Quote Originally Posted by harvey_s View Post
You're splitting hairs and just repeating the same thing...and I countered your statement with the following....



Care to present a reasoned argument that disproves a match rifle abilities to kill or maim a child instead of unqualified repetition?
Don't forget an FT or HFT 'match' rifle will be 12 ft/lbs and even a 10m 'match' rifle will be 6 ft/lbs and could be discharged at point blank range.
A match rifle is just a version of a hunting rifle that is designed to be more accurate than a regular air rifle - its function of delivering the same lead projectile at the highest allowable velocity remains unaltered.
Harvey I very carefully didn't reply because it's obvious we totally disagree on this question.

"Derivatives of primary functions"? Not sure exactly what you mean by this. Is a kid's cap gun a 'derivative' of a .44 Magnum? In one sense it is, but it's absurd to suggest that it's therefore a weapon...

Hitting someone over the head with a match air rifle is likely to cause much more harm than shooting a pellet from it.

Does this make it a weapon? It just means that like any other heavy object it can be (mis)used as one.

Obviously you have a point about safe handling, and airguns should be treated as dangerous from a safety point of view, like any gun.

But are airguns 'weapons'? No, they are not.