Hunting in UK: How to Hunt Without Guns or Hounds

[Pythagorean]

How do people hunt for wild game in countries that don't allow gun ownership? Do they just not? Hounds are illegal now too, I thought.

 

[Evo]

How do people hunt for wild game in countries that don't allow gun ownership? Do they just not? Hounds are illegal now too, I thought.

I read that they can own hunting rifles for game hunting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[NobodySpecial]

Giant mousetraps and trebuchets - it's more skillful.

 

[Cyrus]

I feel sorry for the people in the UK. The government pats them on the head and treats them like children when it comes to this issue. They got royally screwed with after their gun law restrictions came into place. Now they "hunt" with air rifles.

 

[apeiron]

I feel sorry for the people in the UK. The government pats them on the head and treats them like children when it comes to this issue. They got royally screwed with after their gun law restrictions came into place. Now they "hunt" with air rifles.

I'd be the last one to tout the UK as a perfect society, but as usual, a few facts might not harm the debate.

For instance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime#Homicides_by_country

UK has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world - and 25 times lower than the US. Yet the UK still felt that was unacceptable enough to require gun law tightening.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Now they "hunt" with air rifles.

Although to be fair the most fearsome creature they are likely to encounter is the dread badger.
They do not have to arm themselves to defend against grizzly bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and moose that Americans face on their delay commute.

 

[Cyrus]

I'd be the last one to tout the UK as a perfect society, but as usual, a few facts might not harm the debate.

For instance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime#Homicides_by_country

UK has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world - and 25 times lower than the US. Yet the UK still felt that was unacceptable enough to require gun law tightening.

What does that have to do with hunting? Once again, I will not drag yet another thread off topic.

 

[Cyrus]

Although to be fair the most fearsome creature they are likely to encounter is the dread badger.
They do not have to arm themselves to defend against grizzly bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and moose that Americans face on their delay commute.

That's hilarious.

 

[Evo]

Although to be fair the most fearsome creature they are likely to encounter is the dread badger.
They do not have to arm themselves to defend against grizzly bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and moose that Americans face on their delay commute.

What percent of Americans come face to face with these animals daily? Almost none?

 

[rootX]

In Japan:

The process to receive ones license is fairly detailed. First a written test on game laws is required. Then another game identification test is taken. This is followed by demonstration of firearms safety as well as distance estimation. Finally off to the the skeet range for shotgun qualification. This process was completed in 2 days.

http://www.crowbusters.com/begart3.htm

Any individual who intends to hunt must be
granted an appropriate hunting license issued by and
registered with the prefectural governor of the in-
tended place of hunting.

http://www.airies.or.jp/publication/ger/pdf/07-02-11.pdf

 

[apeiron]

What does that have to do with hunting? Once again, I will not drag yet another thread off topic.

Err, you complained about governments treating citizens as children. So are you suggesting that UK gun laws were tightened as a result of too many animals being shot?

I hope you can shoot straighter with your pistol than you do with your logic!

 

[Cyrus]

Err, you complained about governments treating citizens as children. So are you suggesting that UK gun laws were tightened as a result of too many animals being shot?

I hope you can shoot straighter with your pistol than you do with your logic!

I never suggested UK laws were tightened for any reason - I simply said they were tightened, and hunters got screwed in the process.

 

[Ken Natton]

Okay, this affords me an opportunity to demonstrate that I hold no patronising view of superiority regarding guns and hunting in the UK. The truth is that, even before the existence of stricter gun control as a consequence of a particularly appalling incident of a mass shooting that occurred here in the UK, the ownership of guns for hunting purposes was pretty much entirely the preserve of a privileged, tiny minority. Not a few analysts have pointed out that the recent controversies over hunting with hounds has far more to do with an on-going battle between an anachronistic inherited privilege and a modern egalitarianism than it does with any genuine concern for wild foxes or considerations of the best way to control their numbers. Some analysts have also seen it as a conflict between urban and rural communities in the UK, but personally, I see more evidence in support of the former analysis.

I also perfectly well understand the history of ‘the American dream’, and of the importance of a far more open access to hunting to the American way of life. It has never been so much a part of the way of life of most ordinary Britons.

There is also a significant problem of illegal gun possession among criminal elements here in the UK, but that is a different issue.

 

[cristo]

I never suggested UK laws were tightened for any reason - I simply said they were tightened, and hunters got screwed in the process.

Actually, no you didn't, you said that "I feel sorry for the people in the UK. The government pats them on the head and treats them like children when it comes to this issue. They got royally screwed with after their gun law restrictions came into place."

Firstly, the number of people who hunt in the UK are a small minority (as a poster says above, predominantly the wealthy and upper class). Thus, the general public wasn't "royally screwed" when the government passed the firearms act of 2004. But more importantly, who needs a handgun or an automatic weapon to go hunting anyway? If you want a shotgun or a rifle then you apply for a license and prove that you are going to do with the weapon what you claim. If people are hunting with air rifles then it is either by choice, or because they are not deemed suitable to hold a license for more powerful and dangerous weapon. It's hardly handholding, but rather common sense.

 

[cristo]

Although to be fair the most fearsome creature they are likely to encounter is the dread badger.
They do not have to arm themselves to defend against grizzly bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and moose that Americans face on their delay commute.

So I guess there aren't any cities in the US?

Oh, and besides, who needs a gun to fight off a bear?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11401167

 

[Pythagorean]

But more importantly, who needs a handgun or an automatic weapon to go hunting anyway?

Nobody. Automatic weapons are sloppy for hunting, you just risk damaging your meat more (and well, that's the whole point in my case) and with handguns you're not accurate enough until you're scaring them away (which leads to more sloppy shooting).

Anyway, I don't care much for Cowboys; I was always an Indian.

 

[cristo]

Nobody. Automatic weapons are sloppy for hunting, you just risk damaging your meat more (and well, that's the whole point in my case) and with handguns you're not accurate enough until you're scaring them away (which leads to more sloppy shooting).

Exactly, so, what's the fuss about? Gun ownership is only illegal if you don't have a licence.

 

[Pythagorean]

Exactly, so, what's the fuss about? Gun ownership is only illegal if you don't have a licence.

a) Some nuts think they'll be able to overthrow the government with their arms (which is the point of the 2nd amendment). Unfortunately, we don't have legal access to tanks, submarines, laser satelites, biotoxins, fighter jets, bombers, paratroopers, billions of dollars, experienced soldiers that have seen a lot of combat lately, and all that other stuff the military gets...

b) Other people are concerned for their own safety. Not sure how much having a hand gun really helps out unless you're Charles Bronson (who you will never hear on the receiving end of a Chuck Norris joke). I don't want to shoot a gun in a panic in the house my family is sleeping in, personally. I don't mind getting down to it and bludgeoning somebody if I have to.

c) Cowboys like to hee haw and shoot at the sky and ride their horsies and what not.

d) people that never cared about guns watch Fox News and get excited.

 

[cristo]

Maybe I should rephrase my question. What is the fuss about in this thread? Gun ownership in the UK is only illegal if you own a gun with no licence. There is no such thing as "second amendment rights"-- you have no right to carry firearms.

(I like your point about the tanks et al, though.)

 

[Ken Natton]

Thomas Hamilton’s guns were all legally owned and licensed, neither did he fit the profile of the type of criminal that has illegally held guns. The majority of his victims were 5 and 6 years old.

 

[Pythagorean]

which post are you referring to? The OP? I realized by post #2 that you could own a gun with a license (not sure where I picked up my prior assumption).

 

[Pythagorean]

Thomas Hamilton’s guns were all legally owned and licensed, neither did he fit the profile of the type of criminal that has illegally held guns. The majority of his victims were 5 and 6 years old.

Thomas Hamilton didn't necessarily require a gun to do terrible things.

What I'm more worried about, in terms of gun availability, is impulsive people that don't realize the magnitude of power they have strapped to their hip until it's too late... or the people raised to carry guns for killing humans (gang life).

But I don't know... getting stabbed or bludgeoned to death doesn't sound much funner.

 

[Ken Natton]

Thomas Hamilton didn't necessarily require a gun to do terrible things.

He couldn't have generated so much misery in such a short space of time without them.

I accept that his is an unusual case, not really demonstrative of demographics. But it gives the lie to the idea that requiring guns to be licensed is any kind of protection against the consequences of wide spread ownership.

 

[cristo]

Thomas Hamilton’s guns were all legally owned and licensed, neither did he fit the profile of the type of criminal that has illegally held guns. The majority of his victims were 5 and 6 years old.

I don't see how this (a) has anything to do with the OP and (b) is a relevant point against legal gun ownership. The Dunblane massacre was before the current laws on handgun ownership, which made handguns illegal in all but a very small category of cases. Dunblane wasn't a failing of the current law, since the current law did not exist at that time.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, no you didn't, you said that "I feel sorry for the people in the UK. The government pats them on the head and treats them like children when it comes to this issue. They got royally screwed with after their gun law restrictions came into place."

Firstly, the number of people who hunt in the UK are a small minority (as a poster says above, predominantly the wealthy and upper class). Thus, the general public wasn't "royally screwed" when the government passed the firearms act of 2004. But more importantly, who needs a handgun or an automatic weapon to go hunting anyway? If you want a shotgun or a rifle then you apply for a license and prove that you are going to do with the weapon what you claim. If people are hunting with air rifles then it is either by choice, or because they are not deemed suitable to hold a license for more powerful and dangerous weapon. It's hardly handholding, but rather common sense.

No one hunts with an automatic weapon - I have no idea where you got this idea from. In fact, I don't think you even know what an automatic weapon really is. Anyways, one should not have to go through this hand-holding process where, maybe, if they are lucky enough, they can get a permit. In all seriousness, Id be very interested to have you apply for a permit and report back on if you get one or not. I think you are more than 'suitable' to own one, let's see what your government thinks of you. I have my doubts you'd be given on in reality.

 

[cristo]

No one hunts with an automatic weapon - I have no idea where you got this idea from. In fact, I don't think you even know what an automatic weapon really is.

Did I say that people hunt with automatic weapons? You said that hunters got screwed in the process of tightening up on the control of firearms. However, in reality, the weapons that have been banned are automatic rifles and handguns, which are of no use to hunters. Thus, how have the hunters been "royally screwed"?

Anyways, one should not have to go through this hand-holding process where, maybe, if they are lucky enough, they can get a permit.

Yes one should. As I mentioned above, there is no fundamental right to own a firearm (note that we're not talking about America, for once).

In all seriousness, Id be very interested to have you apply for a permit and report back on if you get one or not. I think you are more than 'suitable' to own one, let's see what your government thinks of you. I have my doubts you'd be given on in reality.

Of course I wouldn't. I have never hunted in my life, never fired a weapon, and live in the inner city. Why would anyone give me a licence?

 

[Ken Natton]

I don't see how this (a) has anything to do with the OP and (b) is a relevant point against legal gun ownership. The Dunblane massacre was before the current laws on handgun ownership, which made handguns illegal in all but a very small category of cases. Dunblane wasn't a failing of the current law, since the current law did not exist at that time.

It wasn’t a reply to the OP it was a reply to you.

I understand perfectly well what restrictions were changed as a result of the Dunblane massacre and when they changed. I apologise if I misread your point, but you seemed to be offering gun licensing as the reason why gun ownership is not a problem here in the UK. I meant to offer a challenge to that view. The changes brought in as a result of Dunblane are not a matter of licensing. The kind of guns Hamilton used are now banned from private ownership all together, except under certain tightly controlled circumstances. What I had not known until checking my facts for this post is that even Britain’s Olympic shooters are subject to this ban.

 

[Cyrus]

Did I say that people hunt with automatic weapons? You said that hunters got screwed in the process of tightening up on the control of firearms. However, in reality, the weapons that have been banned are automatic rifles and handguns, which are of no use to hunters. Thus, how have the hunters been "royally screwed"?

Fair enough.

Yes one should. As I mentioned above, there is no fundamental right to own a firearm (note that we're not talking about America, for once).

Blah, what a miserable system of restrictions on personal freedoms.

Of course I wouldn't. I have never hunted in my life, never fired a weapon, and live in the inner city. Why would anyone give me a licence?

That's kind of my point. You live in a free society and should be able to easily obtain a permit if you apply. Not be treated like a child and told no.

 

[JaredJames]

Just to clarify, it is illegal in the UK to own a firearm without a license and then it is a shotgun licence.

If you want to get a licence, you have to demonstrate that you have a gun cabinet where the weapon will remain locked at all times when not in use.

You must also show a requirement to own a firearm (pest control and sports shooting are the main reasons).

The license is issued by your local police station, the whole process is here:
http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/goshoot...licence__shotgun_certificate_application.html

Now back to the OP. If you want to go hunting in the UK, you need the permission of the land owner to use their land for that purpose. There isn't much to hunt, I think rabbits are what most people go for.

 

[JaredJames]

You live in a free society and should be able to easily obtain a permit if you apply. Not be treated like a child and told no.

The US, a true 'free society', which means you now have a gun crime rate 25 times higher than the UK. Oh yes, the benefits of gun ownership paying off there.

Anyway, there is a time and a place for debates on firearms, this is neither the time nor the place. These debates are pointless and get no where. Let's stick to the UK hunting situation.

 

[Cyrus]

The US, a true 'free society', which means you now have a gun crime rate 25 times higher than the UK. Oh yes, the benefits of gun ownership paying off there.

Anyway, there is a time and a place for debates on firearms, this is neither the time nor the place. These debates are pointless and get no where. Let's stick to the UK hunting situation.

You know, if you want to lecture me about the 'time and place' for this debate, then you shouldn't insert nonsense like 25 times higher rates than the UK - it comes off as being sleazy and hypocritical.

I specifically said for him to apply for a permit to hunting, did that escape you? Anyways, it's you guys country and I really don't care what you do there.

 

[JaredJames]

Well as I can't PM you so as not to drag this thread off track:

You know, if you want to lecture me about the 'time and place' for this debate, then you shouldn't insert nonsense like 25 times higher rates than the UK - it comes off as being sleazy and hypocritical.

Based on these sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

They show the US gun homicide rate per 100,000 people to be 25 - 27 times higher than the UK. What's nonsense about that?

The non-gun related homicide rates of England and Wales to the US are virtually identical.

The graph on the gun-control-network page shows that as the percentage of households with firearms increases, there are more intentional deaths per 100,000 of the population. So to say the UK's strict gun control laws aren't working is ridiculous.

 

[Cyrus]

Well as I can't PM you so as not to drag this thread off track:
Based on these sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

They show the US gun homicide rate per 100,000 people to be 25 - 27 times higher than the UK. What's nonsense about that?

The non-gun related homicide rates of England and Wales to the US are virtually identical.

The graph on the gun-control-network page shows that as the percentage of households with firearms increases, there are more intentional deaths per 100,000 of the population. So to say the UK's strict gun control laws aren't working is ridiculous.

Dude, seriously. Stick to hunting. Please. I'm not going to defend your strawmen.

 

[jtbell]

Although to be fair the most fearsome creature they are likely to encounter is the dread badger.
They do not have to arm themselves to defend against grizzly bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and moose that Americans face on their delay commute.

That's hilarious.

Tell that to my colleague who once had the front end of his car bashed in by a deer while driving to work here one morning.

 

[apeiron]

Dude, seriously. Stick to hunting. Please. I'm not going to defend your strawmen.

Hilarious. You raise the issue of governments treating citizens as children. The counter argument is that it is completely right to ban guns designed purely for killing people, to allow guns for "sporting purposes", but to also control those sporting guns in ways that limit the possibility of "dual use".

One is a coherent set of public policies. The other - your idea of a civic right - is accompanied by a x25 greater rate of gun homicide. Not seeing too many strawmen here, just some facts you don't care to face.