Nevetas

OK, so a hammer can kill, a nail gun can kill, where do we stop?

corvid

not arguing, im right ur wrong,

good fuking night.

Nevetas

Your a true gay my friend!

corvid

goan say that to my girlfriend.

imlach

In my example, I was trying to say that someone can hang out a window, fire a gun at someone, and the person shot wouldn't know what had hit him...and the gun user could be concealed.

A hammer is primarily used for putting nails in. A nail gun is primarily used for putting nails in. A knife is primarily used for cutting food etc. Harming with these things is a secondary purpose....ie, not what it is intended to do.

A gun is used for shooting things. It has quite a clear primary purpose of disabling things.....

ie, if something has a primary purpose of harm, then it should be licensed/banned.

imlach

This is great!
Would you argue with someone on a thread with gun-owners involved? Do gun-owners have to go on anger-management courses? <gulp>

Nevetas

It's a cover up!

Jiggerypokery

There are far more lethal things than airguns which are not licensed. I'd rather get shot by an airgun than have a kitchen knife used on me. Where do we stop with all this banning?

Nevetas

I see your point, but anything can be dangerous in the wrong hands. I think legal limit air guns are fine as they are. 12ft/lb is about right, anymore you need a license.

imlach

See my above post.

Knifes have a primary purpose in the kitchen.

Guns have a primary purpose of shooting things........

Seems logical to ban the things with a primary purpose of harm first, then work on the items with the secondary purpose of harm.

Jiggerypokery

Licensing does not work though. Cars are licensed, it doesn't stop any one buying one, driving drunk, while disqualified, into a bus shelter full of people.

Handguns are licensed and banned in some parts of the UK, while handgun crime has increased since "the ban". When you criminalise guns, only criminals will have guns.

imlach

I don't understand though? Surely proper gun users would be happy enough with licensing them? What is there to hide in this process?

What is the argument for keeping them unlicensed? I'm failing to see it....

imlach

So if the licensing doesn't work, we should just let anyone have any type of gun?????

Jiggerypokery

First step on the slippery road to a ban. Most shooters (understandably) don't want to see their sport banned.

IWatkins

Moses,

As others have said, forget the Logun's, they are chuff.

If you want a proper air weapon (below 12lb limit) have a look at quality makes like Theoben, Air Arms, Daystate etc.

Cheers

Ian

Jiggerypokery

Not necessarily, but if someone is determined enough, they can get their hands on *anything* from handguns to rocket launchers. Licensing and banning are seen by many as the golden pills which will make the country safer. It's not as simple as that.

imlach

I appreciate licensing is not as simple as that, but leaving them unlicensed for a lame reason like that is pretty defeatist.

Yes, of course if anyone is determined enough they can get a gun.

However, to my friends on the cycle path who are probably being shot at by someone who has freely bought an airgun in a shop legally (so not a criminal!), licensing may at least have prevented that event.

imlach

Licensing has not led to a ban as I understand it for non-airguns? The sport still seems to exist does it not?

Nevetas

Well I'm a proper gun owner, I have firearms and shotguns and run a shooting company.

I can see no leason to make sub 12ft/lb airguns licensed. It's simply not needed. Also it would really harm the sport. What about the 3 million traget shooters in this country?

Jiggerypokery

Catapult anyone?

Seriously, what's next? So, ban airguns, and your friend gets hit by a lump of lead fired from a catapult. I'm not being facetious, you must understand that for someone who is a libertarian it is incredibly frustrating to hear the same old cries of "ban this, ban that". As I said before, it's a slippery slope many don't want to start down.

imlach

OK....can sub 12ft/lb guns injure or kill humans?

Nevetas

Couldn't agree more. I see so many of them returned, as Ian says stick to the rifles he has mentioned, logun didn't do well with the S16.

Nevetas

The power doesn't matter, if your hit in the right place a stone will kill you.

BUT if your shot in a non lethal part of your body it won't do anywhere near like the sort of damage you would get from a firearm.

We need to keep things in perspective here.

Jiggerypokery

Handguns, (in some parts of the UK)
Self loading full-bore rifles,
Semi-automatic firearms
Shotguns having detatchable magazines holding more than 2 cartridges.

First licensed, then banned.

imlach

I am trying to keep it in perspective, and fail to see when a gun is not a gun! Why can't we license them? Who would object?

Jiggerypokery

I would Learning from the lessons of the past, I don't want my sport to taken away.

imlach

Also, I'm not advocating for a BAN, merely licensing.

imlach

I have to say, I feel quite relieved some of them are banned from ownership within the public domain!

Would you use a semi-automatic for "sport" FFS?!

Jiggerypokery

Sorry, I meant to say fully automatic

Semi automatic small bore rifles are still used for target shooting, it just means you don't have to fiddle about loading another round and you can keep your eye on the target. Full bore semi automatic rifles were used for similar target shooting until they were banned.

Jiggerypokery

I've used (semi automatic fullbore) handguns for sport on courses where the shooter has to roll around on the ground, open doors, shoot through "windows" (openings) and knock down metal targets while making his / her way around the course. It was sport, and great fun. You should try it sometime! (you still can )