Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

anyone ?

moses

nevetas i aint seen the logun gladiator yet mate and i do agree with imlach, airguns in the wrong hands are dangerous

its not nice when someone takes your eye out with it or pierces your head and shoots at your beloved evo , scoob or skyline or any car

their should be a law from chavs not getting it and neds etc


as some of u may remember in glasgow 2 yrs ago a cat barely survived she had 40 or 50 pellets inside her body b@stard neds and chavs should be killed

moses

and duck pond im a different hunter, i only hunt what i can eat


killing for pleasure is a sin and those people should lose their *****



and regarding fox's im against fox hunting big time yes even if they just get lucky and kill and rip only one, im still against it, i rather put the troublemaker fox to sleep in a second ,not let them suffer torture


i would never shoot a fox or anything, only what i can eat, bunnies, deer, pheasants or grouse etc

Jiggerypokery

Ahh, I'm glad you brought that up again. The fact that banning does not work is only part of the argument. Licensing may work to some degree, but as I have said before, it is the first step on a slippery slope to further restrictions and then banning. It is the restrictions and banning that I do not want, and the government cannot be trusted not to go further, after licensing.

"If it would prevent just one death", well, to be fair, there are thousands of objects and activities which we could ban just to save one life, but we don't do it. Why?

Bank jobs. Back to cars again: scoobs are stolen every week for joy riding and for use as getaway cars. If we ban all powerful cars and restrict the rest to 70mph, then only the police could travel at 100mph, we wouldn't have joyriders tearing through 30 zones, and bank-robbers would know that they could no loner out-run a T5. "If it saved just one life" So, would you support restrictions on cars which would save lives and reduce bank robberies?

Jiggerypokery

Yes I have. (post 82) I am not in favour of it, because, according to the police, target shooting (on land where I have permission to shoot) and vermin control are good enough reasons for being allowed to keep a gun at home. Some shooting is for sport, and the rest of it is necessary.

imlach

You're all for a bit of compromise aren't you!?!

imlach

You see, I see your view as quite narrow minded. It is a "I have a gun, and I'm gonna keep it whatever" attitude it would seem.

I would have thought that responsible gun owners would be quite happy for licensing, but oh no, they cite the fact that criminals will get them anyway......they will, but as I said, if you take that attitude and apply it across the board, we'd live in an anarchy with no laws/controls for anything!

Nothing wrong with a bit of control. I'm sure you'd get to keep your gun if you are responsible.

Jiggerypokery

You are on very shakey ground here! I know I keep comparing the situation to the licensing and restriction of cars, but it's something we can all relate to easily. You are not allowed to exceed the speed limit, but you could. I would have thought that responsible car owners would be quite happy to have a black box installed which would mean that the car is incapable of going over the speed limit in any particular zone. Surely you would be in favour of this?!! Nothing wrong with a bit of control ! I'm sure you'd get to keep your scoob if you are responsible.

imlach

As we said earlier, and I feel we keep repeating ourselves....

A gun's primary purpose is to shoot things.
A car's primary purpose is to serve as a form of transport.

We have laws & regulations on restricting a car from falling into the wrong hands. No, they are not 100% effective, but they may prevent some.

We seem to be very lax on laws on airguns, which is a device primarily designed at the outset to shoot things.....

I think the car v gun comparison is a bit weak. Let's control the items with the primary use of deliberate harm/damage first, then think about the secondary items.

Jiggerypokery

What I'm trying to point out is that an air rifle having a muzzle energy of less than 12 ft lbs is used for target shooting and shooting vermin. That is what it was designed for. It could be used for killing people, but it was not designed for that as there are much more effective guns to use for that.

A scoob was designed for getting from A to B (quickly ) it could be used for joy riding, getting away from a bank robbery and speeding. You would not be happy with reducing horse power in order to reduce these activities, because driving a powerful car is fun.
So, I am not happy to see further restrictions on air rifles, because shooting is fun.
It's all about freedom.

moses

jiggery dude u must believe their should be a law that airguns should go to people with sense

it will be a different story mate if your cat or dog was shot to death and your baby had a pellet stuck in her or his skull like the lassie in liverpools baby a few yrs back

dont u think , im all for airguns but im also all for laws to protect people misusing them

imlach

Freedom is fine for some things, but this is potentially dangerous weapons we are talking about here. We're not talking about where you kick a football, or fly a kite.

Jye

imlach I would support licencing or airguns and I've been an avid airgunner since I was 14. More than 10,000 criminal offences using airguns are recorded every year and these sort of statistics do nothing but harm our sport.

People, including children HAVE been killed by airguns, thousands of birds and domestic animals ARE used as target practice and needlessly killed or maimed. Licencing would get rid of most of the IDIOTS and kids using airguns who dont know any better.

For the record I shoot vermin on private land, and also the odd rabbit or pidgeon for the pot.

Jiggerypokery

Arrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhh! YES! As I have said before, licensing should work in principle. If you, and imlach would answer just one more question - make it this one:

Do you, or do you not, support restricting cars so that they cannot exceed the speed limit in any particular zone? If you do, then you are in the minority on here. If you don't : WHY NOT?!! It would be a different story if your cat / dog / child / brother was killed by a driver travelling at 35 in a 30 zone. The government already believes that speed kills, and that you are twice as likely to kill a child in an impact at 35 than at 30.

If you do not support these kind of draconian restrictions to YOUR licensed objects, then you cannot expect ME to be happy to support further restrictions to MY licensed objects, even if it will save just one life, as this APPLIES IN BOTH CASES. Licensing is the first step, but history, and the views on this thread, have shown that it is NEVER enough, restrictions always follow.

imlach

There are restrictions & laws in place to try to prevent speeding.

Yet anyone (over 16?) can go and buy and USE an airgun. There is NO law in place to prevent this.....yes, anyone can go and buy a car, but we're talking PRIMARY use here.

The thread is about airguns, and not cars.
A car is for driving. An airgun is for shooting.

Jye

That argument doesnt work JP, as airguns are already restricted, just not licenced. So even if we did accept restrictions for our licenced cars how does this equate to having our already restricted guns further licenced?

Your argument is based on reducing speed and hence I guess would be similar to reducing the power of our guns even further so that they cannot harm anything.

If you had to produce a licence to buy a gun it would at least cut down, but not eradicate, those unlawfully using a gun. How many unlicenced firearms do you think are in circulation now? Quite a few I bet, but the penalty for having one is severe and it is those penalties which act as the deterant.

Unfortunately the fine for not having a driving licence is a complete joke and is not in any way a deterrant. It should involve a lengthy jail sentence just like having an unlicenced firearm carries.

Jye

imlach, I think your getting me mixed up with JP, I support licencing of airguns and hence agree with you, see above.

btw i noticed in an earlier comment you made you think we still have dog licences, sadly not

moses

jiggery i do support restrictions in my car, im drive 30 or 32 ta a 30mph and 70 at 70

if im in a straight road and quiet of course i do chance it and their are no pedestrians their

and when it comes to airguns u cant compare that to cars, airguns any kid can buy nowadays its easily done and alot of them can carry the guns but when it comes to cars they cant unless they steal it or steal their mum or dads keys, and coppers are everywhere and they need to know how to drive

2 different things

imlach

Don't worry Jye, not getting you mixed up....

Yes, I had thought a few weeks back about dog licences, and realised I hadn't heard them mentioned in a while generally, so should have thought they were long gone.....

Jye

Looks that way soz, as I never mentioned speeding or cars

imlach

Ah, I see what you mean now - I put your name in the post in response to JP...oops, sorry, will go and edit......

Jiggerypokery

... but once they are licensed, it is all too easy to restrict them further. Magazine capacity, muzzle speed, type of projectile, etc etc.

imlach

Again, that seems an presumptious conclusion, and no reason not to licence them.

Jye

I'd say licencing them wont make any difference to the power of guns JP. I can already get a firearms certificate and then have my air arms S400 converted to 25ft/lbs.

Jiggerypokery

TRY!! There are laws which TRY to prevent speeding, but they DO NOT! They might discourage me from breaking the law, but they do not prevent me from doing so.

Do you, or do you not, support restricting cars so that they cannot exceed the speed limit in any particular zone?

If you answer this, then maybe I can understand why you hold your views. This thread is about air rifles having a muzzle energy of less than 12 ft lbs and air pistols having a muzzle energy of less than 6 ft lbs. They were NEVER designed to kill humans so that is NOT their PRIMARY USE.

It is the SECONDARY use which we are talking about trying to prevent (whether that is shooting people or exceeding the speed limit) and that is why the car comparison comes in (so often ).

Jiggerypokery

I could tell you this until I'm blue in the face! HISTORY has shown that my "presumptuous conclusion" is the most likely outcome.

imlach

Killing is a bit strong.
Injuring is still wrong. My original post way back was about cyclists getting hit on a path...not death no, but can hurt!

Jye

So what do you suggest then JP? As I have already stated people ARE killed and maimed with airguns of the present power limit. 10,000+ offences every year. What else can you suggest to prevent this?

As I've said, I am an AVID airgunner and for this reason I dont want to see MY sport banned. If licencing prevents banning I'm all for it.

imlach

..and which one is MORE likely statistically to injure someone?
Shooting people or speeding?

I'd say shooting people is nearly 100% likely to harm someone!

For that reason, it is NOT a fair comparison!

Jiggerypokery

As I have said before, licensing should work. BUT once licensed, the government cannot be trusted not to place resrictions. I cannot support this when history has shown that licensing is only the first step. Holding views like that, you MUST support the licensing of knives, and I mean ALL knives, even your vegetable knife.