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

[slowworm]

Would you agree that if cars didn’t require a license (after lessons), insurance, an MOT and a set of laws surrounding them, that there would be lots more deaths?

Would you be happy if crossbows were treated similarly? So, some training on how you use them and a licence then granted for a few £s for 10 years? No review of your suitability to actually drive/shoot.

To put it another way, the restrictions on one thing seem disproportionate compared to another.

 

[Chris]

Would you be happy if crossbows were treated similarly? So, some training on how you use them and a licence then granted for a few £s for 10 years? No review of your suitability to actually drive/shoot.

To put it another way, the restrictions on one thing seem disproportionate compared to another.

Yeah, I’d be fine with that to be honest.

Banning them outright is silly. Putting in some safety framework to allow their continued innocent use whilst decreasing the risks posed by them so easily being procured on a whim sounds reasonable.

 

[rarms]

Would you agree that if cars didn’t require a license (after lessons), insurance, an MOT and a set of laws surrounding them, that there would be lots more deaths

I can see where you are coming from, but given that we have no figures for the number of un insured drivers, cloned number plates, people driving on relations licenses, dodgy MOTs etc.. that are already driving in our roads. I don't think we can say one way or the other.

Look at all the yobs in balaclavas riding round in electric bikes. I'm sure you have issues with that in your area. Round here the police don't seem to bother with them.

Probably half the states in the USA don't require annual roadworthiness checks, I guess the data is probably out there for whether they have more crashes per capita than other states. I suspect they probably don't.

Ultimately if people want to break the law they will. More laws is not the answer in my opinion.

 

[C_Claycomb]

I generally don't like banning things (or a lot of licensing), but, I hear people arguing all the time about whether bans "work" or not, and it invariably seems to come back to people having different measures of what "work" means.

Clearly, bans:

• Do not stop sufficiently motivated people from obtaining items (or keeping them).
• Don't completely stop the items being used during commission of other crimes.
• Don't completely stop the crimes they can be used in from being committed without them.

What bans (and controls) do do:

• They make obtaining and transporting the items more difficult (inconvenient) and more risky and so reduce the per-capita quantity within the already criminal community. The crime may still happen, but with the next best and hence less effective or deadly item.
• They reduce the total per-capita quantity at large, which reduces the chance for them being part of accidents, or used in crimes of stupidity, passion, or rage.

In this case, as in most such cases, framing of the argument is important. For example,

1: One frame is: Crossbows can be lethal and are easy to use and have no real purpose other than killing, and since you cannot by law hunt with one, there is no good reason to allow them.
It is hard to argue effectively against a ban within this frame because one is forced to argue that the enjoyment of a few thousand target shooters is more important than the risk to innocent lives.

2: Another frame would be: Legislation banning things should be supported by significant statistical evidence of frequency, severity, and intent in incidents along with critical evaluation of effectiveness in reducing these incidents. If incidents already involved crimes or could have been prevented by existing laws, new legislation is unnecessary.

 

[ONE]

Isn´t northern Ireland british with british law?

Sometimes. You can still hold handguns here, but all airguns are FAC. In this instance I think we'll probably follow England & Wales, but things can be surprising, we have repeatedly refused to ban hunting with hounds for instance.

 

[C_Claycomb]

Just removed a post. Too political for this forum.
This thread was started because there was news on the subject, the debate had been discussed before, and no one appeared to have seen that there had been a development. Also, we know that there are people who read and participate who will be effected.

It was not started for people to give vent to general frustrations with government, or share theories about societal collapse.
Thank you.

 

[demented dale]

s

1) The proposal is not treating them the same as legally held guns, it is far more restrictive. It is banning the sale of them. So a new user or someone who gets a licence could not buy or even replace an existing crossbow.

2 ) The licencing system has not been set out. What are the costs and how will it work. It's likely to put off ownership so people give up. Is stamping down on outdoor pursuits sensible?

3) The legislation will take time, a licencing scheme will be costly and if it is policed this will take up more resources.

4) Relating the point 3, would the cost involved be better spent on reducing crime and criminal behaviour? Will someone not commit a crime because they can't use a legal cross bow or will they use a knife, a different type of bow, or something illegal?

5) Will it set a precedent? Would some knives be next such as daggers or a collectable knife need a licence - after all no one needs them and they could harm someone...

that is interesting. where would that place an owner who bought when when it was legal?? DD x

 

[Wildgoose]

s

that is interesting. where would that place an owner who bought when when it was legal?? DD x

I imagine there will be a grace period in which an owner can apply for the licence, the options being:

1. Surrender them in an amnesty or buy back scheme (as seen recently)
2. Register and apply for a licence for the ones you have.

There are already procedures and law in place for forgotten firearms I.e grandads service revolver found in the loft, but anyone found after the date who knowingly was in possession of a prohibited item would be liable for prosecution.

Just an educated guess mind, who knows what or if will happen

 

[demented dale]

I imagine there will be a grace period in which an owner can apply for the licence, the options being:

1. Surrender them in an amnesty or buy back scheme (as seen recently)
2. Register and apply for a licence for the ones you have.

There are already procedures and law in place for forgotten firearms I.e grandads service revolver found in the loft, but anyone found after the date who knowingly was in possession of a prohibited item would be liable for prosecution.

Just an educated guess mind, who knows what or if will happen

And what might be the prerequisite for a licence do you think? DD x

 

[Wildgoose]

I would imagine similar to a shotgun ticket, of good character, no criminal convictions for firearms or certain violent offences, safe storage.

 

[Wildgoose]

If such legislation came in it’ll take a while. There will be consultation with any interested parties, appeals, exemptions for museums and historical societies etc.

Will be a while off yet if it happens

 

[demented dale]

Yeh sounds about right x

 

[ONE]

And what might be the prerequisite for a licence do you think? DD x

Almost certainly membership of an appropriate club or organisation and regular participation in their events.

If such legislation came in it’ll take a while. There will be consultation with any interested parties, appeals, exemptions for museums and historical societies etc.

Will be a while off yet if it happens

The consultation has already happened. The resulting legislation is imminent.

 

[Woody girl]

Post deleted as apparently it is irrelevant and the mod editing made it even more so.

 

[Tony]

This is a general post on my thoughts on this thread and threads like it:

It’s completely understandable that new laws and restrictions introduced can feel frustrating, especially when they seem unhelpful or limiting. That reaction makes sense. However, threads like this can easily drift away from their original purpose when those wider frustrations take over the discussion. While that’s natural, it would really help if we could keep the conversation focused on the topic at hand.

There are a couple of important reasons for this. First, it shows respect to the original poster and to those who are trying to work through the subject constructively and keep the discussion useful and relevant. Second, posts that move into generalised accusations, political arguments, or hostile commentary don’t support productive discussion and can make it harder for others to take part in the community in a positive way.

It also creates a significant amount of extra work for the moderation team, who end up reading through everything and stepping in to keep threads on track. That takes time and energy they shouldn’t need to spend if conversations stay within scope.

So please take a moment to think before posting and help keep the discussion focused and respectful. It really does make a difference, for the original poster, for the wider community, and for the moderators who put so much effort into supporting you on the forum.

 

[Wildgoose]

Self deleted

 

[Tony]

People are more than welcome to discuss dogs on the forums, it's probably good in its own thread though and within the forum guidelines.

 

[FerlasDave]

Do you think the number of deaths and injuries involving cars would increase or decrease if we dropped the requirement to have a driving license, insurance, MOT and other strict laws around vehicle usage, and anyone could just buy a car and drive it around as they pleased?

I think there’s something people keep forgetting though. If I have my driving licence taken away, it’s still possible for me to purchase a car, tax and insure it and continue driving. If that would be the same for an FAC then it’s almost impossible for me to get hold of a firearm. Surely when purchasing a vehicle some kind of licence hoop should be jumped through too?

 

[Wildgoose]

I think the comparison to motor vehicles is becoming a bit of a distraction.

There are 42.4 million vehicles in the UK according to google, and 300,000 crossbows.

The majority of UK households have a vehicle, or 2, or more.

The vast minority of UK households have a crossbow.

A would be terrorist could steal a car, a firearm, a sword.

They could also manufacture their own bow or firearm (this happens a lot - slam guns).

This legislation is about reducing the risk through adding hurdles.

We need to be careful here, the vast majority of the voting public would probably vote to have firearms, bows, kukris, machetes, swords, knives outlawed full stop.

 

[slowworm]

I don't think comparisons to cars are a distraction at all. I could say that some of the replies seems too dismissive and come across as "I don't use a crossbow so I don't care if they're banned." Perhaps I misunderstand but something to bear in mind when another ban comes along that does affect you.

Going back to cars, many years ago I used to own a little 2 seater sports car, largely pointless and I think you could reasonably argue about restricting the ownership of some types of vehicle.

My argument is you could reduce the risk of someone misusing anything by spending more time on the individual rather than the object.

Or to put it another way, if someone is considered to unsuitable to own a cross bow then are they suitable to own a long bow, collect knives or drive an HGV etc?