First, and most importantly, I want to express my sympathy to you and your family for your loss.
Next I want to applaud you for your clear understanding of the real problems behind violence.
Scottish air gun licence
- Thread starter Dogoak
- 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.
- Status
First, and most importantly, I want to express my sympathy to you and your family for your loss.
Next I want to applaud you for your clear understanding of the real problems behind violence.
Saw this article recently. It says it all:
My Gun
Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 870 right in the doorway. I gave it 6 shells, then left it alone and went about my business.
While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and
quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of our house.
After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it. It hadn't moved itself outside. It certainly hadn't killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn't even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people.
Either the media is wrong or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.
Well, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they're making people fat
My Gun
Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 870 right in the doorway. I gave it 6 shells, then left it alone and went about my business.
While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and
quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of our house.
After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it. It hadn't moved itself outside. It certainly hadn't killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn't even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people.
Either the media is wrong or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.
Well, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they're making people fat
Saw this article recently. It says it all:
My Gun
Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 870 right in the doorway. I gave it 6 shells, then left it alone and went about my business.
While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and
quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of our house.
After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it. It hadn't moved itself outside. It certainly hadn't killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn't even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people.
Either the media is wrong or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.
Well, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they're making people fat
Brilliant.
An apocryphal tale.
Two neighbours having a rammy (loud discussion, loads of argy bargy) wife of No2 comes out to see what's happening. Son of No1 goes running into his Mum who is making dinner and tells her that Mr and Mrs 2 are ganging up on Dad. Without stopping to think about it Mrs1 goes running out with the potato knife still in her hand. Mrs 2 sees the knife and starts screaming blue murder. In jumps Mr 3 who tells Mrs2 to stop being such a (insert suitable expletives) stupid eejit. Mrs 3, and Son3 all put in their tuppence ha'penny worth about Mrs1 being silly too. Mrs 1 rounds on Mrs and Son3 and tells them to *expletive out of it, it's none of their damned business, it's only a paring knife! Mrs 4 decides to take matters into her own hands, phones the police and then tries to take the knife from Mrs1.....and gets her hand sliced for her stupidity
Mr4 starts ranting and then the police arrive.
This happens; it really does. Now, supposing any of those otherwise rational people had a gun to hand and decided that they were going to restore order; the first thing someone else is going to do is look for their gun too, since that's their right to bear arms and threatened people threaten back.
Santaman2000 we know guns don't kill people unless someone's holding it, but the reality is that we had a grand total, and that includes airguns simply found in situ, of 365 firearms crimes in an entire year, in the entire nation.
Half of those were airguns, which aren't presently licenced.
That's it.
The entire thing.
It's not us who are over reacting.
America can keep it guns and it's adoration of them over their children the other side of the Atlantic. We don't want to live in the 'Wild West'.
We do wish to live here, in peace and security.
Whether licencing airguns is the way forward or not, I don't know.
I do know that for the majority, it won't matter a damn.
For those to whom is does matter, and I am not anti gun ownership, I am very much anti no reason and demanding rights and no responsibilities, I really hope the system is simplified, that it is even handed right across the country, that it is enacted responsibly.
The apocraphyl tale happened. I live in a lovely bit of the world, but our wee towns are the murder capital of Europe. Not by guns and firearms, but by knives.
We really don't need the excrement storm of guns in the mixture too. The UK's a nice place, millions of decent people, just there's an undercurrent that's not so civilized and it's in most of us.
I don't want to worry about whether the numpties sloshed out of their skulls on buckie and white lightning have airguns or not. It's bad enough that the monks refuse to bottle with plastic It's quite astonishing just how much mess a glass chib can make of a face. Guns don't kill people, but armed people kill people, your own society shows that.
Bringing airguns into line with firearms is really a non issue.
Back responsible ownership, push the simplification of ownership and the reasons for ownership, make it clear, explain it, have everyone on the same page, and for heavens sake teach responsible use. Encourage clubs, encourage education, encourage sport and understanding.
Otherwise, this opprobium agin guns will only get worse with every single incident.
Gun owners can't stand outside society demanding changes; change has to happen with the majority in agreement.
Toddy
From Wiki
"A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the U.S. are committed with guns. Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used, with similar patterns in cases of family violence.]Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates. A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill. "
Two neighbours having a rammy (loud discussion, loads of argy bargy) wife of No2 comes out to see what's happening. Son of No1 goes running into his Mum who is making dinner and tells her that Mr and Mrs 2 are ganging up on Dad. Without stopping to think about it Mrs1 goes running out with the potato knife still in her hand. Mrs 2 sees the knife and starts screaming blue murder. In jumps Mr 3 who tells Mrs2 to stop being such a (insert suitable expletives) stupid eejit. Mrs 3, and Son3 all put in their tuppence ha'penny worth about Mrs1 being silly too. Mrs 1 rounds on Mrs and Son3 and tells them to *expletive out of it, it's none of their damned business, it's only a paring knife! Mrs 4 decides to take matters into her own hands, phones the police and then tries to take the knife from Mrs1.....and gets her hand sliced for her stupidity
Mr4 starts ranting and then the police arrive.This happens; it really does. Now, supposing any of those otherwise rational people had a gun to hand and decided that they were going to restore order; the first thing someone else is going to do is look for their gun too, since that's their right to bear arms and threatened people threaten back.
Santaman2000 we know guns don't kill people unless someone's holding it, but the reality is that we had a grand total, and that includes airguns simply found in situ, of 365 firearms crimes in an entire year, in the entire nation.
Half of those were airguns, which aren't presently licenced.
That's it.
The entire thing.
It's not us who are over reacting.
America can keep it guns and it's adoration of them over their children the other side of the Atlantic. We don't want to live in the 'Wild West'.
We do wish to live here, in peace and security.
Whether licencing airguns is the way forward or not, I don't know.
I do know that for the majority, it won't matter a damn.
For those to whom is does matter, and I am not anti gun ownership, I am very much anti no reason and demanding rights and no responsibilities, I really hope the system is simplified, that it is even handed right across the country, that it is enacted responsibly.
The apocraphyl tale happened. I live in a lovely bit of the world, but our wee towns are the murder capital of Europe. Not by guns and firearms, but by knives.
We really don't need the excrement storm of guns in the mixture too. The UK's a nice place, millions of decent people, just there's an undercurrent that's not so civilized and it's in most of us.
I don't want to worry about whether the numpties sloshed out of their skulls on buckie and white lightning have airguns or not. It's bad enough that the monks refuse to bottle with plastic
It's quite astonishing just how much mess a glass chib can make of a face. Guns don't kill people, but armed people kill people, your own society shows that.Bringing airguns into line with firearms is really a non issue.
Back responsible ownership, push the simplification of ownership and the reasons for ownership, make it clear, explain it, have everyone on the same page, and for heavens sake teach responsible use. Encourage clubs, encourage education, encourage sport and understanding.
Otherwise, this opprobium agin guns will only get worse with every single incident.
Gun owners can't stand outside society demanding changes; change has to happen with the majority in agreement.
Toddy
From Wiki
"A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the U.S. are committed with guns. Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used, with similar patterns in cases of family violence.]Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates. A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill. "
Last edited:
Those numbers sound about right. But wiki (and the media) don't tell the rest of the story: most of those "deaths" are the result of the business owner killing the armed robber. In my book that's a good thing.
Nobody is demanding rights to unlicensed airgun ownership Toddy... it is the other side of the argument doing the demanding. We already have a right of ownership of an airgun without licence in this country, what is there to demand?
Yes I know. You're not allowed to defend yourself and you're proud of your total dependency on the authorities.
Its an issue to the overwhelming majority who responded to the consultation, and an issue to most responding to this thread.
However, here is a thought - if its a non issue, don't do it.
I agree Mary we do not live in USA and here Gun ownership for defence is not allowed and as pretty much most agree not needed
Gun and knife crime is a very tiny blip in a population of 70,000,000 people
most US cities even small ones have a bigger problem than the whole of UK
Gun and knife crime is a very tiny blip in a population of 70,000,000 people
most US cities even small ones have a bigger problem than the whole of UK
Agreed; even when you make allowance for your smaller population. Of course you also have to make allowances for the glaring errors in the statistics (homicide is homicide whether it's justified or not) Also irrelevant to the question of how to reduce whatever violent crime either country has.
The facts are simple here. Gun ownership has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years or so and at the same time violent crime has been going down.
What's not so simple is figuring out how to reduce that crime: Tougher sentencing? Better mental health care? More stringent restrictions? Personally, I seriously doubt more restrictions will do anything positive as the vast majority of current crime is already committed by those who can't legally own firearms.
So, your own example shows that licensing air guns will not help with your issues at all, what you need is licensing of knives.
Going back to your example, how many non-FAC air guns have been used in such a situation (a neighbour dispute getting out of hand) in the last year?
Personally I don't have a strong opinion on the issue but I've not seen any real reason to bring in the licence. As has been said, licence alcohol first, perhaps have background and metal health checks for a driving licence, then knives would be logical before airguns.
I must apologize Mary. I made an earlier post agreeing with you that self defense is "manslaughter." Perhaps it is there, I don't know, but here, it's homicide (albeit justified and legal)
Toddy thank you for continued input - comments regards appreciating your views are genuine.
Santaman. likewise - thank you for your initial sentiment, appreciated. I appreciate the thought behind your story ( the article etc ). The Amercican side of the equation os interesting in itself, but has countless times over proven a diversion to the debate here. The two societies have as much in common as is different. Guns play but a small part of that mix. The societies and the role of firearms within them are very distinct and bare only passing commonalities.
This stems from not just the Constitution, the development of the nation etc, but intrinsic deep rooted differences in the mindset of people in the two countries. Now be absolutely clear, I am not at all using words like better or worse, just different. Personally it took me quite sometime to fathom that difference. I find it hugely interesting and I respect it entirely and, I'll confess, greatly envy parts. However, other parts do cause a double take. All that is an aside to the debate here. Please USA readers take this from a ( in many ways fan ) , but your perspective clouds the issues here and generally derails debate. The cultural differences are now that great.
I'm really tripping over my feet in trying to hold a two way debate with Toddy - because she is bring out very useful and valid points. But in responding it could so easily appear that we are arguing or I am picking upon her. I do hope that she appreciates that is not the case and as the one person putting forward a detailed element of another view, I am kinda funnelled into the direction of the response. Hope that makes sense. Genuine thanks and appreciation for sticking with this Toddy ( btw can you see about a hat tip emoticon option - really miss it on here! )
I suggest hopolophobia continues as a central theme. In the example Toddy gives, people of that mindset simply will fight at the slightest trigger. Tools to hand are likely to accelerate the path to aggression, but that will be the case whether its a firearm, a knife, a bat, a brick or a fist. Aggression/ violence rates are a function of socio-economics and not least education. We are evolved to employ violence as an end option. How many options we perceive as being available is a direct function of education - and I refer here in the widest context. Violence has consequence - that is the key inhibitor. In nature it revolves around damage. A herbivore can suffer damage and eat plants - a carnivore is rather more fragile. Even a slight injury imposes severe problems. Humans operate on a similar level. Of recent times, those consequence extend to loss of liberty - prison etc.
I suggest that the current climate in some areas is such that a reverse learning curve applies - the damage is likely if you do not fight and fight first. Whatever the truth of it, the element of consequence has been reduced in society. Sentencing does little to reflect the crime by and large. Social support is in place. Many other aspects pertain. But the consequence of applying violence is often lower than that of not being seen to be ready to fight.
The people in the example would likely have been noted for domestic disturbance or face criminal charges previously. No one in the UK would argue that they should thereafter be unable to legally obtain a firearm. Will they still have guns - in short, if they want them yes. Its far easier to acquire an illegal firearm these days than a medium size loan.
Toddy illustrates that at a certain level, she feels that the presence of a firearm will bring about violent acts. Such a feeling is possible at a level beyond actuality, but has a basis in fact. But those of the bent to seek a firearm will do so regardless of the law. I think it closely allies to culture. We've seen the proliferation of knives used in crime. It works on just the same basis as the Cold War - if Countries can do it, why should youth feel different? Talking to lads ( and girls ) carrying blades the common rationale was ' I have one because he has one'. Whatever else you do, you cannot criticise their logic! The answer? Its not easy - things have gone a long way.
I know the current Police view is that strict enforcement and harsh penalties are 'working'. With respect to the boys in blue - Management would say that wouldnt they?
People make individual decisions collectively. Ultimately do people believe a youth in fear of his life will stop carrying a knife because he might get stopped, might get a caution or might get some 'time' - maybe. But those I talk to ( and I dont spend all my time talking to teenagers ) stopped carrying because 'it wasn't cool'. The reasons for it being uncool are many - policing was part of it. The lyrics of a current music star carry more weight - their words, not mine. How do you factor Pitt Bull into socio debate?
In the first part of her note Toddy formed to type as I described in earlier posts. Or so one could conclude. The wording, language, thrust of her statements went that way. Then she notes something very interesting -
Back responsible ownership, push the simplification of ownership and the reasons for ownership, make it clear, explain it, have everyone on the same page, and for heavens sake teach responsible use. Encourage clubs, encourage education, encourage sport and understanding.
Now that really made me sit up! Such a statement seems to run counter to most assertions about 'gun control'. Mental kick to self - Toddy never claimed to be anti-gun, I yet again fell into that trap. My fault, not hers.Taken at face value - I'm in agreement. The trouble is, that as a non-shooter I'm not sure if Toddy realises just how much ground has been lost. Jack's Game, Out of Town etc - with gun themes will never be aired on the neutral BBC. Pro shooting speakers will rarely be invited to school talks, news media edit out positive gun news. On the flip side, editor after editor and politician after politician has demonised shooters to an extent that would never be tolerated on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.
Shooters have become beleaguered as a whole, whilst individually, collectively and via organisations we've bickered and argued about nonsense and we continue to do so.
So, before we all lose the will to live - I agree with Toddy's suggestion in principal. It would be a great step forward, I just ask that she appreciate that the reaction she sees from some shooters is born of deep frustration and a feeling of having been mistreated, not by any means out of arrogant self assurance or bombast - just the opposite in fact.
And again, Toddy - thank you so very much for your views - I find them incredibly interesting and useful. And Santaman/ USof A readers, I hope you take my comments in good spirit and in the respectful way intended. Where's Colion Noir when you need him!
Added - eh, you lot! I'm a one fingered typist this end, stop moving the debate on whilst I'm constructing a four volume post!
Santaman. likewise - thank you for your initial sentiment, appreciated. I appreciate the thought behind your story ( the article etc ). The Amercican side of the equation os interesting in itself, but has countless times over proven a diversion to the debate here. The two societies have as much in common as is different. Guns play but a small part of that mix. The societies and the role of firearms within them are very distinct and bare only passing commonalities.
This stems from not just the Constitution, the development of the nation etc, but intrinsic deep rooted differences in the mindset of people in the two countries. Now be absolutely clear, I am not at all using words like better or worse, just different. Personally it took me quite sometime to fathom that difference. I find it hugely interesting and I respect it entirely and, I'll confess, greatly envy parts. However, other parts do cause a double take. All that is an aside to the debate here. Please USA readers take this from a ( in many ways fan ) , but your perspective clouds the issues here and generally derails debate. The cultural differences are now that great.
I'm really tripping over my feet in trying to hold a two way debate with Toddy - because she is bring out very useful and valid points. But in responding it could so easily appear that we are arguing or I am picking upon her. I do hope that she appreciates that is not the case and as the one person putting forward a detailed element of another view, I am kinda funnelled into the direction of the response. Hope that makes sense. Genuine thanks and appreciation for sticking with this Toddy ( btw can you see about a hat tip emoticon option - really miss it on here! )
I suggest hopolophobia continues as a central theme. In the example Toddy gives, people of that mindset simply will fight at the slightest trigger. Tools to hand are likely to accelerate the path to aggression, but that will be the case whether its a firearm, a knife, a bat, a brick or a fist. Aggression/ violence rates are a function of socio-economics and not least education. We are evolved to employ violence as an end option. How many options we perceive as being available is a direct function of education - and I refer here in the widest context. Violence has consequence - that is the key inhibitor. In nature it revolves around damage. A herbivore can suffer damage and eat plants - a carnivore is rather more fragile. Even a slight injury imposes severe problems. Humans operate on a similar level. Of recent times, those consequence extend to loss of liberty - prison etc.
I suggest that the current climate in some areas is such that a reverse learning curve applies - the damage is likely if you do not fight and fight first. Whatever the truth of it, the element of consequence has been reduced in society. Sentencing does little to reflect the crime by and large. Social support is in place. Many other aspects pertain. But the consequence of applying violence is often lower than that of not being seen to be ready to fight.
The people in the example would likely have been noted for domestic disturbance or face criminal charges previously. No one in the UK would argue that they should thereafter be unable to legally obtain a firearm. Will they still have guns - in short, if they want them yes. Its far easier to acquire an illegal firearm these days than a medium size loan.
Toddy illustrates that at a certain level, she feels that the presence of a firearm will bring about violent acts. Such a feeling is possible at a level beyond actuality, but has a basis in fact. But those of the bent to seek a firearm will do so regardless of the law. I think it closely allies to culture. We've seen the proliferation of knives used in crime. It works on just the same basis as the Cold War - if Countries can do it, why should youth feel different? Talking to lads ( and girls ) carrying blades the common rationale was ' I have one because he has one'. Whatever else you do, you cannot criticise their logic! The answer? Its not easy - things have gone a long way.
I know the current Police view is that strict enforcement and harsh penalties are 'working'. With respect to the boys in blue - Management would say that wouldnt they?
People make individual decisions collectively. Ultimately do people believe a youth in fear of his life will stop carrying a knife because he might get stopped, might get a caution or might get some 'time' - maybe. But those I talk to ( and I dont spend all my time talking to teenagers ) stopped carrying because 'it wasn't cool'. The reasons for it being uncool are many - policing was part of it. The lyrics of a current music star carry more weight - their words, not mine. How do you factor Pitt Bull into socio debate?
In the first part of her note Toddy formed to type as I described in earlier posts. Or so one could conclude. The wording, language, thrust of her statements went that way. Then she notes something very interesting -
Back responsible ownership, push the simplification of ownership and the reasons for ownership, make it clear, explain it, have everyone on the same page, and for heavens sake teach responsible use. Encourage clubs, encourage education, encourage sport and understanding.
Now that really made me sit up! Such a statement seems to run counter to most assertions about 'gun control'. Mental kick to self - Toddy never claimed to be anti-gun, I yet again fell into that trap. My fault, not hers.Taken at face value - I'm in agreement. The trouble is, that as a non-shooter I'm not sure if Toddy realises just how much ground has been lost. Jack's Game, Out of Town etc - with gun themes will never be aired on the neutral BBC. Pro shooting speakers will rarely be invited to school talks, news media edit out positive gun news. On the flip side, editor after editor and politician after politician has demonised shooters to an extent that would never be tolerated on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.
Shooters have become beleaguered as a whole, whilst individually, collectively and via organisations we've bickered and argued about nonsense and we continue to do so.
So, before we all lose the will to live - I agree with Toddy's suggestion in principal. It would be a great step forward, I just ask that she appreciate that the reaction she sees from some shooters is born of deep frustration and a feeling of having been mistreated, not by any means out of arrogant self assurance or bombast - just the opposite in fact.
And again, Toddy - thank you so very much for your views - I find them incredibly interesting and useful. And Santaman/ USof A readers, I hope you take my comments in good spirit and in the respectful way intended. Where's Colion Noir when you need him!
Added - eh, you lot! I'm a one fingered typist this end, stop moving the debate on whilst I'm constructing a four volume post!
Killing in self-defence is not manslaughter, it's exoneration if established.
What hasn't been mentioned in this current discussion is that garden plinking will not be accepted as a reason for owning an airgun which is patently stupid and absurd. In England at least it is already an offence of your pellet goes outside your garden so the sanction is already there to behave responsibly.
What hasn't been mentioned in this current discussion is that garden plinking will not be accepted as a reason for owning an airgun which is patently stupid and absurd. In England at least it is already an offence of your pellet goes outside your garden so the sanction is already there to behave responsibly.
The tale was a classic; it's an example of how something so simple got totally out of hand. Simply imagine it with guns and how out of hand it could have gotten then. A cut finger is a lot easier to heal than a bullet in the gut.
I have cooried down with a six of cubs while the tent was shot by cretins with airguns. Back then everybody knew that airguns only hurt, didn't kill....until the two year old died.
Now, airguns are much more powerful, though the pump ones are restricted. The question really should be why aren't they already treated like other firearms ?
That's all this new law, if it comes to fruition, will address. It makes all guns under the same firearms licencing.
Please don't start on knives
Our local MP has a slogan that he trots out at every single opportunity, "Carry a knife, go to jail!".
Boatman, yeah, try that one in front of the Procurator Fiscal....and the Sheriff will boot the case straight up to the High Court. The law lords don't take kindly to folks who use guns agin others.
M
Please don't start on knives
"Carry a knife, go to jail!".
M
Starting on knives is more logical than starting on airguns, they are the tool involved in vastly more deaths - why not start on them if the logic is to restrict tools that really are used often in violent crime?
BTW, airguns are not "much more powerful" than in years gone by. Indeed they are far less powerful than many that were used by the likes of Lewis and Clarke. The legal limit of 12ftlb of power to be unlicensed is so old that it is pre metric.
Airguns aren't "much more powerful", they require a FAC over 12 ft·lbf(rifles) and have been around 11 to 11.5 ft·lbf for many years. It seems the law you're after is already in place.
As for a knife licence, I'm not asking for one but if you wish for all air weapons to be licensed then I see no reason why you're not in favor of knives as well (plus anything else that could be grabbed in an argument and do someone damage). I think a large knife would do just as much damage as a sub 12 ft·lbf air rifle. I would also expect stats to bare that our if there are any to support this proposed change.
- Status
