Scots want to ban Airguns

[British Red]

This is something I feel passionate about - not the airgun specifically, but punishing innocent law abiding citizens as a result of people who break the law. Strangely, creating a new law will not deter people who break laws anyway.

I am deeply saddened by the child killed and irritated by the yobbish behaviour Toddy describes. However all of these things are already illegal. If the police cannot or will not enforce these laws or the courts refuse to use the penalties available to them, the yobs will continue under a ban and only decent law abiding sports shooters will be impacted (the ones who obey the law). For the record, here are a small number of existing laws

Carrying a loaded Air-weapon in a public place 6 months imprisonment and / or £5,000 fine.

Trespassing with an air weapon 3 months imprisonment and / or £2,500 fine.

Trespassing on private land with an air weapon 3 months imprisonment and / or £2,500 fine.

Possessing or using an air weapon if sentenced to 3 months or more in custody 3 months imprisonment and / or £2,500 fine.

In addition if original sentence up to 3 years 5 year ban on use of firearms or if for 3 years or more Life ban on use of firearms.

Killing or injuring any bird or protected animal unless authorised £5,000 fine.

Firing an air weapon within 15m / 50ft of a public highway £1,000 fine.

Selling or hiring air weapon or ammunition to person under 18 6 months imprisonment and / or £5,000 fine.

Making a gift of air weapon or ammunition to person under 14 £1,000 fine.

Having air weapon or ammunition with intent to damage property 10 years imprisonment.

Having air weapon with intent to endanger life Life imprisonment and / or appropriate fine
.
Using air weapon to resist or prevent arrest Life imprisonment and / or appropriate fine.

Threatening others with an air weapon (even if unloaded) to cause them to fear unlawful violence 10 years imprisonment and / or appropriate fine.

I think this demonstrates, quite clearly that ALL of the incidents described previously are already illegal and the people responsible can be prosecuted. Another law will not prevent them breaking the law - they have already shown a propensity to do so. Only those who are law abiding will be hurt.

There is a direct parralel with banning knives completely - many people have been injured or killed with knives. I do hope that anyone who wants to see an article banned due to the fact that it has been used to commit an illegal act will concede that precisely the same logic can apply to private ownership of knives, axes, and even large dogs.

Red

 

[gregorach]

Secondly this proposed law makes private ownership of airguns more restrictive than a bolt action military rifle, pump action shotgun or black powder blunderbuss. Do we really think they are more potentially dangerouse than these types of firearms.

Well, one could argue that airguns are more dangerous than any of those, on the grounds that there's far more of them out there... Also, one of the things that makes airguns dangerous is that many people don't appreciate how dangerous they actually can be. Nobody shoots their mate in the leg with a blunderbuss and expects it not to cause injury.

Which is not to say that I disagree with you at all. Just that this particular line of argument might not be as robust as one might think. Your other arguments are impeccable.

 

[Draven]

I recall back when I lived in Portobello there were often stupid kids (keepin in mind I was only about 12-13 at the time, but still) on the Promenade firing airsoft springer guns at random passersby... Nothing of great concern to me at the time, your average jacket will easily protect you from a £5 airsoft gun, though they did on occasion pick the wrong person to shoot at - nuff said

More to the point, I don't trust teenagers (and those younger, really) these days. Or, for that matter, many people who are older. I know that there are many of us (I am only 18 after all, and have been shooting airsofts happily for about eight years, and I was running around freely - and I really mean freely, wherever I pleased on Skye really - with a bow and arrow when I was about six) who are responsible enough with airguns and the like, but it's difficult to be sure, unless as already mentioned, they just refuse sale to people who "look dodgy". That being said, I standing 6'4" in my long leather trenchcoat (sometimes leather jeans too, just for good measure), combat boots and torn t-shirt probably look pretty dodgy. People who have known me for years and never seen me in a fight are still scared of me so it's not much of a solution for us lot that look dodgier than we are... As a sidenote, you've no idea how creeped out people get when they enter my house to see knives everywhere....

I'd like to see a right to bear arms, personally. It's one of many reasons (mostly legal, actually) I want to go back to the states. Lest we forget, killing and injuring people is already illegal - if someone wants to do it, chances are they'll not be too bothered about breaking a (relatively speaking) minor law to get their hands on a firearm. And if they can't, it's not like they couldn't use a screwdriver, or a hammer, a crowbar, etc etc etc. Not that I'm saying that there should be no laws surrounding the possession and use of firearms, but making them so strict is futile.

When things are illegalised they become status symbols for the crooks and, more problematic, the young.

I guess I'm lucky in that my dad is ex-army (Nam vet if you're interested) and loved to shoot back when we lived in the states, and my brother is currently serving in the US military. I grew up hearing about guns and knives and I therefore don't see them as anything that remarkable, so I guess I haven't been sucked into the Hollywood glamour of it. For that... I'm thankful.

Problem I see with the Courts is that they don't have nearly enough power. "Life" IMHO should be at least 50 years. And that is, 50 years for intentionally taking a life - no ifs, no buts. Stick on top of that whatever other laws they broke in doing so. Maybe throw a bit more on the fire, just for good measure. And none of this Sky TV, gourmet meal nonsense either. Hard labour and slim meals all the way... it's meant to be a punishment, after all. It also seems to be an "option" for the courts to exercise what powers they have. Sentences should, imo, have less wiggle room...

for the rant. If the mods think anything I have said was innappropriate, please PM, edit or delete as appropriate.

Peace

 

[Fin]

As a keen, disciplined and responsible airgunner, I would normally love to get stuck into a debate like this but Red has already written my thoughts on this contemptible measure (along with all new "laws" that penalise the law abiding majority) - to the letter.

 

[Scots_Charles_River]

People who want to act recklessly will do so. If they ban air rifles (rather than enforce existing penalties for their misuse), as sea monkey says, crossblws will be next. Then archery. Then sheath knives. Taking Toddy's point and going with "the majority think", I rather suspect the majority would think there is no place for a fixed bladed knife carried outside the home or workplace. For any reason at all. Its for the children you know?

In Scotland -

• Smokers are banned in public places etc
• Heart Attacks dropped last year
• In few weeks fags will be moved up to 18yrs to buy.
• Petrol Stations may be banned from selling alcohol.
• Most supermarkets demand 21 alcohol policy now
• A youth can't goto to tescos and buy a kitchen knife
• or even razor blades.
• A youth can't buy lighter fluid or glues

You guys against the ban obviously can't agree with the democracy.

Have you all watched 'Bowling for Columbine'
If not it might be worth renting it. It covers a lot
of the points brought up in posts.

Nick

 

[firebreather]

All this stuff has been going on for years with people with mental health problems shooting up people and so forth anyway. .

Its actually very, very rare for people with mental health issues to do any harm to others. They are statistically more at risk of being assaulted (approximatly 10x) than anyone without a mental health issue. This information is kept out of the press because nobody cares and it does not make good headlines.
Imagine the headlines ..........

perfectly normal family man who has a large circle of friends
and a good job guns down passerby

or

maniac loner guns down passerby

Now which one are you likely to see in the press. Then ask which one is true ?

Also something to bear in mind is that at any one time approximatly 25 % of the population are suffering from a mental health issue. So where are all these dangerous people hiding and who are they hurting because if that number of people was actually commiting the crimes they are accused of then I am sure that it would make front line news everyday.
S.orry for going off topic.

 

[British Red]

Have you all watched 'Bowling for Columbine'
If not it might be worth renting it. It covers a lot
of the points brought up in posts.

Nick

Thanks Nick I have - you will recall Michael Moores conclusion - that American gun deaths did not relate to private gun ownership? He visited many nations where per capita gun ownership was far higher and yet guns were seen as tools and not as weapons. I recall Moores conclusion was that problems with voilence were to do with a poor attitude far more than they were with the guns themselves. He did talk about restricting immediate and unfettered access but I don't recall any proposal to remove them entirely.

As for "agreeing with democracy" - when was there a referendum on the issue or even a vote in Parliament (since the Scottish National Parliament cannot enact firearms legislation)? To my knowledge there hasn't been one - thats not democracy, thats opinion. You may believe that the majority wish tis to be passed but in fact you have no proof of that.

You are entitled to your view, but my view is that since the last two laws restricting firearms have not reduced armed crime, in fact gun crime (by guns held illegally I might add) has risen dramatically since they were enacted, I see no evidence that doing something a third time that has had only detrimental effects the first two times it was done is pointless.

Red

 

[firebreather]

My apologies to Sharp88.
My pevious post was not intended as a flaming but as I have just re read it back it could be interpreted as one and that was never my intention S.orry.
Saying that I have chosen to leave the post up as i stand by everything I said I just wish I could have worded it better so it does not read as one.
Greg

 

[Fin]

You are entitled to your view, but my view is that since the last two laws restricting firearms have not reduced armed crime, in fact gun crime (by guns held illegally I might add) has risen dramatically since they were enacted, I see no evidence that doing something a third time that has had only detrimental effects the first two times it was done is pointless.

Red

Oh go on then - I will get involved

Just to back up Red's last statement: In 1998 I paid a visit to a SO19 unit (Police Firearms) just North of London, as part of my work. Part of their presentation involved their monthly call out statistics and they showed one typical month as an example - now bear in mind that these stats were compiled for confirmed armed incidents.

I asked the question "what effect has the (then) recent handgun ban had on these figures?"

Answer: "Not only have armed incidents increased in the Metropolitan area, but the rate of increase has been quite dramatic - the legislation, in our view was a complete waste of time in that it only penalised the law abiding small arms enthusiast" (In what is an olympic sport) " In fact, if anything, it has had a detremental effect because at least those men and women, in promoting their sport, were also promoting responsible and disciplined gun ownership".

 

[British Red]

Interesting Fin - I have had virtually exactly the same thing said to me by firearms liason officers in 3 counties.

For me, it boild down to this

The little thug that was shooting cats that Toddy mentioned, is a thug. Take away his ability to own an airgun (and if he is young he already can't own one and his parents if they give him one are also breaking the law). Will this stop him being a thug who likes to hurt animals? Will he become an angel overnight? Of course not. He'll attack the cat with a crossbow, catapault or archery bow, spaear, knife, caltrop, sling or whatever.

The only things that will stop him is to address and correct the reasons for his beahviour or to lock him up. Taking away his right to own an airgun and he'll buy one in England or use something else.

As for the new law making it illegal for him to have the gun, what he did was illegal already - all the laws in the world won't help if people don't report offenders or the police don't respond or the courts don't punish them.

Red

 

[Fin]

Interesting Fin - I have had virtually exactly the same thing said to me by firearms liason officers in 3 counties.

For me, it boild down to this

The little thug that was shooting cats that Toddy mentioned, is a thug. Take away his ability to own an airgun (and if he is young he already can't own one and his parents if they give him one are also breaking the law). Will this stop him being a thug who likes to hurt animals? Will he become an angel overnight? Of course not. He'll attack the cat with a crossbow, catapault or archery bow, spaear, knife, caltrop, sling or whatever.

The only things that will stop him is to address and correct the reasons for his beahviour or to lock him up. Taking away his right to own an airgun and he'll buy one in England or use something else.

As for the new law making it illegal for him to have the gun, what he did was illegal already - all the laws in the world won't help if people don't report offenders or the police don't respond or the courts don't punish them.

Red

Absolutely - my own view has always been that if those in power wish to fight crime by penalising the law abiding majority, instead of specifically targetting the law breaking minority, then, sooner or later that majority will turn on them - and there we sow the seeds of anarchy.

As you so well put it Red, these things start off with a trickle and end up a flood. We already have perfectly adequate laws to combat these crimes - enforcing them seems to be the issue and if existing laws aren't being enforced - then how are new laws going to be?

 

[Doc]

No-one knows how many air weapons there are in the UK, but best estimates are around 3 million in the UK, and maybe half a million in Scotland.

When air cartridge guns were reclassified as firearms, a great many were not handed in. I'm sure it would be the same with other air weapons.

If you ban a previously legal item compensation is payable. Say £100 per weapon on average. If you are planning on spending £50 million in order to save lives, I can think of far more effective (as in, about one thousand times more effective) ways to spend it. Then again, I am a doctor, not a politician.

There is, however, a clear problem with airgun misuse, and I think the new law restricting sales to registered firearms dealers is actually quite sensible. I understand much of the misuse has been with cheap Chinese airguns from 'novelty' shops.

I was recently on a shooting course with a pleasant bloke from the Isle of Man. There you need a licence for airguns or crossbows, but if you are over 18 and have no significant criminal record it is easy to get.

I'm not sure what is the best way forward. I enjoy shooting targets with air rifles with my sons in the garden - they are supervised carefully and behave responsibly. It is quality time for father and son. I guess that is a rather old fashioned thing to do - but I am certain it is better for them than playing computer games involving shooting human images, which is what many of their friends do. I can't help feeling we've lost the plot a little here.

 

[sploing]

The problem isn't that we need more laws, the current firearms legislation is fine and should in theory prevent gun crime given, of course, that people obey. Therein lies the problem, people break the law. It's hardly a revelation.

The issue is one of dealing appropriately with offender in the courts and speaking from experience, someone would need to be found guilty of many, many minor firearms offences to receive anything like a proper punishment by which I meant custodial sentencing which is, let's face it, the only guaranteed way of stopping reoffending since you can't commit crime if you're in prison.

The story about the boy who shot a cat with an air weapon isn't an uncommon one and if this behaviour was combined with the lengthy history of causing a nuisance he would typically receive an anti-social behaviour order which, apart from being toothless tigers in that courst are not interested in punishing offenders for breaching the terms of the asbo but utterly pointless. I don't know if anyone has ever read the terms of an asbo but the latest one I read was for a 15 year old and contained the term "...must not drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or any other highway to which the publi have access including any bridges over which the road passes" He's not allowed to do that anyway. he's 15.
And if you want to know why people aren't going to prison for commiting offences, a quick google for "operation safeguard" should answer the question.

Sometimes I despair.....