Air gun licencing, part deux

[Ogri the trog]

sanataman2000, I am very pro gun. But I must object to that opinion in the US, and obviously I won't be changing anything. But if the guy coming into your house didn't have a gun, then you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself.

BRB,
I believe the object of the US entitlement to bear arms, is so that if the person entering your home is carrying an illegal firearm - you have the right to use your own legally held firearm to defend yourself and your property.

There is no question about enquiry of whether any firearm is legally owned, if you are in your own home and feel threatened by someone entering it uninvited - you have the means to protect the lives of yourself, your family and your property - and thereafter, the law will side with you.

Ogri the trog

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

sanataman2000, in the EU it's odd to see a armed security guard. Infact the only one I have seen myself is a team of them in Switzerland who where transporting 10m of gold, even then they had a Police escort. The only other times I have seen a a gun in public regularly is in Airports, and oddly outside of every US embasy, oddly I was shown the US Armoury embassy in London once, why you feel in a friendly nation state to have SAM's I have no idea, and target's set up in English BDU...

 

[toilet digger]

more legislation to drown in

 

[Dougster]

I remember reading that there are more firearms per head of population in Canada than the states, but far fewer shootings.

I'm not denigrating the Americans at all, but I wonder what the mind set is that keeps them as 'tools'. My kids know I have several rifles and a gun in the house, that there are knives too. All they need to do is ask to see them with me and this keeps away that mystique which grew in me as I wasn't allowed any of them, or contact with them. I hardly ever get asked any more.

I'm not sure what I am getting at, but I'm sure there is more to it than rights and responsibilities. A piece of paper won't measure a persons responsibility.

As a teenager I used to compete in shooting rifles; small and full bore. I was fortunate that an armed response officer gave two hours a week to coach me free. He told me that in one particular year the second highest call out of firearms officers (outside the met) was Powys: Drunk suicidal or vengeful farmers.

Fierarms inside and outside the law will be misused, wise people know this. Showing someone that you are doing something about it may make a few of the voting populace feel a little safer.

 

[tomongoose]

I love shooting and have done all my life but I have no problem with having to have a licence for an air rifle, you need one for a shotgun and if you don't have a legitimate reason to have one you don't need one. You see to many people who buy air rifles and have no where to shoot one. If you are really keen you will find a permission or a club first get your licence and then its no problem.

 

[VANDEEN]

So as an Englishman visiting Scotland you're quite happy for me to bring any firearm I'm licensed for ie, shotgun, rim fire, full bore rifle etc & have me pay your going rate to shoot, pheasant, grouse, deer and so on in your countryside.

But you might want me to jump through another hoop to comply with a law that doesn't even apply in england if I wish to set foot over the border with my air rifles? I think your gonna upset a lot of your shooting tourists in principle alone.

Small time politicians, jumping on the knee jerk reactions of a few people is what I see here, unfortunately they usually have loud voices.

If the courts / police, could/would effectively punish the offenders under the laws that currently exist there'd be far less criminals on the streets to start with.

What's this chap going to serve for taking that childs life? six years if what I read is correct. It appears that he is already known to the police, he has a history with drugs, the people in the house with him at the time knew he was shooting the gun out of the window but didn't think to stop him.


Guns don't kill, but people do.

 

[Dave]

The day they bring this law into England is the day I'll get a real firearm.

If you have to go through the same hassle, to keep an airgun, like buying a cabinet, filling in all the forms, attending an interview to demonstrate legitimate reasons for owning one, as you do to keep an FAC rifle or shotgun,then you may as well go the whole hog, and go get your fac, or shotgun certificate.

Is that what they want? More people owning 'real' firearms?

It wont stop me shooting, but it will encourage me to start shooting rimfires instead of plinkers.

At the root of these types of ill-considered authoritarian proposals, there's always some 'civil servant' trying to justify their own bloated existence...

 

[Toddy]

Right now Vandeen those idiots sitting watching him and doing nothing about it have every right to own and use as many airguns as they like.................now how would you suggest that we sort that ?

Really ? and quite seriously, if you have a sound workable idea away you go and add your comments onto the consultation; if the licencing is brought in, it's going to be a major logistical nightmare to set it up and it's money and effort that most would rather was spent elsewhere, but this issue is one that is before committee now.

Most Scots live in the central belt, in general we get on with our neighbours, in many instances simply because we have to. Folks like those worry their neighbours, so they contact the police................and that eventually leads us to where we are now.

As for the shooting party comment.......most Scots gain nothing from those, bit of irritation when climbing perhaps but an acceptance that the gamekeepers jobs are on the line so left in peace, they're considered irrelevant by the majority.....bit like guns really.

Toddy

 

[Dougster]

Less Guns in circulation - legal or not - the better.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[cbr6fs]

Right now Vandeen those idiots sitting watching him and doing nothing about it have every right to own and use as many airguns as they like.................now how would you suggest that we sort that ?

That won't change with licensing though.

They'll just have as many licensed airguns as they like

 

[Toddy]

............only if they are granted, and at least this way if they do own them and don't licence then the police can confiscate them. At present they apparantly have no right to do so.......something that was re-emphasised by the shooting organisations after the handgun ban.

There are no easy answers; there's always someone going to be thoroughly annoyed regardless of the outcome.
There is the opportunity to put opinions to the committee tasked with overseeing the issue.

So far I have not read one single useful suggestion that could be practically applied to ameliorate the situation; to many this proposed licence seems to be the best idea that is presently available. If you have a better one that does not involve anarchy, or the social upheaval of an armed society with all the discrimination of a tv western or gangster film go on, let's hear it.

Toddy

 

[redbranchwarrior]

If the courts / police, could/would effectively punish the offenders under the laws that currently exist there'd be far less criminals on the streets to start with.

Without wishing to be a pdenat, it is not within the power of the police to 'punish', that privilege is reserved for the courts/judges.......

 

[Imagedude]

The biggest hinderance to your suggestion BR is simply that the majority do not want that, but they appear to want guns licenced.

'Majority' is a word that I have come to despise. It is a lazy argument and often a double edged sword.
I avoid being in a majority as often as possible on most issues (excluding race and religion).

There are many things that could be banned because they are of no interest to 'the majority'.

Horses on public roads - dangerous and slow down the traffic flow
Walkers - Leave scars on the hillside
Vegetarians - Produce too much smug (South Park viewers will understand)
Bushcrafters - weirdbeards that plot the government's downfall while damaging ancient woodlands
Private pilot - waste of valuable commercial airspace
Blue cars - I don't like blue cars and they're in a minority so let's ban them
Celtic languages - Used by unwashed nationalists when plotting against their English masters

The stereotyping and bullying of minorities is a criminal offence for some things (religion, race) yet seems to be encouraged for others (firearms, large petrol engined cars). Funny old world is the world of politics and the mind control of the masses.

 

[Toddy]

/...............and what bit of No Poliltics is so hard to comprehend ?????

Majority rules, live with it, persuade people and work for change, or move.
Influencing people to your opinion is generally considered the best way, though there is always the 'easy' option of anarchy......or are we too "mind controlled" ?

You enjoy the advantages society provides; that the society is multi faceted and opinionated is surely a healthy thing rather than North Korean in outlook. Tough if that means that you have to live with smug ....or is that blue smog ?

Thankfully the majority are relatively civilised people and have no notion to ban horses
Conflating the issues that bug you with the one under discussion is not helping on an already contentious thread.

Toddy

 

[santaman2000]

sanataman2000, I am very pro gun. But I must object to that opinion in the US, and obviously I won't be changing anything. But if the guy coming into your house didn't have a gun, then you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself.

Added:

That way if you come off worst you may be luck and only taking a beating rather than the high chance of being shot dead.....

So an old lady living alone doesn't need a gun to protect herself from a young unarmed thug breaking into her home?

There is a certain legal philosophy about using deadly force to defend yourself (and the legal definition of "dealy force" isn't limited to weapons) Rather it states that deadly force is "that amount of force which can reasonably be expected to cause death or serious injury." That raises the question of just what is "serious" injury? There's no set definition in the law but it's obviously more than a bruise. In practice the courts have usually considered broken bones, loss of a limb, loss of sight, etc. to be "serious" injury meeting the definition.

With that in mind, a young thug attacking an old woman with his bare hands would be considered to be using "deadly force" and she would be within her rights (legally AND morally) to respond with deadly force (hopefully a fully loaded 9mm) in her home or on the street. In fact the simple fact that someone has broken in univited invokes the Castle Doctrine and it is legally assumed that he is there to commit bodily harm. No further justification for defending with deadly force is needed.

I remember one case decades ago in Las Vegas where an older woman (not quite a blue haired old lady though) got into a verbal arguement with just such a young thug at a shopping mall. She tried to walk away from the arguement and leave in peace but he followed her threatening her all the way to her car. When she got in the car and locked the door, he jumped on the hood (bonnet0 and began trying to break it get to her. That's when she pulled her handgun and shot him. Thwe investigating police asked her, "If this was self defense, why did you shoot 6 times?" She answered, "Because this gun doesn't hold 7 bullets." I and "the majority" (and the courts I might add) all agreed with her.

 

[Toddy]

Thugs breaking into houses to assault elderly ladies is a thankfully incredibly rare occurance Santaman2000; to use that as justification for everyone having handguns strikes most of us as beyond stupid.
Is the elderly lady who perhapsdevelops Alzheimer's disease( and shoots the postman, the paperboy, the window cleaner ? by mistake) still allowed to be armed one wonders ? Thing is that Alzheimers is a great deal more common than home invasion.

Toddy