Oh my god

[rabid bunny]

 

You all seem to lose sight that a lot of crime can be stopped by a licence system those crimes beiing the pot shots at Animals & people which make up a larg number of the gun crim figs.

 

PELTMAN

 

Oh yes, like nobody is shooting up Nottingham city centre with hand guns every night of the week are they? Handgun crime has NEVER been so high, so what price the handgun ban?

 

Like I said earlier, you can bring anything you like through the Channel Ports. They don't have enough manpower to stop smuggling on a massive scale. I'm told you can buy a handgun and ammunition for three or four hundred quid in some places, so how will a licensing system stop yobs getting new air weapons, let alone any of the hundreds of thousands of airguns that are legally held now?

 

Evilv

 

Sorry but i dont think that i am an old *** & i dont wish to join any Gun Club.

 

I am not saying that the hand gun ban did make any dif but can you please tell me how many hand gun crimes would have been commited up to date had the ban not been in place

 

AGAIN, The large part of Air gun crime commited is by yobs shooting at animals & people because they have easy access to Air guns that dont require a licence. Do you honestly think THESE type of people will be going around looking for Air Guns on the black market when they can get any other type of weapon with a lot more power, I THINK NOT.

 

As said before if you have the same rules as for FAC guns now it would REDUCE by a long way Air Gun crime.

 

 

As for you being baned from another forum it just maybe that its not that they are old **** that run gun clubs it maybe something that you posted.

If you don't like there veiws & rules who would want to be a member anyway.

 

For you i think writting this post will never change your mind as it is set. But for those who are not sure which way to go on the licencing of Air Guns will read these post & form an educated opinion, may it be in support of what you say & others or what i say & others.

 

Regards

PELTMAN

 

you come across to me like you ARE one of those old **** from the BBS. I should imagine you enjoy it over there, knowing that if anyone challenges the whiter than white good do`ers they get silenced. I think you should all be licenced and certified "nuts" if you think more control will reduce gun crime. I suspect though that you wont be banned from here for having your own point of view.

[^mimic^]

Ok well I did not suggest they be placed under F.A.C I suggested that a license like that which responsible Fishers, Ham Radio users and TV owners pay to help maintain the integrity of their hobby. Meaning the Fee is simply to help pay for the extra policing. You think this would not help reduce the crime? then simply explain why??

 

Lets not get un civilised here, we are supposed to be working together to find a practical answer.

 

Now, In the case of HAM radio, users pay a small license fee of which the proceeds are used to fund the D.T.I these intern police the Airways and help prevent certain shall we say Twits from spoiling the hobby for the rest.

 

And for those of you that keep clinging to the Car's are more dangerous, Cars Require insurance, A driver's license , Road tax and MOT certificate, You also have Fuel tax, Not only that if you abuse a car you will go to prison. Or be fined heavily. They are also an essential part of society Airguns are not. So if you feel airguns and cars are in the same league, I guess your suggesting the same restrictions should apply....?

[rabid bunny]

Ok well I did not suggest they be placed under F.A.C I suggested that a license like that which responsible Fishers, Ham Radio users and TV owners pay to help maintain the integrity of their hobby. Meaning the Fee is simply to help pay for the extra policing. You think this would not help reduce the crime? then simply explain why??

 

Lets not get un civilised here, we are supposed to be working together to find a practical answer.

 

Now, In the case of HAM radio, users pay a small license fee of which the proceeds are used to fund the D.T.I these intern police the Airways and help prevent certain shall we say Twits from spoiling the hobby for the rest.

 

I suspect the chavs that commit this crime will not follow the new "rules" like they ignor the laws now anyway. the responsible shooters that do remain within the law will be the ones who pay the price with no benefit as the result. If you think Blair would charge responsible shooters a fee and put all that money back into policing, you must be dreaming. Thats a bit like motorists asking to pay a fee to reduce the speed limit in order to avoid accidents

[^mimic^]

I suspect the chavs that commit this crime will not follow the new "rules" like they ignor the laws now anyway. the responsible shooters that do remain within the law will be the ones who pay the price with no benefit as the result. If you think Blair would charge responsible shooters a fee and put all that money back into policing, you must be dreaming.

 

You have a fair point about Mp's, shall we say siphoning the proceeds.

 

Thats a bit like motorists asking to pay a fee to reduce the speed limit in order to avoid accidents

 

I would have to say it's more like Legal motorists, paying a fee to have Un-insured , un-licensed or drunk / reckless drivers, who have Crashed into their car and injured someone or worse killed someone dealt with swiftly by the law. or removed from the road in the first place.

[rabid bunny]

I would have to say its more like Legal motorists, paying a fee to have Un-insured , un-licensed or drunk / reckless drivers, who have Crashed into their car and injured someone or worse killed someone dealt with swiftly by the law. or removed from the road in the first place.

 

good point, but there would still be Un-insured , un-licensed or drunk / reckless drivers, who have Crashed into their car and injured someone or worse killed someone

[^mimic^]

good point, but there would still be Un-insured , un-licensed or drunk / reckless drivers, who have Crashed into their car and injured someone or worse killed someone

 

Not as many. And for the record the DVLA crushed alot of Twits cars this year thanks to reveniew fee's allowing them to trace the cars better.

[rabid bunny]

Not as many. And for the record the DVLA crushed alot of Twits cars this year thanks to reveniew fee's allowing them to trace the cars better.

 

and what about the innocent law abiding motorists who parked their cars off road with no tax? they got hammered if they failed to notify DVLA about it.

[^mimic^]

and what about the innocent law abiding motorists who parked their cars off road with no tax? they got hammered if they failed to notify DVLA about it.

 

Dear sir, If they failed to notify the DVLA about it, they are not innocent law abiding motorists.

[rabid bunny]

and what about the innocent law abiding motorists who parked their cars off road with no tax? they got hammered if they failed to notify DVLA about it.

 

Dear sir, If they failed to notify the DVLA about it, they are not innocent law abiding motorists.

 

I was under the impression that failing to notify the DVLA is not a criminal offence. It has something to do with customs and excise I think. They have the power to confiscate the vehicle untill you pay the release fee. A bit like wheel clamps. I suppose you agree with them aswell?

[^mimic^]

and what about the innocent law abiding motorists who parked their cars off road with no tax? they got hammered if they failed to notify DVLA about it.

 

Dear sir, If they failed to notify the DVLA about it, they are not innocent law abiding motorists.

 

I was under the impression that failing to notify the DVLA is not a criminal offence. It has something to do with customs and excise I think. They have the power to confiscate the vehicle untill you pay the release fee. A bit like wheel clamps. I suppose you agree with them aswell?

 

Huh? DVLA http://direct.gov.uk/Motoring/OwningAVehic...2058&chk=LT7VlS

[rabid bunny]

Ok I was wrong on that point, my apologies

[^mimic^]

Ok I was wrong on that point, my apologies

 

accepted Now i will mention this shop to the FLO, but as stated.

 

Remember, all you witnessed were people talking, not doing.

 

It will be just hear say, even if we prove it, a crime has not actually been commited.(yet)

 

However I feel those of us who care, about what happens to others, should try to do something to combat this problem, and help authoritys if we can.

 

I still feel a license Fee (revenue) that could provide funds, necessary to enforce and implement these harsh penalty's. To people who recklessly endanger others with airguns. It is probably still the best we can offer at this time. However I welcome any suggestions.

[Mungler]

Pppfff. All this over airguns. And just exactly what percentage of crimes committed / injuries sustained are attributable to airguns? Statistically I think you will find it is inconsequential. Fixing anything is a matter of priority - you wouldn't bother rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

[MC]

:( :yp: :yp: :o :o

[Evilv]

Well Mimic, I AM an old ***, only this old *** expects to be allowed to free and not to have every aspect of his life taken over by useless burocrats who want to license and regulate everything to no effect.

 

The point is the regulation will not work with chavs / neds because they take no notice of any law and seem able to obtain every sort of controled substance / article and use them against the rest of us without any hindrance at all, and when they do get caught they get let off or fined, and then they ignore the fine and carry on willy nilly.

 

The answer is in my signature, but the lefty do gooders won't hear of the effective punishment of offenders and devote their attention to head shaking and control of everybody else. Any form of licence will just be a prelude to total control and banning. Until 1920 anyone could have a firearm and the assumption was you'd treat it responsibly. Firearms crime was virtually nil. Now - well you know the rest. Of course once registered, control got more and more severe and all on the basis of the acts of isolated nutters like Michael Ryan, Sartin and Hamilton. The actions of three nutters led to a ban on semi auto centrefire rifles (which I used to enjoy shooting in the 1980s) pistols (which I used to enjoy) and semi auto shotguns. I'm afraid the term 'turkeys looking forward to Christmas' sums up the pleadings of shooters for more control. History shows it pretty clearly.

 

It's all been said - we control and regulate cars, the chavs drive anyway and ignore every rule in the book.

 

 

Respects to all - we have different opinions on this and won't agree or convert one another.

 

Best regards -

 

EvilV

[the pelt man]

Mimic

 

From what you have posted on this thread i don't think you know if your coming or going :yp:

 

Rabid Bunny

 

Well the name says it all realy

I think that the many years of drinking all that Scrumpy has dulled all the grey matter :yp:

 

I don't post on any other forum & i am still a pup in comparison to your good self, so i don't class myself as an old ***.

 

I would think that the fee for licencing Air Guns would be no dif to licencing any other Gun.

You just carry on with system in place. If you want to buy a Air Gun & already have a FAC then you just pay to have the Air Gun added to your ticket like you do to have anther Rifle added at the moment. Or if its your first Gun you pay the fee for a FAC & when you want to buy another Rifle you get that added.Surly that is how it would work ? where is the problem in that.

The fee is to cover admin not to put back into Policing like you say. You would be saving money because the Police ( CID, Rapid Response Units, Dog Units, Helicopter Units, & more) would NOT be called out to deal with Air Gun Crime at the rate they are now. These Units could spend more time investigating real crime. :(

 

As for your Analogy's , I shudder to think of your veiw on things.

 

As mimic points out a lot has been done by this Goverment to stop uninsured untaxed Cars. They have been crushing them (the Cars). With all our driving details being on a central database its making it harder for these people to get away with it. Hang on a min you don't like this Nanny state & having this Database that stops these crimes. :o

 

Regards

PELTMAN

[rabid bunny]

Mimic

 

From what you have posted on this thread i don't think you know if your coming or going :yp:

 

Rabid Bunny

 

Well the name says it all realy :(

I think that the many years of drinking all that Scrumpy has dulled all the grey matter :o

 

I don't post on any other forum & i am still a pup in comparison to your good self, so i don't class myself as an old ***.

 

I would think that the fee for licencing Air Guns would be no dif to licencing any other Gun.

You just carry on with system in place. If you want to buy a Air Gun & already have a FAC then you just pay to have the Air Gun added to your ticket like you do to have anther Rifle added at the moment. Or if its your first Gun you pay the fee for a FAC & when you want to buy another Rifle you get that added.Surly that is how it would work ? where is the problem in that.

The fee is to cover admin not to put back into Policing like you say. You would be saving money because the Police ( CID, Rapid Response Units, Dog Units, Helicopter Units, & more) would NOT be called out to deal with Air Gun Crime at the rate they are now. These Units could spend more time investigating real crime. :yp:

 

As for your Analogy's , I shudder to think of your veiw on things.

 

As mimic points out a lot has been done by this Goverment to stop uninsured untaxed Cars. They have been crushing them (the Cars). With all our driving details being on a central database its making it harder for these people to get away with it. Hang on a min you don't like this Nanny state & having this Database that stops these crimes. :o

 

Regards

PELTMAN

 

are you saying the police would let you have as many air rifles as you want on ticket with no restrictions then? are you saying no justification will be required? are you saying we must now have suitable permission to shoot on someones land? The thousands of responsible sub 12ft/lb shooters out there with no fac do so for a reason, are you suggesting all this should change?

[the pelt man]

No i'm not saying that.

You can have Dif alowences for Air-Rifles as you do for other Guns on your ticket.

as it is now you must have a suitable land size anyway.

[rabid bunny]

No i'm not saying that.

You can have Dif alowences for Air-Rifles as you do for other Guns on your ticket.

as it is now you must have a suitable land size anyway.

 

not required for sub 12ft/lbs, you can shoot them in you garden or in the goods yard were we have rats.

[the pelt man]

No i'm not saying that.

You can have Dif alowences for Air-Rifles as you do for other Guns on your ticket.

as it is now you must have a suitable land size anyway.

 

not required for sub 12ft/lbs, you can shoot them in you garden or in the goods yard were we have rats.

 

As long as its not discharged within 50 feet of a public highway & the pellet dose not leave the area you are shooting in.

Hence me saying a suitable land size. You can't shoot a Airrifle if you live in a block of flats for example

[rabid bunny]

No i'm not saying that.

You can have Dif alowences for Air-Rifles as you do for other Guns on your ticket.

as it is now you must have a suitable land size anyway.

 

not required for sub 12ft/lbs, you can shoot them in you garden or in the goods yard were we have rats.

 

As long as its not discharged within 50 feet of a public highway & the pellet dose not leave the area you are shooting in.

Hence me saying a suitable land size. You can't shoot a Airrifle if you live in a block of flats for example

 

please, if you are going to quote the law, try to get it right. I know its difficult I sometimes get it wrong aswell. firstly, you can quite legally shoot within 50 feet of a public highway so long as no one is there to be injured or frightened or forced to detour. secondly, at the moment, the laws regarding pellets leaving your property only apply if you are under 17 years old. It could be a civil law broken if criminal demage is caused by the pellet leaving your property though.

I dont live in a block of flats, so you have a point there, perhaps these new restrictions you are suggesting should only apply to people who live in flats and dont have a suitable place to shoot then?

[pin]

please, if you are going to quote the law, try to get it right. I know its difficult I sometimes get it wrong aswell. firstly, you can quite legally shoot within 50 feet of a public highway so long as no one is there to be injured or frightened or forced to detour. secondly, at the moment, the laws regarding pellets leaving your property only apply if you are under 17 years old. It could be a civil law broken if criminal demage is caused by the pellet leaving your property though.

I dont live in a block of flats, so you have a point there, perhaps these new restrictions you are suggesting should only apply to people who live in flats and dont have a suitable place to shoot then?

 

I was going to give you the benifit of the doubt, but no, you are as stupid as I first thought.

 

Do you really think the law regarding pellets leaving the boundry of your property only applies to people under 17?

 

With every post you are digging a bigger hole.

[rabid bunny]

 

please, if you are going to quote the law, try to get it right. I know its difficult I sometimes get it wrong aswell. firstly, you can quite legally shoot within 50 feet of a public highway so long as no one is there to be injured or frightened or forced to detour. secondly, at the moment, the laws regarding pellets leaving your property only apply if you are under 17 years old. It could be a civil law broken if criminal demage is caused by the pellet leaving your property though.

I dont live in a block of flats, so you have a point there, perhaps these new restrictions you are suggesting should only apply to people who live in flats and dont have a suitable place to shoot then?

 

I was going to give you the benifit of the doubt, but no, you are as stupid as I first thought.

 

Do you really think the law regarding pellets leaving the boundry of your property only applies to people under 17?

 

With every post you are digging a bigger hole.

 

There are new laws being read by parliament now, one of which specifically covers pellets leaving premises to now include over 17 year olds.

 

look it up If you did not know that then perhaps you are the one that is stupid

[the pelt man]

Pin

 

You may be right but at least he seems to have come round to the Idea that sticking an Air Rifle on a certifacate system that we already have in place with a fee for the weapon over the 5 years as with other Rifles aint such a hard thing to do.

 

BUT I WILL NOT HOLD MY BREATH

 

PELTMAN

[pin]

There are new laws being read by parliament now, one of which specifically covers pellets leaving premises to now include over 17 year olds.

 

look it up If you did not know that then perhaps you are the one that is stupid

 

I am well aware of that thanks. If you bothered to look, which I have no doubt you have not, this has already been covered before and I stated my view then (which included a post dealing with this exact subject).

 

I am just trying to work out how you think, am I to assume that you think you could legally shoot into your neighbours garden and not get in a whole heap of trouble? You seem ignorant of the fact that there are many other bits of legislation which apply here, not just those soly dealing with air weapons.

 

The law is all about interpretation, you can read it any way you like and solicitors are payed hefty sums for interpreting the law and basing arguments on it. Just because there is one badly worded tiny piece of legislation does not mean you can do as YOU think you can.

 

I would have guessed you were a young lad by the way you raise your points, I was very suprised to learn the truth of it. It is worrying though that someone of your age would think like this, goes to show you maturity and responsibility are not automatically gained with age.