Jiggerypokery

OK, see above. Stabbing someone (again, secondary use) is 100% likely to harm someone, and I would agree that shooting someone is 100% likely to harm them. Do YOU support the licensing of ALL knives? In the wrong hands they are easily concealed and extremely deadly.

Jye

Hmm, were going round in circles JP heh

In this case why have other guns always required a licence? Its far easier and you need less guts to shoot someone from a distance that to stick a knife into them. Im not saying people dont generally stick knives into others but that it takes a particular type of person to plunge a knife into someone eye etc. It does not take the same type of person or mentality to shoot at someones head from 40 - 50 yrds away. Its not up close and personal and may even be an accident due to inexperience or folly.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...ff/95/9508.htm

Worth a read. BTW the present fines for airgun misuse, which are quite steep btw, have done nothing to curb this misuse. As I've said the latest statistics show a huge increase from the second report outlined above. I guess I just dont want a ban and I can see this coming. BTW JP my cat HAS been shot with an airgun as I mentioned in another thread and now can only see out of one eye.

Statistics like this will only further the call for a complete ban.

Jiggerypokery

Too right ! I'm getting dizzy

ajm

I always despair when I see threads on firearms/fireworks/fire anything that start becoming overrun by the baying "ban mob".

I hate the word ban. Licence comes a close second. There are two fundamentally different types of existences. one is democratic freedom, one is not:-

a) being allowed to do anything unless specifically forbidden
b) being allowed to do nothing unless specifically allowed

Type a) works by having laws together with deterrents for breaking those laws in the form of punishments. If type a) is not working it is because those deterrents (and therefore the punishments) are not severe enough. It is easy to remedy.

Type b) revolves around the premise that if no one is allowed to do anything then there is no way they can do anything to each other.

We as a country pride ourselves, and have always been proud of, living a type a) existence. However, day by day, little by little, we are letting go of our rights one by one. Why? Because it is erroneously perceived that banning something is easier and more effective than tackling the root cause. If we have learnt anything by the handgun debacle it should be that that banning things does not stop people committing crime. Effective deterrents stop people committing crime.

If the penalties for comitting crime with an airgun were severe enough, and the clear up rates on solving the crimes that the public consider priority were acceptable then people would not commit the crimes, and law abiding people would not have to lose their rights.

Why do we have to put up with bans as a second rate, unacceptable solution when a better solution is available?

Jye

And again, I should have added. How many domestic or wild animals are maimed or killed by knives? Not that many I guess. This aint just about injuring or killing people. Some people just like guns, and these same people think nothing of taking a walk in the country and blasting anything that moves. This cannot be compared to knives.

Jiggerypokery

In one situation it is easier the shoot someone from a distance with an air rifle, in another situation it is easier to conceal and pull a knife (such as during a fight outside a pub). If you want to talk about the first situation, I can draw comparisons with the second, and we will go round in circles again . Licensing knives will never be enough to prevent stabbings, the same way as licensing air rifles will never prevent a **** sitting behind a hedge taking pot shots at passers-by. Restrictions follow, and it is THIS I object to.

Jye

The penalties are severe ajm, its just that they either aint working or that the perpetrators arent cought often enough for the penalty to be seen as a deterant and to sink in to the public awareness.

JP, yeah I guess circles is where were heading here. Ive had enough already, me head is spinnin

Jye

So JP, say I agree with you. What do you propose then? Wait untill the crimes using airguns hits an all time high, high enough to enforce a ban? Or take control now and TRY the licence route? I know what I'd do.

ajm

Firstly cats have nothing to do with this thread and secondly that is bang out of order and I refute it entirely. I challenge you to find a thread where I have said that. For what its worth the majority of sporting shooting I do is rough shooting with shotguns. I don't recall even mentioning on here that I own an air rifle.

Once again, as I already said, if deterrants are not working it is because the penalties are not severe enough or the clear up rate is not high enough.

Jiggerypokery

Jye: This is surely more of a defeatist attitude than I was accused of earlier!

You take the licensing route now, but later, as has been shown by nearly all other licensing schemes, restrictions follow. Licensing to deter people from shooting others (as the pellet can be traced), with a promise of no further restrictions would probably be the most effective route. BUT! History has taught me not to trust the government with licensing schemes. Restrictions follow licensing, bans follow restrictions. Taking the easy road now is only a short term solution.

Jye

OK ajm do you own an airgun then? If not why are you posting in here pray tell?

And do you not vociferously advocate cruelty to cats? If you do own an airgun then I for one would not feel that my cats would be safe from you with your present attitude and hatred of cats. Sorry, but thats just how I feel you come across, as someone who would shoot, maim, poison or otherwise harm a cat.

Jye

Not so JP, I am thinking of getting a FAC (a licence) so that I can INCREASE the power of my airguns.

Jiggerypokery

... but we're talking about licensing air rifles having less than 12 ft lbs muzzle energy. These are already licensed in Northern Ireland, but it doesn't stop children shooting animals (search the BBC website), so what's next?

BTW, I was looking for a NI story which happened about 2 months ago, a cat was pinned to a garage door and had its feet cut off using garden loppers, no air guns mentioned. Horrific, and only mentioned here to show that there are some sick people out there who will harm and kill with whatever tool they can use. Licensing an object is never "just enough" to prevent anything.

ajm

Yes I do own one as it happens, and have participated in all sorts of shooting sports since I was a child. I feel I am therefore entitled to offer my opinion in this thread if that's ok with you.

I do not advocate cruelty to cats or any animals, I advocate making owners responsible for what their pets do. I am disappointed that after pages of text this message still hasn't got through to you.

imlach

The incidents I mentioned to the cyclists are on a cycle path passing through Drylaw in Edinburgh. Part of the North Sea Cycle Route for anyone that knows....

The police were informed of the incidents, but given the airguns were fired from a concealed position (be it a flat, house, or bush), not much further information could be given. The police were therefore not that interested......

However, I suggested to the cyclist that next time it happens, he phones up the police and mentioned someone with an AK47 has just tried to shoot him, and that he is 50% certain he is roaming around with it, and see what kind of response he gets.

Given the nature of the area (rough council estate, and previous personal history of having bottles etc thrown at me on that path), I am 99% sure it is pesky kids/oiks with an airgun that was TOO easily obtained (as they are legal to buy with no licence).

Hence my call for licensing. I'm sure it would reduce these incidents over time as supply of legal weapons dries up.

Jye

JP, you tell me m8? Wish I knew.

for ajm: OK, you have a gun and you hate cats, Says it all imo. I am intitled to MY opinion as well. All cat threads you take part in do have you advocating cruelty, and that is why as RK has done numerous times, they are closed.

Well ajm, you could have trapped this feral cat, but you chose to shoot it with a rimfire. All a feral cat is is a domestic cat that has either strayed or has been born in the wild. Some people try and trap these animals and have them either nutered, re-homed or humanely put down, others for what ever reason feel the need to shoot them as vermin or for sport.

imlach

FWIW, our cat was a feral cat, and now has a happy happy life after having been rescued and rehomed....

imlach

JP,

I'm waiting for your photo of a politician kissing a 2 year old baby holding an air rifle

Jiggerypokery

Nice. Is that Santa Paws?

ajm

Is this the way it is going to be from now on? Are you going to turn every unrelated thread into a cat debate? I will not, and do not have to, justify my actions to you, suffice to say I did what was neccessary to protect livestock at the time.

And by the way, a .243 is a centrefire.

I will not be answering any more cat related posts in this thread, it is off topic. Start an applicable thread if you feel you have to.

Jye

Exactly imlach. I sometimes help my gf with a cat rescue scheme to sort out any feral cat problems.

Jye

Well afaik, airguns and shooting cats are both pretty well served by this thread. Im sorry if you feel aggrieved by my attitude ajm but untill you can stop advocating cruelty to domestic pets then I feel we have a small barrier of discontent between us. As Ive already stated my cat WAS shot by an airgun, and this gives me an insight into the minds of those who hate the animals enough to shoot them and the right to bring it up in either an airgun thread of a cat hating thread. Why cant you understand this?

What livestock was a cat threatening btw, was it worrying sheep? This is the first time I have heard someone say they shot a cat for threatening livestock.

For the sake of any common discourse between us in the future I shall now refrain from taking you to task further on any of these issues as I guess the 'twain will never meet'.

I have already stated that apart from the cat issue I enjoy your posts and think your an OK person generally not that this should bother you.

ajm

It was pens of pheasant poults.

Jye

K, hope we can put this sh*t behind us ajm, Im getting fed up with it. Just hope you can see where Im coming from though. Ive edited a few posts where I was being a dick.

Jye

And?

IWatkins

Way, way, way off topic now.

I hate dogs, I own an air rifle. Does that make me a bad person too ?

I think this thread has run far enough really. There are three camps here:

1) Leave our standard power air weapons alone.
2) Licence standard power air weapons to try and prevent misuse.
3) Just ban them altogether.

I would like to see 2 happen, but I cannot trust the government to leave it at that (although BASC would have something to say) so I would actually prefer 1.

As an aside, I'm an archer of several years and the equipment I use (all perfectly normal competition grade recurve gear) would kill any human stone dead at 150 yards (or further if I was accurate enough). But there are not really any laws at all for this gear apart from the majot one of no hunting with it. Go figure.

Cheers

Ian

imlach

I don't think it has really gone WAY off topic to be honest.

What is the title of the thread? Seems perfectly logical to assume that airgun issues and issues relating to the uses of them would come up.

imlach

My take on the views in this thread are as follows :

1) Those who currently own airguns and take a selfish 'head in the sand' approach and want NO change whatsoever. More so, they are blind to the increasing airgun problems in the population. No compromise from these people whatsoever to try and curb this increase in misuse.

2) Some airgun users who see sense and would like to see licensing.

3) Those who are just trying to get help to prevent problems such as cyclists/pets getting shot at by numpties.

DanTheMan

I can't believe how many narrow minded people are on this BBS.

Tens of thousands if not millions of people enjoy many forms of target shooting and hunting in the UK, and a few people who don't participate or aggree with the hobby want to BAN it.

Yes there are mindless yobs who break the law, shooting animals or people or whatever, but there are also mindless yobs who steal cars and run over old ladies and kids in pushchairs, and mindless yobs who drown cats in canals. I think the common link is UNEDUCATED mindless yobs, if we could improve the parenting/education of these people, show them the error of their ways then we are a step towards a better future.

To actually own a firearm you have to go through some very tough checks - you have to be a full member (which takes circa 6 months) of a Home Office approved gun club (or have land for vermin control), have several referees, no criminal record, good marital status, have adequate home security including approved gun safes which all has to stand up to a police home visit, and good reason for each firearm, and be able to convince the local chief of police to issue a FAC.

Wheras if you are a drug dealing gangster you just buy a semi-auto pistol or machinegun (the types that have been banned in the UK for many years but readily smuggled in from europe) from a bloke in the pub.

We live next to Bisley and went there today as it was an open day, we had a go with 1800's era Zulu war rifles, WW1 & 2 rifles and even earlier era muzzle loading blackpowder pistols, it was fantastic fun & many thousands of people turned up, we even had a go with competition target rifles, which are built just for target shooting. You can't just ban everything just because you don't aggree with it................

imlach

I think you'll find no-one is asking for a BAN, just better licensing for airguns similar to other firearms.
I still struggling to see any really good reasons why any real gun user could object to this....