Guy shot in head

[Scully]

The answers are my view now and are all contained in the text you are not reading with an open mind

It's my view and although I have argued against Licencing of airguns in the past I am now in favour of us genuine shooting people moving forward with sensible measures - rather than have daft ones pressed onto us

We already have Airgun education coaches and are potentially missing a trick

Could we stop Scotland? No! I bet they get a right old mess leaving the snp to sort it

I can assure you I have a very open mind, which is why I am all for having a serious debate about licensing of any kind, but you haven't offered any solutions nor answers as you obviously haven't thought through the implications of any of your suggestions.

Who are the 'genuine shooting people' you refer to, how do you decide who is genuine and who decides who is genuine?

It isn't up to shooters to move forward with sensible measures; shooters have measures imposed upon them, sensible or otherwise. Shooters cannot legislate for their own 'sport'.

The fact we have air gun education coaches is all well and good, as I'm sure they have in Scotland, but how is that significant and what bearing could it possibly have on air gun licensing?

I have no doubt the SNP will get in a 'right old mess', and even their own Police force has told them so, as has the major shooting organisations plus all those individuals who lobbied plus Tory Ministers. Do you not understand; this is what the SNP want? They don't care about the 'mess'; they have an agenda, as will English politicians if and when the time comes down here.

Are you seriously suggesting that our shooting organisations will have any influence in a ruling government agenda?

Anyone else see the program and research carried out on this the other night? Turns out it's a big myth!

If I had to guess I should plumb for not enough kickings growing up and violent films are the difference- I mean who the heck shoots handguns sideways in real life

[kent]

I was wondering the same. For a quarter of his head to be missing I would suggest that that was due to injuries sustained after medical cimplications and not a pellet, not that it alters the fact that he was shot, but it does clearly have a strong bearing on Kent's new stance. I know someone who was killed by a strimmer and someone else who lost an arm to a chainsaw - both of which activities do have training courses available, should we insist that a licence is required for every strimmer sold in B&Q? And if so would that stop accidents happening?

Dealers ain't supposed to sell climbing saws to persons without a climbing licence. Perhaps the comparison is very valid

 

The pellet busted through his scull and his brains were spilling out. Lost a significant amount of brain matter hence the paralysis. Air crew told not to deliver him unless they could in x mins. No complications other than being shot in the head like which you can put together a picture of if you shoot a coconut I suppose. As already stated he died three times on the table and was brought back

Remember the kid who was shot and killed by his mate when they found dad's airpistol a few years back 6 ft lb and an Airgun slug found its way through into the lads heart.

[kent]

Ok Scully. Compulsory insurance cover means basc, countryside alliance etc all gain. Dsc 1 has now become a back door must for a deer rifle or stalking again deer quals are based were? Marford mill!

Do you think Airgun coaches are incompetent to check a back garden out as safe or otherwise because I have more faith in then than I do feo who looks on Google earth etc.

Hey my view changed Sunday there is much thinking to be done but of one thing I am sure we need to act before the politicians do for the best deal for the shooters

[Scully]

Ok Scully. Compulsory insurance cover means basc, countryside alliance etc all gain. I could agree with compulsory insurance but what you have just suggested is compulsory joining of a shooting organisation. Not everyone wants to join a shooting organisation, and given the shortcomings of some who can blame them? Insurance can be bought much cheaper by going directly to BASC's underwriters, for example.

Dsc 1 has now become a back door must for a deer rifle Not necessarily. My nephews FEO recently interviewed him for .22rf and .243 and told him he saw no reason why he needed mentoring. He has a lot of land to shoot on. or stalking again deer quals are based were? Marford mill! ​It's all a bit BASC orientated but I'm sure other organisations do DSC courses, but what this has to do with air gun licensing I'm not sure.

Do you think Airgun coaches are incompetent to check a back garden out as safe or otherwise because I have more faith in then than I do feo who looks on Google earth etc.I have no doubt air gun coaches are very competent people, but again, are you seriously suggesting Police licensing authorities will just willingly relinquish responsibility for licensing administration?

Hey my view changed Sunday there is much thinking to be done but of one thing I am sure we need to act before the politicians do for the best deal for the shooters So you're suggesting our shooting organisations seek a meeting with ministers and suggest they make it compulsory to join them, amongst other things? Do you not see even the hint of a flaw in this?

Edited September 21, 2015 by Scully

[grrclark]

Where i can understand where Kent is coming from and I understand that witnessing something can give a certain perspective the argument does just strike me as bad things can happen so lets legislate against it.

 

Legislation does not prevent bad things happening. Driver licensing is the widest licensing scheme that we have, we have compulsory training and also a test to assess competency, we constantly monitor drivers both actively, police, and passively, speed cameras, etc. Despite all of this and years and years of education via every type of media we have bad things happen on the roads every single day in life.

 

More people die every year through falling on upturned knives in a dishwasher then die through airgun accidents. The most common fatality in DIY is falling from ladders. Do we have mandatory training and competency assessments for dishwasher loading? Should we have a ladder licensing scheme to make sure folks cannot buy a ladder without ensuring they have a suitable wall to pitch it against?

 

I am being flippant in these examples, but the indisputable fact is that legislation is not a solution. It can form part of a solution of course, but it is far too blunt on its own.

 

Given the estimated distribution of airguns in circulation the criminal misuse of them is still less than 1% of the total amount. Although individual accidents are tragic, when thinking about things critically, putting in place an expensive and largely ineffective legislation to address a problem of less than 1% is just an utter waste of cash.

 

The effort and expenditure to bring that already very small number down by any meaningful measure is massively disproportionate to the benefit realised.

 

Any solution promoted on emotion, i.e. it is heart breaking to see a guy with a chunk of his head missing, is always going to be flawed because it is the wrong way to approach finding a solution.

Edited September 21, 2015 by grrclark

[subsonicnat]

I Don`t Think mentioning LIKE For LIKE, is Relevant,, As the accidents in question are mostly SELF inflicted:

Gun accidents are usualy by a third Party, and firearm to boot so gives people the wrong impression on all shooting of any Discription..

[Westley]

Handguns were on ticket before the ban

Meaning every owner had to show good reason to have one and a full criminal check. Security and an interview

Complete ban? Well actually it's still not happened when you consider the section 5 grants

 

Yes, quite right handguns were 'on ticket'. Just a shame that it has been legally held guns that have been responsible for some of the major gun incidents that have taken place. So the 'full criminal check, Security and an interview' worked well then.

[grrclark]

I Don`t Think mentioning LIKE For LIKE, is Relevant,, As the accidents in question are mostly SELF inflicted:

Gun accidents are usualy by a third Party, and firearm to boot so gives people the wrong impression on all shooting of any Discription..

That's the problem, because it involves guns then it will involves emotion and that is why the solutions are stupid.

 

If it was managed properly then it is a simple risk weighting of likelihood and consequence, actually in both cases it is a low and low measure and that is proved by the statistics of things going wrong.

 

It didn't/doesn't need a big solution as it is not a big problem and that is the blunt truth.

Edited September 21, 2015 by grrclark

[deadeye18]

Licensing is bad.It just puts you on the government radar and makes it oh so easy for them to steal your property from you when theyve managed to make up an excuse to do it.

[hoggysreels]

I can see some merit in what Kent is suggesting. He is pre-empting a possible government swing to a legislation control airgun ownership regime.

To anticipate a possible introduction, l think he is suggesting airgunners step forward with a constructive offer. Thereby not being seen as an osbstinate bunch. More a group that is freely willinging to encompasses reasonable guideline to function within..

It's not without its catches and dangers. Though not doing anything and having s stubourn attitude likewise also is not without potential dangers within our sport.

You might not be able to stop the car rolling down the hill, but if you can get one hand on the steering wheel its possible you can steer it away from the worst of the danger. Though ultimately the car will get stuffed !!

[grrclark]

hoggysreels, I can understand why some sort of self imposed voluntary code of conduct or regulatory scheme may appear for the airgun shooting fraternity to taking pro-active steps to manage the safety of their sport and promote responsibility, but the simple fact is that it is already a very safe activity with tiny levels of misuse and errant behaviour.

 

The absolute salient point is that you will always get idiots who do something stupid and the very definition of an idiot is that they just don't think about, care about or understand the consequence of their actions. No matter what regulation may be adopted or imposed there will also be some clown who breaks the rules and causes harm.

 

You cannot legislate away idiocy.

 

The nanny state believes that prohibition is the answer, just simply forbid everyone to have a gun and there will be no gun crime, but we know that doesn't work as people ignore the prohibition rules.

 

There is an argument that legislation to restrict ownership restricts distribution and if the level of misuse is a percentage of distribution then it seems logical that less guns means less misuse, but that isn't true either.

 

There are millions of airguns in circulation in the UK and the absolute massive majority are used responsibly, but we cannot apply some sort of retrospective control measure when we are not capable of isolating the things we wish to control.

 

If the shooting community voluntarily accepts that we have a problem, and I argue that we don't, then we are inviting a world of pain upon ourselves and we effectively force the authorities to do something. What we would be saying to joe public is "we the shooting community have a problem and because the government are not doing anything about it then we will take steps ourselves to manage it". That puts the government in an indefensible position so they would act and act badly at that because they would have to react quickly.

 

I daresay that Kent might wish to argue my point that we don't have a problem when he met a guy with a lump of his head missing and we read stories in the paper every so often, but we have to be much more measured than reacting to individual and isolated actions.

 

As a percentage of distribution the level of misuse is tiny; we absolutely cannot eliminate misuse, either accidental or malicious as we are not capable of being perfect; perfect does not exist in any human participation activity.

 

The question is does the level of misuse that we currently experience constitute go beyond a level of reasonable acceptability? That is a completely subjective measure of course as some idealists will say that even 1 incident of misuse is too much, but that is nonsense given that we have millions of airguns in circulation.

 

Given the massive variability involved in airgun shooting from person to person and environment to environment then an incident rate of misuse, either accidental or malicious of less than 1% is actually very good.

 

I am basing the 1% on stats I read during the argument on Scottish airgun licensing and it wasn't an absolute figure, it is based on the level of recorded crime in which airguns are used and then further extrapolated against estimated ownership of airguns and it is a tiny number in relative terms.

 

The point of that ramble is that although individual cases are tragic, and they undeniably are, we don't really have a problem when it comes to the wider environment and that is what has to be managed.

[kent]

 

Yes, quite right handguns were 'on ticket'. Just a shame that it has been legally held guns that have been responsible for some of the major gun incidents that have taken place. So the 'full criminal check, Security and an interview' worked well then.

Actually it wasn't as bad as now but we didn't have makervov then the wall was still up

My points were directed directly at another post that didn't quite ring true to me ( a guy who held guns on ticket at the time of Hungerford)

[kent]

I can see some merit in what Kent is suggesting. He is pre-empting a possible government swing to a legislation control airgun ownership regime.

To anticipate a possible introduction, l think he is suggesting airgunners step forward with a constructive offer. Thereby not being seen as an osbstinate bunch. More a group that is freely willinging to encompasses reasonable guideline to function within..

It's not without its catches and dangers. Though not doing anything and having s stubourn attitude likewise also is not without potential dangers within our sport.

You might not be able to stop the car rolling down the hill, but if you can get one hand on the steering wheel its possible you can steer it away from the worst of the danger. Though ultimately the car will get stuffed !!

Yep that's about it. We have a golden moment in a time of austerity. Snp don't care it's not thier money

I Don`t Think mentioning LIKE For LIKE, is Relevant,, As the accidents in question are mostly SELF inflicted:

Gun accidents are usualy by a third Party, and firearm to boot so gives people the wrong impression on all shooting of any Discription..

Yes while all the licence holders are busy defending those who mainly contribute nothing to our orgs

[kent]

 

Ok Scully. Compulsory insurance cover means basc, countryside alliance etc all gain. I could agree with compulsory insurance but what you have just suggested is compulsory joining of a shooting organisation. Not everyone wants to join a shooting organisation, and given the shortcomings of some who can blame them? Insurance can be bought much cheaper by going directly to BASC's underwriters, for example.

Dsc 1 has now become a back door must for a deer rifle Not necessarily. My nephews FEO recently interviewed him for .22rf and .243 and told him he saw no reason why he needed mentoring. He has a lot of land to shoot on. or stalking again deer quals are based were? Marford mill! ​It's all a bit BASC orientated but I'm sure other organisations do DSC courses, but what this has to do with air gun licensing I'm not sure.

Do you think Airgun coaches are incompetent to check a back garden out as safe or otherwise because I have more faith in then than I do feo who looks on Google earth etc.I have no doubt air gun coaches are very competent people, but again, are you seriously suggesting Police licensing authorities will just willingly relinquish responsibility for licensing administration?

Hey my view changed Sunday there is much thinking to be done but of one thing I am sure we need to act before the politicians do for the best deal for the shooters So you're suggesting our shooting organisations seek a meeting with ministers and suggest they make it compulsory to join them, amongst other things? Do you not see even the hint of a flaw in this?

Scully read what I write deer quals is dmq

You have been so busy trying to twist this you have confused yourself I think

DMQ are a separate organisation but based at marford mill. All dsc providers use them

The fact is similar could be set up I am not one to preach join basc although I do my bit for them in the north there are those who hate my guts over certain goose related matters Lol

[Scully]

Actually it wasn't as bad as now but we didn't have makervov then the wall was still up

My points were directed directly at another post that didn't quite ring true to me ( a guy who held guns on ticket at the time of Hungerford)

I have no idea what this is about! I had decided to drop out of this (and the other) thread with your input as I find it very hard work making sense of the points you are trying to make as you seem to simply ignore questions asked following your points and continue to plough on regardless with no consistency in your conversation.

For example, despite me telling you I had no FEO visit prior to obtaining my FAC for handguns ( or any insistence on requirement for a cabinet ) you simply ignored that point and continued on giving the impression your 30(?) years of experience in firearms made my experience void.

The above is beyond comprehension! What wasn't as bad as now, and where does the Makarov pistol come into this? Who is the guy who held guns on ticket at the time of Hungerford?

Yep that's about it. We have a golden moment in a time of austerity. Snp don't care it's not thier money

 

Yes while all the licence holders are busy defending those who mainly contribute nothing to our orgs

We have a golden moment in a time of austerity. I have no idea how or why (even if relevant) this will help air gunners to cut a deal with government ministers, and given the posts by grrclark why our organisations would even want to negotiate restrictive legislation with ministers. Do you not think members may not have something to say about this?

Scully read what I write deer quals is dmq

You have been so busy trying to twist this you have confused yourself I think

DMQ are a separate organisation but based at marford mill. All dsc providers use them

The fact is similar could be set up I am not one to preach join basc although I do my bit for them in the north there are those who hate my guts over certain goose related matters Lol

I did read what you said. DSC1 has NOT become a 'backdoor must for a deer rifle'. You do not need DSC1 for a 'deer rifle'. As I've stated, my nephew has applied for .243, which is a calibre suitable for deer, as is .223 dependant on where you intend to use it, but you do not need DSC1 ( or 2 ) to be granted either. I have .243 for vermin and deer, as do two of my mates; none of us have any deer qualifications. I don't think it is me who is confused.

I can ( I think ) understand what you're suggesting regarding DMQ but there are no similar qualifications for air rifles and to suggest there should be is even more draconian than that which is being suggested in Scotland, with no reason to suggest this would have a positive effect on those wishing to take up air gun shooting. Once more, have yopu given any thought as to what the response of air gun owners would be or how this would help fresh blood into entry level shooting disciplines with an even more restrictive entry regime than either FAC or SGC? A license plus a competence qualification?

You suggested the joining of BASC and others be made compulsory, despite claiming not being 'one to preach'.

How some regard you over certain goose related matters is entirely believable given what you're suggesting here, but I have no idea what point you're trying to make by mentioning it.

You have suggested compulsory joining of a shooting organisation and compulsory competence qualifications and licensing of air guns, which takes the possession of such into a category above and beyond that of either SGC or FAC, for, as grrclark has pointed out, a 1% statistic of misuse of such. And you think I'm confused?

Edited September 22, 2015 by Scully

[subsonicnat]

As Grrclark Said:

 

"There are millions of airguns in circulation in the UK and the absolute massive majority are used responsibly, but we cannot apply some sort of retrospective control measure when we are not capable of isolating the things we wish to control".

 

Trying To Control something YOU CANNOT CONTROL, Would be a feather in The Antis Cap..

It Would be pointed out That,, What The Shooting Community instigated was a Complete Failure,,

So throwing Rocks at Our Own Heads:?.

[kent]

I have no idea what this is about! I had decided to drop out of this (and the other) thread with your input as I find it very hard work making sense of the points you are trying to make as you seem to simply ignore questions asked following your points and continue to plough on regardless with no consistency in your conversation.

For example, despite me telling you I had no FEO visit prior to obtaining my FAC for handguns ( or any insistence on requirement for a cabinet ) you simply ignored that point and continued on giving the impression your 30(?) years of experience in firearms made my experience void.

The above is beyond comprehension! What wasn't as bad as now, and where does the Makarov pistol come into this? Who is the guy who held guns on ticket at the time of Hungerford?

We have a golden moment in a time of austerity. I have no idea how or why (even if relevant) this will help air gunners to cut a deal with government ministers, and given the posts by grrclark why our organisations would even want to negotiate restrictive legislation with ministers. Do you not think members may not have something to say about this?

I did read what you said. DSC1 has NOT become a 'backdoor must for a deer rifle'. You do not need DSC1 for a 'deer rifle'. As I've stated, my nephew has applied for .243, which is a calibre suitable for deer, as is .223 dependant on where you intend to use it, but you do not need DSC1 ( or 2 ) to be granted either. I have .243 for vermin and deer, as do two of my mates; none of us have any deer qualifications. I don't think it is me who is confused.

I can ( I think ) understand what you're suggesting regarding DMQ but there are no similar qualifications for air rifles and to suggest there should be is even more draconian than that which is being suggested in Scotland, with no reason to suggest this would have a positive effect on those wishing to take up air gun shooting. Once more, have yopu given any thought as to what the response of air gun owners would be or how this would help fresh blood into entry level shooting disciplines with an even more restrictive entry regime than either FAC or SGC? A license plus a competence qualification?

You suggested the joining of BASC and others be made compulsory, despite claiming not being 'one to preach'.

How some regard you over certain goose related matters is entirely believable given what you're suggesting here, but I have no idea what point you're trying to make by mentioning it.

You have suggested compulsory joining of a shooting organisation and compulsory competence qualifications and licensing of air guns, which takes the possession of such into a category above and beyond that of either SGC or FAC, for, as grrclark has pointed out, a 1% statistic of misuse of such. And you think I'm confused?

Good

[old man]

I'm with grrclark and Scully here, very confused.

[kent]

You know Japan really should have surrendered and gone for the best deal it could get before the first nuke was dropped. In the end they just lost more

The argument for airguns in legitimate shooting sports is young shooter recruitment but if you look at the legislation it's easier for a young shot to get a sgc and get on with shooting

Their is a pleasure running here on PW and most say they will get a ticket for thier airguns if they have to. Perhaps this is because they are genuine shooters with real interest. Likely as not they also support our associations in protecting our sport. How many casual owners of airguns support our associations in this fight. How many honestly care?

Meanwhile bad publicity and bad legislation against airgunners grows and yes people get killed and injured by others misuding airguns

Property gets damaged and those programs get to show yet another swan. Cat or dog with Airgun pellets in it at xray

Remember Japan and it's insistence to fight on against the inevitable when it held enough cards to negotiate

Pleasure? Poll - auto correct!

[evo]

Kent,, I think mentioning Japan just makes what you are saying look even more silly,, I cant for the life of me work your thought process out,

 

your topic heading has basically nothing to do with Japan,

 

I am now with the thought that you do not even shoot at all but prefer instead to try to create topics to try and wind people up,

 

I,m sorry bud but you really do need to re read your posts , they are totally and utterly baffling and do not make any sense at all, I am alsowith scully and grrclark on this

 

judging by the bits of what you are posting that has the slightest of sense I can only assume you are fast becoming anti guns,

 

think I will also make this my last post on this weird topic

 

best wishes

[FalconFN]

You know Japan really should have surrendered and gone for the best deal it could get before the first nuke was dropped. In the end they just lost more

The argument for airguns in legitimate shooting sports is young shooter recruitment but if you look at the legislation it's easier for a young shot to get a sgc and get on with shooting

Their is a pleasure running here on PW and most say they will get a ticket for thier airguns if they have to. Perhaps this is because they are genuine shooters with real interest. Likely as not they also support our associations in protecting our sport. How many casual owners of airguns support our associations in this fight. How many honestly care?

Meanwhile bad publicity and bad legislation against airgunners grows and yes people get killed and injured by others misuding airguns

Property gets damaged and those programs get to show yet another swan. Cat or dog with Airgun pellets in it at xray

Remember Japan and it's insistence to fight on against the inevitable when it held enough cards to negotiate

Pleasure? Poll - auto correct!

Putting the Japan comment aside for the moment, I have to think back to when I first started shooting air guns. My dad always had guns but I was 11-12 years old when I got my own pride and joy - a knackered and underpowered Hungarian .22 rifle at a boot fair for about £3, but if I was required to have a licence I wouldn't have bothered - I had neither the money or patience to apply. I liked messing about with mates fishing in the brooks around the farm but when we got bored of tiny rudd and wanted to fish a bigger river I was told I needed a licence, so I stopped fishing and found other things to do. Would I get a licence now? Yes because I'm an adult and able to be patient and wait 15 weeks for a licence, I have money to spend on hobbies I enjoy, hobbies that were nurtured way back when I was a kid. If I was just starting out and wanted to get an air rifle, would I get a licence? No.

 

I still don't do any course fishing.

[kent]

Putting the Japan comment aside for the moment, I have to think back to when I first started shooting air guns. My dad always had guns but I was 11-12 years old when I got my own pride and joy - a knackered and underpowered Hungarian .22 rifle at a boot fair for about £3, but if I was required to have a licence I wouldn't have bothered - I had neither the money or patience to apply. I liked messing about with mates fishing in the brooks around the farm but when we got bored of tiny rudd and wanted to fish a bigger river I was told I needed a licence, so I stopped fishing and found other things to do. Would I get a licence now? Yes because I'm an adult and able to be patient and wait 15 weeks for a licence, I have money to spend on hobbies I enjoy, hobbies that were nurtured way back when I was a kid. If I was just starting out and wanted to get an air rifle, would I get a licence? No.

 

I still don't do any course fishing.

And I bet you shot that gin alone before you turned 18?

Like I say shotguns are a better entry in today's world at least you can have s walk out with them at a younger age

You see we have overlegislated against the genuine already Licencing could reverse thid

[kent]

Putting the Japan comment aside for the moment, I have to think back to when I first started shooting air guns. My dad always had guns but I was 11-12 years old when I got my own pride and joy - a knackered and underpowered Hungarian .22 rifle at a boot fair for about £3, but if I was required to have a licence I wouldn't have bothered - I had neither the money or patience to apply. I liked messing about with mates fishing in the brooks around the farm but when we got bored of tiny rudd and wanted to fish a bigger river I was told I needed a licence, so I stopped fishing and found other things to do. Would I get a licence now? Yes because I'm an adult and able to be patient and wait 15 weeks for a licence, I have money to spend on hobbies I enjoy, hobbies that were nurtured way back when I was a kid. If I was just starting out and wanted to get an air rifle, would I get a licence? No.

 

I still don't do any course fishing.

The daft thing is you need s licence to course fish as an under 18 anyhow

 

Japan? Well I am sorry to those unaware but they had no real fighting force left no navy and no air of worth

Because of the intransigence of thier military they took not one nuke but a second before the military were over ruled by the emporer they were going to die for

Oh and likely the whole of the Japanese people

You see to sued for peace once all was lost could have saved having both bombs

Sorry if such comparisons go over anyone's head but currently youngsters already are beaten as regards airguns with our non licenced state

I always thought of the recruitment but fact is I have two kids and things are much easier for them licenced at 10 yrs and 16. At 14 with fac they could in theory go stalk s deer alone

Meanwhile neither can be out alone with an Airgun

This is not bad legislation is it?

Edited September 24, 2015 by kent

[Scully]

You see we have overlegislated against the genuine already Licencing could reverse thid

I'm intrigued to find out how.

The 'genuine', whom already have licenses, have been 'over legislated' against because of the acts of criminal activity. How will licensing prevent criminal activity?

 

I always thought of the recruitment but fact is I have two kids and things are much easier for them licenced at 10 yrs and 16. At 14 with fac they could in theory go stalk s deer alone

Meanwhile neither can be out alone with an Airgun

This is not bad legislation is it?

Yes, it is bad legislation as it has no effect on those who wish to act criminally, but don't forget this legislation was accepted and introduced with the full knowledge of UK shooters and our shooting associations, the very associations you seem to think can broker a deal and influence ministers to introduce air gun licensing to the benefit of air gun owners. Do you still not get it?

[grrclark]

The daft thing is you need s licence to course fish as an under 18 anyhow

 

Japan? Well I am sorry to those unaware but they had no real fighting force left no navy and no air of worth

Because of the intransigence of thier military they took not one nuke but a second before the military were over ruled by the emporer they were going to die for

Oh and likely the whole of the Japanese people

You see to sued for peace once all was lost could have saved having both bombs

Sorry if such comparisons go over anyone's head but currently youngsters already are beaten as regards airguns with our non licenced state

I always thought of the recruitment but fact is I have two kids and things are much easier for them licenced at 10 yrs and 16. At 14 with fac they could in theory go stalk s deer alone

Meanwhile neither can be out alone with an Airgun

This is not bad legislation is it?

It's not that the comparison goes over anybody's head, it is just that it is an utterly pointless comparison.

 

The premise of your argument was that some sort of voluntary action to deal with a problem, that is almost statistically irrelevant, is better than being legislated against.

 

The counter point to your argument is that action, whether elective or imposed, must be effective in seeking to address the given problem otherwise it is a waste of time, effort and expense.

 

With the level of airgun misuse that we currently experience there is not an effective fix as there is not an identifiable single problem. Individually there are of course cases that could be resolved with an individual solution, but you cannot apply individual solutions across a general population.

 

You wish to sign us up to do something that effectively says "we have a problem and here is a solution that won't make any difference at all". You want to be seen to be doing something in the hope that it might prevent something worse maybe happening, but as it will be ineffective then all you are actually doing is promoting fear.

 

It is an ill considered solution based on nothing other than speculation that something bad might actually happen. The reason that it is ill considered is because it will achieve nothing as the individual problems we do have really need individual solutions.

 

Sometimes we just need to have the courage to say no, it isn't broken so don't try and fix it.

 

Scotland is imposing an ill considered and utterly ineffective solution and I know that before it even leaves the statute books. It is actually a mathematical problem and we are already at the point where any improvement of the measurable criteria, airgun crime/misuse, is already at the point where it is impossible to make a meaningful improvement.

 

A 30% improvement, i.e. a reduction in incidents of crime/misuse, would mean a reduction of actual incidents in the double digits, against a distribution ratio of 500,000 guns in Scotland. The SNP suggested that an airgun crime is committed in Scotland once every day, so let us be generous and say a 30% improvement would mean 100 less crimes committed, so a reduction of recorded crime of 0.0002% against the total number of airguns.

 

10 years of political campaigning, 10 months of public consultation, 5 months going through the legislative program, years of administration within Police Scotland to get this in place then add on all the peripheral effort involved, the risk of criminalising people who don't get a license because they don't understand or just don't know that they need to, any attendant prosecutions under the new rules, the cost will be running into the millions quite comfortably.

 

Even if they totally eliminated every incident of misuse, so a 100% reduction in reported airgun crime figures, it is still just 0.0007% improvement in terms of the total distribution of guns. A complete and utter waste of time, effort and money.

 

It isn't broken and it most certainly does not need fixed, voluntarily or legislatively.

Edited September 24, 2015 by grrclark