Air gun - tighter controls?

[chewy]

I travel through Schipol airport where all Police are armed, it gives me a sense of security.

Yes guns are weapons, so are knives do they need banning too? Baseball bats? I once got chased in my car by some idiot when I was younger, after that I kept my pen flares in the drivers door. They could have been used as a weapon.

Basically anything that the treehuggers don't like will be banned, How many Dunblanes had happened? It was a knee jerk reaction that spoilt alot of peoples hobby.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Tim M

Legislation! Cigarettes, knives, solvents.....guns?

Mmmm....alcohol, fatty foods, baseball bats, snooker cues....combustion engines....

[Tim M]

Guns are designed to kill things - that is their sole use. Seems stupid to me not to ban them.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Tim M

Guns are designed to kill things - that is their sole use. Seems stupid to me not to ban them.

Of course they're designed to "kill things" and, used correctly very efficient they are too. Despite your theatrical protestations, there are other recognised uses though.
I appreciate that in some fluffy, Guardian reading world everything is cute and cuddly and should live forever. However, in the real world, this is not so and thus, to quote a Texan “When things need a’killin” then guns are perfect for that job.
What legislation needs to do, is to keep anything dangerous away from the feeble minded, malicious or evil. Unfortunately this needs to be backed up with deterrents, which is what we are sadly lacking these days. The “ban it” culture just doesn’t work.

[chewy]

What even target rifles.... used for killing targets?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by chewy

What even target rifles.... used for killing targets?

Hell, even the Scouts Association, that bastion of all things worthy and moral, teach their chaps to shoot at targets. Teaches discipline, don’t you know?

[chewy]

Originally Posted by Jono

Hell, even the Scouts Association, that bastion of all things worthy and moral, teach their chaps to shoot at targets. Teaches discipline, don’t you know?

That was for Tim not you. What I was getting at that target rifles are designed and made for shoot targets, not living things.

So what about crossbows are we banning them too?

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Tim M

IMHO all types of gun should be banned. You can still kill someone with one of these! Someone made reference to the work "weapon" - thats exactly what they are. With reference to being shot with chair legs/bags etc, my attitude is that if you co-operate with the police you won't get shot. Waving something that could be a gun at them is probably not a great idea....Running into a tube station looking like a terrorist whilst there are a load of armed police running after you and shouting is a prime example.

How do you define looking like a terrorist? Are you going to shoot everyone who looks like they are Irish???


An innocent man died and you glibly make remarks like this...................

[chewy]

Originally Posted by codprawn

How do you define looking like a terrorist? Are you going to shoot everyone who looks like they are Irish???


An innocent man died and you glibly make remarks like this...................

Whilst I agree with your other comments he wasn't innocent, he was an illegal immigrant hence he ran.
If he hadn't entered out country illegally he probably wouldn't have ran and been alive today.

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by chewy

Whilst I agree with your other comments he wasn't innocent, he was an illegal immigrant hence he ran.
If he hadn't entered out country illegally he probably wouldn't have ran and been alive today.

The police CLAIMED they shouted "armed police" - it eventually came out they did nothing of the sort. They didn't even look like police - how was he to know who the hell they were.

Many people will instinctively run from an unknown threat - even when they have nothing to hide.

[chewy]

Still shouldn't have been here though!

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by chewy

Still shouldn't have been here though!

That's a good one - Death penalty for all illegal immigrants!!!

I don't agree with so many being here either but you have to blame the people who threw the doors wide open. And to be honest many of the so called legal immigrants are worse than the illegals. Some of the East European countries are very dodgy places..................

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Tim M

Guns are designed to kill things - that is their sole use. Seems stupid to me not to ban them.

What a blinkered and narrow minded attitude.Just because YOU may not be interested in,or indeed need firearms for your occupation, I know lots of Gamekeepers,farmers,as well as Sportsmen who's liveleyhood, or perfectly legal sports YOU would effect with your 'BAN WAGON' biggotry.So easy to sort out the worlds ills by the' Ban it all brigade' just like they did with Handguns??Drugs??Dangerous Dogs??..just as well add War and Famine to the list and sort out all the worlds ills in one go!!
Seems to me someone must have banned common sence in your neck of the woods!!...Here's one for you,BEFOR the Great war' DumDum' bullets i.e soft nosed high exspanding ammunition were internationaly banned from the theatre of war,because they were deemed inhumaine.They do terrorble damage and create massive trauma,hence it is a WARCRIME to use them...Because the treaty did Not cover CIVILION Law enforcement however,[it wasnt thaught nessesary] the British and other police now use this [and much enhanced] forms of round against their own populous,a type of round even our army darent use in time of war!Another case of Ban without thaught.The U.K incidently is the third biggest exporter of arms in the world,only the U.S and China export more,many many jobs,and ancillary high tec firms depend on and rely on this sector,seems rather cynical at best for our goverment to,earn Billions in exports in this field,and then ban AIRGUNS HERE!?What ever happened to the Labour mantra 'Education,Education,Education'?.. ALOT Easyer, to just BAN!

[chewy]

I once got stopped in Aberdeen by someone raising money for some charity trying to stop a company in Edinburgh making thumb clamps and torture devices. He asked "its horrible isn't it", yeh it is but by stopping it how many people are you going to put out of work, "didn't think of that".

Lots of people have good intentions but don't realise what the REAL effect will be.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Maximus

...Here's one for you,BEFOR the Great war' DumDum' bullets i.e soft nosed high exspanding ammunition were internationaly banned from the theatre of war,because they were deemed inhumaine.They do terrorble damage and create massive trauma,hence it is a WARCRIME to use them...Because the treaty did Not cover CIVILION Law enforcement however,[it wasnt thaught nessesary] the British and other police now use this [and much enhanced] forms of round against their own populous,

Mmm.. you're a little bit off kilter here. The use of expanding ammunition is for good reason. Firstly it, if of the right kind, limits over penetration of the "target” reducing the chance of bystanders being hit. It also offers a much higher “one shot stop” which, if you’re shooting someone is a “good thing”. Police do not shoot to wound/disable, they shoot to kill. If the decision has been made to shoot, then it is right that maximum force is used to prevent the “target” from doing whatever they are doing that threatens the safety of either the Police officers or the public.
Its use in hunting is required for much the same reason. A solid bullet at high velocity will pass straight through without doing sufficient damage to kill quickly. The point (sic) of expanding ammunition in this case is to inflict massive and therefore fatal trauma.

Back to my earlier point.. if it needs killing, kill it. Use sufficient force/energy to do the job properly and cleanly…

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Jono

They already are. Check out the VCR bill.
Should airguns be better regulated?
The laws on use and purchase are already quite strict and potential breaches can have serious punishments, however the transgressions are not punished severely enough to be effective. Airguns, especially rifles, can cause lethal injuries as we have seen. They can also be used to inflict horrendous injuries on wild life either maliciously or through poor marksmanship even when used against legitimate prey.
Will extra legislation help? There are so many air rifles in circulation that I’m not sure it would be feasible to remove them all off those people who don’t choose to become “licensed”. I think we are too far down the road to go that way. What we should be doing is properly punishing those who misuse them and allowing those who enjoy them safely, within the confines of current legislation, to carry on doing so.
Just for info I’m FAC, SGC’d up to the hilt and use air rifle for some vermin control when other methods fail or are inappropriate, so licensing them is no big deal to me…..

Jono - at last some sensible debate on the topic.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Tim M

Running into a tube station looking like a terrorist whilst there are a load of armed police running after you and shouting is a prime example.

Tim - where have you been living - all of that appears (beyond reasonable doubt) to be unsubstantiated.

Didn't run away, he got on the train like everyone else, although he may have run across the platform to catch the train - he had time to pick up the Metro newspaper. He was sitting down when armed officers entered the train.
Police didn't shout or clearly identify themselves.
Looked like a terrorist - mmm... now on that basis a significant proportion of London are asking to be shot.

And I thought Jack Straw had confirmed he was here legally?

[Bigmuz7]

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

it may be a Scottish thing , in which case they will have no power to legislate .. right? .. as firearms legislation is a westminster issue.

I'm no great believer in smack heads, druggies and nonces having posession of air weapons, this seems to be where all the trouble lies, and which is at the heart of why the whole issue has come up for debate within governmental circles. I can see them getting licensed eventually, the more I think about it. You will be required to either surrender it for nothing, or go through the procedure of getting a certificate. In the manner in which a shot gun certificate is slightly different to a firearm certificate, I think they may introduce an airgun certificate, where checks and procedures, and storage conditions and age limit are perhaps less strict than that of either the other two, but it will provide enough resistance to stop some neds getting posession, and if they are caught in illegal posession, presumably it will make potential conviction easier, as simply posession will suffice in its self, in the same manner as firearms rather than having to prove negligent use.

As we all know however, it wont stop the problem. As with hand guns, occurrences will still be common place, in fact I believe more so due to the sheer number of air weapons in circulation, so maybe licensing will be unenforceable ?

I was thinking too about the Scottish government wanting to ban them, and concluding they cant, as firearms legislation is a Westminster issue, but I was thinking perhaps they might be able to, as for a start they are not firearms, and secondly, they managed to ban smoking easily enough using all sorts of other laws, and it was up held

As for compensation, this will not happen, since, with handguns, the government first allowed lawfull posession,specifically on their terms i.e by FAC.. then changed their minds, and the weapons were deemed illegal and compensation was rightfuly due for them and all the associated kit therefor, as people had bought them in good faith

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Jono

Mmm.. you're a little bit off kilter here. The use of expanding ammunition is for good reason. Firstly it, if of the right kind, limits over penetration of the "target” reducing the chance of bystanders being hit. It also offers a much higher “one shot stop” which, if you’re shooting someone is a “good thing”. Police do not shoot to wound/disable, they shoot to kill. If the decision has been made to shoot, then it is right that maximum force is used to prevent the “target” from doing whatever they are doing that threatens the safety of either the Police officers or the public.
Its use in hunting is required for much the same reason. A solid bullet at high velocity will pass straight through without doing sufficient damage to kill quickly. The point (sic) of expanding ammunition in this case is to inflict massive and therefore fatal trauma.

Back to my earlier point.. if it needs killing, kill it. Use sufficient force/energy to do the job properly and cleanly…

My point was in answer to 'Ban all guns comment',indeed I know the arguments for useing soft-hollow point munitions on the public,just seems very incongruous to me, and another nail in the 'ban it mentality' cofin that an action which constitutes a Warcrime,is accepted so readily by 'Mr Daily Mail'.It is so easy for a government to SPIN a Ban on this or that,instead of putting resourses educateing,and ENFORCEING the laws already in place!After all we have had more laws,statutes,and legislation in the last 10 years than ever befor!...and more armed para military policeing.The results of which speak for themselves.Or do you believe Britain to be a better,safer, place now?

[Limey Linda]

Acouple of comment worth considering. People kill people, not guns, knives or baseball bats. Also; if you ban all guns the only people who will have guns will be the bad guys cos they don't care. There is nothing wrong in having controls on the purchase and ownership of firearms as long as the the law is enforced and the penalty for breaking it is severe.

You may have read my thread on moderators/supressors. If caught with an unregistered one in the USA you will probably get 10 years. Therefore it is generally not a problem. Again, only the bad guys have them.