Jump to content

Oh my god


^mimic^
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

this is what your comment was to me:

 

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.

 

 

the new ASB laws are being put in place exactly because of the existing loop holes in the law.

I have not said I think I can legally shoot into my neighbours garden, you are twisting my words, however if a ricochet was to bounce in by mistake, it is not illegal at this time if the shooter is over 17. You make it sound like I condone dangerous mis use of air weapons, I do not. It`s just when others mis quote the law I fell the need to correct it, that is my choice. :good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you are wrong about ricochets. If a pellet leaves your property then you are breaking the law. Irrespective of how old you are, whether it bounced off of something or you intentionally fired it. No arguing, you will have broken the law.

 

I for one do not see a problem with licencing all guns, Where's the issue? we are all meant to be law abiding and have guns for a valid reason.

 

There are no restrictions on how many shotguns you can have if you have an SGC, there are no restrictions as to how many firearm you can hold on an FAC providing you have a valid reason and suitable land to use them.

 

Why should there be any restrictions on air guns?

 

Cheers

 

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i, personally dont see a problem with having some sort of license for airguns. even if it is just a permit to buy one. i also think that the number of airgun related incidents with chavs would drop dramatically if on RFD's were allowed to sell airguns, and stop all those cheap chinese springers and BB guns being sold in fishing shops and on indoor market stalls. it wouldnt eradicate the problem, but it would at least deter the impulse buy which then results in it being used inappropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All guns over here including air rifles have to be held on an FAC and there does'nt seem to be any problems well exept for the AK-47's M 16's copious 9 mm's, grenades, stinger missles and light fiftys etc :(

 

We don't get many cat/animal/people pot shooters using those weapons Dazza :yp:

 

What you have said is the hole point, people are wording it wrong.

 

We are not looking at making some new type of licence for Air Guns. :yp:

 

"JUST ADD THEM AS IN DAZZA LAND TO THE SAME BLOODY FAC SYSTEM ALREADY IN PLACE" :)

 

SIMPLE, JUST ASK DAZZA

 

PELTMAN :good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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? :good:

 

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.

 

HEAR HEAR!!!.

-----------------

Great Fool's cannot be deafted by common sence, you must first Educate them to what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New hobby for you RB

 

290024178598 copy and paste the link on to ebay.

 

You are nowhere near responsible enough to be a llowed guns of any description.

 

Cheers

 

Martin

 

I don`t understand how you come to that conclusion. You dont know me. Tell me Im wrong with the interpretation of the VCR bill then. Have you read paragraph 30?

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...6-32.html#j8003

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...066/2006066.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are nowhere near responsible enough to be a llowed guns of any description.

 

Cheers

 

Martin

 

Why because he doesn't agree with everything you say?

 

He has interpreted law slightly differently so you come to the assumption that he should not be allowed an air rifle! Give me a break.

 

He has a healthy interest in shooting (his sport, as well as yours), engages in debate and gets insulted for his indifference. At least he has bothered reading the law, unlike 90% of airgun owners out there. I wish more airgun owners showed his interest in gun law.

 

Were all on the same side, insults should be left to the majority who want our sport banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I left this becuase I don't actualy get any enjoyment out of arguing with idiots, but since you can't leave it alone I will put it to bed.

 

I didn't say you had done anything, I speculated about how you MIGHT think. You took it to mean I had said you do these things. End of that one.

 

I have acknowledged the loophole and pointed out to you that I know of it. Yet you are still trying to prove to me that I am wrong somehow, why? With what purpose? The only one I can think of is to try and prove it is ok to have pellets leave your property boundry if you are over 17, which is ludicrous. Try it and see what happens to you, somehow I don't think your interpretation of the law will stand up in court.

 

Before you do it, becuase I know you will, don't bother arguing about them changing the law as some form of thinly veiled proof that you are correct. Where there is poor wording the law is changed to make it easier to prosecute, not to allow prosecutions. You would always have been charged, it would just have been harder to prove you did something wrong.

 

I can't be ***** with you, as has been said its people like you who give the sport a bad name. Like Martin has already said you are, in my opinion, not responsible enough to have guns in your care.

 

I won't waste any more of anyone's time continuing this pointless debate with you in public, PM me if you wish to continue and perhaps you may see sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...