trouble in store?

[Garvin]

I've had some minor successes over the years when confronted with people who say "No one should have a gun!/Guns are evil!" etc., by simply asking, "Why?", and letting them attempt to lay out a cohesive argument, which they are usually unable to do; their opinions generally being received rather than a position that they have come to through applying their own logic and knowledge.
Pointing out that shooting (in several forms) is an olympic sport, that it is no more militaristic than archery, and also telling people how many legally held guns are really out there - off the top of my head about a quarter of a million shotguns and at least a million air rifles - and how infrequently, both proportionately and absolutely, they are involved in any kind of misdeed has led to quite a few people changing their minds IME, at least reaching a kind of indifference rather than hostility.

As for 'military looking' guns, most of the public can't tell their arse from their elbow or a BSA Lightning from an SA80 so this kind of appeasement and self-cannibalisation is deeply unproductive IMO. Shooters of all stripes need to stick together, end of.

Slight contradiction here! You use the argument that shooting is an Olympic sport, no more militaristic than archery, yet some pistols are modelled on firearms designed specifically to kill people, even if they can actually barely puncture a tin can at 20 yards.

You and I are relaxed about this, because we know they are harmless and great fun, but people who see all guns as the same are inclined to lump all guns together. Unfortunately there are a lot more of them than us smart folk!

I think our argument would be stronger if it was clear we were talking about ie. a break barrel springer or vintage pop-out, than all airguns together, including mock-up firearms.

In a perfect world people would understand these subtleties. But as I said above, proponents of firearm-like airguns have more to gain by sticking close to us than vice versa. I don't think for a second we should cut them loose any time soon, but when push comes to shove I think it might be wise to fall back on the 'Olympic sport more like archery' argument.

[eyebull]

Bows and javelins are also modelled on military weapons, and I'd venture that far more people have been killed by them over the course of history than firearms!

Honestly, a ban on 'military looking' guns is absolutely the thin end of a thick wedge, and though you may be thinking in terms of airsofters and neds with umarex replicas, this would also cover everything from Schimels to Daisys. And it will not stop there.

[Jerry Cornelius]

Slight contradiction here! You use the argument that shooting is an Olympic sport, no more militaristic than archery, yet some pistols are modelled on firearms designed specifically to kill people, even if they can actually barely puncture a tin can at 20 yards.

You and I are relaxed about this, because we know they are harmless and great fun, but people who see all guns as the same are inclined to lump all guns together. Unfortunately there are a lot more of them than us smart folk!

I think our argument would be stronger if it was clear we were talking about ie. a break barrel springer or vintage pop-out, than all airguns together, including mock-up firearms.

In a perfect world people would understand these subtleties. But as I said above, proponents of firearm-like airguns have more to gain by sticking close to us than vice versa. I don't think for a second we should cut them loose any time soon, but when push comes to shove I think it might be wise to fall back on the 'Olympic sport more like archery' argument.

People who want to ban guns will always be trying to ban guns. The longer they are forced to argue about airsoft or whatever the longer it will be until they can say, right, we’ve banned airsoft, now let’s try to ban the next thing.

Because they will never, ever say that’s enough bans , no more, there is no point whatsoever agreeing to or not fighting any ban. No compromise is possible with these people

[eyebull]

People who want to ban guns will always be trying to ban guns. The longer they are forced to argue about airsoft or whatever the longer it will be until they can say, right, we’ve banned airsoft, now let’s try to ban the next thing.

Because they will never, ever say that’s enough bans , no more, there is no point whatsoever agreeing to or not fighting any ban. No compromise is possible with these people

The hard core of hoplophobes are quite small in number, a far smaller contingent than gun anoraks even.
Where they score is in their willingness to weaponise public opinion and draw the otherwise indifferent to their cause in a way that the shooting community continually fails to do.
In this way they also have youth on their side.

A more proactive approach is needed, it's no use trying to lay low and just hope that the legislative eye never turns to your particular corner of interest.