Conscious of the political element to this thread - so treading with care!
As someone who has lost a close family member to violent crime - and please be clear I raise that only to illustrate a point, not to pull 'heart strings' - never at any time have I apportioned 'blame' to the object used; scissors. They were used by a person who chose to do what was done. They were caught, tried and sentenced. The effects of their action echo still through my family over 30 years on. But the law worked, in terms of justice in that case it was done, seen to be done and is over in that respect for me. From that basis I can fully appreciate the anguish of loss - though we are all different and I would hope never to be so presumptuous as to consider I can fully appreciate the feelings and emotions of another. But I do know that heated / strong emotion does not make the basis for good laws or even particularly logic consideration of an issue.
I do not have facts, so tread even more carefully here in saying that in the case mentioned, I believe ( not know ) that circumstances regarding the family contributed to the act. That in no way demeans a terrible crime, lessens it nor justifies it.
Whether it be 'knife law', Wild access, firearms or so -called Dangerous Dogs, we seem trapped in a system of legislation geared to the lowest denominator - the majority suffer the consequences for the actions and arguably mindset of the few - those who it could be argued pay little head to the legality or other moral element of what they choose to do. That is a fundamentally flawed system. Own a dog in England and Wales? I suggest you look at the new legislation coming your way. Terry Pratchett mentioned the trial of a pig, two ducks and a seagull in one story - it was written in humour, but as in so many ways he made a rather sober observation...
Hopolophobia has been painted as a phrase of the 'hard core' gun rights movement in the USA. The USA isnt relevant here, but I'd suggest the term is. Its basically the fear of an inanimate object.
Mr McK has proven himself - to avoid the political, I'll leave it to a reader to draw the conclusion as to my meaning there - whether its ignoring public consultation, making possibly the right decision for the wrong reasons and blaming Westminster for his decision on 'Lockerbie' or railroading 'Corroboration' ahead on the acquiescence of a couple of Justice professionals against the overwhelming opposition of the rest of the legal profession. There is little humour in this, but one ventures the phrase 'loose cannon' in pun.
With guns, knives, people accessing property - we are all at risk. As a shooter and knife user, myself and my family are not immune to a nutter abusing such a tool to do harm. I want controls/ legislation that works to protect me in considered balance with society as a whole. Nothing enacted in the last century has demonstrably achieved that. But at lot of it puts me at risk of becoming a criminal unless I tread with extreme care even going about my daily life.
Statistics - one of those quoted Firearms Offences was likely about a local widow. Her husband had retained a WW2 pistol as awar trophy ( no ammo/ never used thereafter ) and a visitor to her home doing work saw it and reported it. She was found guilty of an offence - hence in the stats. Do I feel much safer now? Was the public interest - a key definition in measuring whether to progress a prosecution served - supposedly - served?
The actions McK seeks to stop are already offences. They go on because of resource and prioritisation by Police Management ( note the M word ) and Government, not for lack of statute to deal with the matter.
Police Scotland are cutting back Firearms Licensing departments across the board, service levels are falling. Experience across the UK shows that when administrative systems are so overloaded, their efficacy falls. Look up Northumbria Constabulary some time. The result is less protection, not more. The Police Management may well voice support - but the reality is they have no capacity to administer 500,000 air guns being licensed. What they hope for is a chunk of cash - and the likely route is by huge fees to support a flawed premise.
I get annoyed - not because Mr McK seeks to curtail my 'sport' to prevent a child's death - who could object on such a measurement? But because its a sham, it won't do that ... and I firmly believe Policy Makers either know that or should display the intellect to know it. That's a big issue because whilst it is Airguns today, what will they think up tomorrow?
The phrase - 'Exchange freedom for safety... and lose both... in time' has been demonstrated a truism over a great many years and across many cultures.
Where do these societal urges come from? I dont have a valid answer. I suspect it is because certain people live in fear of various things and have views that grow in discussion amongst like minded people. That is their right in a free society, I respect it and defend such a right, whether their view accords with my own or not. But when those thoughts find voice, then a loud enough voice that a political system geared to career politicians, rather than those that have experience of living and working in the world at large - take note of front pages of red top papers as their gauge on society or the next sound bite or the TV personality - then policy becomes the whim of those shouting loudest. That simply is not good, but is understandable.
I respectfully suggest that the collective 'we' - whether shooters, bushcrafters, dog owners etc etc reap what we sow. By nature we are peaceable people looking to just get on with what we do. There are diverse types, views and voices in there - and more power to that. But muttering amongst ourselves goes unheard outwith these four walls. There is little or no counter view being put forward at near any level - let alone the huge, well funded organisations that such people with opposing views flock to.
Previous posts about some form of organisation or representative body have become very heated on here and most everywhere else. In shooting, even the likes of BASC face a lot of negative comment and do score some cracking foot-in-mouth own goals at times. Again, I can see both sides on that. But the net result is zero collective voice and zero voice equals zero influence in the politics of today. Unavoidable to address politics - I'm not talking about any party or leaning - but purely in terms of politicians being the deliveries of legislation.
Toddy - find that third 'weapon', because if you do not and the law comes in as it is likely to do so, then you have a real issue. You will become a criminal and not a minor one in the eyes of the establishment; and having declared likely ownership on a public forum, it is an issue that may not simply go away. Are you a criminal? We've never met, but I have read your posts over the years - I know you are a good person, I have no fear of you, I respect you and support you - but that counts for little in the world into which we creep ever forward.
I guess I'm saying stand together in some way/ some how or face the prospect of assuredly hanging apart ( someone may have come up with that well before me
)