Hello,
Does anybody know any survival club or society in the UK?
Regards,

Hi
I can;t think of anything that would fit that kind of title. I would think most people interested in outdoor activities in the UK would see themselves as walkers, climbers etc and not interested in Survival per se. So there are organisations which represent and provide training etc for the relevant activities. Locally there are likely to be walking clubs, climbing clubs etc. I guess there's also Outward Bound which provides activity based holidays, team building etc.
There are a number of compaines which run survival type courses and there's even a bushcraft weekend in the Autumn which brings together a number of these compaines.


There'a also exploration or adventure travel clubs, such as the Royal Geogrpahical Society but I don't know much about them.
Justin

try a web search, i'm sure that you'll come up with something

Enough said.

I have noticed much more of a presence from GB here now, compared to when I was more active on this forum in the past. Now one has to make conscious note of where someone is posting from, as conditions (and laws) are much different, and purchasing seems to be hindered either way.

Twice in the past I’ve tried to initiate (off-line) conversations with folks from GB to explore differing attitudes toward weaponry, mostly to educate myself on the basis attitudes there, but also, to some degree, to try to correct some “wild west” misimpressions I detected about the conditions in the US. Neither conversation got very far… I think it’s a fascinating area for exploration, the attitudes that have evolved since our histories diverged (not long ago, in the grand scheme of things), but it’s difficult to find people capable of discussing it dispassionately from any viewpoint.

Just go to Bisley for the historical shooting matches sometimes. Watching a MK4 Webley target revolver owner put 6 rounds of 286 grain roundnose bullets with a MV of 600fps int othe black will start conversations. <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You certainly are right when you say few can discuss it dispassionately. And you clearly understand that there is a lot of ground between being completely disarmed/totally dependent on the government for protection and the "wild west" where people are killed for looking at someone the wrong way.

For me, its about checks and balances on power. One is hard-pressed to find a politician in this country who won't say that we should have the strongest military on the planet so that we can protect ourselves. Ask the same politicians about our second amendment rights and, if you can get them to talk at all, you get comments like 'why do people need such powerful and destructive weapons?'

So the government is saying it wants all the power it can get while telling individuals the same philosophy doesn't make sense and is destructive. And I have a problem with hypocrisy, or just assuming that the government will always look out for my best interests in every case.

To me, that's what its really about, whether your talking about weapons... or healthcare... or tax dollars... or "protecting" me from terrorists on an aircraft. Do you want to have absolute faith that "big brother" will protect you, or should you have some control over your own life? The answer is not as obvious as it appears, a large number of folks believe that bureacrats in Washington are more worthy of trust than their own neighbors. That's why it is so emotionally charged, that very idea is offensive to me.

I have fired- I think it was the Mark V, and not a target version. I had the distinct impression that I could see the bullet going downrange, but it seemed more than likely that whatever it hit was going down. :-)

That's certainly not impossible at 600 fps... I remember one time I was out with my dad shooting .45 military ammo. I was standing off a bit to the side and the sun was low on the horizon. I could see that golden streak going downrange every time he fired.

Never seen it from behind the weapon though, there's usually too much smoke and flame obscuring that perspective! <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

We are unlikely to learn much from conversation with each other, we appear to be too close to total agreement. :-)

Personally, I would be a gun owner even if I was not a shooter. I conceive it to be an ethical obligation to exercise the right, much as many people regard voting. That's completely aside from issues of possible necessity.

>>a large number of folks believe that bureacrats in Washington are more worthy of trust than their own neighbors<<

Or, more distressingly, more worthy of trust than they judge themselves to be.

I've had people (who think nothing of guiding two tons of steel machinery through crowded streets) ask me seriously if I didn't fear that sudden insanity would overtake me and firearms would provide the means for mayhem, or perhaps just the ownership of firearms themselves (with the presumed evil demons that the media seems to believe that they contain) would tempt me to start randomly shooting people.

But, the subject under consideration isn't our feelings on the subject, but rather the fact that they don't seem to be shared by most of our cousins across the water with whom we share so much common history, and so many other cultural elements.

Yes, I see that we are too close to total agreement now. <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I originally thought that you were from GB and looking to discuss the matter with other GB'ers. I just thought I'd insert my quintessentially American opinion in there. My bad!! <img src="images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

The only way I can help explain the differences between us and the British would be the influence of Europe at large. They're no doubt inundated by a lot of socialistic ideas. Perhaps the idea of a "Nanny state" seems more palatable to them on average.

For me, I'm already seeing too much of it in our country! As far as I'm concerned, things only get worse with increased government intervention. I've said it before and I'll say it again, NOTHING frightens me more than this "Dept. of Homeland Security" monstrosity we've created. The cure is going to end up being far worse than the disease.

Some of us Brits manage to retain enough rebellion in our blood that we don't give in to the groupthink.

I'm born-and-bred British, I love the USA and I'm a die-hard Second Amendment supporter.

Of course, the 2nd amendment is sod all use over here! <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Pat,

Thanks for the feedback. If you don't mind a question- about how much of a minority woiuld you estimate are of your opinion- or at least think it's gone too far in the the other direction- in the UK at this point?

Thanks.

PL, Ben,

I have seen many bullets in flight. However, all were on the same target range, and IIRC, all were in the later afternoon. I was always the shooter. Most were .22 LR fired from a rifle, and one was a .38 Sp. WC. I think lighting conditions are the main determinant. Probably minimum velocity, recoil, and smoke also help a lot.

As to your views especially re guns, I wholeheartedly agree. Indeed, one remarkably pleasing feature of this non-shooting website is the general favor with which guns are seen here. It makes for a very pleasant atmosphere (as well as realistic approach in living). You know you are in good company when the really spirited but still civil discussions revolve around which guns and which knives to choose for survival, business, and recreational purposes. <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Regards,

John

I also appreciate the fact that people here are so polite.

You wanna hear something really funny? I've been called a "liberal" and an "anti-gun troll" on some pro-gun websites. <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The civility here is definitely refreshing!

ok, i'm not sure i want to get into a discussion about firearms, i'm sure that everyone else in here is much more knowledgeable on the subject than i am, but i am quite interested in the subject, and i'm also from the UK.

i think the thing that interests me most is "why?" what exactly are the reasons for wanting to own or carry weapons? as far as i can see; defence, either personal or home, and hunting, are the only reasons for owning firearms (just to clarify, i mean the only reasons from a survival perspective, i accept that people also own firearms for various forms of target shooting) whilst i'm not questioning the validity of the reasons behind anyone's choice to own or carry firearms i am curious as to how valid those reasons are in the UK.

so firstly, firearms for personal defence, this i've never understood. as far as i can see the only thing i'm protecting myself from is mugging, and as far as i'm concerned if anyone wants my wallet that badly then they can have it, nothing i carry on my person is worth someones life, neither mine nor anyone else's. i may be wrong.

secondly, home defence, again, what exactly is it that i'm supposed to be defending my home from? i accept that the situation may be very different in the US but here in the UK i'm not sure what i'm supposed to be protecting my house from, burglary? i don't know of anyone who's ever been burgled whilst they're in the house, and as far as i can see if anyone was burgling my house whilst i was in then as soon as they realised i was aware of their presence they'd be more likely to want to leave than take the risk of being confronted, maybe i'm wrong. a dog? wouldn't a dog be a satisfactory way of defending my house? defending my house in the event of a breakdown of society? a lot of people in here will dissagree with me, and think that i'm being naive, but a complete breakdown of society or teotwawki is just too far fetched and unlikely for me to take seriously, sorry if that offends anyone, it's not intended.

thirdly hunting, ok, this is the only area of firearms that i know a little bit about and it's a massive area for discussion, and i really don't want to get into arguments about suitability. i think the question of hunting weapons comes down to the same point as home defence, is there gonna be a break down of society that means i'm gonna have to hunt to feed myself? teotwawki? i don't think so.

i don't really know the reasons behind this post it's just my two pennies on a subject that i find fascinating. i'd love to hear peoples critisms of my thinking and maybe ofer me a few answers.

take it easy,
stuart.

p.s. just in case you were wondering i'm sitting firmly on the fence showing no sign of falling into either the pro or anti gun camp at present, and i can't really see me falling at any time soon.

this quote:

Last year, 12 people were killed in Lambeth, a gritty section of the city with a
growing reputation for gang warfare and drug dealing. But what alarms police and
community leaders even more is that half the murders were committed with guns,
increasingly the weapon of choice of criminals across Britain.

from this article explains one of the reasons to carry weapons. It is not whether you believe you have something that is worth your life but rather if someone else believes that they have a reason to threaten your life. If someone is willing to threaten your life - or the lives of your loved ones - then it is reasonable to be prepared to protect those lives with equal or greater force. I believe that I always have something worth someones life - My own life. If someone would attempt to take that from me I would want the ability to respond in kind.

Criminals killing people with firearms is the current best reason for non-criminals to be armed. The reason for the second ammendment was to ensure that the civilian population would be well enough armed to serve as a final check on unbridled governmental power. The threat of revolution from well armed and moderately trained civilian population that vastly outnumbers the government was intended to keep the government reminded of what we did to the last tyrant that tried to rule us unfairly. This is not something that is discussed all that often but it was important to the folks that passed the amendment. We didn't overthrow British tyrany just to fall prey to local dictators (or did we?).

Isn't it curious that the police are alarmed at 6 murders by gun but are (presumedly) completely accepting of an equal number by other means? Just goes to show taking guns from the public will only force criminals to find other ways of committing the same crimes.

Ed

i accept the fact that gang related viloence is on the increase in british inner cities, but i'm neither a gang member nor do i live in an inner city so in my opinion i face more or less zero risk from that area, as i said in my original post the situation may be different in the US but here in the UK i feel no threat at all from gang related violence. as i said in my original post the only way i feel at all at threat from violent crime is threat from mugging and whether i was carrying a weapon of any kind or not i would still give a mugger exactly what he asked for rather than risk any kind of violent confrontation.

take it easy,
stuart

Shaggystu,

Thank you for keeping the discussion measured.

While I applaud you for being open-minded enough to ask the question, I'm afraid I have to say that I regard the basis of the question as fundamentally flawed. Let me see if I can explain why.

You are, in effect, asking us to convince you that you should want to "own or carry weapons"... but that isn't at all the position we're taking on the issue. No one (that I'm aware of) feels that you should NOT have the right to make that determination for yourself. If you percieve no need for weapons in your life, we have no real interest in persuading you otherwise. We may indeed have misgivings that fate may change your mind for you later on, but it's entirely your decision, not ours.

We'd just much rather you didn't make the decision for all of us.

That is part of the essential difference between the two "camps" on this issue... those who are defending the right to own weapons are emphatically NOT trying to impose their decisions on everyone else, while those who want to deny that right are intent on exactly that- making that decision for all people, for all time, regardless of past, present or future circumstances. In essence, they are saying that they are so much wiser than you that they have the right to make the decision for you, regardless of your opinion of your opinion on the matter- and enforce it by violence, if necessary.

I think you will find that this is true across the board. Those who acknowledge your right to self-defense also respect the people's right to self-detemination, and the rights of others in general. Those who deny the right to self-defense feel that they also should, by rights, be able to make many, many other decisions for everyone else as well... because we're just obviously "wrong" and they're obviosly "right", and anyone who disagrees with them just isn't listening...

Preparing for Low probability / High risk scenarios is what this site is all about. Having a bandaid when you accidentally snag your finger on the Printed circuit board at work while changing your network card is convenient but hardly a survival situation. OTOH having a trash bag to cowwer under on the lonely top of some mountain that you have been abruptly deposited upon out of your comfy airliner seat is a matter of survival. I willingly concede that you are far less likely to fall out of the sky than snag your finger at the office. That doesn't stop many of us considering and preparing for the possibility that we may someday find ourselves on that unlikely mountaintop.

I live in a rural area of New Hampshire, USA. There haven't been two muders here in 10 years. There have been tool related accidents involving all manner of power tools and recreational equipment. Table-saws, dirt-bikes and Hunting tools such as rifles. When seen as a power tool the gun is not more dangerous than table-saws. Accidental death and injury are roughly similar for both.

We will all choose the scenarios for which we will prepare ourselves. I don't prepare for Teotwawki because I would rather not survive that. I don't prepare for jumping out of a burning High-Rise (other than declining employment in large cities). If, as some on this forum do, you consider the potential (either probability or consequence) of a scenario wherein you need to protect yourself from the threat of deadly force something you would like to prepare for, then you will need to be equipped with something that can confidently counter that threat - firearms are a reasonable tool choice for such a scenario - if they are available to you.

The passions start to rise when the reasonable tool needed to prepare for a scenario which you feel worth preparing for are forbidden you by individuals or organizations who don't / won't / can't provide the equivalent level or security from the threat that they are preventing you from preparing for. It's all about being willing and able to take personal responsibility for your well being and security.

My dad told me a story of something he saw during the war. A Young Officer was teaching the soldiers how to shoot. One soldier in particular had a very awkward looking (to the officer) position, so the officer paid particular attention to him, correcting his stance, showing him how to hold the rifle, how to aim, how to squeeze the trigger, and so forth. Meanwhile the other soldiers were killing themselves trying not to laugh - the "awkward soldier" was the Regimental Bisley Rifle Champion. <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Isn't carrying a gun, fighting fire with fire. Wouldn't it be better to stop gun crime my reducing the number of guns on the streets, than increasing them?

i agrea, even though i wouldn't mind having a .38 on me, though... here in europe we has a lot less loss of life due to accidents with firearms. And we also have very little criminal use of firearms, that says enough about it i think. Diffrent places requires diffrent aproches.
btw why do i see so many americans with firearms, but so little with bodyarmor ? wearing bodyarmor and a piece is way beter than just a gun with you and a collection at home.

No it's not fighting fire with fire. Study after study in this country has shown that states or localities with easier access to concealed carry permits have lower crime rates than areas with more restrictive legislation. New York City and our nation's capitol have some the most draconian gun laws yet suffer from the worst crime stats. The premise is really pretty simple. Thugs don't want get shot so they don't fool around as much if their intended victim is likely to shoot back.

The notion of simply outlawing all guns is an overly simplistic view. By their very nature criminals would not surrender their guns, only the law abiding would. Since the population of victims is now unarmed crime would inevitably increase, in this country anyway. See paragraph 1. Besides, in this country it would be a case of locking the barn after the horse has bolted. There is absolutely no way that you could even begin to recover all of the guns that are out there legally.

Also, if you carefully read the post that started this sub-thread you'll note that just as many died in non-gun murders as gun murders. Those compelled to murder and mayhem will always find a way.

I was raised in the old school frame mind that says a man has a moral obligation to protect himself and his loved ones. In the end, though, it comes down to personal choice. You may carry a PSK or not, a SAK or not, a FAK or not, a gun or not. I choose to carry all four and accept the responsibilty, and occassional consequences, that goes with the use of each.

Ed

>>Isn't carrying a gun, fighting fire with fire. Wouldn't it be better to stop gun crime my reducing the number of guns on the streets, than increasing them?<<

Er, no. To add to the points that Ed already made....

It might be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't, and never has.

By not carrying a gun (your choice, of course), you're reducing the number of armed decent people out there by one.

You have considerably less to fear from armed, decent people than you have to fear from decent people with automobiles. The automobiles have more potential for mayhem by far.

When somebody shoots you, it's unlikely to be the first time they've done that, and unlikely to be the last. They do it because it works, it gets them whatever it is that they want (and some of the possibilities for what that might be don't bear thinking about). That person will very likely keep doing it, more killings that you might have prevented had you been willing, until they are stopped, almost certainly by someone with a gun. If it's not a decent, armed civilian (unfortunately, probably not), then it will go on until a policeman, paid by your taxes to do the dirty work you don't want to do for yourself, does it for you. Too late then for you, maybe too late for others.

The people who cry out to "reduce the number of guns on the street" intend that this would be done by more men armed with guns- how else? If that succeeds, and crime inevitably increases (criminals prefer unarmed victims), they demand more, and then still more police to "protect" them- still more men with guns.

How is hiring people to carry guns to do it for you, ethically superior to protecting yourself?

Another thought on the statistics of crimes involving guns in a mostly unarmed society such as most of europe:

In an unarmed society a criminal with intent to do personal or property theft / damage / assault / death can do so with less powerful arms since the victim will be less able to defend.

In an armed society criminals with intent to do personal or property theft / damage / assault / death must consider the potential lethal defense and some may be disuaded whilst others will arm themselves appropriately.

On the net there may be a limited drop in crimes accompanied with a rise in crimes involving arms in the armed society. These are just thoughts - I haven't done the research on the stats to back up these speculations but I am sure that someone could make the numbers say this. (or anything else they want them to <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ).

> about how much of a minority woiuld you estimate are of your opinion- or at least think it's gone too far in the the other direction- in the UK at this point?

I think there's a minuscule number of people here in Britain who agree (or even express some sympathy with the idea of) the right to bear arms.

It's not really even considered a debatable point; everyone pretty much assumes you will be anti-gun.

I'm sure that there is more deaths by gun crime in the US per 1000 people than in Britain. If someone pulled a gun on me in England and demanded my wallet, i'd give it to him, and no one would die. If I shot him, he would die. Thats an unnessesary death. If peoples intent is to cause harm and kill you, yes it is safer to carry a gun, but that is rarer than just someone threatening you.

If someone pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, how do you know whether his intent is to merely threaten you or to do you harm? Benefit of the doubt is one thing but when your life is in the balance you need to be a bit more cynical about the other guys intentions. How neccesary his death would be is an endless theoretical debate. The guy may never do another crime after getting your wallet or he may become ever more emboldened to more violent crimes....crimes you might have prevented. It's really a shortsighted argument to not think beyond the immediacy of whether you give up your wallet or not. I'll assume the worst, plug the sh**head, and take my chances with the maker later on.
As I said before, it's a personal choice. Good luck living with yours.

Ed

>>If someone pulled a gun on me in England and demanded my wallet, i'd give it to him, and no one would die.<<

I'm not sure how it works over there, but here that scenario is so rare (in reality, not theater) as to be almost fantasy. Assailants here don't like to leave a person any choice of response, they much prefer to just beat the victim senseless immediately (often by using surprise, or ganging up on the victim- the more the merrier), and then they can do anything they please to the victim at their leasure.

Shopkeepers are often (and mugging victims sometimes) shot AFTER turning over cash, especially if the robber thinks the shopkeeper might be a witness later (or the perpetrator just has some class-struggle anger to vent). Fences of stolen goods pay more for stolen credit cards if the previous owner was killed; if the owner was just robbed, cancelling the cards is the first thing that occurs to people. If the owner was killed, it's one of the last, so the cards tend to work for much longer afterwards, and hence are more valuable.

You must make your own decisions, of course, but I strongly encourage you to base them on reality, and not on a child's-play scenario (whether it's Jesse James or Dick Turpin). It's highly unlikely that anyone is going to point a gun at you and politely say "your money or your life". It's far, far more likely that they will just take control of the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible, and after that, it's too late- you have no further say in anything. If all they take is your money, you will be very fortunate.

I've certainly learnt a lesson, never argue with a gun enthusiast .
I do, like you, enjoy guns and do shoot. However I was just trying to make you see from another view. There are to ways to try and stop guncrime. Arming civilians, and trying to remove guns from the streets. I completely understand your viewpoint and if I lived in the US, i'd probably carry a gun. <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

same for me, exsept i don't shoot ( im only 16..... )

"I've certainly learnt a lesson, never argue with a gun enthusiast "
????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I know my english is not that good and I certainly cannot detect all the subtilities and nuances in those posts, but ....

... I don't understand what you mean by "learnt lesson" :
- IMHO all the posts in this thread are very polite ; to me, it looks like the most courteous exchange of opinions I have ever seen about that delicate subject ;
- everybody said you are entitled to your opinion ; they simply tried to express theirs, as you seemed interested ;
- if by "never argue ..." you mean you are disappointed because they do not share your own opinion, well ... that's life .... <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Back to the arguments exchanged up to now :
- reading your starting post, it seems England is a wonderful land to live in : no ordinary decent citizen is subject to violent crime !! All your muggers are quite decent too, they just want some money, and would never even think about knocking you about a bit or raping your wife/girlfriend, not after you giving so kindly your money away ... that's what I call "fair-play" ! <img src="images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
(in another criminal area : have IRA people decided to never again bomb or gun down folks in the U.K. ??)
- there are laws in EVERY contries forbidding criminals to have guns ; those laws doesn't PREVENT them to have guns (hey!! they are outlaws !!!), those laws just allow to punish them somemore once they are caught ...
- Only non criminal people (aka ordinary decent law abiding citizens <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) obey laws.
- IMHO (yes, I know, I have already used that acronym ! I don't know a lot of them <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />...), it makes sense that most criminals prefer un-armed potential victims ;
- I (calmly sitting in front of my computer) FULLY aggree with you : a few £ (or Euros or $ ...) are NOT worth a life, neither yours nor the one of your mugger. No TV set, no car ... is worth a life.
YOU (and I and other people on this forum too) know that.
But maybe your assaillant doesn't think so .... maybe be he is not thinking at all, except at the dose of crack your money will buy him .... <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Well, as many people say here, that was just my two cents (of Euro) worth opinion ...
( this post is not intended to be aggressive ; if you feel it is, please excuse me and put it on the fact I don't master english well enough)


Regards.

Alain

P.S. : I only recently saw that movie "ordinary decent criminals" ; delightful !! I enjoyed it very much, therefore the citations ....
but I fear all your criminals are not as fair as the character played by Kevin Spacey (fair enough to keep the killings among themselves).

I'm only 15

ohw... they let 15 year old folks shoot ? what caliber do you shoot ? here in holland you are only allowed to fire .17 and .20 if you aren't 18 yet. You also need to be 18 to buy a .17 or .20 and you have to do that on a shooting range. I personally don't like these BB-gun calibers, because they don't have noticble recoil. You have to feel something ! but im thinking of joining a shooting club before i get 17 so i can buy a "big" caliber gun wenn i turn 18. ( you have to be atleast a member of a shooting club for over a year to be ablebuy a gun )

As far as I know, here in the UK there are no age restrictions on shooting. It may interest you to know that I shoot the L98 or SA80 (5.56), the standard rifle of the British army. I shoot it with the air cadets. I also shoot 22. and 12 bore shotgun. I also once fired 7.62. You have to be 14 to shoot 5.56 and 13 to shoot 22. I also don't like the 22. because there is little to no kick.

drool....

Sorry if i'm being stupid, but what rifle do the Dutch army use?

canadian made C7 diemaco and the C8 diemaco carbine

Ah yes. Like that M16A2 with full auto instead of 3 round burst.
thanks