Proposed HSE lead ban

[artiglio]

The consultation was a small book, all the stuff about the dangers to wildfowl because of ingested lead was basically an extension of what was possible rather than proven. The death rates quoted were based on birds that had been intubated with lead shot in the laboratory , not a mention of wild birds having been found with lead in their gut.
I pointed out that domestic cats kill far more wildlife than spent shot, dogs cause far greater levels of injury and death to people than lead from shooting in game / environment.
Disqualified drivers kill 180 people a year on the roads, around 1 person a week is killed by someone with mental health issues.
So perhaps the authorities are looking in the wrong places to reduce harm. As for lead in watercourses , what was the effect of the millions of tonnes of lead on roofs designed to direct water into drains.

When it came to a possible ban , i stated that in such an event i’d expect any buy back to be done on a one for one basis in terms of everything being replaced with a suitable replacement, so one lead core bullet for a copper one, brass as it’s unlikely i’ll be shooting the same cartridges, new dies on same basis , barrels replaced for those that suit the new bullets , powder to suit the new combinations, etc etc etc. And of course to be compensated for my time to deal with the exchange/ handover. Plus where the changes meant the effective end of a discipline that all the associated equipment was bought back at full retail.

People are generally lazy,ignorant or complacent and can’t be bothered to put any effort in or take the “nothing i say will make any difference” stance as an excuse for inaction. 25,000 responses should have been an easily achievable number of responses, enough to have thrown the whole thing into chaos and if they’d all made note of the costs to the tax payer it’d have been kicked into the long grass. Has there ever been a final number placed on the payout for the pistol ban? Or any any cost benefit analysis of the gun deaths/ injuries since ?

[Blackstuff]

Has there ever been a final number placed on the payout for the pistol ban? Or any any cost benefit analysis of the gun deaths/ injuries since ?

I've never seen one for the handgun ban but i've heard estimates of between £66-200 million once all elements were factored in. There was an 'analysis' in the lever-release/MARS ban info and IIRC they valued a life at around £500,000. I can't remember what the figure for total bill for that was (i'll try and have a dig about), but I do remember it was ten times the amount guesstimated in the consultation documents!

[paul mercer]

And there'll be tears when they try to flog their kit.......

Pete

Especially as no one will be allowed a S1 SG as PSG is just about the only justification. They would have to do a buy back scheme as they did with LR and MARS at enormous cost to tax payers.

No they won't because the government will say that they had nothing to do with it and that they aren't banning any guns........so they won't be compensating anyone!!!!

Paul Mercer. What frikkin' planet have you been living on for the last couple of years???
This was the bullsh!te that BASC put up on their web page, claiming that everyone else was on their side, by taking quotes from other organisations and using them out of context.

https://basc.org.uk/shooting-and-rural- ... mmunition/

Hi Graham,
If you think BASC is not doing enough, what organization would you suggest that I join in order to take the fight to the Government?
I still think this proposed ban on lead is something that has been cooked up by a combination of 'Greenies' and those who want to ban all guns

[Graham M]

Anyone but BASC. They are nothing but a self-serving organisation who have been living the high life off membership money for years.
I met Shifty Swifty some 30 years back at the Midland Game Fair, and he approached me looking for membership. I told him that I was already a member, and without a second glance he turned his back on me and walked away, leaving me absolutely stunned.
Some 10 years ago I read an article by John swift about lead shot in one of the shooting magazines, in which he ended by saying that "As far as lead is concerned we should all be seen to be doing the right thing". I posted this up on the Pigeonwatch site and was lambasted by the then BASC contributor, saying that BASC would never go down that road.
Well 10 years later, after they had gotten rid of Swifty, we now have the situation in which BASC are fulfilling his aims.
Have a look at this "Guest Blog" by John Swift, and look who is the writer.................one of shootings biggest enemies!!!!

https://markavery.info/2016/07/26/guest ... ion-group/

[Pippin89]

I still find it odd that we have multiple different shooting organisations all doing their own thing. They should all be overseen by 1 organisation. Make them departments of 1 group.
We have BASC, NRA, NSRA, CPSA, UKPSA, British Shooting.... The list goes on. Then you have closely related groups like the GWCT and the National Gamekeepers association.
All of them making different arguments with their limited resources. I strongly believe all of these should be pooled together, maintaining their specialties, but having a combined resource, and a policy to stand together with the power to actually make a difference. They would be greater than the sum of their parts.

[Graham M]

BASC wouldn't want that though would they. Most other organisations charge around £40 a year or thereabouts. BASC..........£85, and they have cancelled their legal cover for members.

[Blackstuff]

I still find it odd that we have multiple different shooting organisations all doing their own thing. They should all be overseen by 1 organisation. Make them departments of 1 group.
We have BASC, NRA, NSRA, CPSA, UKPSA, British Shooting.... The list goes on. Then you have closely related groups like the GWCT and the National Gamekeepers association.
All of them making different arguments with their limited resources. I strongly believe all of these should be pooled together, maintaining their specialties, but having a combined resource, and a policy to stand together with the power to actually make a difference. They would be greater than the sum of their parts.

No one will give up their Fifedom and some don't want to be fully associated with others. The BSSC is supposed to be the umbrella organisation that brings everyone together but you might as well as for last weeks canteen menu at Area 51 than find out anything about it as an organisation.

[Pippin89]

I still find it odd that we have multiple different shooting organisations all doing their own thing. They should all be overseen by 1 organisation. Make them departments of 1 group.
We have BASC, NRA, NSRA, CPSA, UKPSA, British Shooting.... The list goes on. Then you have closely related groups like the GWCT and the National Gamekeepers association.
All of them making different arguments with their limited resources. I strongly believe all of these should be pooled together, maintaining their specialties, but having a combined resource, and a policy to stand together with the power to actually make a difference. They would be greater than the sum of their parts.

No one will give up their Fifedom and some don't want to be fully associated with others. The BSSC is supposed to be the umbrella organisation that brings everyone together but you might as well as for last weeks canteen menu at Area 51 than find out anything about it as an organisation.

Well I didn't know they were in that position.... which I guess proves your point.