I've posted this as a new thread as the old one seems to have degenerated in to the same tired old series of rants - Nanny State and on and on..........
Bottom line - An air weapon was used illegally to cause harm.
Can anybody suggest any reason that the PUBLIC WOULD FIND CONVINCINGwhy
AIR WEAPONS SHOULD NOT BE LICENCED?
Letís avoid with "It wont work" maybe it wont but it's -
*...Not been tried with airguns.
*...A very poor argument to try to make
and if possible lets avoid the rants please
Personal I would be happy enough if they were Ė
1. Sold by gun shops
2. On somthing like a SGC NOT a FAC.
I think 1 + 2 are the minimum we are likely to escape with.
I thought the goverment had already made clear they cannot cope with a more complicted FAC system espec as there are more than 3 million air guns out there. They will not try to enforce something so unworkable but the posturing will continue.
Got to agree that I cannot see a reason why Airguns should not be licensed.
Before anyone jumps down my throat I am not saying I want them licensed just I cannot think of a reason that they should not.
They best we could hope for is something along the lines of SGC/Rod licence with the owner being registered rather than each gun.
Please don't use the line that cars kill so Airguns should not be restricted because car are not restricted it's a very poor argument (and you have to pass a test to use a car).
This is not supposed to be a negative rant just something we may all need to think about.
Zastava Owners Club.
It will not happen in my lifetime.
I've tried - and its all emotional wishy washy personal improvement tosh. But then I started thinking - if football was under threat could that be defended, or motor racing or ANY sport? I can't think of any decent reason that would survive any anti (public) scrutiny for any sport?
Shouldn't we start from the premise "can you think of a reason why airguns SHOULD be licensed"? We don't have to prove a negative, it's up to the antis to prove a positive. So far their arguments have been too weak even for governments very receptive to authoritarian measures.
The reasons likely to be put forward are that airguns are too easy to get hold of, and are therefore too easily misused.Originally Posted by wgmorgan
We all know that current laws are not being enforced, and that laws will only afffect people who are willing to abide them; ergo people who are currently happy to break the law when misuing an airgun will continue to do so. As with the handgun ban, the Government are likely to want to be seen to be doing something about airguns, irrespective of the effectiveness of whatevver they choose to do.
Does anyone really believe that licensing airguns would make Britain safer?
Remember that there are 7 million airguns out there already, few of which, if the Brocock ban is anything to go by, would be registered by owners ie. some would be licensed but the majoriy wouldn't.
Licensing will only be brought in if the airgunning community loses its own nerve and invites it. It will then be followed by a blanket ban. And even then, the antisocial, brain dead element would still get hold of them and use them inappropriately.
The UK, imho, has a great deal more to worry about than airguns at the moment. There are far greater dangers to our securiy. People need to get things in perspective.
In a country of 60 million people, annual airgun deaths are not statistically significant. They fall into the category of freak accidents. If the government wants to make an issue of them, it is for political and not practical reasons.
Gentlemen, we have nothing to fear but fear itself, if I may borrow from F D Roosevelt.
Last edited by Arthur John Smithsplease; 10-10-2005 at 03:24 PM.
I wish I was in the land of cotton.
If people want to use this argument then one should point out that you can cut a stick to make a bow or a spear, which are both pretty nasty weapons. So should all trees and hedges be rooted out and destroyed?Originally Posted by Scarecrow
If enough of us shouted this long enough and hard enough, it should put the do-gooders against the environmental lobby, leaving us free and in peace to continue shooting our air rifles.
I agree they should license airguns, however they should also license catapults, crossbows, knives ('hobby' and kitchen), pointy sticks, bows and arrows, solvents, glue, hydrogen peroxide, matches and anything else which when misused can cause harm.
If there's an even-handed approach to all harmful objects then we, as responsible citizens, would be obliged to support the proposal. Until then ....
As mentioned in other threads there are many many objects that cause far more harm than airguns on free sale
Seems a reasonable argument to me
I've thought quite seriously as to why some form of certification would put the avearge non-owning airgun member of the publics mind at rest. To a point that they would be satisfied that an airgun was going to be used both safely, sensibly and lawfully by its owner, and in truth I can't agree with the argument that certification is a way forward. The fact is, yes certification could be brought in, and I've no doubt it would make the government a few pounds in the process from those that bother to register. The simple truth is, the vast majority of airgun owners would almost certainly not bother with registering. Surely it's not the publics mind that needs to be altered, it's the media's, and that's something that certification would not alter one jot. Bad news sells papers and gets TV and Radio station's good viewing and listening figures. One could even argue that certification could make the situation even worse than it is at present. Indeed, I think certification could almost certainly hasten the likelyhood of an outright ban on air weapons. The first occurance after certification were imposed of someone being injured by an unlicenced gun/owner (yet alone a licenced one). Would almost certainly result in calls for such a ban, which would bring us back to exactly where we are at the moment. The government could, and no doubt would argue that it had done all in its power through certification to prevent such an occurance. At which point a ban would almot certainly ensue. I would love to be able to offer a positive solution to the public perception of airgun owners, but in truth I can't. All one can ask is for every airgun club to contact their local newspaper and try and push the positive aspects of the sport. Sadly though, it's the case that the media will always chose bad news over good and the battle will remain an almost impossible uphill task.
1, Itís true if you donít care then you can ignore the law, my pet hate Ė uninsured drivers.
2, Yes nearly anything can be used to harm or kill.
3, Car use is regulated; you have to pass a test; the car has to pass MOTís.
4, Logically you can push until all activities that involve any risk (or offer offence) are banable, especially if there is a risk (or offence) to those not taking part.
5, An AGC probably would not work, nore would it calm (media driven) fear.
As roger62 said itís balance but a weighted one, this government (or the next) is determined to suck the jack-boots right off the Tabloid press. Sensationalism sells, cool thought + logic donít. simple really.
Last edited by ora8i; 10-10-2005 at 04:00 PM.
I am a newbie to airguns (returned after 15 years) so will not pretend to understand the license issues... I too fully agree that it is the media as usual who are stiring matters to sell papers or up viewing figures. It is the next "evil" after fox hunting...
If the licensing process was painless and free what would be your reason not to sign-up? Is it purely based on principle?
If licensing is brought in, and idiots still continue to do criminal things with airguns ( as they will ), the government will have nowhere else to go but for a ban.
The press will demand it and the government will comply.
The unwashed public will once again have been gulled into thinking that Britain is a safer place, and that New Labour has put the public interest before considerations of selfish airgunners, who, let's face it must have something wrong with them to like airguns in the first place.
And, of course, the criminal incidents will continue.
There won't be any airgun clubs or FT or HFT left though, and the antis will at least be happy that they have taken a source of pleasure away from people they despise.
Democracy it might be. Freedom it ain't.
I wish I was in the land of cotton.
I've copied this off the yellow forum :-
Nicley put."To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." óJeff Snyder