"The Air Gun as a Serious Weapon" by H Marks

[DT Fletcher]

There is a listing on the UK bay (252497412098 ) for a 1906 magazine that includes the article "The Air Gun as a Serious Weapon" by H Marks secretary of the society of miniature rifle clubs.

Have no idea if this is a known item to the BSA collectors community.

[Josie & John]

Thanks Dean,

This article was originally published in Fry's magazine and was an excellent contemporary review of the BSA,Britannia and Millita air rifles. WHB Smith used the images in his Gas Air & Spring Guns of the world book in 1957.

John

[walnutfarmmick]

Thanks Dean,

This article was originally published in Fry's magazine and was an excellent contemporary review of the BSA,Britannia and Millita air rifles. WHB Smith used the images in his Gas Air & Spring Guns of the world book in 1957.

John

He also used the word 'weapon' which earned me a reprimand on here.

Still, what did they know? Just guessing most of the time.....

ATB, Mick

[buttloaves]

He also used the word 'weapon' which earned me a reprimand on here.

Still, what did they know? Just guessing most of the time.....

ATB, Mick

An airgun is a weapon, something designed to cause bodily harm or damage, id say an airgun falls into that catagory.
I know where people are coming from, to serious airgun users they're not weapons as you imagine a weapon something that is used against people, our quarry has a body also and an airgun will cause damage, a knife is a weapon and a bow or crossbow, they're designed for that purpose, to use a thing as a weapon is different, a brick or a lump of wood can become a weapon but a gun will always be a weapon.

[Jimny4x4]

....everybody but us ageing semi retired old boys consider Airguns now as Airw.....s
Actually its always been that way since these booklets and others were printed over 100 years ago .
Today speak to people outside our own cosey little world of pellets tins , old catalogues and Horlicks and all Airguns are classed legally as Firearms .

Hard to believe a Gat pop out is a firearm .
Not fair as they are classed as low power airw.....s , upsets our sensibilities but reality since 1968 and then 1969 with Mr Willie Whitelaws 'especially powerful Airw.....s amendment Bill .

Walnutfarmmick - some very very stupid people allowed to play with Airw.....s these days ( said tongue in cheek )

[Garvin]

An airgun is a weapon, something designed to cause bodily harm or damage, id say an airgun falls into that catagory.
I know where people are coming from, to serious airgun users they're not weapons as you imagine a weapon something that is used against people, our quarry has a body also and an airgun will cause damage, a knife is a weapon and a bow or crossbow, they're designed for that purpose, to use a thing as a weapon is different, a brick or a lump of wood can become a weapon but a gun will always be a weapon.

I have to disagree with you, my friend. I've just eaten my dinner and there's no way the knife I used was a weapon.

Airguns may look like weapons, but that doesn't mean they are weapons, although it certainly suits some people to blur the distinction.

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.

Whether a device used to kill small mammals and birds can ever be classified as a weapon (assuming we are not talking about a Girandoni) is open for debate. The word is more properly reserved for human targets.

[Salamander]

.... but reality since 1968 and then 1969 with Mr Willie Whitelaws 'especially powerful Airw.....s amendment Bill .

Willie Whitelaw wasn't Home Secretary in 1968 or 1969. Labour were in power then and Jim Callaghan was Home Secretary. Whitelaw had nothing to do with changes to the law on firearms.

[harvey_s]

I have to disagree with you, my friend. I've just eaten my dinner and there's no way the knife I used was a weapon.

Airguns may look like weapons, but that doesn't mean they are weapons, although it certainly suits some people to blur the distinction.

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.

Whether a device used to kill small mammals and birds can ever be classified as a weapon (assuming we are not talking about a Girandoni) is open for debate. The word is more properly reserved for human targets.

An airgun has sufficient power to result in the death of a child as has sadly been proven on more than one occasion.
Therefore I would argue that they must be regarded as weapons irrespective of any intent.
Knives are similarly categorised.
Cutlery and match airguns are merely derivitaves of their primary functions - but the connection is still there and they could instantly be reverted in the wrong hands.

[Lakey]

An airgun has sufficient power to result in the death of a child as has sadly been proven on more than one occasion.
Therefore I would argue that they must be regarded as weapons irrespective of any intent.
Knives are similarly categorised.
Cutlery and match airguns are merely derivitaves of their primary functions - but the connection is still there and they could instantly be reverted in the wrong hands.

The problem here is that in todays society, where the real reasons for problems are glossed over, or pigeon holed into convenient little spots to suit whatever axe has to be ground, or whatever course of action has to be justified, the word weapon is a very contentious one, which unfairly tars our sport/passtime with the illegal acts of others. Air weapons are classed as firearms when it comes to upholding the law and punishing wrong doers, however to most responsible users, they are not seen as weapons in the traditional sense of the word. I think it is important to maintain a distinction between airguns under 12 ft/lbs and guns which are over that limit, and since the majority of us use guns under 12 ft/lbs, the word weapon doesn't seem to fit.
Society is not well versed in different gun categories or derivations, so it doesn't help our long term hobby that airguns are seen in the same light as firearms and handguns etc. We wouldn't class darts or racing cars as weapons - even though both have that capacity to inflict serious injury?

[harvey_s]

The problem here is that in todays society, where the real reasons for problems are glossed over, or pigeon holed into convenient little spots to suit whatever axe has to be ground, or whatever course of action has to be justified, the word weapon is a very contentious one, which unfairly tars our sport/passtime with the illegal acts of others. Air weapons are classed as firearms when it comes to upholding the law and punishing wrong doers, however to most responsible users, they are not seen as weapons in the traditional sense of the word. I think it is important to maintain a distinction between airguns under 12 ft/lbs and guns which are over that limit, and since the majority of us use guns under 12 ft/lbs, the word weapon doesn't seem to fit.
Society is not well versed in different gun categories or derivations, so it doesn't help our long term hobby that airguns are seen in the same light as firearms and handguns etc. We wouldn't class darts or racing cars as weapons - even though both have that capacity to inflict serious injury?

Thats because neither were designed as weapons...!
Just because you don't like the connotation does not alter it's true purpose or capacity to kill or maim and a sub 12 ft/lb airgun can do that to a human child as easily as a rabbit.
They must be treated and handled as such anyway - anything less is lunacy, so just call a spade a spade.
Society does not care one jot about whether your rifle has 20 or 10 ft/lbs there is no distinction in the public eye by power classification.
Failure to treat a 12 ft/lb air gun as a weapon will lead to a lack of respect and that is likely to lead to another tragedy - and that would do FAR more damage to our sport than the use of the word weapon.

[cringe]

Thats because neither were designed as weapons...!
Just because you don't like the connotation does not alter it's true purpose or capacity to kill or maim and a sub 12 ft/lb airgun can do that to a human child as easily as a rabbit.
They must be treated and handled as such anyway - anything less is lunacy, so just call a spade a spade.
Society does not care one jot about whether your rifle has 20 or 10 ft/lbs there is no distinction in the public eye by power classification.
Failure to treat a 12 ft/lb air gun as a weapon will lead to a lack of respect and that is likely to lead to another tragedy - and that would do FAR more damage to our sport than the use of the word weapon.

So, is it sill ok if I call a spade a spade?

[cringe]

So, is it sill ok if I call a spade a spade?

sorry just spotted my spilling mistake their, I mean is it ok to call a black person a spade, [I have negro relations]?

[cringe]

sorry just spotted my spilling mistake their, I mean is it ok to call a black person a spade, [I have negro relations]?

Also, is it acceptable [politically correct] to call my pellets 'ammo' or ammunition? & what about my antiques! should I scrub the name off my 'black boys' & 'cat slugs'?

[scooter48]

I have to disagree with you, my friend. I've just eaten my dinner and there's no way the knife I used was a weapon.

Airguns may look like weapons, but that doesn't mean they are weapons, although it certainly suits some people to blur the distinction.

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.

Whether a device used to kill small mammals and birds can ever be classified as a weapon (assuming we are not talking about a Girandoni) is open for debate. The word is more properly reserved for human targets.

all guns are designed for killing whether air or firearm.That is their function.

[Garvin]

all guns are designed for killing whether air or firearm.That is their function.

Nonsense!

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.