The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

dodgyrog wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:06 pm This is NOT an attack on lead! This is an attack on shooting.
The end of our sport approaches I'm afraid!
Corrupt Government.
Corrupt Establishment.
Corrupt Police.
Hard to win against those odds.

Totally agree

It has always been an attack on the private ownership of firearms (an EU masterplan for some time).

'Officialdom' and the establishment oligarchy are uncomfortable with the lower social classes owning firearms and will justify a ban on the basis of your health and well-being (it's for the children, etc). There will be no support from the public because they have been indoctrinated by the state and mainstream media to believe the public should not have access to firearms.

Pete wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:34 pm This is worth a read if you're interested in the pathology that appears to be driving this HSE campaign:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... mation.pdf

And this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... solubility

Pete

One mention of the word ammunition in the 'What is lead used for' section across both articles is the closest shooting apparently comes to being a problem. So the ban on lead shot bullets is because.....

Something this report doesn't seem to mention at all, is the difference in lethality between lead and steel. The chances of non-lethal shots leading to unnecessary suffering is higher.
Also, their prices on ammunition are way out!

Anyone here an MLAGB member? I tried to look on their website for a response to the HSE doc but couldnt see any news at all?

I am not a member as ML not my main interest but surely the ML community will be amongst the worst affected as cast ball etc requires the use of very soft lead...

Has anyone had a look at the consultation questions? I can't really see how I, as a private individual can add anything when its asking me 'to estimate how many athletes use lead shot'

I guess we just have to leave it to our shooting organisations to fight on our behalf?

Brian838 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:47 pm I guess we just have to leave it to our shooting organisations to fight on our behalf?

In that case their history would show that we are truly doomed!

There is a lot of "because we say so, that's why" rhetoric in this report. Still battling my way through it. No wonder it is 227 pages long, a lot of waffle.

Christel wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 6:28 pm There is a lot of "because we say so, that's why" rhetoric in this report. Still battling my way through it. No wonder it is 227 pages long, a lot of waffle.

Have you also noticed that a large amount of the "data" is taken from Europe and "adjusted" for the population of the UK? Hardly scientific...

Pippin89 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:13 am

Christel wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 6:28 pm There is a lot of "because we say so, that's why" rhetoric in this report. Still battling my way through it. No wonder it is 227 pages long, a lot of waffle.

Have you also noticed that a large amount of the "data" is taken from Europe and "adjusted" for the population of the UK? Hardly scientific...

The reason the data from EU is used is that this consultation was started back when we were part of that horrible institution who has for years controlled what we can say and think.
At least that is the explanation given.

I struggle to take anything Wild Justice says serious, Chris Packham showed the UK viewers how gloriously clever a badger was when it showed its cubs how to raid a birds nest. Such a hypocrite.
No doubt he and his cohorts are behind consultations like this one. For all the wrong reasons.