firearms on our streets:
http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2004/01/14/story5528724t0.shtm

An example of irresponsible advertisers condoning gun violence:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertising/story/0,7492,641685,00.html

Queen shoots pheasants horror!
(Unfortunately, I couldn't find one of the original hysterical articles, here is one criticising the original reporting).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F01%2F18%2Fdo1804.xml

[iapetus]

And in case the links don't work:


***
Evening Telegraph


14 January 2004
Public warned over tough new rules on air guns


Alex Moffat with some of the guns affected by the new rules.


New tough new rules for airguns means that a shot fired from your garden by your 14-year-old lad could mean a £1000 fine, writes Stewart Ross.
The UK’s gun laws are to be re-vamped and the head of Fife Constabulary’s Firearms Licensing Unit is urging the public to make sure they know the new rules.
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 relates mainly to England and Wales, but Part 5 is aimed at air weapons, imitation guns and those that use a gas-cartridge system — which can be converted into lethal weapons.

This new laws come into force on January 20 and mean that such guns will now be covered by the offence of “carrying a firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse”.

Alex Moffat, of Fife Constabulary, said it is an offence to carry loaded shotguns, loaded air weapons or any other firearm — whether loaded or not — together with its ammunition in a public place. The new law adds unloaded air weapons and imitation firearms to the list.

He said, “It should be borne in mind that the intention of the offence is to protect the public from the misuse of firearms.

“There is no intention of preventing legitimate activities such as actors using imitations for film or theatrical work or historical re-enactment.”

Another of the new rules raises the age limit for a person to have an air gun or ammunition to 17.

“This means that no one under the age of 17 will be able to have with them an air weapon at any time unless supervised by someone over 21, or as part of an approved target shooting club or shooting gallery,” said Alex.

“It is not an offence if someone aged 14 to 16 is on private premises and has the consent of the occupier to have an air weapon with them.

“However, it has been made an offence for anyone doing so, to fire any missile beyond the premises, and the maximum fine is now £1000.”

It now becomes an offence to make a gift of an air weapon or ammunition to a person under 17, or to part with possession of an air weapon or ammunition to a person under 17, unless in private premises.

The new law also contains a ban on air weapons that use a self-contained gas cartridge system.

Anyone needing advice on the new legislation is asked to contact the Firearms Licensing Unit on 01592 418424.



****
The Guardian:

ASA bans 'smoking gun' ad

Claire Cozens
Wednesday January 30, 2002

The advertising watchdog has banned a controversial advertising campaign with strong similarities to the case of Tony Martin, the farmer who is serving a prison sentence after he shot and killed an intruder.

The advert, for a security system, appeared in Countryside magazine and showed a farmer holding a smoking gun and giving a thumbs-up sign.

A member of the public who complained said it was "irresponsible" because it "condoned the use of a shotgun to protect private property".

Martin killed one burglar and injured the other with a shotgun after they broke into his farmhouse at Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.

He was initially convicted of murder by a jury, but the conviction was reduced to manslaughter by the court of appeal last year.

The company behind the adverts, Maxtec Electronix, of Newark, Nottinghamshire, said the same advert had appeared in magazines aimed at the farming community for six years.

It said the advert was part of a series reflecting vandalism and theft on farmyards, estates and at pheasant shoots.

The cartoon character in the advert represented the client group in the farming community, they said, who are friendly, professional people, who "appreciated the dry humour of the cartoon".

The advertising standards authority upheld the complaint, because it implied the farmer had fired the gun against intruders and therefore condoned the use of a shotgun.

The ASA said this was "irresponsible" and asked the advertiser to change the ad


****

Daily Telegraph

I say, let them eat pheasant
By Robert Gore-Langton
(Filed: 18/01/2004)


Dead pheasants have been causing a frightful commotion at Sandringham. Anyone would think war had broken out, to judge from one local school's highly-coloured account of a shoot adjacent to its grounds. It painted a grisly picture of Prince Philip and toff friends blazing away as bloody birds tumbled from the skies.

Very exciting for the older children, you might have thought. But in fact they all looked on in horror as birds rained around the playground. A teacher ran out and asked the "gunmen" (as she put it) to stop shooting, which they politely did. The pupils and staff then fired off tear-stained letters and the Royal estate felt obliged to apologise in writing for any distress caused to the kiddiewinks.

The remarkable thing about this story - which ended up as a substantial item on both the Today programme and Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show - was that it made the news at all. Some birds get shot in a perfectly safe fashion near a school deep in the countryside. Big deal. No bird actually fell on the school premises, just nearby; no child was ever in danger of being peppered; nothing remotely illegal happened.

The school staff instinctively grabbed the chance to show how callous the Duke and his bloodthirsty chums are, firing off letters and whipping up support among the chippy parents. Suddenly it was a story about animal cruelty and pupil protest. One 10-year-old brat even wrote to the estate office: "What have the pheasants ever done to you?" HRH's manager should have replied: "It's more a question of what we have done to the pheasants. We've reared and nurtured them, and now we intend to roast them with a delicious gravy made from the giblets. This is Norfolk, not Disneyland."

Instead the estate felt obliged to grovel. For their part, the Sandringham schoolchildren missed out on an excellent educational opportunity. The staff, after all, could have asked the shoot in. The children could have stroked the gun dogs, had a go at plucking and drawing the birds, and had a free lesson on gun safety into the bargain. The canteen might have even roasted a brace for everyone to try.

But no. The real crime in the school's eyes was that these rural children had been briefly exposed to rural reality. Dead birds are not in the curriculum. The shoot had polluted the children with a blasphemy against the new religion (first commandment: thou shalt not harm anything feathered or fluffy) fast spreading across Britain and supported by the increasingly sinister RSPCA and its budgie-hugging vegan cohorts.

The teachers abjectly failed to explain the age-old relationship between gun, bird and oven. Instead, the youngsters were egged on in their hypocritical suburban outrage. It doesn't much matter where you go now - town or country. Everywhere you will find a generation of youngsters who will happily machine-gun people on their PlayStations while chewing chicken nuggets, yet who find rural pursuits vaguely offensive. Britain, once a cheerful land of Labradors and cordite, is enslaved to a sentimental cult of animal luvviedom. In the modern child-psyche meat and animals are now completely unrelated.

The Sandringham incident will have doubtless been notched up as a minor PR victory in the battle for hearts and minds against field sports. Squeamishness is winning. If shooting is ever banned, it should be spelt out in rural classrooms that there will be an unintended consequence. The countryside will be entirely left to the tender mercies of a criminal underclass of rednecks, rural psychos and badger-baiters. I doubt if the children will prefer their country ways to those of the crack-shot Duke.

[P95Carry]

Forgive me iapetus but UK SNAFU seems fit and well!:rolleyes: :(

In fact I think FUBAR status is now well within reach!

Of course ... criminals will be queing up to obey (sic) the new law ... whilst the law abiding person is ever more inconvenienced and ever more likely to inadvertently become a criminal himself.

I left UK 3 1/2 yrs ago ..... I am progressively more and more saddened (sickened) by these pathetic attempts to further remove people's (remaining) freedoms ...... I do not miss the place one iota .... just a few people I left behind.

I guess the sheeple will be head over heels with enthusiasm now that they are to be made even safer. :barf:

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

But no. The real crime in the school's eyes was that these rural children had been briefly exposed to rural reality. Dead birds are not in the curriculum. The shoot had polluted the children with a blasphemy against the new religion (first commandment: thou shalt not harm anything feathered or fluffy) fast spreading across Britain and supported by the increasingly sinister RSPCA and its budgie-hugging vegan cohorts

"New Religion" seems apt. This is a return to some pre-Christian form of animal worship.

[El Tejon]

Druidism?;)

[4v50 Gary]

Reading those articles, espcially the last one about hunting pheasants, makes me especially glad for our revolution.

[Big_R]

It saddens me greatly to see a once mighty civilization, full of proud and capable citizens reduced to this. I pity the children for their parents tolerate the situation. God help them.

Ryan

[WR Olsen]

If you linked to the Guardian article did anyone notice that the page contained an ad that has a gentleman waving a sword. While weapons are bad in the UK it is apparently ok fo show a businessman cutting up his competition.

[Standing Wolf]

Rarely does a day pass when I fail to feel grateful to our forefathers for having rebelled against the English and founded a republic.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

“There is no intention of preventing legitimate activities such as actors using imitations for film or theatrical work or historical re-enactment.”

Self-defense is not a "legitimate" activity :cuss:



A member of the public who complained said it was "irresponsible" because it "condoned the use of a shotgun to protect private property".

Oh, the humanity :fire:

The advertising standards authority upheld the complaint

P95Carry has it right: FUBAR :barf:

[jimpeel]

Yes, his cane or bumbershoot turns into a light sabre. I guess that the carrying of an "offensive weapon" is okay if it is only a make-believe weapon.

[jimpeel]

... supported by the increasingly sinister RSPCA and its budgie-hugging vegan cohorts.I came as close to spewing a soft drink all over the computer as I have ever come. Had just taken a drink when I read that and actually turned my head as I thought I was gonna lose control. :D

[igor]

The relationship between gun, bird and oven... the machine-gun-playstationing, chicken-nugget-eating kiddiewinks... this is truly priceless.

My wife's sister took her 6-yr-old twin girls to see grandpa take down a moose last fall. They stroked the still-warm elk happily but said: "the little ones taste better. " They got no playstation either... :D

[Stand_Watie]

Out of curiosity Igor, do 'Elk' and 'Moose' both refer to the same animal in Finland? And do you call your caribou 'caribou' or 'reindeer'? Are all questions null and void since I don't speak Finnish?:D

edit; Ok, I was bored so I looked it up (funny how the internet has a lot of great info), you call what we call Elk, "Moose' is that right? And do you have what we call Moose (picture below) and if so what do you call it? And what is the status of hunting in Finland, is it an activity that joe average can reasonably expect to participate in without paying to dear?

http://www.moosefoundation.org/images/moose1.jpg

(sorry for the derailment)

[iapetus]

Cool Hand Luke 22:36

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But no. The real crime in the school's eyes was that these rural children had been briefly exposed to rural reality. Dead birds are not in the curriculum. The shoot had polluted the children with a blasphemy against the new religion (first commandment: thou shalt not harm anything feathered or fluffy) fast spreading across Britain and supported by the increasingly sinister RSPCA and its budgie-hugging vegan cohorts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"New Religion" seems apt. This is a return to some pre-Christian form of animal worship.




From what I've read of early cultures, "Pre-Christian animal worship" seems to have generally been along the lines of: "Pay respect to the animal's spirit before hunting and after killing it, otherwise you wont catch any more".

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

iapetus:

From what I've read of early cultures, "Pre-Christian animal worship" seems to have generally been along the lines of: "Pay respect to the animal's spirit before hunting and after killing it, otherwise you wont catch any more".

Good point. These animal right's extremists are probably closer to some strange combination of pre-Christian worship of animal spirits and Hinduist type beliefs as well.

What I see is the development of a new religion here, with PETA, Earth First, and ALF/ELF as different denominations, and the imposition of this religion on the rest of western society by statute and court action.

Someday I'd like to see a challenge to EPA rule making under the Endangered Species Act, where that challenge is based on violation of the Establishment Clause. Some of these environmental rules are so far beyond anything approaching rational thought that they can only accurately be described as religious cannon.