WeX Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Yes, because that's exactly what happens with firearms used criminally now anything that stops some people from using these guns is a good thing, but you will pooh-pooh anything because you're just like that. If I took someone's shot gun and walked down the road with it. The police would be after me pretty quickly. The gun would be taken as evidence and once the serial number is known, the owner can be found. Then they can prosecute my them for failing to secure the firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 anything that stops some people from using these guns is a good thing Why is it a good thing? Why do you want to stop people using guns? Would you like them to stop using bikes or hang-gliders? If I took someone's shot gun and walked down the road with it. The police would be after me pretty quickly. That depends, if the gun was uncovered (ie, not in a bag or case) they would probably stop and question you. If they knew it wasn't your own gun they would also probably stop and question you. The gun would be taken as evidence and once the serial number is known, the owner can be found. Then they can prosecute my them for failing to secure the firearm. If you had taken someone's air rifle and walked down the street with it uncovered they would stop and question you also. You can then take responsibility for breaking the law yourself, or give the name of the person you took it from (which wouldn't change the fact that you were still breaking the law in the first place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 anything that stops some people from using these guns is a good thing, but you will pooh-pooh anything because you're just like that. Cyclone's point was (if I understood it correctly) that guns procured/used by criminals have either been stolen (and expectedly already reported to the police as such by their licensed owner) or, much more frequently, have no license attached with them howsoever (vintage war trophies never licensed, or smuggled in from Eastern Europe, US and elsewhere usually with no serials). The scenario you suggested (track and prosecute licensed owner) is not realistic at all. The simple facts of the matter are that, (i) with sufficient time and tooling available to thieves, gun safes can be broken into, and (ii) in this day and age, there is probably more illegal handguns in prohibited calibers (9mm, 45 ACP, etc.) in circulation in the UK, than licensed ones. Considering where the UK is at in terms of firearms ownership and licensing, additional licensing of airguns will not solve gun-related criminality howsoever. IMHO. "More" needs to be done towards eradicating firearms trafficking instead...inasmuch as the problem could ever be fully eradicated, which I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 anything that stops some people from using these guns is a good thing, but you will pooh-pooh anything because you're just like that. If I took someone's shot gun and walked down the road with it. The police would be after me pretty quickly. The gun would be taken as evidence and once the serial number is known, the owner can be found. Then they can prosecute my them for failing to secure the firearm. Round here, no one would bat an eyelid. The number of farmers and people shooting vermin on their land is such that someone carrying a rifle downa country lane is just a normal scene. How much security is acceptable? What if I get mugged for my rifle whilst going to a shoot? Should I shoot the mugger? Is that reasonable security? Do I need a six foot thick concrete vault at home or is the regulation steelcase bolted to the walls and floor acceptable. Do I need to have walls proof against a JCB removing them, or just ordinary brick and cavity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 licensing will mean a gun is connected to the licensee and so when one is confiscated, the owner can be prosecuted for failing to secure the firearm. It won't stop them, I suspect there are plenty of villains out there selling weapons without asking too many questions. The point I was making is if a villain is prepared to undertake armed robbery or even shoot someone, they're not going to think, "Hang on, I'll need a licence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 anything that stops some people from using these guns is a good thing, but you will pooh-pooh anything because you're just like that. If I took someone's shot gun and walked down the road with it. The police would be after me pretty quickly. The gun would be taken as evidence and once the serial number is known, the owner can be found. Then they can prosecute my them for failing to secure the firearm. Not really, I was just pointing out the flawed logic that you had used. Firearms licensing doesn't stop gun crime. In fact when it was last tightened up gun crime increase. I think what you mean is that I actually consider the evidence of what happens in the real world, whilst you tell us what you think will happen with no reference to real world examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 anything that stops some people from using these guns is a good thing, but you will pooh-pooh anything because you're just like that. If I took someone's shot gun and walked down the road with it. The police would be after me pretty quickly. The gun would be taken as evidence and once the serial number is known, the owner can be found. Then they can prosecute my them for failing to secure the firearm. (followed on from post #62) The other things is, with this, the owner (of an air rifle) isn't breaking any law by letting you take the gun or failing to prevent you from taking the gun, unless you're under 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Cyclone's point was (if I understood it correctly) that guns procured/used by criminals have either been stolen (and expectedly already reported to the police I don't think there is a comparison. An air rifle is not as deadly as a hand gun to a human. You're not going to see someone holding up a post office with an air rifle. What we do see are kids with their parents air rifles shooting at people in the street for laughs. This is where the idea of licensing comes in. Find the kid with the rifle, then find who's it is and fine them. Soon enough we will have a situation where idiot parents will stop their kids from using an air rifle as they might get fined or even sent to prison. We need a method to stop thing like this happening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24441819 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I don't think there is a comparison. An air rifle is not as deadly as a hand gun to a human. You're not going to see someone holding up a post office with an air rifle. What we do see are kids with their parents air rifles shooting at people in the street for laughs. This is where the idea of licensing comes in. Find the kid with the rifle, then find who's it is and fine them. If you find the kid with the air rifle, then you've already found the main offender. Unless the kid has broken into someone's house to steal the air rifle, the owner will most likely be a family member or friend. I doubt there'd be many kids who would refuse to tell where they got the gun from in such a situation, or parents who would deny ownership if questioned. We need a method to stop thing like this happening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24441819 How would licensing prevent that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I don't think there is a comparison. An air rifle is not as deadly as a hand gun to a human. You're not going to see someone holding up a post office with an air rifle. What we do see are kids with their parents air rifles shooting at people in the street for laughs. This is where the idea of licensing comes in. Find the kid with the rifle, then find who's it is and fine them. Soon enough we will have a situation where idiot parents will stop their kids from using an air rifle as they might get fined or even sent to prison. We need a method to stop thing like this happening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24441819 Why licence it when we already have adequate laws to deal with this. In the situation you describe there is the offences described in s16-19 of the Firearms Act, the various laws regarding supervision of minors (or rather lack here) and the violent crime reduction act for access to air weapons. There's no need for licencing to track down the parents of the child is there - they will know who the parents are when they arrest the miscreat. The parents are already liable for a fine or jail time. Now you say stopping their children from using an air rifle - I presume you mean stopping them irresponsibly using an air rifle and you don't want to ban it entirely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.