Offensive Weapons Bill 2.0

[Farmboy91]

15 minutes ago, Cannon said:

I believe the licencing of air weapons is a good thing. If every incident involving an air weapon is recorded and categorised as 'gun crime', just how much less gun crime would there be if air weapons were licenced? The statistics would be tipped a lot more in favour of genuine shooters. Every year we hear of incidents where cats, dogs, swans etc are shot with legally held air weapons, but it isn't the likes of you or I doing it. It's the local vacuous contingent who really shouldn't be allowed access to air weapons in the first place. If the level of gun crime continues to rise, there's a risk of further kneejerk reactions that could be extremely damaging to our sport.

Those already doing unlawful things with air guns aren't likely to stop because they have been licensed nor are they likely to hand them over.

Like the vast majority of restrictive firearms law's the only people they end up applying to are the law abiding.

Air guns are a great gateway to shooting and I wonder how many of us on here started with an air gun? Restricting access to them is going to kill that off.

How many will end up handing their air guns in rather than go through the hassle of apply for a ticket.

[ClemFandango]

On 03/08/2020 at 09:42, lloydi73 said:

Sorry, but back then forensics weren't anywhere near as sophisticated as now, DNA as an example!! Now is the time to reintroduce the Death Penalty....look at crimes being committed now because criminals aren't deterred by very lenient sentences, the killing of the police man by gipsies by dragging him  behind a quad bike at 60mph is a classic example......

When we had the death penalty, were there no murders? 

[Cannon]

1 hour ago, Farmboy91 said:

Those already doing unlawful things with air guns aren't likely to stop because they have been licensed nor are they likely to hand them over.

Like the vast majority of restrictive firearms law's the only people they end up applying to are the law abiding.

Air guns are a great gateway to shooting and I wonder how many of us on here started with an air gun? Restricting access to them is going to kill that off.

How many will end up handing their air guns in rather than go through the hassle of apply for a ticket.

I can see your point, but having to have airguns on a licence over here has undoubtedly stopped a lot of casual airgun purchases by unscrupulous individuals. Those who legally possess airguns are also unlikely to risk losing their certificate by participating in questionable activities or associating with dodgy individuals. The certification of airguns breeds a culture of responsibility. I'm not saying that unlicenced airgun owners aren't responsible, but we should take steps to prevent airguns from getting into the hands of those who should not have them. Licencing is a good way to do this. Criminals will always find a way to get around the law, so licencing airguns will not stop their irresponsible use by those who are determined. It will however make obtaining airguns more difficult, which in turn will reduce the amount of easily accessible airguns in circulation. As for those who would just hand them in, if they aren't willing to apply for a certificate, they probably don't have a genuine interest in shooting, or have a legitimate use or need for an airgun in the first place.

[London Best]

I know an rfd who refuses to have air guns in his shop because, “I don’t want to encourage idiots to come in.”

[WalkedUp]

34 minutes ago, Cannon said:

I can see your point, but having to have airguns on a licence over here has undoubtedly stopped a lot of casual airgun purchases by unscrupulous individuals. Those who legally possess airguns are also unlikely to risk losing their certificate by participating in questionable activities or associating with dodgy individuals. The certification of airguns breeds a culture of responsibility. I'm not saying that unlicenced airgun owners aren't responsible, but we should take steps to prevent airguns from getting into the hands of those who should not have them. Licencing is a good way to do this. Criminals will always find a way to get around the law, so licencing airguns will not stop their irresponsible use by those who are determined. It will however make obtaining airguns more difficult, which in turn will reduce the amount of easily accessible airguns in circulation. As for those who would just hand them in, if they aren't willing to apply for a certificate, they probably don't have a genuine interest in shooting, or have a legitimate use or need for an airgun in the first place.

Agree 👍

[Scully]

40 minutes ago, Cannon said:

I can see your point, but having to have airguns on a licence over here has undoubtedly stopped a lot of casual airgun purchases by unscrupulous individuals. Those who legally possess airguns are also unlikely to risk losing their certificate by participating in questionable activities or associating with dodgy individuals. The certification of airguns breeds a culture of responsibility. I'm not saying that unlicenced airgun owners aren't responsible, but we should take steps to prevent airguns from getting into the hands of those who should not have them. Licencing is a good way to do this. Criminals will always find a way to get around the law, so licencing airguns will not stop their irresponsible use by those who are determined. It will however make obtaining airguns more difficult, which in turn will reduce the amount of easily accessible airguns in circulation. As for those who would just hand them in, if they aren't willing to apply for a certificate, they probably don't have a genuine interest in shooting, or have a legitimate use or need for an airgun in the first place.

Licensing may prevent future unscrupulous purchases of airguns, but it won’t prevent the criminal use of airguns. 
I’m one of those law abiding responsible people who resent having to be licensed to own firearms of any type, and I would certainly resent having to license my air rifles. 
Those who would just hand them in, as you say, possibly don’t have a real interest in their use and would be acting as law abiding individuals. I would suggest only those who don’t want to put at risk tickets they already possess, would apply for licenses, but what about all those who have no intention of applying for a ticket nor handing them in? No one knows who they are nor what they have. 
It isn’t logical to allow just anyone to own firearms, and I’m not suggesting that, but the biggest shooting atrocities in the UK have all been committed with licensed firearms. 
Bans aren’t fair nor justified as they only affect the law abiding, but licensing doesn’t work either. 
I always despair when firearms owners suggest licensing as a ‘good idea’. 
The entire topic needs a serious revisit with fresh eyes; who in their right mind expects different results from the same old procedures? 

[dorsecore]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

Licensing may prevent future unscrupulous purchases of airguns, but it won’t prevent the criminal use of airguns. 
I’m one of those law abiding responsible people who resent having to be licensed to own firearms of any type, and I would certainly resent having to license my air rifles. 
Those who would just hand them in, as you say, possibly don’t have a real interest in their use and would be acting as law abiding individuals. I would suggest only those who don’t want to put at risk tickets they already possess, would apply for licenses, but what about all those who have no intention of applying for a ticket nor handing them in? No one knows who they are nor what they have. 
It isn’t logical to allow just anyone to own firearms, and I’m not suggesting that, but the biggest shooting atrocities in the UK have all been committed with licensed firearms. 
Bans aren’t fair nor justified as they only affect the law abiding, but licensing doesn’t work either. 
I always despair when firearms owners suggest licensing as a ‘good idea’. 
The entire topic needs a serious revisit with fresh eyes; who in their right mind expects different results from the same old procedures? 

Understand your point regarding the view that licensing isnt proven to work either - however it is from a 'numbers only' perspective effective at keeping peace and preventing USA levels of gun violence one could suggest. There is no perfect system. Do you have views/ideas on a viable alternative to licensing or have you heard others put forward a possible improvement to the current procedures?

[Newbie to this]

7 minutes ago, Scully said:

Licensing may prevent future unscrupulous purchases of airguns, but it won’t prevent the criminal use of airguns. 
I’m one of those law abiding responsible people who resent having to be licensed to own firearms of any type, and I would certainly resent having to license my air rifles. 
Those who would just hand them in, as you say, possibly don’t have a real interest in their use and would be acting as law abiding individuals. I would suggest only those who don’t want to put at risk tickets they already possess, would apply for licenses, but what about all those who have no intention of applying for a ticket nor handing them in? No one knows who they are nor what they have. 
It isn’t logical to allow just anyone to own firearms, and I’m not suggesting that, but the biggest shooting atrocities in the UK have all been committed with licensed firearms. 
Bans aren’t fair nor justified as they only affect the law abiding, but licensing doesn’t work either. 
I always despair when firearms owners suggest licensing as a ‘good idea’. 
The entire topic needs a serious revisit with fresh eyes; who in their right mind expects different results from the same old procedures? 

^^^ This

[Cannon]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

Licensing may prevent future unscrupulous purchases of airguns, but it won’t prevent the criminal use of airguns. 
I’m one of those law abiding responsible people who resent having to be licensed to own firearms of any type, and I would certainly resent having to license my air rifles. 
Those who would just hand them in, as you say, possibly don’t have a real interest in their use and would be acting as law abiding individuals. I would suggest only those who don’t want to put at risk tickets they already possess, would apply for licenses, but what about all those who have no intention of applying for a ticket nor handing them in? No one knows who they are nor what they have. 
It isn’t logical to allow just anyone to own firearms, and I’m not suggesting that, but the biggest shooting atrocities in the UK have all been committed with licensed firearms. 
Bans aren’t fair nor justified as they only affect the law abiding, but licensing doesn’t work either. 
I always despair when firearms owners suggest licensing as a ‘good idea’. 
The entire topic needs a serious revisit with fresh eyes; who in their right mind expects different results from the same old procedures? 

Some good points made. What I will say is that you may resent the idea of licencing for firearms and airguns, but the fact is that firearms possession in the uk is a priviledge and not a right. If the government wanted to ban gun ownership entirely, they could do so without us being able to do anything about it. For those who would have no intention of handing in their airguns or applying for a certificate, realistically there isn't much that could be done at the time. When an old gun is found in a loft, a chimney or under floorboards over here it often finds its way into the system via the police or an rfd. It will then be accounted for. Those found using airguns illegally are accountable to the relevant laws. I would have to disagree that certification doesn't work. For the legitimate shooter it is an extra hoop to jump through, but it makes owners more responsible. They cannot afford to treat their airguns or firearms with any disregard, so owners tend to take security more seriously. I would also go as far to say that certified owners/shooters put more thought into a shot before pulling the trigger.

[Farmboy91]

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

I can see your point, but having to have airguns on a licence over here has undoubtedly stopped a lot of casual airgun purchases by unscrupulous individuals. Those who legally possess airguns are also unlikely to risk losing their certificate by participating in questionable activities or associating with dodgy individuals. The certification of airguns breeds a culture of responsibility. I'm not saying that unlicenced airgun owners aren't responsible, but we should take steps to prevent airguns from getting into the hands of those who should not have them. Licencing is a good way to do this. Criminals will always find a way to get around the law, so licencing airguns will not stop their irresponsible use by those who are determined. It will however make obtaining airguns more difficult, which in turn will reduce the amount of easily accessible airguns in circulation. As for those who would just hand them in, if they aren't willing to apply for a certificate, they probably don't have a genuine interest in shooting, or have a legitimate use or need for an airgun in the first place.

Scully summed it up pretty well.

I think for a start if you already have an SGC or FAC there should be no charge for any sort of airgun license. 

It will just end up going from a cheap way to get into our sport to not worth the hassle for some. Which is the last thing we should be looking at right now. 

If licensing came in, there would be a load of airguns handed in, the police and the media would make a big deal out of it, we'd be questioned on how many other 'weapons' are out there all without it having really changed anything. 

[Cannon]

2 minutes ago, Farmboy91 said:

Scully summed it up pretty well.

I think for a start if you already have an SGC or FAC there should be no charge for any sort of airgun license. 

It will just end up going from a cheap way to get into our sport to not worth the hassle for some. Which is the last thing we should be looking at right now. 

If licensing came in, there would be a load of airguns handed in, the police and the media would make a big deal out of it, we'd be questioned on how many other 'weapons' are out there all without it having really changed anything. 

If we want to add an airgun to our FAC, there's a £30 charge for a variation. Whilst not extortionate I have always been of the opinion that if you hold bullet firing weapons or even shotguns on a certificate, the addition of an airgun to your certificate should be viewed as posing no additional threat to the public. No charge to add an airgun to a certificate would be great, but there is a certain amount of administration that needs to be paid for somehow. I am not advocating the use of legitimate shooters as cash cows, but there are intelligent and cost effective ways of doing things. It would be up to us and the shooting organisations to lobby the relevant authorities in order to iron out the finer details, (if ordinary shooters could get support from the organisations purporting to act on their behalf that is).

[Scully]

48 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Some good points made. What I will say is that you may resent the idea of licencing for firearms and airguns, but the fact is that firearms possession in the uk is a priviledge and not a right. If the government wanted to ban gun ownership entirely, they could do so without us being able to do anything about it. For those who would have no intention of handing in their airguns or applying for a certificate, realistically there isn't much that could be done at the time. When an old gun is found in a loft, a chimney or under floorboards over here it often finds its way into the system via the police or an rfd. It will then be accounted for. Those found using airguns illegally are accountable to the relevant laws. I would have to disagree that certification doesn't work. For the legitimate shooter it is an extra hoop to jump through, but it makes owners more responsible. They cannot afford to treat their airguns or firearms with any disregard, so owners tend to take security more seriously. I would also go as far to say that certified owners/shooters put more thought into a shot before pulling the trigger.

‘Certification’ has been proved not to work ( or at least has no effect on the criminal use of firearms ) on many occasions. It may be all we have currently, but it is clearly ineffectual and costly. 
Like I said, it isn’t logical to apply the same criteria to a problem and expect different results. 

[Farmboy91]

20 minutes ago, Cannon said:

If we want to add an airgun to our FAC, there's a £30 charge for a variation. Whilst not extortionate I have always been of the opinion that if you hold bullet firing weapons or even shotguns on a certificate, the addition of an airgun to your certificate should be viewed as posing no additional threat to the public. No charge to add an airgun to a certificate would be great, but there is a certain amount of administration that needs to be paid for somehow. I am not advocating the use of legitimate shooters as cash cows, but there are intelligent and cost effective ways of doing things. It would be up to us and the shooting organisations to lobby the relevant authorities in order to iron out the finer details, (if ordinary shooters could get support from the organisations purporting to act on their behalf that is).

But these are things I already own, I haven't asked for them to be licensed so I don't see it as acceptable to have to pay to have them added to my existing ticket?  

The most cost effective way of dealing with firearms issues would be to toughen up on sentencing those who are committing the crimes with them rather than target the law abiding as an easy answer. 

Even at £30 I haven't got £150 to blow on an ineffective solution to this problem.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Farmboy91
Spelling

[Cannon]

You can add as many firearms as you want in one go to your certificate for £30. It isn't £30 per firearm. Certification does have an affect on the criminal use of firearms. The easier it is to access firearms, the more chance there is of firearms falling into the hands of criminals. If the need to certify firearms was suddenly removed tomorrow, would you feel safe knowing that every single one of your fellow countrymen has free and unrestricted access to firearms? Could you honestly sleep soundly if that was the case? 

[Farmboy91]

Sorry, misunderstood what you meant. 

Pistols have been banned outright in this country for 20+ years but it hasn't stopped crime with pistols has it? 

I think comparing the licensing of air guns to unrestricted access to firearms for all is a bit extreme. 

[Cannon]

Not here in NI where airguns are categorised as firearms. An offence with an airgun is equal to an offence committed with a .308 rifle according to the law. As daft as it may sound, we are not at liberty to make common sense distinctions between the two. The law is the law. As an aside, a sub 12ft/lbs rifle can be as deadly as a bullet firing firearm in certain circumstances.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Cannon

[WalkedUp]

8 hours ago, Farmboy91 said:

Pistols have been banned outright in this country for 20+ years but it hasn't stopped crime with pistols has it? 

I don’t think the general public gets too upset about a drug dealer killing another drug dealer with an illegally held pistol every now and then. Walk into a classroom with your arsenal of legally held pistols and execute 16 tiny children, shooting 32 people in total, and for some reason people get upset 🤷‍♀️

[discobob]

1 hour ago, WalkedUp said:

I don’t think the general public gets too upset about a drug dealer killing another drug dealer with an illegally held pistol every now and then. Walk into a classroom with your arsenal of legally held pistols and execute 16 tiny children, shooting 32 people in total, and for some reason people get upset 🤷‍♀️

I believer (I may have it wrong though) that this was a failure of the licensing process itself from what I remember reading elsewhere? That was an absolute tragedy though 

[Farmboy91]

1 hour ago, WalkedUp said:

I don’t think the general public gets too upset about a drug dealer killing another drug dealer with an illegally held pistol every now and then. Walk into a classroom with your arsenal of legally held pistols and execute 16 tiny children, shooting 32 people in total, and for some reason people get upset 🤷‍♀️

No, I'm sure they don't but innocent bystanders are caught occasionally and while what happened at dunblane was a horrific tragedy the point I was trying to make is that despite banning legally held pistols, it's not stopped pistol crime. In the same way that licensing air guns will not stop air gun crime. 

 

[lloydi73]

14 hours ago, ClemFandango said:

When we had the death penalty, were there no murders? 

No where near as many, and there was far more respect for Police and the "Law of the Land"!

[Zetter]

I honestly dont think licencing air guns is the way to go. As has been pointed out above they are a real gateway into shooting sports. Realistically its the only way into shooting sports without a lot of hassle at the moment.

The more and more hassle it is for new people to get into the sport the less and less people in say 10 years there will be actually doing it. This then makes it even easier to crack down more, so you will only be left with people who require them for their job being able to shoot in the future.  

Look at the current situation most forces due to Covid are not issuing new certificates so if someone say tried out clay shooting in March  they are probably looking at 2021 before they are likely get a grant in certain areas. If this was you as a new shooter it would be pretty demoralising for a new and fresh hobby.

When it comes down to it idiots will be idiots. Cars require a pretty stringent test to be let loose on your own but this doesnt stop numerous morons killing / maiming themselves and a lot of the time their unlucky passengers.

Generally with airguns you will just kill off sub 12 ft/lb and small clubs and still be left with a raft of air guns floating about probably unlicenced as only  the law abiding will bother to get a licence. If you want to crack down on misuse make the penalties harsher and actually hit people who misuse them in the pocket. Kill a protected species and get caught get fined, cant pay guess what we are selling off you car etc.  

[stuartyboy]

A point to note is that in Scotland the requirements to be granted an Air Weapon Certificate exceed the requirements to be granted a SGC. 

That is to say, it is technically a lot easier to be granted a SGC than to be granted a AWC.

At some point the press will pick up on this. Then they will create a big story emphasising how it’s easier to get a license for a ‘toy air gun ‘ than it is to get a license for a ‘military style automatic 12 bore’. Then the public will be followed by the politicians with their outrage.

Then, legislation will be passed again. Not to reduce the requirements for a AWC, but to increase the requirements and reason for a SGC to be granted.

Its a slippery slope. At some point all firearms will held be held on the one certification. And it will require very good reason to possess. Recreational shooting as a past time won’t be good enough. It will only be if your direct livelihood requires it.

[Scully]

If licensing worked we wouldn’t have had Hungerford, Dunblane, Cockermouth nor Durham. All those murders carried out with LICENSED and legally owned firearms! 
To call out for licensing for airguns as if it’s some sort of cure all is ridiculous; and to keep applying the same criteria to solve the same problem and expect different results is ludicrous.
There are still thousands of legally owned handguns in circulation today, causing no problems whatsoever. 
It’s not an easy one admittedly, and no UK government would have the guts to do anything about it even if there was the interest, so we’ll just stick to licensing cos it’s all we have and all we’re ever going to get. I’m not sure anyone has the answer,  but to keep bleating on about licensing of airguns and guns in general as if it’s all that is needed is just ridiculous. 

 

[ClemFandango]

9 hours ago, lloydi73 said:

No where near as many, and there was far more respect for Police and the "Law of the Land"!

So people still got murdered then?

Wasn't much of a deterrent. 

[Cannon]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

If licensing worked we wouldn’t have had Hungerford, Dunblane, Cockermouth nor Durham. All those murders carried out with LICENSED and legally owned firearms! 
To call out for licensing for airguns as if it’s some sort of cure all is ridiculous; and to keep applying the same criteria to solve the same problem and expect different results is ludicrous.
There are still thousands of legally owned handguns in circulation today, causing no problems whatsoever. 
It’s not an easy one admittedly, and no UK government would have the guts to do anything about it even if there was the interest, so we’ll just stick to licensing cos it’s all we have and all we’re ever going to get. I’m not sure anyone has the answer,  but to keep bleating on about licensing of airguns and guns in general as if it’s all that is needed is just ridiculous. 

 

I honestly don't think there's anything ridiculous about it. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the owners of the thousands of legally owned handguns still in circulation are complying with the conditions outlined on their certificates, particularly the condition relating to the secure storage of the firearms using approved methods. Failure to comply with these conditions can lead to revocation of your certificate. If you have your certificate revoked as a result of not complying with your certificate conditions, you are perceived to be unfit to possess firearms. The conditions are in place for a reason, and have been well thought out. What would things be like if there were no conditions? If everybody and anybody could just walk into a shop and buy a handgun or high powered rifle? Would you trust the general public to be as security concious or vigilant as someone who's certified? If firearms licencing wasn't in place, I don't think you would be arguing against its introduction.

To tie this post in with the theme of the thread, if harsher punishments were in place for those who break the law, and a culture of compliance was firmly established, then maybe licencing could be made a thing of the past. But as things are, all too often the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The current laws allow criminals to act with impunity over and over again. Until that changes, the licencing system should not only remain in place, it should also be extended to airguns. Take Scotland as an example. Since licencing of airguns was introduced, airgun related incidents have dropped by nearly a third of what they were before licencing. Proof that certification does work.