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

The evidence based argument would be better made to packham rather than on here.

Ovenpaa wrote:I guess it is important to understand your potential new hobby fully before diving in.

It is certainly desirable, or interesting, and it was a lack of understanding/knowledge which led me to join. My last involvement with shooting was many years before Hungerford, let alone Dunblane, I was aware that there had been many changes to legislation and many restrictions on gun ownership introduced. I knew that handguns like the Hi-Power I once owned were banned, but had no idea about LBP/LBRs.

I had no idea about many of the different disciplines there are. I knew that some people hand loaded, but I had absolutely no idea of the complexities of that, of all the different powder type/bullet weight combinations, of how different formulations could change the rifling need in a barrel and so on.

Nor did I know that some people would not welcome me trying to learn if I hadn't joined a club. I've explained, more than once, why I joined here before joining a club, and why joining a club is something that will happen "soon", rather than "very soon".

But sadly some people will not accept what I say, and react aggressively, calling me a troll etc. Nothing I can do about that - it's not possible to change by reasoning opinions not arrived at by that method in the first place.

I know I've also done more than just ask about shooting. Here, and in one or two other topics, I have indeed taken issue with what someone has said, but I don't think that disagreement is an offence, particularly if it's over a matter of demonstrable fact. And I've never disagreed offensively or aggressively. I've never replied "bo...cks" to anything someone has said, no matter how wrong I think it is. The suggestion that I put people down is utterly without foundation.

MistAgain wrote:How can he be any more opposed to the shooting community than he already is .

By the shooting community insulting him and telling him that he should not speak out on something he cares about?

So far he has never shown any willingness to consider facts that do not meet his agenda .

If that be the case then he deserves to be criticised.

Which do you think is more likely to cause his views to be less regarded and those of the shooting community to be more regarded? Insulting him and attempting to deny him the right to speak out, or calmly and politely showing evidence which he is demonstrably ignoring?

If the shooting community is also guilty of ignoring inconvenient truths, what does that do to their moral standing?

What is wrong with trying to be the bigger and better person?

Because sound bites, social media and one issue politics don’t allow for the full facts to be debated. Especially when one side already has thousands of “followers”...

So ultimately, until Packham is caught by the Papparazi with his cock in a hedgehog, the “nut job” moniker suits him...!

SimG, you have a way with words

TRG-22 wrote:

MistAgain wrote:How can he be any more opposed to the shooting community than he already is .

By the shooting community insulting him and telling him that he should not speak out on something he cares about?

So far he has never shown any willingness to consider facts that do not meet his agenda .

If that be the case then he deserves to be criticised.

Which do you think is more likely to cause his views to be less regarded and those of the shooting community to be more regarded? Insulting him and attempting to deny him the right to speak out, or calmly and politely showing evidence which he is demonstrably ignoring?

If the shooting community is also guilty of ignoring inconvenient truths, what does that do to their moral standing?

What is wrong with trying to be the bigger and better person?

Wow, what an erudite and compassionate troll you are.
STFU btw

dromia wrote:The evidence based argument would be better made to packham rather than on here.

It may well need to be made with him, and were I to engage with him on the substance of the argument I would make it, or try to. But that would not negate the need to also make it here.

Those who hold fast to the view that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way that commercialised game shooting is run are, I'm afraid, completely ignoring evidence that there are things wrong with it.

Is it as wrong as Wild Justice say? I very much doubt it.

Is it free from any issues of inappropriate "pest control", poor land management, species habitat and diversity? I very much doubt it.

Does that mean that all game bird shooting, deer stalking etc should be stopped? I very much doubt it.

Does that mean that it is a complex issue, with the need for trade-offs and compromises and the recognition by both sides of inescapable realities which they may find messy and may wish did not exist? I'm sure it does, and it's a shame that some people have decided bar and lock their minds down so tightly that they won't even listen to what anybody outside their own echo chamber has to say.

If all you do is talk to yourself, not one other person will ever hear you.

But I'm beginning to think I'm talking to myself on this subject, however not my choice.

I'm also wondering if there really are people here who think that if there is a court case over DEFRA and the releasing of game birds, and the BASC are involved as an interested party, that their brief should stand up and say "My Lord, my client's case is that Chris Packham is a nutjob and should shut the f*** up. Thank you.", and then sit down, job done.

Nelly2014 wrote:Wow, what an erudite and compassionate troll you are.
STFU btw

We are all for constructive criticism in regards to all subjects and in all sections of the forum. What we will not accept are personal attacks and/or vendettas

I am sure you have all see this before, but I think it nicely sums up Packham's ability for well rounded, reasoned, fact based arguments....

We have a couple of separate issues mixed together here.
As a 78 year old who first fired an airgun when I was six, I have seen the image of the shooting sports decline continuously in the eyes of the general public. Anything we do which gives rise to opportunities for bad publicity is helping the anitshooting fraternity.
I happen to like badgers. I accept that sometimes the need arises to shoot them. I do not accept that they sould then be nailed to a gate, which as,i understand it, is what gave Packham the opportunity to have a go at us again.
It is also worth saying that, although I get through a lot of ammunition, I don't kill things, being exclusively a target shooter. I am not anti hunting, but by presenting hunting in a bad light, the badger nailers turn the public agaqinst all shooters.
Fred