red_stag88 Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 I was outraged when i read the front page of the telegraph and that un-supervised shooting of air rifles is being raised to 17, so i promptly adressed a letter to our insane PM, my loacl MP, the Daily Telegraph and BASC, out lining that an airwepon is now considered to be more dangerous than a shotgun for the age of shooting one of those unsupervised is 15 :( :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernyha Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 Well said William as it doesn,t take a brain surgeon let alone the clowns in this government to see that it is not logical to be able to shoot a shotgun at a younger age than an aiirgun.So the next time a criminal uses a machine gun or some other weapon that is already illegal,up will go the shotgun age to at least 18.When that fails to have any effect on gun crime,how long I wonder before they have a go at us oldies at the other end of the age group by saying that we are too muddled to be let loose with a gun.Bit by bit they are doing their best to get rid of all of us just to be seen to be doing something in the public eye. :X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 William, We are at crossed terms, i own a shotgun as well, i was just commenting that they see an airrifle more dagerous because the age was higher. i am a keen phesent shot and dont want to see that go!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 What worries me is two things: i) needlessly placing further age restrictions on young people`s responsible use of airguns. If they use them irresponsibly then there are plenty of safeguards in law. We need to see plenty of young people coming into all sorts of shooting sports; otherwise it will be seen as old-fashioned, a thing of the past and there will be fewer opportunities for all of us, as well as encouraging further restrictions. ii) the notion that a police officer can stop someone carrying an air weapon in a public place. If the PC does not like the look of the person, though he /she may have a perfectly good reason for carrying it, they may then be detained or even arrested if the explanation is not acceptable. This is the thin end of the wedge. It should be for the police to show that the actual use was unlawful, which is more or less the position now. We should not be forced into a defensive postion. The opportunity for real difficulties for legitimate shooters on, or near, say, country lanes or houses or travelling to/from shooting is obvious. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bry Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 I aggree with flightline.Well presented mate........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 the other thing is that the police can't understand that leagly guns DON'T cause gun crime, take pistol crime it has increased since the ban. also the police think the owner of a gun is instantly a criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 You are right. The question is, though, what are we going to do about it? There`s little point in just posting stuff here, though it does actually make us all realise that we are not alone in having these thoughts. So there is some point, but we also need to engage with a wider audience. If we each contacted radio or TV would that help? :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 maby we could write letters to newspapers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernyha Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 :( Trouble with writing to newspapers is that editors have a nasty habit of publishing only the letters that agree with their line of thought.The country side marches have started to make the government and the public realise that field sports are an important part of a lot of peoples lives and I think that this is the way to go,but on a weekday so that more disruption is caused. :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 the maerch should have been on a monday with lots of tracktors, all the commuters would have fun. also we should all buy underground passed then all at once do the same thing except clog the trains :evil: :evil: :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Well it seems to me that Mr Blair and his cronnies have yet again hit the Knee-jerk reaction button. Maybe i am old and confussed but can anyone explain how placing age restrictions on air weapons is going to stop some smack head spraying bullets around with a sub machine gun. according to the latest figures on gun crime, banning legal ownership of handguns didnt quite have the effect it was supposed to either, but i would like to bet the government dont accept that they dropped a goolie and let us have them back. I am very suprised the labour party didnt just licence air weapons in an effort to raise more revenue, it seems more there style of dealing with problems I think its just a case of them once again addressing the wrong issues, more police on the streets and stiffer sentences would have been a step in the right direction not making it more difficult for Junior to become proficient in gun handling. Maybe it is time for a new party in government, What about it boys, PIGEONWATCH FOR THE PEOPLE, sounds good to me. William PM? :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 :( Sounds good, the name would have to attrack a wider audience if william were to be elected, how about HUNTING RULES K.O. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 The thing is, the Civil Service, whilst doing more or less what it`s told by Ministers, is in awe of public opinion as interpreted by themselves. Being for the most part a bunch of jobsworth lefties (I do of course exclude from this any members of this site, among others, and apologise in advance should I have inadervertently given offence etc etc) they get very excited at the least sign of life out there beyond Westminster. For the most part, life as they know it is letters/emails from antis. CHALLENGE THE COMPLACENCY. If every member of this site sent an email to the Home Office, even if it`s merely raising questions, that would have an impact. They don`t like being asked awkward questions by politicians or members of the public. The antis have had it their own way for far too long-time to redress the balance.I :evil: :evil: :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 15, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 I'm in :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 red_stagg and anyone else interested-here is the link to the Home Office website http://www.feedback.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact.asp you can get letters published in national papers. There was a pro-hare coursing one in the Times yesterday which attacked shooting and fishing, much to my annoyance. I`m not of course suggesting everyone should choose the Times. The single paper with the greatest influence with New Labour is the Sun. No doubt. Just got a new woman editor. :evil: :evil: :evil: Let`s do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Pip, pip, tally hoe, it's off to war we go!!! Let's give Harry Hun (Tony Blair) a good old trousers down and six of the best! Rah! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Aggh :X :X :what: my school server wont let me post a message so if i send someone the message and my info throught the messenger can you post it please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 I`ll do what I can! :( :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveman Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 As some of you will know, I'm no expert at this game but greatly respect the expertise shown by members of this site who are highly responsible which in turn, is typical of shooters in my experience. I have to agree with everything posted on this subject about the new government proposals. It is the antis who are irresponsible- do that want us running alive with vermin? The proposals say that airguns must not be carried in public, but I don't see any airguns in public places- do you? Also, can you go to a shop and buy an airgun legally and then carry it home in its box- or is that defined as carrying an airgun in a public place? When will governments learn that most gun crime is commited by those holding weapons illegally and efforts should be made to curb that, not restricting the use of legal airguns. I don't think I've expressed myself too well here, but hope you get my message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter-n Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 thanks f/l for the home office feedback address i think i'll keep dropping them aline :evil: :evil: peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 daveman, The proposals are really so full of holes that they will probably be mangled by the House of Lords but it`s up to people like us to show up the inconsistencies to the public/politicians (ie can shoot shotgun unsupervised at 15 but not airgun, not that I am arguing for more restrictions on shotguns, the one you mentioned about purchase, also there is no problem with legally held weapons; the airgun scare has been got up by a few local councils with policing just as much as isolated airgun problems). The big one is though, Labour said before the election-no further restrictions on shooting (and fishing)-so what`s this then? These poor girls were shot by a sub machine gun for God`s sake! then? :( :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 17, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 The thing is though he (blair) (he dosn't deserve a capital)can't say " i'm going to ban sub-machine guns" because they already are banned. So he uses his singular half brain cell, (which cant even work out the difference between "were going to be nuked into small pieces" and "Were not going to suffer any casualtys, ever,") and looks towards the only people who should have guns, us. We then get the flak for some **** killing two innocent people. (by this time smoke is comeing out of my ears) :evil: :( :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: p.s. i think there should be a new smiley which goes :gotohellblair: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveman Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 flightline, red stag- totally agree with you both. flightline- you don't need me to tell you that politicians promises' are generally a promise that they'll be broken. Labour also promised to give the Lottery to a non-profit making organisation, to sort out the railways etc. etc. etc. And the other lots (yes, both of them) are just as bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 red stag, I`m actually in favour of citizens being able legally to hold guns for their own self defence,as in America, which actually got the idea from us orginally. Why should only criminals and the police and military be the only ones to hold handguns? It`s outrageous that Tony Martin, the farmer who shot and killed a burglar, was sent to prison and is still in it. The guy he injured had 30 plus criminal convictions! He has been allowed legal aid to sue Martin! :( :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_stag88 Posted January 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2003 Thank you for jogging my memory, i think in some situations (such as protection of property) guns should be allowed. Last time we were in Battle some poachers were shooting our phesents and deer about 50yds from my high seat. Another stalker, who was further along, went to see what was the commotion. It ended up that there were about 10 people with shotguns and rifles, these people were a ruff lot. what were we to do if one shot at us? We can all shoot through 2p coins at 150yds, were we to fire back? Could we say shoot them in the foot? But the thing is it would be agains the convention as we use expanding bullets. If we killed them we would be up for murder, or gbh. what are we to do if we do get into a sticky situation. Fortunatly we scared them off and nothing came of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.