It's a lot easier to miss than hit, so I certainly can and do plenty of the 'else' part
Crossbow and broadhead sales ban and crossbow licensing one step closer.
- Thread starter C_Claycomb
- Start date
-
BushMoot: Come along to the amazing Summer Moot 31st July - 5th August (extended Moot : 27th July - 8th August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
- Status
It is a mistake to group together bladed/sharp/blunt objects and projectile weapons. I believe any projectile weapon above a certain energy level would ideally be listed and a) have age restriction, b) be licensed to use and c) require safety training.
However, that is impractical because I can make a 60lb bow capable of killing at 50m in about an hour. It certainly would be a pain to register every bow I made over 30lb draw weight!
But, nobody is saying that legislation will stop death or injury, just that it reduces the opportunity. Legislation decisions are not made based on the number of accidents/fatalities but based on potential lethality, how easy a weapon is to get hold of, how easy it is to be used/misused, how easy it is to conceal the weapon, and whether the public sees it as a threat.
As for @Woody girl 's example of a respected shotgun owner killing his wife, if the proposed new legislation of making a shotgun ticket as hard to get as a FAC was in place, that event may well have been prevented yet the majority of shotgun owners seem adamantly against it
However, that is impractical because I can make a 60lb bow capable of killing at 50m in about an hour. It certainly would be a pain to register every bow I made over 30lb draw weight!
But, nobody is saying that legislation will stop death or injury, just that it reduces the opportunity. Legislation decisions are not made based on the number of accidents/fatalities but based on potential lethality, how easy a weapon is to get hold of, how easy it is to be used/misused, how easy it is to conceal the weapon, and whether the public sees it as a threat.
As for @Woody girl 's example of a respected shotgun owner killing his wife, if the proposed new legislation of making a shotgun ticket as hard to get as a FAC was in place, that event may well have been prevented yet the majority of shotgun owners seem adamantly against it
Not strictly true, I have used a rifle twice to make holes into very thick wall. Actually worked well, except some noise maybe.
It is so obviously about the persons attitude, not the item in question.
Last edited by a moderator:
I tend to take the view that if something is BOTH something which is a projectile device which is only designed to cause harm to something (gun, crossbow, bow, slingshot/catapult) AND is designed so that a novice can pick it up and reliably do a level of harm with minimal practice, then regulation (not a ban- some form of regulation) is appropriate.
That leaves out the low-power airguns, lower powered/home made crossbows and archery sport bows, but brings in the modern crossbows which have serious lethality due to bow design, a scope to make them easy to be accurate with, inherently consistent launch plus a simple trigger to set off.
An archery bow which needs practice, technique and strength to use with reasonable accuracy would by default not fall into scope, (although one might argue there's no need for any compound bow over 60lb draw weight- the competition limit- in UK), neither would a home made crossbow which is inherently inaccurate (compared no the modern ones) or even a longbow. Similarly, a slingshot or calapult (or even a sling-staff or a thrown rock) which takes a level of practice to relialy do harm to a targetted object would be out of scope.
I am not that surprised at the proposal really, as there have been recent cases of crossbows used to kill/injure people.
The point about intended design and projectile weapon plus ease of use in unskilled hands is I think important, as such things tend to be rather good at the intended purpose, but needing practice to achieve proper lethality with a projectile weapon has been an integral curb on misuse/wider use for centuries.
GC
That leaves out the low-power airguns, lower powered/home made crossbows and archery sport bows, but brings in the modern crossbows which have serious lethality due to bow design, a scope to make them easy to be accurate with, inherently consistent launch plus a simple trigger to set off.
An archery bow which needs practice, technique and strength to use with reasonable accuracy would by default not fall into scope, (although one might argue there's no need for any compound bow over 60lb draw weight- the competition limit- in UK), neither would a home made crossbow which is inherently inaccurate (compared no the modern ones) or even a longbow. Similarly, a slingshot or calapult (or even a sling-staff or a thrown rock) which takes a level of practice to relialy do harm to a targetted object would be out of scope.
I am not that surprised at the proposal really, as there have been recent cases of crossbows used to kill/injure people.
The point about intended design and projectile weapon plus ease of use in unskilled hands is I think important, as such things tend to be rather good at the intended purpose, but needing practice to achieve proper lethality with a projectile weapon has been an integral curb on misuse/wider use for centuries.
GC
If that is the criteria then lorrys should absolutly be banned, how many have been killed by terrorists driving a lorry into a mass of people. Definatly more than by crossbows.
I am so fed up with banning this and banning that in European nannystates. Allthough I do not envy USA at all but this is one thing that is better there.
I confess, I call it the Numpty Factor......if a Numpty can get hold of one with ease, and use it with impunity to harm, then making it harder for aforementioned Numpty to get hold of it, is no bad thing....but having said that, how the hang does anyone hold and aim that in reality ?
It’s worth noting that you have to go through several forms of driver training and qualification, hold a license and hold insurance in order to drive a lorry (which also has to undergo regular safety checks), which has a primary purpose of transporting goods rather than shooting a deadly projectile.
@Toddy : yeah, the Numpty factor is critical. Typically, a Numpty will do themselves more damage with something like a longbow, but a more "point and press" type device is within capability.
@Herman30 : you clearly missed the bit about being designed purely to cause harm
. A crossbow is designed for the purpose of killing (people or animals), some limited use in sport is a modern afterthought. Whereas the primary task of a truck is to carry stuff, and they do so day in day out with (relatively) few people killed as a result. It's also relatively simple to design the urban environment to prevent vehicle attacks, Glasgow Airport is a case in point, the anti-vehicle measures installed after a terror attack several years ago blend in with the overall architecture.
GC
@Herman30 : you clearly missed the bit about being designed purely to cause harm
. A crossbow is designed for the purpose of killing (people or animals), some limited use in sport is a modern afterthought. Whereas the primary task of a truck is to carry stuff, and they do so day in day out with (relatively) few people killed as a result. It's also relatively simple to design the urban environment to prevent vehicle attacks, Glasgow Airport is a case in point, the anti-vehicle measures installed after a terror attack several years ago blend in with the overall architecture.GC
Well, yes and no, what needs to be done is relatively simple but it takes an awful amount of work and the cost is an imperium's ransom if it needs to be done on an existing environment.
It would be useful to hear from someone who uses a crossbow for target shooting in the UK because I don't really agree with the idea they are only designed to kill. If you insist that is the case then you could argue many knives sold should also be banned, certainly all swords and many other things.
It is also worth noting that it is a total ban on buying a cross bow, so someone with a FAC who's passed all sorts of vetting could buy a rifle but not a cross bow.
And then the broadhead arrow ban, is an arrow on it's own more dangerous that a carving knife? And will anyone who's likely to commit a crime happily surrender them?
It is also worth noting that it is a total ban on buying a cross bow, so someone with a FAC who's passed all sorts of vetting could buy a rifle but not a cross bow.
And then the broadhead arrow ban, is an arrow on it's own more dangerous that a carving knife? And will anyone who's likely to commit a crime happily surrender them?
As always punishing the many for the actions of the few.
I don't own, want to own, or ever intend to own a crossbow. But I am a little sick of having my civil liberties continually eroded.
This is my main argument as well to be honest.
The comparisons to cars and knives seem to be rather disingenuous, but it is objectively (by definition) removing liberties which is always worth scrutiny.
Gently, gently....we're verging on politics.
Funny how often it impacts folks like us though.
Funny how often it impacts folks like us though.
In what way disingenuous? The main case I'm aware of that seems to have led to this ban the criminal had a knife and also used that. There are plenty of knives or related bladed items that are designed to kill such as bayonets or daggers. The argument to ban one as only having a single main use item can easily be applied to the other then you're already half way down the wedge.
- Status
Similar threads
