pk014b7161 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 I hope your right, but if the tabloids can whip up enough panic and frenzy then it will become more politically expedient for the govt. to ban rather than not. Basically I think we are just gonna wait and see what happens... can you remember the frenzy that was kicked up about handguns & how much safer britain would be with out them one editor said this is england not the wild west ..he ought to take a look round ,i think the term welcome to f****** deadwood is quite apt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 ... my gut feeling is that it's going to come down to a choice of restricted use or banning and if the shooting community actually accept licensing and push it as the way to go then the likelihood of a ban is reduced (though by no means removed). You have a valid point. I hope it doesn't come down to that, I really don't. But I guess if it's a choice between licensing or a ban I would prefer licensing. I would much sooner see strict enforcement of existing rules - which would see some pretty hefty punishments dished out for the headline grabbing incidents ie. shooting in public place, uncovered in public, unsupervised minors etc etc are all covered in existing legislation. NOTE: Last time I looked into legal side of things was over 10 years ago when I used to do a lot of shooting, I'm guessing the laws may have since been updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 It's not no - but the basic difference is that while pretty much anything can be used as a weapon, an airgun IS a weapon. It serves no purpose other than to project a pellet with a degree of velocity and accuracy which isn't the case with a bat, ball, hammer, screwdriver or whatever else may be used as a weapon but isn't inherently a weapon. ... An airgun is a tool to project a pellet, in that I'll agree. In the same way a bat is designed to propel a ball (a bloody hard one in the case of cricket), but I'm going off target here... (sorry!). To me a weapon is an instrument of damage, ie designed to kill/main. An airgun (to me) is about propelling a pellet through a paper target/tin can etc. Not about killing/maining. If I wanted a weapon, I'd get hold of a license requiring gun (airgun or 'proper' gun). I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that airguns below a certain power (not currently needing a license) are likely to be deadly, but there will always be accidents. Accidents that wouldn't happen if the existing laws are adhered to (back to enforcement). Last I remember, anything at or above 12ft/lbs of pressure (I never did understand that measurement properly ) requires a license. Maybe the answer would be to bring that power rating down in an effort to control the dangerous weapons (if indeed they are below that rating) while still allowing the plinker his hobby. Existing law, in my eyes, is sufficient if it is applied properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
getto_sniper Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 i don't own or shoot air rifles. i do however own 2 bows, one pulls 18lb (childs) the other at least 40lb. now if i was to point it at someone like the air rifle dude did, i'd probably just be laughed at. but the damage my arrow can do far outweighs that of an air pellet. archery as so much more class than a chav with an air gun thank goodness that rappers don't do archery we would be up #### creek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 An airgun is a tool to project a pellet, in that I'll agree. In the same way a bat is designed to propel a ball (a bloody hard one in the case of cricket), but I'm going off target here... (sorry!). To me a weapon is an instrument of damage, ie designed to kill/main. An airgun (to me) is about propelling a pellet through a paper target/tin can etc. Not about killing/maining. Existing law, in my eyes, is sufficient if it is applied properly. The law makes no distinction between air rifles and more powerful guns for which you need a licence – they are all classed as firearms. This means that any offence you commit can carry a very heavy penalty – and there are at least 38 different offences. It's hardly unheard of for baseball/cricket bats to be used as weapons is it? thats why the law allows for offesive weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Projmanraz Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 It's not no - but the basic difference is that while pretty much anything can be used as a weapon, an airgun IS a weapon. It serves no purpose other than to project a pellet with a degree of velocity and accuracy which isn't the case with a bat, ball, hammer, screwdriver or whatever else may be used as a weapon but isn't inherently a weapon. What is a weapon? Webster's Dictionary: An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc. ergo an air gun isn't by definition a weapon unless it is used as one but bandying semantics isn't the point. Laws are in place and should be enforced. Don't impose more just for the sake of politicians pretending to do something about gun crime. Dogs kill, spread disease and injure people every year. I'd guess that they cause a lot more injuries than air guns. Dogs used to be licensed, should we bring back dog licensing to stop all this? Would this stop irresponsible owners from having a dog? Of course it wouldn't. What about cats? They kill and injure a lot more garden birds than numpties with air rifles, license them as well to stop owners allowing them to hunt! License everything and introduce MOTs for bicycles and driving tests for their riders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 The law makes no distinction between air rifles and more powerful guns for which you need a licence – they are all classed as firearms. This means that any offence you commit can carry a very heavy penalty – and there are at least 38 different offences. thats why the law allows for offesive weapons No distinction? Surely the fact that not all air weapons need a license currently *is* a distinction? Or am I missing the point? Airguns above a certain power do require a firearm license currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share Posted August 30, 2007 Regardless of the semantics of power or legality the plain truth is that there are youths (and others) who think that it improves their image among their peers, and they have no compunction in waving guns around, and I don't think that anyone is disputing that they are guns. The current unrestricted availability means that more and more of these guns are being placed in the hands of those who are not fit to have them. Licencing will immediately restrict the availability of new guns. The public including parents will be very clear on the legislation and transgression can be easily and plainly dealt with. If you have a gun, and you have no licence, you are clearly breaking the law. The present situation is unclear to most people, therefore the law is largely ignored and not taken seriously by all. We're on page 16 of this thread and I've still not seen a single good argument against introducing some level of licencing. Lots of opinions, but not reasons why it shouldn't be done. Those of you who enjoy it as a sport or hobby can still carry on doing so and you will have the added benefit of knowing that you are seen as a responsible person. The numbers of guns being sold will drop dramatically, which can't be a bad thing. The numbers of guns will be limited and anyone seen waving a gun around in public can expect a visit from the Police. Licencing might even stop another tragedy where somebody gets shot my the Police for that very act. (Although I'm personally a bit of a fan of Darwinism in such instances) Without some sort of licence, no matter how basic, I can foresee a day when air weapons will simply be banned or require a full firearms licence, so perhaps those who are involved in the sport should take on some responsibility and push for some legislation that will give them some long term security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichC Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 air weapons will be banned the anti gun lobby will not stop until they are , then shotguns & then turn their attention on the anglers I'd love to see an angler with a rifle, picking off carp and perch from a lake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Making all airguns need a license would surely increase the kudos effect they have amongst the people we don't want to have them? They would still aquire them from somewhere. Law is perfectly clear now - any gun of any type in a public place is illegal. Enforce it. Throw the book at people breaking the law instead of a slap on the wrists. While I understand your arguement for licensing Tony, and in some respect (protecting the hobby) you have a valid point, I don't think we'd ever agree on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.