Gun Culture

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

PETA - institutionally extremist

Whilst commenting on the Sky News story which includes the footage of the zoo in China where the tigers are given live cattle and chicken to kill for the entertainment of the crowd, a member of AirgunBBS mentioned that he was a member of PETA.  He seems to be quite serious in this.  I expressed my incredulity that he would be a member of such an organisation and was rebuked by a long serving member thusly

Just because an organisation has extremists among it’s membership doesn’t mean that all are the same.

Why be a member on here if in PETA? Why not? Not everyone who posts on here hunts, some do only target shooting.

Even those who hunt can still feel that animals should be treated ethically. You will probably agree that a rabbit or deer should be killed as humanly as possible if their numbers warrant a cull and if you saw a truck load of cattle that had been on the road for 48 hours without feed or water crammed together with no room then you would feel that complaint and action were required to stop it.

It takes all sorts to make up the world, just look at the range of views on here from liberal left through to BNP, with all stops in between.

Tarring all members of animal protection groups is a bit like saying all gun owners are psychopaths who want to kill people

I’m amazed that people can still be so fooled into thinking that PETA are a regular animal welfare organisation, but I suppose they are quite cunning at what they do and how they present themselves.  My reply included a “7 Things You Didn’t Know About PETA” from the website PETA Kills Animals.  You may also notice I have added a banner to this site.

PETA is extremist from the top down, they are institutionally extremist.
These are the same people who oppose pet ownership don’t forget.
Their head honcho is a diabetic insulin dependant who would opposes research that developed the treatment but thinks it’s OK for her to use treatment ‘based on the suffering of animals’ because of all the ‘good’ she does. A nut job.

If people actually are interested in true animal welfare then there are a whole bunch of sensible organisations involved in the field, there is no excuse to be a member of PETA unless you are either an animal rights extremist or hopelessly naive.

Quote:
1) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.
2) Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 14,400 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2005, PETA put to death over 90 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM’s president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.

6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn’t be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.

7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

Friday, May 18, 2007

Women Irrational?  Surely not.

You might have heard on the national news about the bitch that, following a disagreement about coming home from the pub, loaded her partner’s works van with his gear and rolled it into Whitehaven Harbour.
A reasonable response?  No I didn’t think so either.  I can’t get my head around the mentality of these harridens who seem to think that criminal damage is an acceptable response to a disagreement, no doubt there are no shortage of ‘wimmin’ who think “You go girlfriend!”, but personally I prefer the response of the gentleman in question.

“I can’t live with that for the rest of my life.  She isn’t sorry one bit and says it’s all my fault. But then again, she is a woman.”

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

BASC on the Course Trail again

BASC seems determined to introduce some kind of competency course for shooters.  Their willingness to submit to further restrictions on shooting is one of the biggest reasons that I allowed my BASC membership to lapse last year, we have enough people determined to place regulations on us without our so called representative body joining in.
Swifty says:

The old days when one might laugh at a good mixed bag being the variety of game plus a couple of under-keepers are long gone.
These are the realities of modern life. We live in a modern world.
The landowner may have profound sympathy with his shooting tenant and the sporting agent likewise with his clients. Neither wants government poking its nose into their relationship, prescribing the content of training, the standards required and how it shall be done.
But training opportunities do need to be provided and the training, the trainers and the standards need to be properly, even externally, assessed if they are to mean anything. Shooting is but one aspect of rural land use and the standards it sets for itself should cross reference to other branches of rural land use, expertise and learning.
So the characterisation of our choice as between “mandatory tests” and “keeping things entirely voluntary” is a seductive oversimplification. We can muddle along haphazardly for a while. But that is no long-term solution.
We must, if our object is the long-term rather than the quick fixes, do the right thing – and if we succeed we will encourage newcomers, provide more opportunity and maintain public confidence.

Volunteering for competency tests and exams will extremely quickly lead to compulsion as night follows day.  These tests and exams will certainly (unlike GCSE’s and A levels!) become progressively harder and more restrictive in order to put off the maximum number of prospective shooters.  Count on it.
There is a wee debate going on over at Pigeonwatch with a chap from the BASC chiming in periodically.  To say I am shocked at the number of contributors who think that we should make it harder to get in to shooting is putting it mildly.  It sounds all jolly to say that you can have a mentor, but not everyone is lucky enought to have a shooter who is willing to take the time to take you under his wing - who decides who is a capable mentor?  Some expensive course no doubt.
Be under no illusions, gun grabbers and bunny huggers hate us.  They don’t hate us because we don’t have an NVQ in shooting and they don’t hate us because we didn’t serve 3 years under Old Jim.  They hate us because of the tools we own and the sports we do.  They are not going to rest until we are all branded criminals and have our guns melted down, no matter how many bullshit courses we put ourselves through.

Uncontrolled Populations

Nut jobs at the LACS want us to stop control of populations of a wild creatures such as deer.  The bunny huggers imagine that unsuccesful animals merely die peacefully of old age surrounded by their woodland chums.  They imagine that the population will reach some kind of equilibrium with the beasts merely stopping reproduction when they reach a maximum population density.  The reality is of course that overpopulation is limited by disease and starvation, but they prefer to ignore that or pretend that a long and painful death is morally superior to the relative speed of the hunters bullet.
Let’s just have a looksee at how successful the management of deer at a LACS sanctuary in Somerset.

The title “Stag stabbed to death” is a little emotive, but no different to the nonsense put out by the bunny huggers.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

My that’s a big gun you’ve got officer

Mirage reminds me about this story from last week of a bint from the British Association of Women in Policing (sounds like a sexist organisation to me) who claims that female firearms officers are more likely to have a negligent discharge (fnarr, fnarr) than the chaps because the guns are too big for their dainty little feminine hands.  Diddums.

There is a problem with guns because women have smaller hands. When you look at the guns being used, the grips are not comfortable for women to hold.  They could end up shooting themselves or one of their colleagues because they are not handling it properly.

Scary thought.  The horror doesn’t end there.

They have to wear men’s boots which are uncomfortable and lead to them getting blisters.
“They have to wear men’s shirts and trousers, which are very restrictive, they even have to do up their buttons backwards. And often the whole kit for specialist officers is only designed for men.”

Blisters.  Fancy that.  Oh and the ignomy of having to do your buttons up backwards!
So let’s get some smaller guns, then the men can struggle with guns that are too small.  That’ll solve the problem won’t it.
I keep getting this thought of a parallel of wimmin Class 1 Police drivers requesting Vauxhall Corsas because those Range Rovers and Mitsubishi Evos are just to big for them to park.
Alright so I’m being flippant, a gun should fit the hand of the user and some guns are thicker gripped than others.  Guns are available with interchangeable grips which might be a help.
There is thankfully, and surprisingly a voice of reason from the Police

The West Mercia deputy chief constable, Ian Arundale, who also serves on Acpo’s firearms working group, said all officers worked under a strict safety regime. “If there are any doubts as to the suitability of an officer to carry a firearm, then an the officer’s authority to use firearms will be withdrawn”

(Suspected) ‘animal rights’ terrorists arrested

Sweet.
About time some of these fuckers were rounded up, they’ve been getting away with it for too long.
I see the manager of a bunny hugger centre is whining about how it’s all a big mistake and how the pigs were like totally heavy handed dude.  Naive trusting soul that I am, I was thinking there he was caught up in it all - just trying to look after a few hedgehogs.  That was until I noticed this on the BBC News site

In 1994 Mr Calendar was jailed for eight years for conspiracy to commit arson on animal rights “targets”. He served four years.

Twat.