ArtfulDodger Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Would supporters of a licencing system for air weapons also support a similar system for catapults, bows, crossbows and blow-pipes and fireworks. If not, why not? Blowpipes ARE illegal I believe. Crossbows; it's a complete travesty that they are not licensed. Bows; yeah, there should be some form of control. Fireworks; my kids can't believe you could buy 'bangers', small sticks of explosive that would regularly remove childrens digits every Nov 5th. Catapults; there are some bloody powerful ones on the market, the ones with the wrist brace. Anglers use bait catapults which are nowhere near as powerful. The 'African big 5' have all been hunted with compound bows and crossbows. People don't realise just how powerful these weapons are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungbeetle Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Most shootings take place at VERY short ranges....Yes, but the matter of safety template for using a type of weapon on land is rlevant, and it means that you can still use an FAC-rated air rifle on a small patch of land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungbeetle Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Which in my view is one of the many reasons to have some form of licencing for air weapons. A blanket ban isn't so easy to introduce when licencing is in place. I agree. Make 'em legally licensed so the 'anti gun crew' can't carp on about it. Like it or not, air rifles ARE weapons, and are more and more getting lumped in with firearms by the press and media. A head in the sand approach 'aint gonna work.I disagree gents. Having a known, and reduced, number of licensed certificate holders makes it much easier to apply a blanket ban - as happened after Dunblane. If you don't know who owns what, it's very hard to write to them and tell them to hand their weapons in. If you have a database of every licensed owner, what they own and where they live, it's very easy. And, of course, the first time some chav misuses an air gun, the knee-jerk will be to withdraw the licensed weapons that were dutifully registered by law-abaiding owners, leaving all the unregistered ones on the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I still use catapults from time to time for garden clearing. I've never chronographed one but I have no doubts you could kill someone at 200 yards plus. If anything they are much more dangerous than airguns. They are tricky to aim when ready to fire, even with a wrist brace. They can fire almost anything, although the preferred ammunition of 3/8" steel ball bearings are probably the most devastating. At close range, a catapult can easily penetrate 1/4" ply, oil cans, skulls etc, or send a .38 caliber steel ball bearing several hundred yards. They're good for smashing windows at 20 or 30 yards with the 'magnum' bands. And if you run out of ammo, you can use stones, coins or whatever takes your fancy. Do people think catapults (and other projectile weapon alternatives) will become more or less popular as a result of (heavy handed IMO) air weapon licencing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I disagree gents. Having a known, and reduced, number of licensed certificate holders makes it much easier to apply a blanket ban - as happened after Dunblane. If you don't know who owns what, it's very hard to write to them and tell them to hand their weapons in. If you have a database of every licensed owner, what they own and where they live, it's very easy. And, of course, the first time some chav misuses an air gun, the knee-jerk will be to withdraw the licensed weapons that were dutifully registered by law-abaiding owners, leaving all the unregistered ones on the streets. you have an amnesty, you have an ad campaign educating / warning people about new laws and whats needed. anybody in future found with a none licensed gun (even if its been in the loft 30 years) gets into bother ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungbeetle Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I still use catapults from time to time for garden clearing. I've never chronographed one but I have no doubts you could kill someone at 200 yards plus.I'd bet - let's say my house, cars and bikes, that you couldn't - you'd be lucky to achieve that with a 90lb compound bow. And I'd bet a tenner that you couldn't actually get a catapult to fire a decent-sized stone or ball bearing as far as 200 yards. Had to get a bit pedantic over that one - sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I read somewhere Phan that a 3/8 steel ball had as much kinetic energy as a .32 bullet when fired from some of these high powered catapults. Not sure about their use increasing though, a drive by catapulting has little street cred, unless you kill someone of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 If anything they are much more dangerous than airguns. They are tricky to aim when ready to fire, even with a wrist brace. They can fire almost anything, although the preferred ammunition of 3/8" steel ball bearings are probably the most devastating. At close range, a catapult can easily penetrate 1/4" ply, oil cans, skulls etc, or send a .38 caliber steel ball bearing several hundred yards. They're good for smashing windows at 20 or 30 yards with the 'magnum' bands. And if you run out of ammo, you can use stones, coins or whatever takes your fancy. Do people think catapults (and other projectile weapon alternatives) will become more or less popular as a result of (heavy handed IMO) air weapon licencing? i doubt it tbh, as ive said i cant remember the last time i saw somebody with a catapult, let alone kids. i dont think thered be a sudden upsurge if airguns were suddenly licensed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I'd bet - let's say my house, cars and bikes, that you couldn't - you'd be lucky to achieve that with a 90lb compound bow. And I'd bet a tenner that you couldn't actually get a catapult to fire a decent-sized stone or ball bearing as far as 200 yards. Had to get a bit pedantic over that one - sorry! I suppose if your angle of trajectory was right you could top 200 yards but it would have little kinetic energy at such a range, it would be in effect freefalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtfulDodger Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I disagree gents. Having a known, and reduced, number of licensed certificate holders makes it much easier to apply a blanket ban - as happened after Dunblane. If you don't know who owns what, it's very hard to write to them and tell them to hand their weapons in. If you have a database of every licensed owner, what they own and where they live, it's very easy. And, of course, the first time some chav misuses an air gun, the knee-jerk will be to withdraw the licensed weapons that were dutifully registered by law-abaiding owners, leaving all the unregistered ones on the streets. Well, I still have my FAC and Shotgun ticket, and to be honest, am not in the slightest bit concerned about blanket bans etc. Sometimes a hint of paranoia slips in to any form of discussion surrounding weapons in all there guises........golf clubs included. There is NOT going to be an air weapon Dunblane, and to raise it in a thread regarding air weapons is not, I assure you, going to help......... any of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.