Pedro Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 Exactly Cranfield, there are an awful lot of conclusions made rather hastily. Wait and see, inevitably the baddies get their come-uppence, (by fare or foul!). P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^mimic^ Posted September 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 No doubt you will be writing to your MP first thing in the morning, demanding that all air weapons are licensed.If they were already, that would not have prevented what you witnessed yesterday ? Remember, all you witnessed were people talking, not doing. Personally I don't think a licence is the answer I believe Tougher sentences for people who abuse air guns is probably the best solution. Misuse of an air gun = 5 years in prison & future ban of owning such items for that person. To Make it Clear to people that shooting at a person with an air gun will carry the same penalty as a LR regardless of the damage caused. The fact is an air gun can kill somebody and therefor shooting at a person with one risks their life, this should constitute attempted murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussex lad Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 Wouldn't have been a certain Store in my home town would it ^mimic^? If so then i can well believe this happened This is exactly why i don't shop there anymore !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 Sounds like somthing that would happen in the states. The only difference being, you can buy guns for protection over their. Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabid bunny Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 No doubt you will be writing to your MP first thing in the morning, demanding that all air weapons are licensed. If they were already, that would not have prevented what you witnessed yesterday ? Remember, all you witnessed were people talking, not doing. Personally I don't think a licence is the answer I believe Tougher sentences for people who abuse air guns is probably the best solution. Misuse of an air gun = 5 years in prison & future ban of owning such items for that person. To Make it Clear to people that shooting at a person with an air gun will carry the same penalty as a LR regardless of the damage caused. The fact is an air gun can kill somebody and therefor shooting at a person with one risks their life, this should constitute attempted murder. 5 years for mis use of an air gun? The police would be charging any air gun offence in that case. We dont want more regulation, the nanny state is bad enough as it is thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^mimic^ Posted September 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 5 years for mis use of an air gun? The police would be charging any air gun offence in that case. We dont want more regulation, the nanny state is bad enough as it is thank you very much. Not exactly, The 5 year sentence could never be imposed because there is not enough room in the jails. However the yobs don't know that , a Substantial fine (10 grand) might be implemented. Secondly what do you suppose will happen to airguns if Yobs continue to shoot people & pets? ,Sooner or later there will be an outright ban. Meaning possession of an airgun becomes a section 5 offence as a prohibited weapon. You might want to take a look at the news http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&tab=wn...F-8&q=air+rifle and take a look at the support for an outright ban http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/68631.html , Rspca http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5307582.stm then perhaps re evaluate your stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabid bunny Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 5 years for mis use of an air gun? The police would be charging any air gun offence in that case. We dont want more regulation, the nanny state is bad enough as it is thank you very much. Not exactly, The 5 year sentence could never be imposed because there is not enough room in the jails. However the yobs don't know that , a Substantial fine (10 grand) might be implemented. Secondly what do you suppose will happen to airguns if Yobs continue to shoot people & pets? ,Sooner or later there will be an outright ban. Meaning possession of an airgun becomes a section 5 offence as a prohibited weapon. You might want to take a look at the news http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&tab=wn...F-8&q=air+rifle what happens to stolen cars that yobs use to kill pedistrians? they dont get banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^mimic^ Posted September 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 what happens to stolen cars that yobs use to kill pedistrians? they dont get banned. The Defense for cars. Cars are an essential item the whole country depends on them. The entire economy would collapse without them. (VS) The Defense for airguns. That 'some' reasonable shooters would like to keep their hobby. And might be a little upset to loose them. (VS) The Defense for airgun ban. Babys and children being shot. Adults being shot. Fire and ambulance staff being shot. Peoples pets being shot. People buying air guns just for the perpose of shooting people with. On that note il leave you to think about what iv said, would stiffer penaltys for airgun abusers really be such a harsh price to pay to keep your hobby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Not exactly, The 5 year sentence could never be imposed because there is not enough room in the jails. However the yobs don't know that , a Substantial fine (10 grand) might be implemented. I almost don't want to comment on this thread any more, but I can't let the last flurry go by without saying something. So, we don't licence air weapons (which means we don't know who owns them, or where they are located) , but we impose prison sentences for missuse, like 5 years custody. However, because the prisons are full, this would never be imposed, but the "yobs" don't know that and will therefore not misuse air weapons. There is also the suggestion of a "Substantial" fine, "10 grand" no less. A Magistrate friend of mine tells me that most of the fines actually fully paid from the offenders own pocket, are those levied on "normal law abiding people", for non criminal offences, such as speeding. Fines on scum for public disorder, shop lifting and low level criminal offences are rarely paid in full and what is, normally comes from some State Benefit. Back to the drawing board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^mimic^ Posted September 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Not exactly, The 5 year sentence could never be imposed because there is not enough room in the jails. However the yobs don't know that , a Substantial fine (10 grand) might be implemented. I almost don't want to comment on this thread any more, but I can't let the last flurry go by without saying something. So, we don't licence air weapons (which means we don't know who owns them, or where they are located) , but we impose prison sentences for missuse, like 5 years custody. However, because the prisons are full, this would never be imposed, but the "yobs" don't know that and will therefore not misuse air weapons. There is also the suggestion of a "Substantial" fine, "10 grand" no less. A Magistrate friend of mine tells me that most of the fines actually fully paid from the offenders own pocket, are those levied on "normal law abiding people", for non criminal offences, such as speeding. Fines on scum for public disorder, shop lifting and low level criminal offences are rarely paid in full and what is, normally comes from some State Benefit. Back to the drawing board. Good old Cranfield, Correct as always I can't offer a defense to the above, But there has to be a realistic way to tackle the problem with airguns, And it's my opinion Responsible owners, Shooting associations and local authority's all have to work together on this to find the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret Master Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 If airguns were hard to get hold of legally then far less people would be attracted to the sport of shooting overall. I started on an airgun and I expect many of you did as well. Banning them wouldn't prevent people comitting offences with them because people that are going to use them illegally have no respect for the law so won't abide by a law that band ownnership. The handgun ban is a prime example of this. FM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^mimic^ Posted September 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 If airguns were hard to get hold of legally then far less people would be attracted to the sport of shooting overall. I started on an airgun and I expect many of you did as well. Banning them wouldn't prevent people comitting offences with them because people that are going to use them illegally have no respect for the law so won't abide by a law that band ownnership. The handgun ban is a prime example of this. FM Cranfield "Back to the drawing board." Let's assume a License was introduced, One similar to a TV, Fishing or HAM radio license, set at a price all Responsible users would not object to pay. The proceeds of which be used to pay for the extra policing, jail space and administration required for the people committing the offences. Before you say it no I don't think this fare to responsible air gun users. However it would certainly offer a strong defense for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the pelt man Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Editted: Sorry only looked at first page. Editted again: now looked at full thread, which has gone of track a bit (thank god). Crainfield, it dose get painful reading some threads that dont break the rules so cant be deleated. Its a case of trying not to rise to them which is hard some times. Reading the frist page & 1/2 one word came to mind "contradictious". Regarding the rest of the posts, i think we would all agree (if of sound mind) & not looking at what might happen regarding the loss of our sport. That to licence Air rifles would go a long way to such guns only being brought & used by people who would use them in the correct manner. The loss of our sport, i just cant see it which dose not mean that i will relax & let it slip away before my eyes. Putting tight control on Air Rifles will slow the growth of the sport, BUT grow it will. Its not a bad thing that it is made harder to obtain Guns. Its bloody hard to get land to shoot over as it is without another 50 thousand FREE pest controlers around. A few posts have said what the punishment should be for the miss use of Air Rifles. I think all forms of punishment will cost the taxpayer more than to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. If we all continue to support a voice for shooting that fights our corner We will not loose the sport that many love. I will save other points for replys. PELTMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonrms Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 hmmm off the top of my head.. and this is only a quick one... is that why not make every person with a air gun of any sort have insurance. anyone who is found to have a air weapon without insurance will be fined! and there weapon removed.. also some community service etc..... if they re offend.. than a small prison sentance. this is easy ... lets go back to cars... cant drive them without insurance... I sure as heck wont shoot my air gun or my lr without insurance... so this is a easy given... and most (if not all) insurance companys provide you with a card etc... so you must carry it on you at all times... its a small step towards a safer shooting in my eyes... and anyone wanting to buy a gun will need to show proof of insurance to the shop or dealer selling... or if mail order they will need to send a photo copy plus driving licence etc to them before they will be able to dispatch the item.. Its all so clear in my eyes.. but what sadens me is that we need to do this... like everything good... some idiots somewhere have entered into our fun and spoiled it because they are being reckless.... its like cruising.. for those who are younger.. (sorry cranfiled. lol) but seriously.. its a great and fun experiance.. I am 30 and still do it... you go out.. drive around... meet up with a few friends but now its so dangerous to be out.. and you can get your car taken away etc.. all because some idiots decided to try to do donuts... burnouts.. street racing etc... Yin and Yang.. grrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^mimic^ Posted September 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Editted: Sorry only looked at first page. Editted again: now looked at full thread, which has gone of track a bit (thank god). Crainfield, it dose get painful reading some threads that dont break the rules so cant be deleated. Its a case of trying not to rise to them which is hard some times. Reading the frist page & 1/2 one word came to mind "contradictious". If this thread is hard for people to read or upsetting then I apologize, If you feel it is unwelcome here despite it not breaching the rules, then please feel free to remove it, I respect the wishes of the group. But I Put it to you that all I am doing, Is laying all of the cards out on the table, for everyone in the sport to see, I'm putting all sides of the argument together as best as I can in an unbiased manor. Now we have two choices. 1: Brush them under the carpet and refuse to look at the facts or confront the problem. (look the other way) 2: Face upto the facts no matter how unpleasant they are and work together to attempt to do something about this disgrace. (turn and face the problem) "contradictious" or perhaps there is another explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 But the harsh reality, no matter what method is introduced, is that it will be of no effect unless it is policed correctly and enforced. Licensing, in my opinion, is the right course to take and will go some way to help matters. But it will not stop the determined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^mimic^ Posted September 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 But the harsh reality, no matter what method is introduced, is that it will be of no effect unless it is policed correctly and enforced. Licensing, in my opinion, is the right course to take and will go some way to help matters. But it will not stop the determined. Thankyou for responding. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- A petition could be organized by recognized shooting organizations, Forums and sensible shops. With the suggestion from Responsible airgun owners that support a license that this fund could help combat the problem, This could in turn be presented to the MP's currently considering out right bans. No you can't stop the determined and no one is asking you to, But you can deter a petty thug or reckless user from taking a pot shot at someone. By helping create stronger deterrents and the resources to help them be implemented correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the pelt man Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 But the harsh reality, no matter what method is introduced, is that it will be of no effect unless it is policed correctly and enforced. Licensing, in my opinion, is the right course to take and will go some way to help matters. But it will not stop the determined. Axe If it were to be done under the same rules as shotguns/Rifles there is not much more enforcement or Policing to do. The Gun dealers go by the rules. As for the Determined, Most gun crime with Air Rifles is carried out because of the easy access & the impression that they are not realy that bad because of the very low regulation of them. I don't think that Cat Dog & other Animals shot or pot shots at People are taken by "Determind" people just board sad people that have an Air weapon as a toy. Take away the ease that these types of people can get there hands on these weapons & there would be a massive change of opinion about them becauce there would be a massive drop in the bad reports about them. PELTMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 I completely agree with that, I do not see any reason for not having a licence for an airgun. If you are a legitimate user of an airgun then there is no issue. If you want one for some crime or another then you will object. Guns will always get in to the wrong hands, and the people who want a sawn off side by side for a bank job aren't going to go through the process of filling out forms. Cheers Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 I have learnt something here today and that is "contradictious" is actually a word - I thought that the correct use would have been "contradictory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonrms Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 LMAO :( :yp: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 I have learnt something here today and that is "contradictious" is actually a word - I thought that the correct use would have been "contradictory". I would have thought a solicitor would have known that, You're whole life is surrounded by big words, have you never read a solicitor's letter? :( :yp: :yp: :o Cheers Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Pelt Man, my reference to Policing and Determined is in the context of all the legal limit airguns that are currently in ownership. It will take some time and effort to ensure these guns are either licensed or handed in. It would be foolish to think that everyone not wanting a license would comply. It is still the right way forward though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonrms Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 I gotta agree with you there Axe, Something needs to be done.. and I have nothing to hide.... so I stand with that decission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 I read "contradictious", as an amalgamation of "contradictory" and "contentious", which I though was quite appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts