Crossbow and broadhead sales ban and crossbow licensing one step closer.

[C_Claycomb]

Not legislation yet, but a strong statement of intent (bold is mine). Response to consultation updated 19 March 2026

Controls on the use of crossbows on public safety grounds: government response

www.gov.uk

2.1 1. The government will, therefore, introduce further restrictions on crossbows through introducing a licensing scheme for existing crossbow owners, and we will consult on the details of the licensing scheme. In addition, the government will also prohibit the sale of crossbows. We will consult on how best such a ban might be achieved, and will set out more detail in the consultation, but we would anticipate that existing crossbow owners will be able to keep their crossbow provided they apply for a licence and pass the necessary suitability checks that a licensing scheme would require. We also plan to prohibit broadhead arrows as discussed in the call for evidence.

2.12. Responses to the call for evidence showed that the majority of crossbows purchased by respondents identified as owners were bought online. Whilst face to face sales enable sellers to carry out any required age verification at the point of sale we want to ensure that purchases made online are subject to robust checks. The government has, therefore, brought forward measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to update the law on online sales of crossbows by requiring stronger age verification checks at point of sale and point of delivery.

 

[Chris]

This is one of those ones where half of me is opposed to increasing government restrictions on things, but then half of me understands in this instance. If you need a license for a > 12ft/lb air rifle then having something much deadlier as license-free doesn’t really make sense.

 

[hughtrimble]

This is one of those ones where half of me is opposed to increasing government restrictions on things, but then half of me understands in this instance. If you need a license for a > 12ft/lb air rifle then having something much deadlier as license-free doesn’t really make sense.

Quite reasonably, you could also look at it the other way around.

"Because X is banned Y should be also. Because Y isn't banned X shouldn't be also."

This is just to suggest that this kind of reasoning doesn't really work under scrutiny as you can reverse it. To proceed in this (either) way requires far too many assumptions of equivalence.

 

[Chris]

Quite reasonably, you could also look at it the other way around.

"Because X is banned Y should be also. Because Y isn't banned X shouldn't be also."

This is just to suggest that this kind of reasoning doesn't really work under scrutiny as you can reverse it. To proceed in this (either) way requires far too many assumptions of equivalence.

When the stated intention is to control ‘dangerous weapons’ though, which is the position the government holds, then this proposal does make sense in the context I set out. Reversing it would not make sense given their intentions.

Not that I necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.

 

[Pattree]

. To proceed in this (either) way requires far too many assumptions of equivalence.

There is one humongous equivalence.
That they are the same tool designed to do exactly the same job and subject to exactly the same abuse.

Licensing is perfectly sensible for a tool that is fundamentally designed to be lethal.
I’m less sure about the total ban on new tools. Certainly accessibility needs to be regulated.

What might be the law on building such an item. Shall I be able to get a license for that?

 

[Woody girl]

How's the knife ban working? stabbings have been reduced or stopped ?
Oh, no they are happening daily.
Perhaps the axe attack on a young mother last week should initiate a ban or licencing of axes.?
Hang on, I'll fish my tongue out of cheek.
Just wondering.....

 

[Pattree]

The difference between an axe and a crossbow or gun is that the axe wasn’t designed to be lethal.

I’m eating a tiramisu with a fork. It’s possible to inflict injury with that.

The only thing that I can do with a crossbow or a gun is to kill/injure, threaten to kill/injure or practice ready to kill or injure.

Target practice? Practice for what?
How happy would you be with a camera mounted in a crossbow (that still delivered the kick of the launch) that recorded the accuracy of your shot at a target? No? In that case what’s it for?

Banning isn’t necessary. Regulation most certainly is.

(The only thing in my cheek is the most delicious cream cake and an espresso.)

 

[bobnewboy]

As I’ve posted before, it’s not sporting items or tools which kill or injure, it’s people with ill intent. Licensing, restricting, or banning such articles by law makes absolutely no difference to the end effect. That is because those who would use them for illegal effect take no notice of the laws of the land.

 

[slowworm]

The only thing that I can do with a crossbow or a gun is to kill/injure, threaten to kill/injure or practice ready to kill or injure.

Target practice? Practice for what?

Target shooting is a hobby like many others, you may not understand it but that not a reason to ban it. Some people may take part in some disciplines that are useful to hone skills for hunting yes, but other people and disciplines aren't. I know several vegetarians who target shoot for example.

I wouldn't mind a go at archery or using a cross bow to target shoot but have no desire to hunt with one.

I do have issues with the ban though. Firstly I doubt it will do much to take bows out of the hands of the people who would commit a crime with them. I gather there's still plenty of off ticket shotguns around after they were moved onto a licence decades ago.

Secondly, as has been said, it's the person not the inanimate object. If you can't get hold of a cross bow you'll use something else. Perhaps we'll reach a point when it's the person who is licenced?

 

[TLM]

"No political party in power shall put out restricting legislation if it has not been made public before elections."

 

[Pattree]

Cars don’t kill people.
Drivers do.
(Even cars have been used as weapons.)


Banning won’t work.
Regulating will place limitations and enable law enforcement that preempts injury.

Nothing wrong with target shooting.
If you do it with a lethal tool, just do it with one that is regulated.

 

[hughtrimble]

There is one humongous equivalence.
That they are the same tool designed to do exactly the same job and subject to exactly the same abuse.

Pattree, this is what I'm talking about. They are fundamentally different items. Whilst you are free to construe that they have 'exactly the same' purpose, to suggest a crossbow and a 12+ ft/lb air rifle 'are the same tool' is quite a stretch.

 

[bobnewboy]

Regulating will place limitations and enable law enforcement that preempts injury.

Errr, nope. People who ignore the law already in place will not change their approach. If law enforcement could in any way pre-empt injury, then why are people being injured already, when they should be covered by existing law?

 

[slowworm]

If you do it with a lethal tool, just do it with one that is regulated.

Cars, knives, axes etc, etc have all been used to kill so by your logic they should all be regulated with suitability checks?

I note the proposal is a mishmash of licence and ban. The proposal to ban broadhead arrows also seems strange, does it mean you can own an arrow head and only break the law if it's attached to an arrow? Will they ban the heads and, if so, what about the millions sold as trinkets or whatever?

 

[Woody girl]

As I’ve posted before, it’s not sporting items or tools which kill or injure, it’s people with ill intent. Licensing, restricting, or banning such articles by law makes absolutely no difference to the end effect. That is because those who would use them for illegal effect take no notice of the laws of the land.

That was exactly my point.
I am cynical that any legislation does anything to stop unwanted behavior.
Just another stick to beat us all with.
A few years ago, fairly near me, a local registered shotgun owner , well respected and known, and shall we say on the better off side of life, killed his wife with a shotgun, then himself.
Tell me,
How did legal registration stop that crime happening?

 

[Pattree]

Errr, nope. People who ignore the law already in place will not change their approach. If law enforcement could in any way pre-empt injury, then why are people being injured already, when they should be covered by existing law?

A ban or regulation allows the enforcement agency to take appropriate action for possession without the injury occurring.
They could not do this without law.

Cars, knives, axes etc, etc have all been used to kill so by your logic they should all be regulated with suitability checks?

Not at all.

I refer only to tools that have been designed for the purpose of being lethal. How they are used in practice or subsequently, including sport, is irrelevant to the necessity for regulation.

 

[Woody girl]

But Pattree, no amount of legislation, actualy stops people obtaining and using anything.
Legislation doesn't even stop legal owners using them for nefarious actions.
The police can only act if they find an item. By which time it could well be too late as the item has already been used.
How are they to know what you or I or any other person may have in a cupboard somewhere.
Are we going to have to search the whole country house by house on the off chance a little old pensioner lady or gent is harbouring a cross bow in their wardrobe?
Or do we just go for the youngsters. Say those under 45/50.
It's fearmongering.
Just to look as if something is being done to keep us poor plebs and mortals safe..ahh how sweet of them.!
I'd like to know how many axe attacks have happened in the last few years, and how many crossbow attacks have happened. I'm willing to bet an axe has been used far more often, and has been just as lethal.

 

[Pattree]

That’s still missing the point.

When someone purchases a tool that has no other purpose than to kill or injure I’d like to think that they do so under regulation. In that regard I cannot see any difference between a crossbow and a gun.
If they then choose to “plink” a few cans or shoot at a target that is their choice.

I’m not recommending a ban on any of these items.

 

[hughtrimble]

A ban or regulation allows the enforcement agency to take appropriate action for possession without the injury occurring.
They could not do this without law.


Not at all.

I refer only to tools that have been designed for the purpose of being lethal. How they are used in practice or subsequently, including sport, is irrelevant to the necessity for regulation.

This is the padded cell approach which really falls down flat. If everything that can be used to harm someone is removed, then that's what you end up with.

The idea of tools 'designed for the purpose of being lethal'...I mean this is just impossible. You're bracketing terms to things which mean nothing. 'A crossbow' isn't some kind of entity which are all designed for the same purpose. They're designed to launch projectiles, that is all. Some can launch some kinds more efficiently than others, but crossbows in themselves are not in any way lethal. Knives? What kind? Blunt? Oh so a sharp one that's a bit pointy is designed to be lethal is it? But if it's rounded like a butcher's knife then that's not designed to be lethal because it's designed to butcher something that is already dead.

Come on Pattree, these things just don't work like that.

 

[Pattree]

Eyes wide shut.
You can’t do ANYTHING ELSE with a gun or a crossbow.


…….