Jump to content

Woman shot in the eye with airgun, news this morning


lakeside1000
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think that, sadly, everyone is overestimating the number of air rifles people are going to consider licensing. Most people won't consider it worthwhile to jump through hoops to keep the rifle in their attic. Even being from quite rural Scotland, I think that 90+% of Scotland's air rifles are going to be handed in to be destroyed. So while there will be a big increased burden on the licensing system, it won't be quite as huge as everyone is expecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt a large percentage of those who wish to stay within the bounds of the law and cannot demonstrate good reason will hand over their air guns as part of a pre legislation amnesty, but the nut jobs who have them as a status symbol or wish to use them for illegal reasons won't.

 

The legislation will achieve nothing in terms of the objective of trying to reduce incidents of wrongful use. Sure there will be a big headline saying tens of thousands of air guns handed in and a big load of political spin around that saying how Scotland's communities are now safer and the ignorant, hand wringing liberal idiots can smile a contented smile thinking something wonderful has been done, but what it won't say is that for these tens of thousands of air guns that precisely zero crimes were committed anyway.

 

As Scully mentioned a few posts ago, this is nothing other than a stage management exercise so the political leaders can make a big statement and bask in the reflected glory of newspaper headlines and spin until the next clown shoots a cat, dog, swan or junkie.

 

If people who shoot for a hobby cannot see through the utter fallacy of imposing retrospective licensing as a means of controlling scrotebags then what chance do we have that people who are not engaged or committed to the sport will see through it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what's to be done? I can't see any other options than complying and signing as many petitions as possible. But we all know how much that helps.

There isn't anything immediate that can be done in this case other than getting rid of the facile Scottish government and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

 

A mass act of civil disobedience wouldn't help and given that 90% of respondents to the Scottish government consultation were against air gun licensing proves that no amount of petitions will make the slightest bit of difference.

 

The only thing that would work is to hurt the politicians where it matters most, at the ballot box. On its own the shooting community is far too small in Scotland to make a tangible difference even if every single one of us voted for 1 other party, so all we are left with is to try and educate as much as we possibly can and to challenge false assumptions as loudly as we can.

 

Practical things that we could do to make mischief, swamp the process with license applications and try to break the administrative machine, canvas all the English air gun owners and ask them to apply for temporary permits every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that, sadly, everyone is overestimating the number of air rifles people are going to consider licensing. Most people won't consider it worthwhile to jump through hoops to keep the rifle in their attic. Even being from quite rural Scotland, I think that 90+% of Scotland's air rifles are going to be handed in to be destroyed. So while there will be a big increased burden on the licensing system, it won't be quite as huge as everyone is expecting.

Great post

Edited by Davyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that, sadly, everyone is overestimating the number of air rifles people are going to consider licensing. Most people won't consider it worthwhile to jump through hoops to keep the rifle in their attic. Even being from quite rural Scotland, I think that 90+% of Scotland's air rifles are going to be handed in to be destroyed. So while there will be a big increased burden on the licensing system, it won't be quite as huge as everyone is expecting.

Well said, I agree and think a well publicised amnesty would get the guns in,especially if there was a clear warning that after that amnesty very severe punishment would follow for those who continue to hold without licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that, sadly, everyone is overestimating the number of air rifles people are going to consider licensing. Most people won't consider it worthwhile to jump through hoops to keep the rifle in their attic. Even being from quite rural Scotland, I think that 90+% of Scotland's air rifles are going to be handed in to be destroyed. So while there will be a big increased burden on the licensing system, it won't be quite as huge as everyone is expecting.

Possibly, possibly not. It remains to be seen.

If there was a compensation scheme then some scrotes may hand in their air rifles for the money to spend on whatever, but for those who operate outside the law ( like the druggies who were the catalyst for this licensing scheme ) I can't see licensing as being something of concern to them anyhow.

It has never been legal to shoot at peoples pets, nor snipe at passers-by from a window anyhow, so personally I can't see how this law will affect any of them. Laws only have a deterrent effect on the law abiding.

The government may claim 90+ % have been handed in, but who can prove they are wrong? No one knows for sure how many are out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well said, I agree and think a well publicised amnesty would get the guns in,especially if there was a clear warning that after that amnesty very severe punishment would follow for those who continue to hold without licence.

wouldn't it just be easier to severely punish those who shoot innocent bystanders as in this case ? 12 month's is a joke when in reality 10 year's would make potential offenders think twice !!

Just my two pennies worth ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry it is down to sentencing if you carry a gun or knife illegally 20 years in jail no parole automatically don't give the judge any choice in the matter.Drink driving 10 years in jail automatically as soon as you fail the breathaliser you are remanded into prison the same night and you get out 10 years later.Minor infractions of the law like littering or the antisocial stuff like disturbing your neighbours with loud music the cane corporal punishment.Bring back the cane to schools for starters.We are too soft on crime and antisocial behaviour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wouldn't it just be easier to severely punish those who shoot innocent bystanders as in this case ? 12 month's is a joke when in reality 10 year's would make potential offenders think twice !!

Just my two pennies worth ..

+1 lets have some serious sentencing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The problem is that there are so many ****** SMK springers in the hands of scum.

 

 

 

 

Hey I'm not being funny here but not every one who owns a smk is scummy you know I got two smk and a bsa scorpion se I've also been in the army for 12 years and with range safety qauls so I'm probably more safe with a rifle than most people this is not me trying to cause a row here but I found that post pretty afenceivse maybe there should be a safety lessons before you can own a air rifle not a lieance but a certificate you earn on safe rifle drills and then you can buy a air rifle

Edited by kory1986
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that we as shooters should do everything we can to avoid a ban is hidden in gazere's post. If there was an amnesty followed by licensing the following things would happen:

 

  • Most people would hand in their air rifles in order to comply, as they are not going to be willing to jump the hurdles.
  • The people we have most cause to worry about would not hand in their air rifles, not caring if they comply or not.
  • With a huge drop in the number of careful air rifle owners, how many children are not going to be introduced to the joys of shooting and responsible gun handling (which is how I bet most of us got started) instead of staying inside doing a 'safe' activity like getting diabetes while playing on an Xbox?
  • With a strong and consistent revenue stream no longer available to them, how many local shooting shops would go under? They are having a hard enough time as it is.

 

So with licensing in effect what has been achieved? The worst people still have air rifles and still cause trouble (making a total ban more likely as the govt scrabbles to find an effective policy), fewer people are getting into shooting (making our sports even more niche and less survivable) and many small gun shops have closed down (making life harder for all of us). Tell me, who benefits from this scenario? We must avoid further legislation.

 

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that we as shooters should do everything we can to avoid a ban is hidden in gazere's post. If there was an amnesty followed by licensing the following things would happen:

 

  • Most people would hand in their air rifles in order to comply, as they are not going to be willing to jump the hurdles.
  • The people we have most cause to worry about would not hand in their air rifles, not caring if they comply or not.
  • With a huge drop in the number of careful air rifle owners, how many children are not going to be introduced to the joys of shooting and responsible gun handling (which is how I bet most of us got started) instead of staying inside doing a 'safe' activity like getting diabetes while playing on an Xbox?
  • With a strong and consistent revenue stream no longer available to them, how many local shooting shops would go under? They are having a hard enough time as it is.

 

So with licensing in effect what has been achieved? The worst people still have air rifles and still cause trouble (making a total ban more likely as the govt scrabbles to find an effective policy), fewer people are getting into shooting (making our sports even more niche and less survivable) and many small gun shops have closed down (making life harder for all of us). Tell me, who benefits from this scenario? We must avoid further legislation.

 

Ali

I disagree. Firstly though. sentencing guidelines really need to be changed - as many have mentioned already. But I am not sure why 'most people' would just hand them in if it's a sport they enjoy anyway. If you really do enjoy a sport, a form and some money every 5 years is hardly an enormous sacrifice. An EA fishing license is £29 a year - equating to £145 for five years, yet people are still prepared to pay that to keep doing the thing they love. The combined cost of a sgc and Sec-1 is only £90 for five. I don't think it should cost anywhere near that level (perhaps it should be a default for anyone with an scg/Sec-1), but I'm not convinced that there would be this mass exodus of the sport because of the cost of licensing. What it would do is make a percentage of people who aren't shooting anyway (no land, no club or whatever) think twice about whether it's worth having the gun at all. If you're not going to be using it, it's pointless having it anyway.

 

This would by no means result in all non-licensed guns being handed in. There would still be a whole host of then-illegal guns out there, but this is where tougher sentencing would come in. If people were hammered for not only using but also illegally possessing an air rifle, another percentage of people would hand in. And the rest? gradually (this would be long term) their owners would be arrested, or they'd just get chucked out - especially if, as with shotguns and sec-1, you would need to produce your license to get ammunition. What's the point in an air rifle if you've got nothing to shoot out of it? the argument that people who don't care about the laws won't hand them in, so it'd be pointless doing, was used for handguns when they were banned. However, given the time, it's had its effect. Guns aren't off the street completely, but numbers are drastically lower.

 

If the costs concerns are addressed (in particular for junior ownership) then I don't think the drop in participation of the sport would be much more than negligible. In an ideal world, it'd be nice to see the money from licensing going straight back into active preservation of the sport and the environment, as money to the EA from fishing licenses does, although my suspicion is that this is more hope than expectation!

 

I wouldn't mind this sort of scenario. I think it's too easy to dismiss this as an inevitable failure by judging it on the short term. If my suggestion was brought in tomorrow and you looked at it in six months, it would look like a failure. and it would probably look that way in a year, possibly even two or maybe three years' time. But in the long term, it would have its desired effect. Now look at it retrospectively: would this woman have been shot in the eye if the legislation had been brought in 10 years ago? perhaps, but the chances would be MASSIVELY diminished. It would also bring the situation to a point where eventually (and i do mean eventually) that every almost every air rifle could be traced and have its own history, giving the police even more ability to sift out the illegal owners and users.

 

I know this isn't going to be too popular here, but at least I'm consistent! Poll coming up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Firstly though. sentencing guidelines really need to be changed - as many have mentioned already. But I am not sure why 'most people' would just hand them in if it's a sport they enjoy anyway. If you really do enjoy a sport, a form and some money every 5 years is hardly an enormous sacrifice. An EA fishing license is £29 a year - equating to £145 for five years, yet people are still prepared to pay that to keep doing the thing they love. The combined cost of a sgc and Sec-1 is only £90 for five. I don't think it should cost anywhere near that level (perhaps it should be a default for anyone with an scg/Sec-1), but I'm not convinced that there would be this mass exodus of the sport because of the cost of licensing. What it would do is make a percentage of people who aren't shooting anyway (no land, no club or whatever) think twice about whether it's worth having the gun at all. If you're not going to be using it, it's pointless having it anyway.

 

This would by no means result in all non-licensed guns being handed in. There would still be a whole host of then-illegal guns out there, but this is where tougher sentencing would come in. If people were hammered for not only using but also illegally possessing an air rifle, another percentage of people would hand in. And the rest? gradually (this would be long term) their owners would be arrested, or they'd just get chucked out - especially if, as with shotguns and sec-1, you would need to produce your license to get ammunition. What's the point in an air rifle if you've got nothing to shoot out of it? the argument that people who don't care about the laws won't hand them in, so it'd be pointless doing, was used for handguns when they were banned. However, given the time, it's had its effect. Guns aren't off the street completely, but numbers are drastically lower.

 

If the costs concerns are addressed (in particular for junior ownership) then I don't think the drop in participation of the sport would be much more than negligible. In an ideal world, it'd be nice to see the money from licensing going straight back into active preservation of the sport and the environment, as money to the EA from fishing licenses does, although my suspicion is that this is more hope than expectation!

 

I wouldn't mind this sort of scenario. I think it's too easy to dismiss this as an inevitable failure by judging it on the short term. If my suggestion was brought in tomorrow and you looked at it in six months, it would look like a failure. and it would probably look that way in a year, possibly even two or maybe three years' time. But in the long term, it would have its desired effect. Now look at it retrospectively: would this woman have been shot in the eye if the legislation had been brought in 10 years ago? perhaps, but the chances would be MASSIVELY diminished. It would also bring the situation to a point where eventually (and i do mean eventually) that every almost every air rifle could be traced and have its own history, giving the police even more ability to sift out the illegal owners and users.

 

I know this isn't going to be too popular here, but at least I'm consistent! Poll coming up...

There's quite a few points worth debating in your post, and I can see some of the logic behind some of it, but the part I've highlighted in bold above is just simply wrong.

The reason the handgun ban was so effective in removing handguns from legal ownership was because the firearms involved were already licensed, meaning the authorities knew exactly who owned them, where those owners lived and how many firearms each one owned.

The same cannot be said of air guns, unless they are licensed as part of S1 legislation. No one knows who owns them nor how many are in circulation.

The handgun ban did nothing to remove illegally held firearms off the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's quite a few points worth debating in your post, and I can see some of the logic behind some of it, but the part I've highlighted in bold above is just simply wrong.

The reason the handgun ban was so effective in removing handguns from legal ownership was because the firearms involved were already licensed, meaning the authorities knew exactly who owned them, where those owners lived and how many firearms each one owned.

The same cannot be said of air guns, unless they are licensed as part of S1 legislation. No one knows who owns them nor how many are in circulation.

The handgun ban did nothing to remove illegally held firearms off the streets.

I stand corrected! I'd heard the argument i'd mentioned a couple of times before, but what you say makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...