Just what we need in Scotland

[lxtav]

This is just what we need up here in Scotland with the SNP determined to push airgun licensing through no matter how many people tell them its a bad idea and won't work. We already have sufficient laws to deal with the idiots that do this to animals without licencing airguns.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-26668081

 

The charity is quoted as saying "The new licensing regime should ensure that only those with a lawful reason are allowed to possess such a dangerous weapon. It will also help the police trace anyone using an air gun irresponsibly." Don't know how licencing an air gun is going to allow the police to trace the people using the gun irresponsibly, its not as if the ammunition has a number on it and can be traced. The idiots that do this sort of thing are not going to licence the guns anyway so it's a pointless exercise.

 

But it will appeal to the non shooting public who will not understand this will do absolutely nothing to stop this happening but will all write to their local MSP demanding all guns are banned.

 

 

 

 

[Kes]

At least if you go Independent, you wont have the BBC being PC all over the place !

[lxtav]

Problem is Salmond and his cronies not only want to have their cake and eat it they want to keep the bbc as well.

[malantone]

 

IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE HANDGUN BAN, It hasn`t stopped one robbery or shooting, criminals get hold of whatever they require.

a licence system will only persecute legal owners/users ********* will just carry on regardless.

[hoggysreels]

If Scotland does go independant, and gun ownership laws are introduced/altered, they will still blame the English, when its obviously Hatsan's fault.

[poontang]

IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE HANDGUN BAN, It hasn`t stopped one robbery or shooting, criminals get hold of whatever they require.

a licence system will only persecute legal owners/users ********* will just carry on regardless.

 

The handgun ban was never about stopping criminals.

 

If Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan hadn't gone crazy with legally held firearms I wouldn't mind betting we'd still be using handguns and semi auto rifles (assuming of course no other legal owner had done the same thing in the meantime). The legislation was brought in to reduce the number of guns in circulation and therefore reduce the risk of another legal gun owner going on a rampage.

As far as I know no legally held handgun has been used in a mass killing since the legislation was brought in, so it could be argued that the law on handgun restriction has worked?

[Graham M]

 

 

As far as I know no legally held handgun has been used in a mass killing since the legislation was brought in, so it could be argued that the law on handgun restriction has worked?

And of course since people were banned from owning pit-bulls no child has been killed by a legally owned pit-bull.

 

And if cars were banned no-one would be killed on the roads ............and if ....................

 

 

The list is endless, but what you forget is that had the Central Scottish Police done their job properly Hamilton wouldn't have had guns in the first place.

 

So who's fault is it; shooters or the eejits who allowed him to possess them. Which is why our Scottish legislators want them banned so much...because they made the cock-up in the first place and now they want to make it appear as thought they are clamping down on nasty potential mass murderers like us.

 

This is nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with hating shooting, whilst denying it was anything to do with their own stupidity.

 

G.M.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Graham M

[poontang]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but what you forget is that had the Central Scottish Police done their job properly Hamilton wouldn't have had guns in the first place.

 

So who's fault is it; shooters or the eejits who allowed him to possess them. Which is why our Scottish legislators want them banned so much...because they made the cock-up in the first place and now they want to make it appear as thought they are clamping down on nasty potential mass murderers like us.

 

This is nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with hating shooting, whilst denying it was anything to do with their own stupidity.

 

G.M.

 

I hadn't forgotten that at all, and I wouldn't disagree that the legislation was brought in as a political response to overwhelming public opinion at the time. My point was that the legislation wouldn't have come in at all had Hamilton not gone on his killing spree.

It's all very well blaming the police and the government, but it was Hamilton who pulled the trigger, nobody else. Legislation only comes about as a response to a certain act/acts. Therefore, no act no response.

After the Derrick Bird and Michael Atherton killings I think we were lucky not to be looking at further restrictions. The fact that we didn't is probably more down to the government and economic climate at the time. A different government and a different time and who knows what could happen.

[henry d]

it may not stop someone shooting a cat, but it will make it less likely. Licensing is on it's way so we better get used to it.

[kent]

Let them licence them in Scotland, lets face it when its seen how little effect it has and the cost / mistakes they make then it will never happen here in England or Wales (sorry to the Scottish lads but face facts you have a bigger issue to attend with at present, get ready for more of this if you continue to put up with him)

[Graham M]

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".
Winston Churchill

[saddler]

 

I hadn't forgotten that at all, and I wouldn't disagree that the legislation was brought in as a political response to overwhelming public opinion at the time. My point was that the legislation wouldn't have come in at all had Hamilton not gone on his killing spree.

It's all very well blaming the police and the government, but it was Hamilton who pulled the trigger, nobody else. Legislation only comes about as a response to a certain act/acts. Therefore, no act no response.

After the Derrick Bird and Michael Atherton killings I think we were lucky not to be looking at further restrictions. The fact that we didn't is probably more down to the government and economic climate at the time. A different government and a different time and who knows what could happen.

I take it that you've never heard of the 1973 Green Paper?

Disproves that the gov. only pass legislation as a response to a specific act or incident...!

[kent]

I take it that you've never heard of the 1973 Green Paper?

Disproves that the gov. only pass legislation as a response to a specific act or incident...!

 

Yet this is what " they" have always done, why pass an act of law against something that simply does not occur?

[poontang]

I take it that you've never heard of the 1973 Green Paper?

Disproves that the gov. only pass legislation as a response to a specific act or incident...!

 

Indeed I have. However, a green paper is just a consultation. Nothing more.

 

It took the Hungerford incident, 14 years later, and the Dunblane tragedy, 23 years later, before any extra legislation was actually brought in.

I stand by my opinion that had Ryan and Hamilton not committed their crimes it would be unlikely that the restrictions brought about by their actions would have been enacted.

[Graham M]

 

I stand by my opinion that had Ryan and Hamilton not committed their crimes it would be unlikely that the restrictions brought about by their actions would have been enacted.

Of course they wouldn't, it was exactly what the government wanted; a mass murder in order to implement what they wanted in the 1978 Green Paper.

They must have been wetting themselves with pleasure when they were able to push through the handgun ban, and it has been said since that they were astonished at how easy it was.

Leon Brittan was the Home secretary in 78 and unlike most of the later ones he wasn't looking to punish innocent shooters for political expediency.

Poontang, our shooting organisations were full of people with the same attitude as yourself and even went as far as to tell us not to make too much of a nuisance because they wanted us to look as "Dignified" as possible. It was only when they realised that the government and the media were looking upon this as a guilty silence, that the NRA and others suddenly panicked and tried to bring about a campaign to repudiate the accusations against us as a whole...........too late; the damage had been done and we were already onto a hiding to nothing because the public had only been hearing how bad we were.

Scotland will licence air rifles because they are so far up their own backsides that they will not allow anything to interfere with their agenda. It's just a pity that they weren't in this position when Hamilton (spit) ran amok, then perhaps only Scotland would have had their pistols taken off them and the rest of us could have carried on........maybe.

From what I can read Scotland have had more of their share of eejits and air rifles, but even they are getting these incidents down to a minuscule figure, so why the airgun licensing agenda...........

simple; they want to look big in the eyes of the world for doing very little.

And when it all goes wrong and they can't actually get the real bad apples to actually apply for a licence (because they know damn well they won't get one) then they will simply say that it's because the legislation isn't strong enough.

Now where have we heard all that before.

G.M.

[mossy835]

as said its on its way,not a lot can be done when they have made up there mined.

[poontang]

 

Of course they wouldn't, it was exactly what the government wanted; a mass murder in order to implement what they wanted in the 1978 Green Paper.

They must have been wetting themselves with pleasure when they were able to push through the handgun ban, and it has been said since that they were astonished at how easy it was.

 

Poontang, our shooting organisations were full of people with the same attitude as yourself

 

 

 

 

 

The green paper was discussed in 1973....a full 23 years before the Dunblane killings. Are you honestly suggesting the government of the day, and intervening governments, were pleased that 16 children were slaughtered just so they could ban handguns?

Why didn't they act to ban handguns after Michael Ryan went his spree with, amongst other things, a Beretta pistol? Surely, by your reckoning they would have been 'wetting themselves' with such a gilt edged opportunity?

Bear in mind that if they had banned handguns in 1988 those 16 children would probably still be alive today.

 

The fact remains, however you want to dress it up, it was Ryan and Hamilton who lost you your handguns and semi auto rifles. Not the government, not the police, but two licensed individuals who lost the plot.

 

I'd be interested to know how you perceive my 'attitude'?

[Remimax]

 

The green paper was discussed in 1973....a full 23 years before the Dunblane killings. Are you honestly suggesting the government of the day, and intervening governments, were pleased that 16 children were slaughtered just so they could ban handguns?

Why didn't they act to ban handguns after Michael Ryan went his spree with, amongst other things, a Beretta pistol? Surely, by your reckoning they would have been 'wetting themselves' with such a gilt edged opportunity?

Bear in mind that if they had banned handguns in 1988 those 16 children would probably still be alive today.

 

The fact remains, however you want to dress it up, it was Ryan and Hamilton who lost you your handguns and semi auto rifles. Not the government, not the police, but two licensed individuals who lost the plot.

 

I'd be interested to know how you perceive my 'attitude'?

Actually on both cases if the police had done there job both would not have had a licence at the time of each incident.

Ryan was a loner and the club he was a provisional member of were not contacted before his firearm application went thru .

A major firearms licencing dept failure

They were very surprised when he turned up at the range with weapons as they did not consider him a suitable character.

He was reported to have threatened a person at work with a" pistol" but it was never followed up.

Hamilton was a known nonce ,despite numerous offical complaints of his conduct around minors in the scouts as i recall.

nothing was done, another gov dept failure.

 

Two people who should not have been licence holders at the time .

Edited March 21, 2014 by Remimax

[Graham M]

Poontang, I'm not looking for a p!$$!ng contest over this, but I really can't help but perceive that you are almost willing to agree with every bit of legislation that any future government wants to impose on us.

I started shooting back in 1970 and in those days it was a simple matter to go and get a shotgun permit from the post office; cost 10/- (50p) if I remember correctly and it was a simple matter of buying a shotgun and keeping it in the back of the wardrobe if that's what you wanted to do, and we had no problems with mass murderers.

And then after Ryan (another loner who should never have had a licence had the police done their job properly at the time) we had those two donkeys Douglass Herd and Douglass Hogg, who began the process of imposing greater restrictions.

It was interesting to note at the time that Hogg was caught using a rifle belonging to someone else after those restrictions were bought in, and immediately invented the "Estate rifle" get-out clause.

And Herd who bought in the bit about allowing ones servant to buy your shotgun cartridges for you, and how HE got away with it when it was found that he had forgotten to renew HIS OWN shotgun licence.

Were our glorious leader happy about those kids being killed.........of course not. But when you saw Blair and his cohorts standing on a pre-election stage pretending to cry (it was rumoured that many labour candidates had bits of onion in their handkerchiefs) in order to get public sympathy for an all-out ban on pistols (and everything else if most had gotten their way) then I cannot help but feel that they did indeed use those deaths in order to further their own agenda.

 

I shot at a target rifle club (one with the single-shot rifles and the funny jackets) and almost to a man they all agreed that pistol shooters were scum and that they were glad to see the back of handguns. And the local clay shooters who refused to sign a petition because they could see no reason why anyone would need to own a handgun (**** themselves when the idea was posed to ban S/A and P/A shotguns though and immediately started whining about how they were not to blame and how they needed their guns).

It's very easy to stand on a big ivory tower and point to those who you feel should be banned or stopped from pursuing their sport or licensed . But what you must see is that the government don't give a toss about whether you agree or not, because if they want to ban something it won't matter how pious you are or how much you may have agreed with their thoughts on licensing other people...they will still take you guns if they want them.

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

G.M.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Graham M

[Livefast123]

An unarmed population is a weak population, that is the ruling classes ideal.

[Remimax]

An unarmed population is a weak population, that is the ruling classes ideal.

yep i think Switzerland is an example of how it can work.

75% voted to keep national service and has more millitary weapons kept at home and less gun related crime than just about anywhere.

[Scully]

This is just what we need up here in Scotland with the SNP determined to push airgun licensing through no matter how many people tell them its a bad idea and won't work. We already have sufficient laws to deal with the idiots that do this to animals without licencing airguns.

 

 

 

 

 

But the fact of the matter regarding the licensing of airguns is that not enough people care enough to oppose the proposal. How many bothered to lobby during the consultation period? Somewhere around the 20,000 mark? Out of how many owned?

Whether you agree with licensing or not, it wont make any difference to the unlawful use of firearms, and especially airguns because of the sheer numbers out there. Does anyone know how many are in circulation?

It is already illegal to shoot domestic pets, and those doing so are doing it furtively when they think there is little chance of them being seen, so this practise will continue even if licensing ensues; the only difference will be that the user of said airgun is in possession of an illegally held firearm, but this is still true even if the owner doesn't shoot anything. So what will happen to all those illegally held airguns? No doubt there will be the usual 'armistice' following licensing, where local authorities will 'big up' all those handed in, but what will happen to all those not handed in? No one has a clue how many there are so no one can claim what percentage of the whole those surrendered will account for.

For politicians to claim that licensing is the cure all for societys ills is both misleading and underhanded. It didn't work with CF semi automatic rifles, nor handguns, nor shotguns. No one has committed attrocities with handguns since the ban, nor semi auto cf rifles since they were banned. But like I said, it hasn't worked with shotguns either, so the answer to prevent another attrocity with shotguns is staring us in the face.Isn't it?

Edited March 22, 2014 by Scully

[poontang]

yep i think Switzerland is an example of how it can work.

75% voted to keep national service and has more millitary weapons kept at home and less gun related crime than just about anywhere.

 

A common misconception.

 

Switzerland has a gun homicide rate 13 times higher than that of the UK.

[Remimax]

 

A common misconception.

 

Switzerland has a gun homicide rate 13 times higher than that of the UK.

depends on what you base your 13 times higher rate on.

 

there was a high gun related suicide rate before 2007.

after which they decided not to allow people to keep ammuniton with the millitary weapons at home and the rate was cut in half.

are you refering to gun related "crime"being 13 times higher than here in the uk?

Edited March 22, 2014 by Remimax

[Steppenwolf]

When the shotgun license was brought in in 1968 there was about 10% initial uptake of license applications. People then as now know there is actually no reason that licensing can reduce crime. This is likely to happen in Scotland if they license low power air guns. Tne fraction of people licensing them will be probably between 8-15%.