Airguns banned?
01 May 2004, 12:04 AM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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 
)
(you still can )
01 May 2004, 12:06 AM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Twitching with a camera
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good, ban the lot.
IMO they should all be banned. Most air-guns (not even rifles) can be modified to fire pellets at a power that can kill.
If you feel the need to kill creatures with these things, then the actual weapons should be housed in proper, guarded safes in gun clubs. You go to the club, access the weapon, shoot the target, return the weapon to a safe place, and leave.
That way the gun isn't within reach of normal criminals etc. who may gain access to your house.
I have been shot by some c**t with an air-rifle, and fortunately it was on the back of my leg. Even so, it hurt like f**k and, had it been elsewhere, would have been more serious. Despite the best efforts of the local Police, the culprit wasn't caught. The same idiot had also shot and injured a post-woman earlier that day.
I know all you pro-air-rifle folk will proclaim that a car in the wrong hands is lethal, but a gun is easier to conceal and easier to use by youngsters.
I suggest all you supporters of such guns get a trusted friend to shoot you in some non-lethal part of the body, and then try to argue the case for allowing these weapons on the streets.
If you feel the need to kill creatures with these things, then the actual weapons should be housed in proper, guarded safes in gun clubs. You go to the club, access the weapon, shoot the target, return the weapon to a safe place, and leave.
That way the gun isn't within reach of normal criminals etc. who may gain access to your house.
I have been shot by some c**t with an air-rifle, and fortunately it was on the back of my leg. Even so, it hurt like f**k and, had it been elsewhere, would have been more serious. Despite the best efforts of the local Police, the culprit wasn't caught. The same idiot had also shot and injured a post-woman earlier that day.
I know all you pro-air-rifle folk will proclaim that a car in the wrong hands is lethal, but a gun is easier to conceal and easier to use by youngsters.
I suggest all you supporters of such guns get a trusted friend to shoot you in some non-lethal part of the body, and then try to argue the case for allowing these weapons on the streets.
01 May 2004, 12:10 AM
#63
Wow this has hotted up a bit since I last visited.
Yes air guns can kill. They were used as close quarter assination weapons in the last war - when silencers weren't so hot . However licencing is niether here or there, as it is primarily down to the individuals attitude. I feel we are too much of a nanny state already.
If someone wants to hurt someone they will do so gun or not.
Most guns that are out and about are handguns and they are a very inacurate weapon over about 10ft unless you have a high level of training.
I expect Nevatas will know wheer i am coming from.
To be honest with you if some one confronts you with a hand gun or knife and you can get close enough to them then the hand gun is far easier to take off them. Knifes are a more dangerous weapon in most hands.
So I think this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup. Guns can also preserve life if in the right hands.
Steve
Yes air guns can kill. They were used as close quarter assination weapons in the last war - when silencers weren't so hot . However licencing is niether here or there, as it is primarily down to the individuals attitude. I feel we are too much of a nanny state already.
If someone wants to hurt someone they will do so gun or not.
Most guns that are out and about are handguns and they are a very inacurate weapon over about 10ft unless you have a high level of training.
I expect Nevatas will know wheer i am coming from.
To be honest with you if some one confronts you with a hand gun or knife and you can get close enough to them then the hand gun is far easier to take off them. Knifes are a more dangerous weapon in most hands.
So I think this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup. Guns can also preserve life if in the right hands.
Steve
01 May 2004, 12:12 AM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scary & true story I only heard three weeks ago from a work colleague.
He was looking to move house back in 1995 to Dunblane. Sadly, for some odd reason, the house sale fell through....however had it not, his first son would have been in the following class in that very picture.....
http://www.dunblane.braveheart.com/faces.htm
He was looking to move house back in 1995 to Dunblane. Sadly, for some odd reason, the house sale fell through....however had it not, his first son would have been in the following class in that very picture.....
http://www.dunblane.braveheart.com/faces.htm
01 May 2004, 12:16 AM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Twitching with a camera
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Guns can also preserve life if in the right hands."
True, but how many of the people that are responsible for the guns are allowed to take them home at the end of their shift?
I can't see why guns / air-rifles need to be banned outright, but they should be contained, securely and safely.
True, but how many of the people that are responsible for the guns are allowed to take them home at the end of their shift?
I can't see why guns / air-rifles need to be banned outright, but they should be contained, securely and safely.
01 May 2004, 12:18 AM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS I'm not trying to use Dunblane as a pawn in my argument. I appreciate that Thomas Hamilton would have got a gun no matter what licensing was in place.....and this thread is about airguns and not their big brothers, which now have tighter laws AFAIK.
As I said, just a tad annoyed my work colleagues are getting shot at by people who I think would not have an airgun were they licensed - ie, pesky kids.
As I said, just a tad annoyed my work colleagues are getting shot at by people who I think would not have an airgun were they licensed - ie, pesky kids.
Last edited by imlach; 01 May 2004 at 12:27 AM.
01 May 2004, 12:23 AM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Duck_Pond
I have been shot by some c**t with an air-rifle, and fortunately it was on the back of my leg. Even so, it hurt like f**k and, had it been elsewhere, would have been more serious. Despite the best efforts of the local Police, the culprit wasn't caught. The same idiot had also shot and injured a post-woman earlier that day.
01 May 2004, 12:25 AM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
...and exactly why would licensing prevent this? Even if the gun was licensed, then banned, do you think the person who did this would license their gun, or hand it in when it is banned? Nope. Even when handguns were legal and licensed on mainland UK, it was still easier to buy one on the black market than jump through the hoops to own one legally. Why should air guns be any different?
It won't happen overnight, but it's a start. If it stops pesky kids & chavs from being able to casually buy & use them, then that's better than nothing is it not? Surely these people give your "sport" a bad name anyway, and you'd rather have them removed from the equation?
01 May 2004, 12:37 AM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imlach
(snip) some would still exist in circulation, but eventually these would reduce....
(snip) Surely these people give your "sport" a bad name anyway, and you'd rather have them removed from the equation?
(snip) Surely these people give your "sport" a bad name anyway, and you'd rather have them removed from the equation?
Have illegal handgun numbers increased? Yes.
Have handgun crimes increased? Yes.
When someone decides to use an illegal handgun to kill someone in London, they no longer give my sport a bad name. They do, however, show how pointless the whole ban has been. It did not reduce gun crime.
On another point, with hindsight there are a number of reasons why Thomas Hamilton should never had held a license for a firearm. The failings of the police and the licensing system were to blame for putting a gun in a very dangerous man's hands. Whay has the evidence from the enquiry been banned from being published for 100 years? Something to hide maybe?
Originally Posted by Duck_Pond
(True, but how many of the people that are responsible for the guns are allowed to take them home at the end of their shift?
01 May 2004, 12:39 AM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Twitching with a camera
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Licensing would stop the majority of imbeciles from being able to get one.
True, anyone determined enough would still get one.
However, it would go some way to prevent kids with no concept of the difference between real life and their play-station from getting hold of one from their relatives, and using it on the population.
Like I said before, get someone to shoot you with one before you argue for them being available to the masses. It isn't funny. And don't get all high and mighty with the knives argument either. Air-guns aren't sold to cut up vegetables.
True, anyone determined enough would still get one.
However, it would go some way to prevent kids with no concept of the difference between real life and their play-station from getting hold of one from their relatives, and using it on the population.
Like I said before, get someone to shoot you with one before you argue for them being available to the masses. It isn't funny. And don't get all high and mighty with the knives argument either. Air-guns aren't sold to cut up vegetables.
01 May 2004, 12:50 AM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Duck_Pond
Like I said before, get someone to shoot you with one before you argue for them being available to the masses.
Target guns were made for shooting targets. That is their primary function.
Target air rifle designers aren't thinking "Imagine how much mess this would make if some yob used it in the wrong environment"
... just the same way as subaru designers aren't thinking "Imagine how much mess this would make if some yob drove at 100 mph in the wrong environment".
Do you understand my point? A lot of the guns which are available to Joe Public (either licensed or not) are designed primarily for target shooting, the rest are designed for shooting wildlife.
... and before you argue that shooting wildlife is not necessary, just remember that the kitchen knives you have in your drawer would have been banned back in the stone age if someone had decided it wasn't nescessary.
01 May 2004, 12:59 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Twitching with a camera
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, because a car is designed to transport a person from A to B. What purpose is a gun designed for?
Do you understand my point? You say shooting a "target", but primarily they are designed to shoot something. A car is not designed to run over something, other than the road.
Other than a knife, and maybe perhaps hot "cheese wire", how else would you propose most chefs can get on with their jobs?
I'm avoiding being rude here, but you have no argument.
Do you understand my point? You say shooting a "target", but primarily they are designed to shoot something. A car is not designed to run over something, other than the road.
Other than a knife, and maybe perhaps hot "cheese wire", how else would you propose most chefs can get on with their jobs?
I'm avoiding being rude here, but you have no argument.
01 May 2004, 01:02 AM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
Target guns were made for shooting targets. That is their primary function.
01 May 2004, 01:03 AM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but this thread is getting off topic somewhat.
Standard power air weapons (less than 12lb for rifles, 6lb for pistols) have laws governing them already. Stuff like not discharging near a road, being covered in a public place, minimum age for usage, (it goes on and on and on) etc. I think the balance is about right. I don't however agree with the banning of Brocock type weapons, but fully understand why it has been done.
Sure, having some kid shoot you in the leg with a lead pellet isn't very nice, but they are plainly breaking the law. If it happens again, call the police. I don't know about anywhere else, but in my part of the world, everything that looks like a gun is classed as a firearm until proven otherwise.
Lad (15) who lives up the road was walking around his field with his air rifle a few months ago clearing the place of pigeons. The lad may only be fifteen but he has more gun sense than I have. Some ramblers (who turned out to be townies) walking across an ajacent field noticed him and called the police on their mobile. Full on police scramble to the scene including an armed responce vehicle. Poor lad was faced with armed police on his own land. It was all sorted out in the end.
Licensing just about anything usually ends up with the legal user being burdened with paperwork and/or additional restrictions on their activities. To the illegal user it makes not a jot of difference. Licensing is not the solution in most cases. Banning even less so.
Cheers
Ian
Standard power air weapons (less than 12lb for rifles, 6lb for pistols) have laws governing them already. Stuff like not discharging near a road, being covered in a public place, minimum age for usage, (it goes on and on and on) etc. I think the balance is about right. I don't however agree with the banning of Brocock type weapons, but fully understand why it has been done.
Sure, having some kid shoot you in the leg with a lead pellet isn't very nice, but they are plainly breaking the law. If it happens again, call the police. I don't know about anywhere else, but in my part of the world, everything that looks like a gun is classed as a firearm until proven otherwise.
Lad (15) who lives up the road was walking around his field with his air rifle a few months ago clearing the place of pigeons. The lad may only be fifteen but he has more gun sense than I have. Some ramblers (who turned out to be townies) walking across an ajacent field noticed him and called the police on their mobile. Full on police scramble to the scene including an armed responce vehicle. Poor lad was faced with armed police on his own land. It was all sorted out in the end.
Licensing just about anything usually ends up with the legal user being burdened with paperwork and/or additional restrictions on their activities. To the illegal user it makes not a jot of difference. Licensing is not the solution in most cases. Banning even less so.
Cheers
Ian
01 May 2004, 01:10 AM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What purpose is a gun designed for?
Shooting targets and wildlife.
What is a knife designed for?
Well, depends how far you want to go back. They've been used to kill people and animals since the beginning of time. If you choose to look at the present day at the knives in your kitchen which you chop vegetables with, then you are ignoring combat knives, swords and anything else with a sharp edge which is (and has historically been) used for killing.
If that's ok for you to do, then apply the same to guns, and you'll see that guns today are used for shooting targets and wildlife. That is what they are now designed for.
No one *needs* to own an air rifle for shooting targets, but there are many things which we do not *need* to do, but we choose to do them for fun or sport. That does not mean that we should ban all non-essential objects or activities.
Shooting targets and wildlife.
What is a knife designed for?
Well, depends how far you want to go back. They've been used to kill people and animals since the beginning of time. If you choose to look at the present day at the knives in your kitchen which you chop vegetables with, then you are ignoring combat knives, swords and anything else with a sharp edge which is (and has historically been) used for killing.
If that's ok for you to do, then apply the same to guns, and you'll see that guns today are used for shooting targets and wildlife. That is what they are now designed for.
No one *needs* to own an air rifle for shooting targets, but there are many things which we do not *need* to do, but we choose to do them for fun or sport. That does not mean that we should ban all non-essential objects or activities.
01 May 2004, 01:10 AM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IWatkins
Standard power air weapons (less than 12lb for rifles, 6lb for pistols) have laws governing them already. Stuff like not discharging near a road, being covered in a public place, minimum age for usage, (it goes on and on and on) etc.
You need a licence for a dog, a car, a tv, a radio, yet NOT an airgun???? WTF?!
As I have repeatedly said, I suspect, but don't know, that the incidents with my work colleagues have been down to chavs/scum/pesky kids who have been able to get hold of an airgun from someone/somewhere.
If you needed a licence to buy/own one in the first place, the distribution of the things would be limited/lowered, hence casual access to them would be reduced - and I think in the case of pesky kids etc, it is casual access that is the problem.
No, it won't clear up a lot of crime, but even if it prevents just one incident, is it not worth it?
I ask again, what have you legit gun owners got to hide?????
01 May 2004, 01:12 AM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Twitching with a camera
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did call the Police, and it was in the centre of Tenby, a busy holiday resort. Imagine if the culprit had missed my fat leg and blinded a small child.
I know there are people out there that own such weapons, who have more common sense than some of the gung-ho police officers we occasionally hear about, but in my opinion, it would be a good start to restrict access to such guns, and preferably to ban them.
I know there are people out there that own such weapons, who have more common sense than some of the gung-ho police officers we occasionally hear about, but in my opinion, it would be a good start to restrict access to such guns, and preferably to ban them.
01 May 2004, 01:15 AM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IWatkins
Licensing just about anything usually ends up with the legal user being burdened with paperwork and/or additional restrictions on their activities. To the illegal user it makes not a jot of difference. Licensing is not the solution in most cases. Banning even less so.
Ian
Ian
01 May 2004, 01:16 AM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Twitching with a camera
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay Jiggerypokery - would you accept a restriction that you could only gain access to your air-gun (I'm assuming you have one, by your stance in this debate) at a licensed shooting club, with adequate security and safety features?
If not, can you provide us with one decent reason for being able to have your gun outside of the club?
If not, can you provide us with one decent reason for being able to have your gun outside of the club?
01 May 2004, 01:17 AM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IWatkins
Lad (15) who lives up the road was walking around his field with his air rifle a few months ago clearing the place of pigeons. The lad may only be fifteen but he has more gun sense than I have. Some ramblers (who turned out to be townies) walking across an ajacent field noticed him and called the police on their mobile. Full on police scramble to the scene including an armed responce vehicle. Poor lad was faced with armed police on his own land. It was all sorted out in the end.
If someone wants to have a march through a city, the police have to be informed etc.
If someone wants to cull pigeons in a field, surely it'd be wise to do this in some controlled manner (ie, inform the police) so that if they start getting calls, they can go out & take a look, but know already about some licensed shooting going on that day in that field....
FFS - I, nor the majority of the public, couldn't distinguish an airgun from a proper gun at long range, and so the public reaction in this case is to be expected......
Of course, I expect you gun-types are quite comfortable with people wandering around fields firing off guns aimlessly???
We have an army rifle range near us. If they are shooting AT ALL, red flags go up around the area. Seems sensible.
01 May 2004, 01:21 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Duck_Pond
Okay Jiggerypokery - would you accept a restriction that you could only gain access to your air-gun (I'm assuming you have one, by your stance in this debate) at a licensed shooting club, with adequate security and safety features?
If not, can you provide us with one decent reason for being able to have your gun outside of the club?
If not, can you provide us with one decent reason for being able to have your gun outside of the club?
I have written permission to use firearms on hundreds of acres of land, for target shooting and the destruction of vermin. Target shooting is good enough resons for owning a gun according to the police, and the destruction of vermin is sometimes necessary on the land. For that, I can use an air rifle, shotgun or rifle.
01 May 2004, 01:25 AM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IWatkins
Lad (15) who lives up the road was walking around his field with his air rifle a few months ago clearing the place of pigeons. The lad may only be fifteen but he has more gun sense than I have.
Or is there no minimum age?
I remember being let loose on our school gun-range before that, which is a bit scary now I think back to it!!!
01 May 2004, 10:49 AM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imlach
Out of interest, should the legal age for gun-use not be 16?
Or is there no minimum age?
I remember being let loose on our school gun-range before that, which is a bit scary now I think back to it!!!
Or is there no minimum age?
I remember being let loose on our school gun-range before that, which is a bit scary now I think back to it!!!
Its vital that responsible gun handling is taught at a young age, when they are taught to respect guns and the mystique is removed by controlled and supervised access then the kids are far less likely to do anything stupid with them.
01 May 2004, 11:04 AM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, here's a summary of the arguments against licensing (and another car licensing comparison ) .
Firstly, let me say that licensing in itself is no bad thing. There is nothing wrong with being able to link a particular gun to the owner of the gun, but the government cannot be trusted to implement such a simple licensing scheme without going further. Duck_Pond has demonstrated this with the typical anti-gun arguments (although presented in the wrong order ).
First comes licensing. Nothing wrong with that in principle, I have nothing to hide, and if someone gets hit by an air gun pellet, the theory behind licensing is simple: the owner of the gun can be traced and brought to justice. Good, I'm sure we would all agree to that.
Duck_pond has also mentioned restricting the use of firearms to clubs and he has also mentioned banning the lot.
I think we have established that banning does not work, it does not prevent anyone from obtaining a firearm or using it against a person. the same applies to cars: drunk drivers can be banned from driving, but the very next day, they can go out and drive a car again with no license, tax or insurance.
Cars are licensed, and for good reason. The theory is that if I ram raid a shop or drive dangerously, my registration plate will be used to identify me.
Imagine, if you will, that the Association of Middle Lane Morons lobbies the government to change the law. They argue that an 18 year old can get a provisional license to drive, and on the same day can buy and use a very powerful scoob. This has already been mentioned even on this website. They would argue that no-one needs a car with 250BHP. No one needs to drive above 70. What about track days? No one needs to do track days for fun or sport!
So, the licensing comes first, the restriction follows: Cars with turbos are banned, cars with more than four cylinders are banned, cars have black boxes to limit them to 70MPH, and cars are limited to 100BHP. I'm sure you're not naive enough to think that at least some of these restrictions would never happen.
So that is my point. There is nothing wrong with the licensing of firearms, but, as history has shown, licensing leads to further restrictions and eventually banning.
I don't want to lose my sport. My guns were designed for target shooting and rough shooting (wandering across the fields shooting vermin). The "need" argument is quite frustrating, in that there are many things we don't need to do, but we can't ban everything or the world would be a very dull place. I can use my guns to shoot deer, rabbit, pigeon and anything else I can eat... I don't need to, but I don't need to shop in tesco's either.
) . Firstly, let me say that licensing in itself is no bad thing. There is nothing wrong with being able to link a particular gun to the owner of the gun, but the government cannot be trusted to implement such a simple licensing scheme without going further. Duck_Pond has demonstrated this with the typical anti-gun arguments (although presented in the wrong order
). First comes licensing. Nothing wrong with that in principle, I have nothing to hide, and if someone gets hit by an air gun pellet, the theory behind licensing is simple: the owner of the gun can be traced and brought to justice. Good, I'm sure we would all agree to that.
Duck_pond has also mentioned restricting the use of firearms to clubs and he has also mentioned banning the lot.
I think we have established that banning does not work, it does not prevent anyone from obtaining a firearm or using it against a person. the same applies to cars: drunk drivers can be banned from driving, but the very next day, they can go out and drive a car again with no license, tax or insurance.
Cars are licensed, and for good reason. The theory is that if I ram raid a shop or drive dangerously, my registration plate will be used to identify me.
Imagine, if you will, that the Association of Middle Lane Morons lobbies the government to change the law. They argue that an 18 year old can get a provisional license to drive, and on the same day can buy and use a very powerful scoob. This has already been mentioned even on this website. They would argue that no-one needs a car with 250BHP. No one needs to drive above 70. What about track days? No one needs to do track days for fun or sport!
So, the licensing comes first, the restriction follows: Cars with turbos are banned, cars with more than four cylinders are banned, cars have black boxes to limit them to 70MPH, and cars are limited to 100BHP. I'm sure you're not naive enough to think that at least some of these restrictions would never happen.
So that is my point. There is nothing wrong with the licensing of firearms, but, as history has shown, licensing leads to further restrictions and eventually banning.
I don't want to lose my sport. My guns were designed for target shooting and rough shooting (wandering across the fields shooting vermin). The "need" argument is quite frustrating, in that there are many things we don't need to do, but we can't ban everything or the world would be a very dull place. I can use my guns to shoot deer, rabbit, pigeon and anything else I can eat... I don't need to, but I don't need to shop in tesco's either.
01 May 2004, 11:18 AM
#88
Scooby Regular
[QUOTE=Jiggerypokery]So that is my point. There is nothing wrong with the licensing of firearms, but, as history has shown, licensing leads to further restrictions and eventually banning[QUOTE]
Licences are only any use for cowing law abiding citizens, who will just lie back & be s**t on by knee-jerk reactionaries The criminal element will carry on as they always have!
Automatic rifles are banned in this country, but if you know the right people you can still get a fully functioning AK47 or some such, if you want too.
I bet the gun that killed that Tonian Byfield(sp) isn't registered, and I also bet that the f**ker that pulled the trigger isn't even supposed to be in this country
PS. Anyone bringing the prevalence of guns in America into the equation should bear this in mind: The US is only 3rd in the table of number of guns/head of population, behind Canada & Switzerland, it's not the gun that kills, it's the owner of the hand holding it.
Licences are only any use for cowing law abiding citizens, who will just lie back & be s**t on by knee-jerk reactionaries
The criminal element will carry on as they always have!Automatic rifles are banned in this country, but if you know the right people you can still get a fully functioning AK47 or some such, if you want too.
I bet the gun that killed that Tonian Byfield(sp) isn't registered, and I also bet that the f**ker that pulled the trigger isn't even supposed to be in this country
PS. Anyone bringing the prevalence of guns in America into the equation should bear this in mind: The US is only 3rd in the table of number of guns/head of population, behind Canada & Switzerland, it's not the gun that kills, it's the owner of the hand holding it.
01 May 2004, 11:47 AM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JiggeryPokery,
I still maintain that the stance you are taking is defeatist.
I 100% agree with you that licensing does not prevent banned drivers etc taking to the roads, but anarchy is not the solution either.
Just because something is not going to work in 100% of cases is no reason to just lie down and let it continue as it does....
As I said before, if licensing of airguns was to prevent even 1 shooting, then it has had an effect. IMHO, there would be a lot less chavs, pesky kids, etc who would not have acccess to an airgun if they were to be licensed....ie, casual users. We're not talking about serious gangsters here who use them for bank-jobs etc, we're talking about neds/chavs/kids who, in their eyes, see it as a bit of harmless fun.
I still maintain that the stance you are taking is defeatist.
I 100% agree with you that licensing does not prevent banned drivers etc taking to the roads, but anarchy is not the solution either.
Just because something is not going to work in 100% of cases is no reason to just lie down and let it continue as it does....
As I said before, if licensing of airguns was to prevent even 1 shooting, then it has had an effect. IMHO, there would be a lot less chavs, pesky kids, etc who would not have acccess to an airgun if they were to be licensed....ie, casual users. We're not talking about serious gangsters here who use them for bank-jobs etc, we're talking about neds/chavs/kids who, in their eyes, see it as a bit of harmless fun.
01 May 2004, 11:47 AM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Twitching with a camera
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You still haven't commented on the idea of guns being kept under lock and key in gun-clubs. Away from Joe Public, and still allowing you to do your sport.
Same can be said for archery. Both are Olympic sports from what I can recall, and I haven't said that these sports should be outlawed. Just controlled.
Same can be said for archery. Both are Olympic sports from what I can recall, and I haven't said that these sports should be outlawed. Just controlled.