I think that you are probably right.
It is my understanding that more people die each year as a result of, for example, obesity or suicide than as a result of crosbow or knife attacks, distressing and bad enough though they are.
Do we ban food?
Ban on crossbows
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
I think that you are probably right.
It is my understanding that more people die each year as a result of, for example, obesity or suicide than as a result of crosbow or knife attacks, distressing and bad enough though they are.
Do we ban food?
But those are self inflicted. Murdering, or hurting, somebody else is different.
If you search hard enough, you will find decent statistics.
If you search hard enough, you will find decent statistics.
We do raise the price of stuff. Scotland has introduced the minimum price on a unit of alcohol, we already had a policy to limit special offers on bevvy. Fags etc are heavily taxed and there is talk of a sugar tax being introduced. I'm not saying there aren't issues that need addressed but I'm generally not a fan of treating the effect instead of the cause but its where we're at. "If it saves one life....." seems to be a common mantra, it goes hand in hand with "Its not my fault", our society has 'evolved', some will like it and some won't. Guess which category I fall into.
The cross bow issue is similar to the talk of gun controls.
Though cars are generally more dangerous, they are not seen as being 'bad'. The badness comes from the person driving theminto a bus queue/at speed/after drinking etc.
But with guns and similar things, it seems that people are allowed to treat the item as inherantly bad. Even though it has to have a person holding it. I'm not saying that there should not be controls, but it needs to concentrate on the person, not the thing.
But dealing with people is complicated, banning things if far easier. So people generally take the the easy way out, and it doesn't work.
Though cars are generally more dangerous, they are not seen as being 'bad'. The badness comes from the person driving theminto a bus queue/at speed/after drinking etc.
But with guns and similar things, it seems that people are allowed to treat the item as inherantly bad. Even though it has to have a person holding it. I'm not saying that there should not be controls, but it needs to concentrate on the person, not the thing.
But dealing with people is complicated, banning things if far easier. So people generally take the the easy way out, and it doesn't work.
the licencing system does concentrate on the person - once you clear the fairly meagre hurdle of getting a shotgun licence you can buy as many shotguns and as much ammunition as you like, and while the firearms licencing system is more severe, the big hurdle is still the 'fit and proper person' element, then they look at what you want and where you say you you'll use it - and no, i have no problem with the police deciding that someone who wants to use a rifle with a range of 900m in his 40m back garden isn't really capable of shooting safely...
its also worth noting that it does, in general, work - the UK has a murder rate about one quarter of the US murder rate. now the reason for that is hugely complex, the nature of its society etc.. but what makes those deaths possible is the easy access - legal or criminal - to things that kill other people quickly and with little effort.
2016/17 UK Firearm statistics make 'interesting reading' - what it does not show is what numbers of Firearm Crimes were committed by legally held firearms, and committed by the licence holder (rather than a stolen weapon).
Figures of 'non- air weapons' offences.
42% of offences were committed using hand-guns (which you cannot legally own)
26% of offences were committed by imitation-firearms
10% of offences were committed by Shotguns
Less than 1% were committed by Rifles
The 'balance' is 'others'
Further squeezing & tightening up the requirements on FAC & SG ownership will have minimum impact of the number of offences - but i the Government / Police would be better employed going after the hard core criminals who illegally secure hand-guns - but - its always easier to go-after the law abiding citizens (and they don't shoot back !!)
Since 2008/9 some 40% of all 'firearms' offences have been committed by Air weapons.
Once the person is deemed to be fit to posess a firearm/shotgun, then arbitary restrictions on this or that type of firearm, are of little benefit to the safety of society as a whole. The bushcraft equivilent would be banning edged tools with one type of grind, rather than another, because that happens to be what criminals are found with.
Or banning knives less than X length, as they are concealable. (Which is a direct analogy of the pistol ban we had in 1996/7.)
The ban on pistols, on the face of it may sound reasonable. But how much effort would it take to conceal a longer gun? very little. So it is still down to: can the person be trusted?
The conditions on firearms certificates do restrict where you can use them. Which will be something like 'on ranges constructed for that class of weapon' (I don't like their use of the word weapon though), or 'land deemed suitable by the Chief Constable'.
You could only shoot a firearm in the back garden, legally, if you had a suitable built and certified rifle range.
If it were to be an airgun, it could be used anywhere where you have permission, but there are very heavy penaltiesfor any errant shot. There are lots of people who like to plink at a target in their own garden, and do so safely and responsibly.
Jules
(Excuse the lack of spell check.)
Or banning knives less than X length, as they are concealable. (Which is a direct analogy of the pistol ban we had in 1996/7.)
The ban on pistols, on the face of it may sound reasonable. But how much effort would it take to conceal a longer gun? very little. So it is still down to: can the person be trusted?
The conditions on firearms certificates do restrict where you can use them. Which will be something like 'on ranges constructed for that class of weapon' (I don't like their use of the word weapon though), or 'land deemed suitable by the Chief Constable'.
You could only shoot a firearm in the back garden, legally, if you had a suitable built and certified rifle range.
If it were to be an airgun, it could be used anywhere where you have permission, but there are very heavy penaltiesfor any errant shot. There are lots of people who like to plink at a target in their own garden, and do so safely and responsibly.
Jules
(Excuse the lack of spell check.)
That is, to a certain extent true, however once you have proved yourself to be a 'safe shooter' then all restrictions are lifted (Generally after about 5 years of FAC ownership)
I have an 'open-licence' which allows me to shoot anywhere that I deem to be safe, there is no need for me to apply to the Police to inspect the land, I am not limited to shooting at ranges - I am allowed to shoot anywhere that I have permission (just as with an air-rifle).
My Son also has an 'open-licence'.
Really. California game wardens use non lethal shotgun rounds (think of rubber shot) to teach intruding bears to fear man.
I have a problem with licensing ANY of those. How about we work from the other direction? If the government feels you're unfit then let the burden of proof fall on the government as it should?
I dislike the rule just on the face of it. That said, it's an easy matter to simply remove a cylinder for either a double action or a single action revolver.
Sounds likje the attacker was inept. Out west the bike gangs all carry ball peen hammers specifically because they're not considered "weapons" legally. But they almosy never use the without it being fatal.
It worked here. Longer sentences (beginning in the 1980s) coincided with a reduction in crime (especially recidivism) That said, I doubt it was for any of the reasons popularly put forth. No, it wasn't because it was necessarily a deterrent. Apparently those criminals that were incarcerated "aged out" of the category that usually commits crimes. Most crimes are committed by 16 to 35 year olds and long prison sentences saw them being released after the upper age (when their testosterone levels started going down)
The lead pellets penetrated the hide and lodged inside the animal.
Rubber slugs are like a good punch.
I know, i have been shot several times with one ( practice in army)
Simple on m
On my DA S&W 929 you need to remove a screwlocked screw.
Not made to be removed every time.
On my DA Ruger GP100MC i need to remove the grip, main spring, trigger group then cylinder.
Takes time. Not practical
Back to topic: are there many sport users of x-bows in UK?
Has x-bows been used in a lot of criminal activity?
Somr single action revokvers, not all.
On my DA S&W 929 you need to remove a screwlocked screw.
Not made to be removed every time.
On my DA Ruger GP100MC i need to remove the grip, main spring, trigger group then cylinder.
Takes time. Not practical
Back to topic: are there many sport users of x-bows in UK?
Has x-bows been used in a lot of criminal activity?
Last edited:
If I have to choose between the Brit laws ( knives, handguns, guns) and the US ones, I choose the Brit ones every day. Even if I love guns.
what proportion of the Polices 'daily policing effort' do you think is aimed at legally held firearms, and what proportion at illegally held firearms?
my local constabulary - West Mercia (Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire), operating jointly with Warwickshire Constabulary - has around 20 almost entirely civilian staff in its Firearms & Explosives Licencing Unit, while the two constabularies have a total of around 3,000 Police officers and 2,000 civil and support staff: pretty much all the police officers will have illegally held firearms as their highest priority even if they happen to be doing other things, and there is a sizable civilian/police intelligence and investigation unit within Force HQ dedicated to the capture and interdiction of illegally held firearms.
so, what are we thinking - perhaps 0.5% of the daily policing effort goes on the 25,000 or so legally held firearms/explosives certificate holders in the two force areas, with perhaps 10% of the daily policing effort being entirely directed at illegally held firearms, and another 30% or so looking out for then even if doing something else?
going for the easy win eh?
Practice? Is that what they told you?
Tough training, that. Were you in the Swedish army, Janne?Yes. Regiment K4, Arvidsjaur.
I was a young officer, had to quit after three years, damaged knee.
Training like this was essential. Makes you know what to expect. Teargas, rubber bullets, physical ‘abuse’, interrogation resistance.
Standard procedure in the old Cold War days.
I was a young officer, had to quit after three years, damaged knee.
Training like this was essential. Makes you know what to expect. Teargas, rubber bullets, physical ‘abuse’, interrogation resistance.
Standard procedure in the old Cold War days.
Mind I said rubber "shot" not rubber "slugs." In reality modern non lethal rounds (the shot) aren't rubber anymore; they're plastic and they do break the skin at a minimum (kinda like the old fashioned idea of using rock salt) There are no nonlethal "slugs" here that I'm aware of. The closest thing to that would be a beanbag round.
