XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: murff@warlock.org   
      
   On Wed, 07 May 2014 16:23:07 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
      
   > Murff  wrote in news:lke5cd$42j$6@dont-email.me:   
   >   
   >> No, but I'm not convinced that the current shouting match will   
   >> ultimately be successful. I think they'd be better off with laws that   
   >> head off the antis arguments.   
   >   
   > Those laws have been argued about for a long, long time.  We used to   
   > have guns in schools for hunting on the way home, intramural rifle   
   > teams, firearms and hunter's safety taught in school.   No mas....   
      
   Hence the point. Long, slow defeat.   
      
      
   > I am talking about shooting over other people's land, particularly at   
   > night.  I am thinking that means different things in your lingo and   
   > idiom than it does in mine.   
      
   Quite possibly. "Shooting over land" here means exactly what it says -   
   that the bullet passes over land owned by someone. This as opposed to "on   
   ranges" where the entire range is designated "for" shooting. The legal   
   implication is that you need here to have lawful authority to "shoot   
   over" all land over which the bullet passes or an offence is committed.   
   Hence for example it is automatically an offence to "shoot over" (i.e.   
   "across") a road since the road is ultimately crown/state/local   
   government property and you wouldn't have authority to shoot over it.   
      
   So when I say "shooting over someone else's land" I mean that they have   
   given me authority to shoot there. But the local technical term means   
   that if, say, I'm on neighbouring land on which I have similar authority   
   I can legally shoot from one to the other, usual considerations for shot   
   safety being met.   
      
   > What exactly do you mean by "shooting over someone else's property"?  To   
   > me that means shooting at something that is on the other side of it.   
      
   See above. You're correct to stress however that there is particular   
   responsibility at night. There are no laws here banning shooting at   
   night. But certain quarry cannot be taken at night without special   
   licences (eg. deer). Some others (eg. Canada geese which are otherwise a   
   pest and can be shot year-round) can't be taken using night vision or   
   thermal sights.   
      
   Also, obviously, it is dark. That means that you need to be very sure of   
   the land, safe shot angles and particularly ranges to and between   
   landmarks from shooting positions. I use a CCD-based low-light/infra-red   
   night vision scope on one of my .22LR rifles for rabbits and vermin:   
   whilst it works very well you don't get the range cues that you do with   
   an optical sight. So to shoot responsibly you need to do thorough   
   reconnaissance beforehand. It is also good practice when night shooting,   
   to make sure that farmers and so on know when and where you're going to   
   be, to avoid misunderstandings and accidents.   
      
   A question for the antis: All that above is about use of guns. In what   
   way is it, and the meticulous adherence to the underlying rules,   
   consistent with notions that "guns" are responsible for murder and   
   suicides ?   
      
   >>> Then you didn't look at Project Exile.   
   >>   
   >> The *paragraph* looked that way.   
   >   
   > I gave you two cites covering what it was....did you look at them?   
      
   Yes. And I noticed that whilst it was sponsored by the NRA, "pro gun   
   rights" groups were amongst the opponents. As I said, the *paragraph* -   
   in the post, not in your references - looked that way. In any case,   
   whilst congratulations are due to a successful project it doesn't show   
   that being beastly actually provided the deterrent so much as the   
   emphasis that "we *are* going to get you". Good stuff, nonetheless.   
      
   >   
   > Which is why many feel that a revolution is coming.  Mass disobedience   
   > on a scale never before experienced in this country or, perhaps, on the   
   > planet.   
      
   Maybe. I've heard that before, too. And we get it here - currently mainly   
   from "English nationalist" swivel-eyed loons who want to send all the   
   black people "home".   
      
   I think respect for the law will win out that way, too: my experience of   
   the US is that it isn't as uncivilised a place as its detractors like to   
   claim.   
      
   > We don't do sunset clauses....that is one of my bitches.  We have lots   
   > of legislators, we have no de-legislators.   
      
   Something that the current UK government tried to do was to establish a   
   principle that when it came to "regulatory" law, anything introduced had   
   to be balanced with something else being withdrawn or repealed. The aim   
   wasn't "sunset", but to try to do something about the thickets or layers   
   of partially-overlapping law that builds up over time and makes much   
   regulation - in particular, for example, tax systems - such a mess.   
      
   But even that limited aim seems to have met with little success.   
      
   > A lot of that comes from the history of our current president.  Here was   
   > his record before he assumed that office, you may skim through it at   
   > your convenience:   
      
   Unpleasant reading...   
      
   --   
   Murff...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)