Well, it looks like they have listened to people, NOT!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27420858
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27420858
Scottish air gun licence
- Thread starter Dogoak
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
"Figures released by the Scottish government in November showed the total number of firearms offences recorded in Scotland fell by a third in the past year, from 535 to 365.
Of these, almost half - 171 - involved air weapons."
That's why.
I 'think' we have three in the house. I know there's at least one rifle and one pistol, but I have a thought that there might be another pistol up the loft too.
I think we need a redd out.
atb,
M
Of these, almost half - 171 - involved air weapons."
That's why.
I 'think' we have three in the house. I know there's at least one rifle and one pistol, but I have a thought that there might be another pistol up the loft too.
I think we need a redd out.
atb,
M
Sadly banning a tool does not prevent offences. The offender simply buys a different tool. If one was an axe murderer and could not access an axe, does anyone really think that they would shrug and go on their way?
If this was really about preventing violence, the governments concerned would ban alcohol and knives both of which are responsible for vastly more serious injury and loss of life.
If this was really about preventing violence, the governments concerned would ban alcohol and knives both of which are responsible for vastly more serious injury and loss of life.
and of the 3 how many have committed an offence obviously the possibly missing one may have and you dont know
I would guess 100% of all gun crime has a human being somewhere in the mix but obviously we cant blame them can we
You should licence spoons next as they obviously facilitate eating and lead on to 18,500 (not under 200 out of 5.3Million people) heart disease deaths (not offences) from over weight problems costing the economy Billions on the NHS every year and Billions more on the economy in general.
I suspect it will probably be a mess like Scotland Knife laws put in to deal with a large proportion of youth Knife crime lol (mostly with cheap kitchen Knives)
Oh right Scottish S139 allows 16-18yr olds to buy Kitchen knives but 18 for all others (rest of UK 18+ for all bar pen knives)
the expensive licence to sell knives to control the dealers and even display them in a shop window has exemptions specifically wait for it ................ for Kitchen knives
and Im sure all the people who commit offences with Air guns will immediately register them and get a licence
SO nearly 90% asked thought it Draconian
But we also all know it will be massively expensive Millions of ££'s to set up and administer it will be badly set up inefficiently run will only be used by law abiding people who are no problem now But now have a massive headache and cost added for no good reason.
for 171 offences all of which are Illegal and have consequences that can be applied (other wise its not an offence) Im sure some are serious and would be treated as such but i suspect many are not
ie there where 1500 deaths on the A62 yesterday in one crash .................. HORROR ........................................Stats cant be wrong
no but they can misslead it was a truck of 6800 chickens
bear in mind that in the 10 yrs after handguns where banned gun crime with handguns spiralled out of control massively because criminals don't mind breaking another law so forgot to hand theirs in
For more of the same... don't forget to vote YES!
I have a small collection of air guns with some notable exceptions if anyone North of the border needs to get rid of any ;-)
I have a small collection of air guns with some notable exceptions if anyone North of the border needs to get rid of any ;-)
Conscious of the political element to this thread - so treading with care!
As someone who has lost a close family member to violent crime - and please be clear I raise that only to illustrate a point, not to pull 'heart strings' - never at any time have I apportioned 'blame' to the object used; scissors. They were used by a person who chose to do what was done. They were caught, tried and sentenced. The effects of their action echo still through my family over 30 years on. But the law worked, in terms of justice in that case it was done, seen to be done and is over in that respect for me. From that basis I can fully appreciate the anguish of loss - though we are all different and I would hope never to be so presumptuous as to consider I can fully appreciate the feelings and emotions of another. But I do know that heated / strong emotion does not make the basis for good laws or even particularly logic consideration of an issue.
I do not have facts, so tread even more carefully here in saying that in the case mentioned, I believe ( not know ) that circumstances regarding the family contributed to the act. That in no way demeans a terrible crime, lessens it nor justifies it.
Whether it be 'knife law', Wild access, firearms or so -called Dangerous Dogs, we seem trapped in a system of legislation geared to the lowest denominator - the majority suffer the consequences for the actions and arguably mindset of the few - those who it could be argued pay little head to the legality or other moral element of what they choose to do. That is a fundamentally flawed system. Own a dog in England and Wales? I suggest you look at the new legislation coming your way. Terry Pratchett mentioned the trial of a pig, two ducks and a seagull in one story - it was written in humour, but as in so many ways he made a rather sober observation...
Hopolophobia has been painted as a phrase of the 'hard core' gun rights movement in the USA. The USA isnt relevant here, but I'd suggest the term is. Its basically the fear of an inanimate object.
Mr McK has proven himself - to avoid the political, I'll leave it to a reader to draw the conclusion as to my meaning there - whether its ignoring public consultation, making possibly the right decision for the wrong reasons and blaming Westminster for his decision on 'Lockerbie' or railroading 'Corroboration' ahead on the acquiescence of a couple of Justice professionals against the overwhelming opposition of the rest of the legal profession. There is little humour in this, but one ventures the phrase 'loose cannon' in pun.
With guns, knives, people accessing property - we are all at risk. As a shooter and knife user, myself and my family are not immune to a nutter abusing such a tool to do harm. I want controls/ legislation that works to protect me in considered balance with society as a whole. Nothing enacted in the last century has demonstrably achieved that. But at lot of it puts me at risk of becoming a criminal unless I tread with extreme care even going about my daily life.
Statistics - one of those quoted Firearms Offences was likely about a local widow. Her husband had retained a WW2 pistol as awar trophy ( no ammo/ never used thereafter ) and a visitor to her home doing work saw it and reported it. She was found guilty of an offence - hence in the stats. Do I feel much safer now? Was the public interest - a key definition in measuring whether to progress a prosecution served - supposedly - served?
The actions McK seeks to stop are already offences. They go on because of resource and prioritisation by Police Management ( note the M word ) and Government, not for lack of statute to deal with the matter.
Police Scotland are cutting back Firearms Licensing departments across the board, service levels are falling. Experience across the UK shows that when administrative systems are so overloaded, their efficacy falls. Look up Northumbria Constabulary some time. The result is less protection, not more. The Police Management may well voice support - but the reality is they have no capacity to administer 500,000 air guns being licensed. What they hope for is a chunk of cash - and the likely route is by huge fees to support a flawed premise.
I get annoyed - not because Mr McK seeks to curtail my 'sport' to prevent a child's death - who could object on such a measurement? But because its a sham, it won't do that ... and I firmly believe Policy Makers either know that or should display the intellect to know it. That's a big issue because whilst it is Airguns today, what will they think up tomorrow?
The phrase - 'Exchange freedom for safety... and lose both... in time' has been demonstrated a truism over a great many years and across many cultures.
Where do these societal urges come from? I dont have a valid answer. I suspect it is because certain people live in fear of various things and have views that grow in discussion amongst like minded people. That is their right in a free society, I respect it and defend such a right, whether their view accords with my own or not. But when those thoughts find voice, then a loud enough voice that a political system geared to career politicians, rather than those that have experience of living and working in the world at large - take note of front pages of red top papers as their gauge on society or the next sound bite or the TV personality - then policy becomes the whim of those shouting loudest. That simply is not good, but is understandable.
I respectfully suggest that the collective 'we' - whether shooters, bushcrafters, dog owners etc etc reap what we sow. By nature we are peaceable people looking to just get on with what we do. There are diverse types, views and voices in there - and more power to that. But muttering amongst ourselves goes unheard outwith these four walls. There is little or no counter view being put forward at near any level - let alone the huge, well funded organisations that such people with opposing views flock to.
Previous posts about some form of organisation or representative body have become very heated on here and most everywhere else. In shooting, even the likes of BASC face a lot of negative comment and do score some cracking foot-in-mouth own goals at times. Again, I can see both sides on that. But the net result is zero collective voice and zero voice equals zero influence in the politics of today. Unavoidable to address politics - I'm not talking about any party or leaning - but purely in terms of politicians being the deliveries of legislation.
Toddy - find that third 'weapon', because if you do not and the law comes in as it is likely to do so, then you have a real issue. You will become a criminal and not a minor one in the eyes of the establishment; and having declared likely ownership on a public forum, it is an issue that may not simply go away. Are you a criminal? We've never met, but I have read your posts over the years - I know you are a good person, I have no fear of you, I respect you and support you - but that counts for little in the world into which we creep ever forward.
I guess I'm saying stand together in some way/ some how or face the prospect of assuredly hanging apart ( someone may have come up with that well before me
)
As someone who has lost a close family member to violent crime - and please be clear I raise that only to illustrate a point, not to pull 'heart strings' - never at any time have I apportioned 'blame' to the object used; scissors. They were used by a person who chose to do what was done. They were caught, tried and sentenced. The effects of their action echo still through my family over 30 years on. But the law worked, in terms of justice in that case it was done, seen to be done and is over in that respect for me. From that basis I can fully appreciate the anguish of loss - though we are all different and I would hope never to be so presumptuous as to consider I can fully appreciate the feelings and emotions of another. But I do know that heated / strong emotion does not make the basis for good laws or even particularly logic consideration of an issue.
I do not have facts, so tread even more carefully here in saying that in the case mentioned, I believe ( not know ) that circumstances regarding the family contributed to the act. That in no way demeans a terrible crime, lessens it nor justifies it.
Whether it be 'knife law', Wild access, firearms or so -called Dangerous Dogs, we seem trapped in a system of legislation geared to the lowest denominator - the majority suffer the consequences for the actions and arguably mindset of the few - those who it could be argued pay little head to the legality or other moral element of what they choose to do. That is a fundamentally flawed system. Own a dog in England and Wales? I suggest you look at the new legislation coming your way. Terry Pratchett mentioned the trial of a pig, two ducks and a seagull in one story - it was written in humour, but as in so many ways he made a rather sober observation...
Hopolophobia has been painted as a phrase of the 'hard core' gun rights movement in the USA. The USA isnt relevant here, but I'd suggest the term is. Its basically the fear of an inanimate object.
Mr McK has proven himself - to avoid the political, I'll leave it to a reader to draw the conclusion as to my meaning there - whether its ignoring public consultation, making possibly the right decision for the wrong reasons and blaming Westminster for his decision on 'Lockerbie' or railroading 'Corroboration' ahead on the acquiescence of a couple of Justice professionals against the overwhelming opposition of the rest of the legal profession. There is little humour in this, but one ventures the phrase 'loose cannon' in pun.
With guns, knives, people accessing property - we are all at risk. As a shooter and knife user, myself and my family are not immune to a nutter abusing such a tool to do harm. I want controls/ legislation that works to protect me in considered balance with society as a whole. Nothing enacted in the last century has demonstrably achieved that. But at lot of it puts me at risk of becoming a criminal unless I tread with extreme care even going about my daily life.
Statistics - one of those quoted Firearms Offences was likely about a local widow. Her husband had retained a WW2 pistol as awar trophy ( no ammo/ never used thereafter ) and a visitor to her home doing work saw it and reported it. She was found guilty of an offence - hence in the stats. Do I feel much safer now? Was the public interest - a key definition in measuring whether to progress a prosecution served - supposedly - served?
The actions McK seeks to stop are already offences. They go on because of resource and prioritisation by Police Management ( note the M word ) and Government, not for lack of statute to deal with the matter.
Police Scotland are cutting back Firearms Licensing departments across the board, service levels are falling. Experience across the UK shows that when administrative systems are so overloaded, their efficacy falls. Look up Northumbria Constabulary some time. The result is less protection, not more. The Police Management may well voice support - but the reality is they have no capacity to administer 500,000 air guns being licensed. What they hope for is a chunk of cash - and the likely route is by huge fees to support a flawed premise.
I get annoyed - not because Mr McK seeks to curtail my 'sport' to prevent a child's death - who could object on such a measurement? But because its a sham, it won't do that ... and I firmly believe Policy Makers either know that or should display the intellect to know it. That's a big issue because whilst it is Airguns today, what will they think up tomorrow?
The phrase - 'Exchange freedom for safety... and lose both... in time' has been demonstrated a truism over a great many years and across many cultures.
Where do these societal urges come from? I dont have a valid answer. I suspect it is because certain people live in fear of various things and have views that grow in discussion amongst like minded people. That is their right in a free society, I respect it and defend such a right, whether their view accords with my own or not. But when those thoughts find voice, then a loud enough voice that a political system geared to career politicians, rather than those that have experience of living and working in the world at large - take note of front pages of red top papers as their gauge on society or the next sound bite or the TV personality - then policy becomes the whim of those shouting loudest. That simply is not good, but is understandable.
I respectfully suggest that the collective 'we' - whether shooters, bushcrafters, dog owners etc etc reap what we sow. By nature we are peaceable people looking to just get on with what we do. There are diverse types, views and voices in there - and more power to that. But muttering amongst ourselves goes unheard outwith these four walls. There is little or no counter view being put forward at near any level - let alone the huge, well funded organisations that such people with opposing views flock to.
Previous posts about some form of organisation or representative body have become very heated on here and most everywhere else. In shooting, even the likes of BASC face a lot of negative comment and do score some cracking foot-in-mouth own goals at times. Again, I can see both sides on that. But the net result is zero collective voice and zero voice equals zero influence in the politics of today. Unavoidable to address politics - I'm not talking about any party or leaning - but purely in terms of politicians being the deliveries of legislation.
Toddy - find that third 'weapon', because if you do not and the law comes in as it is likely to do so, then you have a real issue. You will become a criminal and not a minor one in the eyes of the establishment; and having declared likely ownership on a public forum, it is an issue that may not simply go away. Are you a criminal? We've never met, but I have read your posts over the years - I know you are a good person, I have no fear of you, I respect you and support you - but that counts for little in the world into which we creep ever forward.
I guess I'm saying stand together in some way/ some how or face the prospect of assuredly hanging apart ( someone may have come up with that well before me
)
Written before I read Oakleaf's post and crossposted.
No politics please.
87% of those who responded, not those who couldn't be bothered because to most it's a real non issue, apart from the whole no one wants to see an eejit with an airgun around
That there is no real fuss over this proposed law, simply the same few folks shouting, is probably the clearest demonstration that it's not likely to impinge negatively on very many folk.
I asked Son2, and he just said that if it's a fuss to licence them then just hand them into the police.
cheers,
Toddy
No politics please.
87% of those who responded, not those who couldn't be bothered because to most it's a real non issue, apart from the whole no one wants to see an eejit with an airgun around
That there is no real fuss over this proposed law, simply the same few folks shouting, is probably the clearest demonstration that it's not likely to impinge negatively on very many folk.
I asked Son2, and he just said that if it's a fuss to licence them then just hand them into the police.
cheers,
Toddy
Last edited:
Toddy
Posts crossed.
Its hard for this not to sound political, but I simply have to ( and with genuine respect ) pick up on your line about the public consultation.
- 87% of those who responded, not those who couldn't be bothered because to most it's a real non issue, apart from the whole no one wants to see an eejit with an airgun around
As is this not the way democracy works? People have the right to vote or not vote as they choose. If any Government got in with an 87% vote it would be huge - unheard of in fact. Few would cogently argue that the 87% vote was only because a lot of people didn't bother, so should be ignored.
Alternatively, if the vote was so high because so many simply were not bothered about it, then would policy be directed toward keeping those that weren't bothered happy or toward the voting element.
And we are simply poles apart in terms of the fuss and not likely to impinge o nvery many people. But thats debate, not fisticufs argument
Posts crossed.
Its hard for this not to sound political, but I simply have to ( and with genuine respect ) pick up on your line about the public consultation.
- 87% of those who responded, not those who couldn't be bothered because to most it's a real non issue, apart from the whole no one wants to see an eejit with an airgun around
As is this not the way democracy works? People have the right to vote or not vote as they choose. If any Government got in with an 87% vote it would be huge - unheard of in fact. Few would cogently argue that the 87% vote was only because a lot of people didn't bother, so should be ignored.
Alternatively, if the vote was so high because so many simply were not bothered about it, then would policy be directed toward keeping those that weren't bothered happy or toward the voting element.
And we are simply poles apart in terms of the fuss and not likely to impinge o nvery many people. But thats debate, not fisticufs argument
Oakleaf....lot of common sense in your post and to be honest I would much rather have decent, and equitable across the land, firearms licences and realistic training goals.
That said, of my neighbours, within say a 300m radius, four shoot, and I'm pretty sure that five others have airguns. None of us have ever been a problem with them.
The ones we have (and HWMBLT says there's only the two left, so it's one rifle and one pistol we'll need to deal with) haven't been used in years. I'm just as pretty sure that the neighbours ones are the same, apart from one lad who is a pain with a BB pistol, but that's just cos of the wee coloured bits of plastic that I find in the garden
I personally wish that all the firearms were licenced, but that that licencing was straightforward, no fuss, not a logistical nightmare, and that a some kind of legal understanding of firearms and knife laws, and their applications, was taught to everyone.
Make it clear, keep it simple, have everyone on the same page.
Instead it's a right royal muddle and a hassle for everyone from folks like us to the police and the procurator fiscals.
In the meantime; it's not going to bother us to clear out the guns.
atb,
Mary
and to be honest I would much rather have decent, and equitable across the land, firearms licences and realistic training goals.That said, of my neighbours, within say a 300m radius, four shoot, and I'm pretty sure that five others have airguns. None of us have ever been a problem with them.
The ones we have (and HWMBLT says there's only the two left, so it's one rifle and one pistol we'll need to deal with) haven't been used in years. I'm just as pretty sure that the neighbours ones are the same, apart from one lad who is a pain with a BB pistol, but that's just cos of the wee coloured bits of plastic that I find in the garden
I personally wish that all the firearms were licenced, but that that licencing was straightforward, no fuss, not a logistical nightmare, and that a some kind of legal understanding of firearms and knife laws, and their applications, was taught to everyone.
Make it clear, keep it simple, have everyone on the same page.
Instead it's a right royal muddle and a hassle for everyone from folks like us to the police and the procurator fiscals.
In the meantime; it's not going to bother us to clear out the guns.
atb,
Mary
Don't hand them to the police Mary, they'll end up destroyed which is pointless and serves no more public good than burning books. I'll take them off your hands, I will be quite happy to collect them from you so saving you the bother of a trip to the police station.
Written before I read Oakleaf's post and crossposted.
No politics please.
87% of those who responded, not those who couldn't be bothered because to most it's a real non issue, apart from the whole no one wants to see an eejit with an airgun around
That there is no real fuss over this proposed law, simply the same few folks shouting, is probably the clearest demonstration that it's not likely to impinge negatively on very many folk.
I asked Son2, and he just said that if it's a fuss to licence them then just hand them into the police.
cheers,
Toddy
stats again you quoted one figure from the report as evidence I quoted another so both have to be taken or taken apart fairly most of the 171 offences are probably very minor very few involving humans as targets or they would be screaming that from the roof tops
no one does want to se an eejit with ah airgun BUT if you do you can get the police who can already use laws in place to deal with it EEjits WILL NOT GET A LICENCE OR HAND IN THE AIRGUN
No unfortunately nobody bothers about negative impingement if its some one else ie I wouldn't care if Knitting at home was banned or licenced to a stupid amount http://banstronghands.com/2009/12/29/ban-knitting-and-crochet-needles/ I dont use or need them
ask them if they want a massive dept set up at £millions Tax payers money to help reduce a % of 171 offences
or the same money spent else ware could save 2000 lives (yes figures made up but I still cant see it as a sensible thought out use of a very substantial amount of tax payers money on such a small number of offences)
yes i know charge people enough for the licence to cover the cost .... NO because most of it is wasted and it wont make a difference
Car drivers Do not pay fully for the cost to cover traffic accidents and deaths on the road
Heart disease patents arnt asked to pay fully to cover costs most of that is self inflicted or by a race of aliens shaped like spoons taking over one death at a time
I would get closer to supporting Licence for Airgun if they then also stopped high power over 12ft lbs being section 1 and brought them all under a general airgun so once your Cleared as an upstanding member of society you can access any airgun
and most importantly If the licence actually had a large positive effect on society which it wont
actually why not licence people untill you can prove your not a scrote you basically cant do anything would only impinge negatively a few and they are scrots after all
.
We're a rather specialised audience here, but for the vast majority of the population, they'd rather not have guns.
Scotland, for all it's wilderness and wide open spaces, is a very, very, urbanised society.
No, the eejits are unlikely to hand in their guns; but, folks will see them with them and sooner or later someone will have had enough and report them.
If the law is clear enough then hell mend those aforementioned cretinous eejits.
This is on a cusp; all it would need is one more incident reported with screaming banner headlines, and even a gently applied 'law' will be toast and become draconian, and that would be with huge public approval.
In the majority people don't want guns, and hearing angry men shouting and demanding the right to have them does more harm to the belief that there are folks who need the guns or have every right to use them for sport or hunting or the removal of vermin. The Countryside Alliance as a pressure group for good influence is a joke except among it's members. It needs a major rethink, a quiet, rational, considered and realistic discussion process and clear final application of rights and responsibilities.
This thread is becoming political; I'm struggling not to politicise my own arguements. I'll leave the discussion here, but please try to keep it low key re politics.
It'd be appreciated.
M
Scotland, for all it's wilderness and wide open spaces, is a very, very, urbanised society.
No, the eejits are unlikely to hand in their guns; but, folks will see them with them and sooner or later someone will have had enough and report them.
If the law is clear enough then hell mend those aforementioned cretinous eejits.
This is on a cusp; all it would need is one more incident reported with screaming banner headlines, and even a gently applied 'law' will be toast and become draconian, and that would be with huge public approval.
In the majority people don't want guns, and hearing angry men shouting and demanding the right to have them does more harm to the belief that there are folks who need the guns or have every right to use them for sport or hunting or the removal of vermin. The Countryside Alliance as a pressure group for good influence is a joke except among it's members. It needs a major rethink, a quiet, rational, considered and realistic discussion process and clear final application of rights and responsibilities.
This thread is becoming political; I'm struggling not to politicise my own arguements. I'll leave the discussion here, but please try to keep it low key re politics.
It'd be appreciated.
M
171 people injured by idiots with air rifles
200,000 people injured by idiots who can't control their dogs.
So we scrap the dog licence and introduce an air rifle licence. Is it just me?
200,000 people injured by idiots who can't control their dogs.
So we scrap the dog licence and introduce an air rifle licence. Is it just me?
Yet another kick up the @rse for legitimate sporting air rifle shooters who are being tarred with the same brush as complete tossers that kill/hurt/injure kids.
It sickens me when i read something like this, because, as usual the powers that be are not getting down to the nitty gritty of what the real problem is.
Thin end of the wedge of course for other air rifle users.
It sickens me when i read something like this, because, as usual the powers that be are not getting down to the nitty gritty of what the real problem is.
Thin end of the wedge of course for other air rifle users.
I've been trying to stay away from this as as Toddy said it's very easy to politicise this area.
When out shooting I've always been very proud to be British as we have an ingrained identity of safety when it comes to firearms. Have shot with folks from many nationalities and unfortunately the stereotypes do ring true. This can be both positive and negative as I've found that the Teutonic, Nordic and British all generally have a good attitude and respect towards both firearms and quarry.
After the horrible events of events like Hungerford and Dunblane there was a disproportionate kneejerk reaction in which a lot of innocent people suffered at the hands of a grief stricken populace fuelled on by a sensationalist press.
Strangely one of the folk I taught to shoot was a survivor of the later incident and he agreed that the perpetrator should never have been allowed firearms under the existing legislation and that further laws only hurt people that were following the law anyway.
I see the new legislation as a carpetbaggers salve to help lubricate a group of nationalists into power. But I can't and won't take that idea further here.
It's going to be a further cost and very hard to police. A strain on an already overcommitted force trying to do their best as well as an unnecessary drain on fiscal resources in a similar situation.
As I've stated at the front of this post we've a darn good attitude to projectile items in this country and it's through training and historic use that this has been attained not through overly punitive laws.
When out shooting I've always been very proud to be British as we have an ingrained identity of safety when it comes to firearms. Have shot with folks from many nationalities and unfortunately the stereotypes do ring true. This can be both positive and negative as I've found that the Teutonic, Nordic and British all generally have a good attitude and respect towards both firearms and quarry.
After the horrible events of events like Hungerford and Dunblane there was a disproportionate kneejerk reaction in which a lot of innocent people suffered at the hands of a grief stricken populace fuelled on by a sensationalist press.
Strangely one of the folk I taught to shoot was a survivor of the later incident and he agreed that the perpetrator should never have been allowed firearms under the existing legislation and that further laws only hurt people that were following the law anyway.
I see the new legislation as a carpetbaggers salve to help lubricate a group of nationalists into power. But I can't and won't take that idea further here.
It's going to be a further cost and very hard to police. A strain on an already overcommitted force trying to do their best as well as an unnecessary drain on fiscal resources in a similar situation.
As I've stated at the front of this post we've a darn good attitude to projectile items in this country and it's through training and historic use that this has been attained not through overly punitive laws.
No far fewer than 171 people injured. Its 171 offences which would include poaching, not covering it in public etc.
Its not about saving lives - if it was, people would tackle the largest cause of violence which is alcohol.
Of course the response would be "most people use alcohol responsibly - why should they suffer?" Of course most people use firearms responsibly as well, but this law will only hurt the responsible majority.
If we were to create a parallel, perhaps there should be an alcohol licence. Anyone with a history of violence or domestic abuse should not be able to get an alcohol licence and hence not be able to get alcohol (of course they would get alcohol - but then any criminal wanting an airgun would simply drive into England and buy one with no licence required).
The law is illogical, ill considered and doomed to failure. It won't stop them passing it though - even though the vast majority in a democratic consultation indicated they dod not want it
Toddy's views are, I find very useful, because they do help illustrate some of the points I made initially. I don't mean that disrespectfully at all and equally better expand definition of 'fear' as there are too many potential pejoratives in the single word - if for fear you read, concern it may help better define my intent.
Toddy puts it very well - 'we' do not face a neutral public in this and allied areas. The natural disposition has moved from neutrality to negative long since. I believe that society is no longer at a stage where by any activity that does not negatively impinge upon another should be permissable has gone. Because we no longer discuss direct effect. People that have no contact with firearms of any sort - other than on TV etc have developed their own belief system - based on media exposure I would suggest - but could be from elsewhere. They see no 'need' for an object so intrinsically 'bad'
Now I'm risking falling into the trap of ascribing thoughts on largely supposition - one of the very things I am arguing against - its easy to do.
But Hopolophobia covers part of it.
Shooters themselves are part of the population and just as prone to these effects. 'Good Reason' now is all pervasive. You may have X Y Z so long as you have a good reason. Sounds so sensible and plausible. And yet it is wholly ineffective in relation to protective controls, doesn't actually stand any scrutiny at all and has merely been employed as a stick to beat with. Consider that many FAC holders trot out the phrase and you see just how masterful the origin of this principal is. It risks offence and none is intended, but is relevant - the theory was developed in 1930's Germany.
Once good reason is established in the collective mind, the logical extention is that there is No good reason.
In a free society, subject to rational controls there is no better reason than - I am a free citizen and because I want to.
The other extention is that it enables other thoughts - such as the simplistic ban all guns. Society as a whole see's no negative to this. I agree with their conclusion on that basis - in fact its the only logical conclusion. What makes a nonsense of it all is that issue of good reason and the individual belief system based on emotion - principally concern and evolved from presumptions, not actual fact.
I employ Toddy as example not on any personal basis, but because she voiced her own genuine opinion and it illustrates this. The logic then progresses - she expresses concern about -
In the majority people don't want guns, and hearing angry men shouting and demanding the right to have them does more harm to the belief that there are folks who need the guns or have every right to use them for sport or hunting or the removal of vermin.
There is voiced a. good reason; b, imprinted views - angry men ( many women shoot ); c. Demanding - implicit stereotyping of aggressive behaviour associated with shooters; d. folks - passive intimation - links back to good reason, possession as a gift rather than a right, must display passivity.
I submit that it is actually just such behaviour as is stereotyped onto shooters ( and in some circles Bushcraft ) that has actually been displayed by those voicing objection. I had a very ghonest discussion with a strident ( his term ) 'anti' ( his term again ) it got to the point when he with complete candour said - I don't really know you, but I know me and I wouldn't trust me with a firearm and so must assume you are the same. Read that several times - its important I feel.
The problem is, as I started out - it's about voice. Those aggressively shouting are swaying the decision makers, media and the public. Aggressiveness has no place in 'our' vocabulary - I would say assertiveness does and if we don't shout - and shout much much louder, longer and more coherently then change will come as a default.
And with that change people will die that could properly have been saved by cogent control and effective enforcement - and me or mine could be part of that statistic. Animals will suffer - case study after case study highlights how ineffective governmental wildlife control is or zero control - eg Catalina Island.
BASC/ Countryside Alliance etc all have class driven issues. I do not disagree. They are membership driven and the loudest ( notice the theme ) members are of a class by and large. Recall the great Janet George - how we needed her. She was driven out and her like has not been seen since. Recall the effective press coverage of her time. Recall the Countryside March when politicians were falling over themselves to join the crowd? Recall the thousands of really bored Met Police being given cakes and biscuits by nice ladies in tweed and crowds hurling words like 'good morning officer' at them. Remember Hyde park and two dozen Council refuse wagons and a legion of cleaners all standing perplexed as 400,000 plus people left the place tidier than when they found it? Aggressive? No. Assertive?, Yes, Loud? Yes; Effective - Yes at the moment, then squandered away.
Politics only matter in terms of those enacting legislation. The parties are irrelevant.
To be doubly clear - not attacking Toddy in any way. Her views are valid and to me are incredibly helpful. I respect her views and nothing here should be construed in any way shape or form as an attack upon her. Instead I merely seek to lay a view and how the two views interact. Above all, it highlights there isn't one voice or view even 'within' and that shows we need to find commonality with which to speak. Because ultimate no amount of words here or amongst ourselves count for anything. Its putting those words out for people to hear and make their own minds up that counts. Its worked nearly across the board in recent decades on religious, ethnic, race and sexuality. There aren't lessons to be learned, just examples to follow.
Toddy puts it very well - 'we' do not face a neutral public in this and allied areas. The natural disposition has moved from neutrality to negative long since. I believe that society is no longer at a stage where by any activity that does not negatively impinge upon another should be permissable has gone. Because we no longer discuss direct effect. People that have no contact with firearms of any sort - other than on TV etc have developed their own belief system - based on media exposure I would suggest - but could be from elsewhere. They see no 'need' for an object so intrinsically 'bad'
Now I'm risking falling into the trap of ascribing thoughts on largely supposition - one of the very things I am arguing against - its easy to do.
But Hopolophobia covers part of it.
Shooters themselves are part of the population and just as prone to these effects. 'Good Reason' now is all pervasive. You may have X Y Z so long as you have a good reason. Sounds so sensible and plausible. And yet it is wholly ineffective in relation to protective controls, doesn't actually stand any scrutiny at all and has merely been employed as a stick to beat with. Consider that many FAC holders trot out the phrase and you see just how masterful the origin of this principal is. It risks offence and none is intended, but is relevant - the theory was developed in 1930's Germany.
Once good reason is established in the collective mind, the logical extention is that there is No good reason.
In a free society, subject to rational controls there is no better reason than - I am a free citizen and because I want to.
The other extention is that it enables other thoughts - such as the simplistic ban all guns. Society as a whole see's no negative to this. I agree with their conclusion on that basis - in fact its the only logical conclusion. What makes a nonsense of it all is that issue of good reason and the individual belief system based on emotion - principally concern and evolved from presumptions, not actual fact.
I employ Toddy as example not on any personal basis, but because she voiced her own genuine opinion and it illustrates this. The logic then progresses - she expresses concern about -
In the majority people don't want guns, and hearing angry men shouting and demanding the right to have them does more harm to the belief that there are folks who need the guns or have every right to use them for sport or hunting or the removal of vermin.
There is voiced a. good reason; b, imprinted views - angry men ( many women shoot ); c. Demanding - implicit stereotyping of aggressive behaviour associated with shooters; d. folks - passive intimation - links back to good reason, possession as a gift rather than a right, must display passivity.
I submit that it is actually just such behaviour as is stereotyped onto shooters ( and in some circles Bushcraft ) that has actually been displayed by those voicing objection. I had a very ghonest discussion with a strident ( his term ) 'anti' ( his term again ) it got to the point when he with complete candour said - I don't really know you, but I know me and I wouldn't trust me with a firearm and so must assume you are the same. Read that several times - its important I feel.
The problem is, as I started out - it's about voice. Those aggressively shouting are swaying the decision makers, media and the public. Aggressiveness has no place in 'our' vocabulary - I would say assertiveness does and if we don't shout - and shout much much louder, longer and more coherently then change will come as a default.
And with that change people will die that could properly have been saved by cogent control and effective enforcement - and me or mine could be part of that statistic. Animals will suffer - case study after case study highlights how ineffective governmental wildlife control is or zero control - eg Catalina Island.
BASC/ Countryside Alliance etc all have class driven issues. I do not disagree. They are membership driven and the loudest ( notice the theme ) members are of a class by and large. Recall the great Janet George - how we needed her. She was driven out and her like has not been seen since. Recall the effective press coverage of her time. Recall the Countryside March when politicians were falling over themselves to join the crowd? Recall the thousands of really bored Met Police being given cakes and biscuits by nice ladies in tweed and crowds hurling words like 'good morning officer' at them. Remember Hyde park and two dozen Council refuse wagons and a legion of cleaners all standing perplexed as 400,000 plus people left the place tidier than when they found it? Aggressive? No. Assertive?, Yes, Loud? Yes; Effective - Yes at the moment, then squandered away.
Politics only matter in terms of those enacting legislation. The parties are irrelevant.
To be doubly clear - not attacking Toddy in any way. Her views are valid and to me are incredibly helpful. I respect her views and nothing here should be construed in any way shape or form as an attack upon her. Instead I merely seek to lay a view and how the two views interact. Above all, it highlights there isn't one voice or view even 'within' and that shows we need to find commonality with which to speak. Because ultimate no amount of words here or amongst ourselves count for anything. Its putting those words out for people to hear and make their own minds up that counts. Its worked nearly across the board in recent decades on religious, ethnic, race and sexuality. There aren't lessons to be learned, just examples to follow.
Knew it would happen - I've sent you all to sleep haven't I
No, you haven't.
I think a lot of what you said rings true for lots of things. I'm sure the same thing will happen with knives after the awful attack on the teacher, here in Leeds.
- Status
