Airguns banned?
#92
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
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
#93
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
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
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by imlach
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.
"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?
We're not talking about serious gangsters here who use them for bank-jobs etc
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Arrow](images/icons/icon2.gif)
Originally Posted by Duck_Pond
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.
Last edited by Jiggerypokery; 01 May 2004 at 01:46 PM.
#96
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.
#97
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
#99
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
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.
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
A scoob was designed for getting from A to B (quickly
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
So, I am not happy to see further restrictions on air rifles, because shooting is fun.
It's all about freedom.
Last edited by Jiggerypokery; 01 May 2004 at 02:22 PM.
#101
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
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
#102
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
So, I am not happy to see further restrictions on air rifles, because shooting is fun.
It's all about freedom.
It's all about freedom.
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Dumbartonshire
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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
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
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.
#105
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
Last edited by imlach; 01 May 2004 at 03:49 PM.
#106
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Dumbartonshire
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
Last edited by Jye; 01 May 2004 at 03:45 PM.
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Dumbartonshire
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
btw i noticed in an earlier comment you made you think we still have dog licences, sadly not
![Wink](images/smilies/wink.gif)
#108
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
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
#109
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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![Wink](images/smilies/wink.gif)
btw i noticed in an earlier comment you made you think we still have dog licences, sadly not
![Wink](images/smilies/wink.gif)
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.....
#111
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Jye
Looks that way soz, as I never mentioned speeding or cars ![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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?
#113
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
... but once they are licensed, it is all too easy to restrict them further. Magazine capacity, muzzle speed, type of projectile, etc etc.
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Dumbartonshire
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
Last edited by Jye; 01 May 2004 at 03:54 PM.
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by imlach
Again, that seems an presumptious conclusion, and no reason not to licence them.
#117
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
They were NEVER designed to kill humans so that is NOT their PRIMARY USE.
Injuring is still wrong. My original post way back was about cyclists getting hit on a path...not death no, but can hurt!
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Dumbartonshire
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#119
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
whether that is shooting people or exceeding the speed limit
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!
Last edited by imlach; 01 May 2004 at 04:05 PM.
#120
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.
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.