Scottish air gun licence

[santaman2000]

....If there had not been a gun to hand, those children would not have died......

Maybe so, maybe not. Very little real info in those listings. We're assuming that they were all either shot accidentally by somebody playing with the guns or that if deliberate, the shooter underestimated the danger of a pellet rifle. If that's the case then you're probably right (our desire to believe in human goodness certainly make us want to believe that) But if on the other hand the shooter had more malicious intent, then they would have just as likely found another means.

 

[FGYT]

Ah good grief ! Not the old passport at the border story again please...
Perhape we could just treat it like the current knife law's and as long as you have a reasonable excuse for carrying the weapon, then on you go.
However if you think you can just drive across the boarder of another country with a boot load of guns then you probably better get ready for a interesting reseption what...

Aye 18/9/2014

No will be a problem regardless of independence (if it happens or not ) when it comes in you will have a line on the map one side air guns are legal to own with out a FAC on the other Illegal
there are no border controls etc check points etc same as if i drive from Dorset to Hampshire theres a sign thats it

how will the interesting Reception happen be organised ??? the Scottish authorities will not know or are they setting to place surveillance in another countries towns and check on what their citizens do when out of boarders

and people living south of hte boarder who travel north to shoot ????

 

[Oakleaf]

Well I feel better - thought my long tomes were potentially just too much, but the cumulative posts on here make my musings look like a precis

Again - many thanks Toddy for conveying a point of view that many shooters just don't comprehend and are not even aware of. As I've said, its incredibly useful and I hope that shooters take on board the insight you have provided. This is the longest running discussion on such matters I have seen, usually the threads have broken down to slanging matches and are closed.

I see the points you make - appreciate some are from a Devil's advocate perspective and not least the considerable effort that has obviously gone into thought & research. I disagree with many of them greatly, but hopefully politely. I believe that that different view comes from a combination of factual knowledge, long exposure to manipulated stats and headlines from anti-gun organisations, personal research - reading between and behind the lines if you like and not least an acknowledgement of personal perception and bias.

On the bias front, my simplest self test is to apply the 'argument' to another area of life and see if it makes sense still, if not then whatever my bias may be I am relatively content that it is not the sole element of my dessention.

History shows that the solutions being employed by and large negatively impact honest citizens out of all proportion to the perceived benefit. Digging deeper, it highlights that other more effective solutions exist, but these are locked out of the debate because they are politically unacceptable to decision makers. Shooters aren't without 'guilt' but the anti's contribute a major element to ineffective law being carried on and the ultimate results of that.

A great deal of this thread has focussed upon Toddy and yet again I have to say thank you to her for 'slugging it out' as she has and in the way she has. There's frustration on both sides.

I said right at the start that there are no solutions in these four walls. Nothing anyone has said here is going to ultimately make any difference - and that includes me! Except .... unless it finally convinces pro shooters just how much has been lost, just how poorly you are viewed by most people because you shoot and just how very easily a pastime that you cherish, a job you have, a symbol of freedom perhaps that you see could be removed by the literal stroke of a pen. And that such an action would at best go unnoticed and worst be welcomed by your fellow citizens. Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or dumb or ignorant. For the most part they are people just like you. Because it is something of little interest to them, then decades of negativity have washed over them and some of it stuck. Now they will allow the destruction of what you hold dear - no proverbial bang, just a whimper.

The past is past, will as you like, it cannot be changed. Bicker and argue all you like, stay individual and whither on the vine. Moan about the organisations - often of which you pay to be a member, but dont push for change. Carry On.

Or read what Toddy says carefully, dont argue with her or be impolite. Thank her for the insight. For if the honest writings of a good person, saying what they and doubtless very many others see as the way of it leaves you chilled with utter dread - and it does me. Then if that doesn't fire you up to start standing your ground and then begin recovering what was lost ; then we richly deserve all that follows.

Toddy has knowingly or subconsciously used many phrases and points that have been the meat and drink of the organised opposition to shooting - and you had better believe just how organised, long running and deeply entrenched that opposition is. That's not a criticism of her, but just an illustration of the position in which we are.

Dont look to BASC, CA, SGA, NGO etc etc etc - start with you.

My betting is this thread represents no more than an interesting footnote and we will never get past individual ego.

 

[21st century pict]

Sorry Oakleaf ((well said Bro)) and I should have let it go there but sometimes times things just stick in me craw and then I'm just like a dog at a bone, Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

No will be a problem regardless of the Independence (if it happens or not )

Tough ... I was annoyed when I couldn't go back to the pistol range after the mad c##t Hamilton f####d it up for every shooter in the UK, my practical shotgun pals were ****** off when they had to plug there guns down to three slugs after nutter ryan,
But regardless off what you think? Scottish independence or not but if Scottish law now dictates you now need a licence to carry a airgun in Scotland, then quicker you learn to deal with it the better ...

Aye 18/9/2014

 

[brambles]

Scottish law now dictates you now need a licence to carry a airgun in Scotland, and the quicker you learn to deal with it the better ...

Hi, what is the future like? Do we have jetpacks yet? I always wanted a jetpack. Or. less facetiously, a proposed law is not yet a law so Scots law does NOT now dictate you need a licence...

 

[21st century pict]

Aye loon so far a free Jetpack and a copy o urr wullie in very pack o cornflakes ;-) ....

Tak 18/9/2014

 

[Oakleaf]

Very quick - honest!

1. The future? Just watch THX1138. Not for me nor you, nor our children or likely grand children, but thereafter? But we will all be safe!

General aside - I was in a Uk police force vehicle ( wont say which constabulary ) many years since and the pursuit they were engaged in was terminated for budgetary reasons ( refer to film )

2. Its a Bill - to be laid before Scottish Parliament. It is for MSP to vote upon and it appears soon. At risk of politics here, but cant see a way around that and still addressing this aspect - so Moderator indulgence requested - if one tenth of the effort and word count displayed here was put into a letter to your MSP in in Scotland, or the Tourism/ Culture Secretaries if outwith Scotland; with a copy and short additional letter top any two newspapers - were sent, notice would be taken. The law may progress, but notice taken.

Put this as sep paragraph so may be removed if over steps the mark. We are currently legislated by seeming whim, newspaper headline and single interest pressure groups. anything less these days dilutes your message to the point of invisibility. I do not seek to tell anyone how to vote; personally any politician that personally or whose party introduces or votes upon a Bill that impinges my views; then no matter how much I may agree with their other policies - they will not receive my vote. And the above-noted letters will tell my MSP that. 4-6 such letters to a single MSP will grab attention, 10 will bring on cold sweats! You must make your own choices.

Boycott products, companies and services that do not support your beliefs. Aggressive? Nasty? - I'd have to say yes. BUT - these have been the tactics of opposition groups ( the ones that immediately claim we are 'shouting' or 'being agressive' if we venture to suggest we aren't happy or feel put upon. Actually we are victims - which comes as a surprise to most people on both sides of the debate!

Dont worry about your word ability, be polite and be honest - honesty has a way of shining through and your words honestly and politely put ace ten thousand rants, half truths and bluster.

3. Ran into two staff members of BASC Scotland yesterday - they were on their way to a local school to hold an air-rifle/ young shots awareness and safety session. Anyone in the North East of Scotland see that in any press anywhere?

Or do nothing but enjoy your pleasures whilst you may. Its a 'free' country and you still have the entitlement to do that

 

[Toddy]

I haven't read the thread since my last post, I got fed up of it, and I have only quickly read Oakleaf's posts on this last page.

Personally I have two issues.

I don't want numpties with guns. End of.

but.... I don't want to see the ability to own and use guns removed from ordinary people.

That's the bit that too many just don't see; just refuse point blank to take on board.
That's the issue that not only folks like me are struggling with, but that the politicians, that we elect, are struggling with.

In some ways the OTT NRA hype really, really, does the shooting fraternity (and when did it become a fraternity, when did it become de rigeur to follow the party line ? Most of the folks I know who shoot, just quietly get on with it; they don't want any hassle about it; just dinner after a good walk) no favours in this country.
Neither does the perception that it's an exclusive 'sport' for the wealthy. Both those make the shooters into minority interests, so of course the majority win the vote.

I keep saying it; the only way is education, is in making it not only accountable but available.

Otherwise, tough, they'll have you counting pellets before you know it, and it'll be catapults next
Talking of which, I found the 1/4" square rubber in the shed yesterday and I know where there's a quarter pound of mint imperials

Cheers Oakleaf I think in someways our agree to disagree is the only civilised way to deal with this thread Your arguments are well thought out and explained, but I think the writing is on the wall with this issue of licences.

I do think the English need to start accepting that if it becomes an issue down south, from any other incident where someone is hurt, then they'll be on a back foot re licencing there too. They need to encourage best practice, now; they need to encourage teaching, active participation and some kind of restriction when it goes wrong with the numpties....because as sure as eggs are eggs, there will always be a numpty who behaves badly with a airgun, and society as a whole, especially when the media hype and high dudgeon get involved, don't own airguns and are frightened of the numpties using them.
Urbanised society in the main, and that's not a countryside/town split to the matter. I know that the folks in the country would have conniption fits if folks were only allowed to shoot in the country because all those townees would then feel vindicated in taking their guns to the countryside to shoot.....wonder how long that would go peacefully ?

I said it before, and I'll say it again. With rights come responsibilities. When those who claim the right behave irresponsibly, society will act to restrict. The biggest issue is how to restrict without removing rights from all.

atb,
Mary

 

[sandbender]

"...Two year old Andrew Morton was killed after being shot with an air weapon pellet fired from a window by a young sniper while he was being carried down the road by his cousin in Glasgow in March 2005..."

Reading that one felt like a knife in the heart.

With that said, "the government which governs least, governs best". It is already illegal to intentionally shoot people, it is illegal to fail to take adequate care when shooting and accidentally shoot someone, it is already illegal to fail to ensure that children and infants do not gain access to your rifles/pistols.

It is currently illegal to chase someone down a street in a Glasgow suburb while wielding a Japanese sword with the intent to harm him/her and yet people are still doing that.

A licensing scheme will cost a great deal of money to run and will be ignored by those it is designed to protect society from.

If a person is taking pot shots at a fire appliance and crew when it arrives to attend a nearby house fire then that person needs to go away for a long long time and arguably society might need to have a think about how it is creating such clearly broken individuals and why they go so long unnoticed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4745579.stm

Thats my tuppence worth.

 

[Toddy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4196980.stm

Mark Bonini was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing two year old Andrew Morton with an air rifle.

As Andrew's mum said though; life doesn't mean life nowadays, and her baby is dead.

M

 

[sandbender]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4196980.stm

Mark Bonini was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing two year old Andrew Morton with an air rifle.

As Andrew's mum said though; life doesn't mean life nowadays, and her baby is dead.

M

Thirteen years seems to be the likely tariff.

 

[Toddy]

Y'have to wonder if thirteen years in Barlinnie would change the man for the better.
At the time it was said that he was sick to his soul that he'd killed the bairn
I do know that that numpty should never, ever, have had access to a gun in any shape or form, not in the state he was in. Sixty years ago they'd just have hung him.

Wait for the argument now ....bring back hanging

M

 

[British Red]

I do know that that numpty should never, ever, have had access to a gun in any shape or form, not in the state he was in.

M

One would also assume he shouldn't have had access to knives or claw hammers?

 

[Goatboy]

Y'have to wonder if thirteen years in Barlinnie would change the man for the better.
At the time it was said that he was sick to his soul that he'd killed the bairn
I do know that that numpty should never, ever, have had access to a gun in any shape or form, not in the state he was in. Sixty years ago they'd just have hung him.

Wait for the argument now ....bring back hanging

M

Well one thing Mary whether richt or wrang, they don't re-offend!

 

[Toddy]

....but it makes us murderers too, and to quote a very clever man, if you kill someone, you can't use them later.

BR....that's the sort of argument that goes nowhere; that totally sidesteps the issue I posted in post 108. It's not answering the issue at all. It's not addressing the problem, it's trying to divert the target, just like bikes and cars.
Guns are intended to target....whether that's a wee bit of paper, or an animal or a man/woman/child is entirely up to the person using them.

The licencing will happen. Rant and complain all folks like; this decision is made. How restrictive it is depends on how well behaved folks are with guns....not with cars, bikes or claw hammers.

Really fed up of this thread now. Off to dig out meadowsweet

M

 

[Nomad]

Doesn't licencing introduce the possibility of weeding out the wrong 'uns? If you have to justify airgun ownership and/or have proof that you have appropriate safety training and a safe attitude, to get a licence, then any unlicenced person caught with an airgun is liable to prosecution (plus confiscation of weapon, etc). Similarly, irresponsible conduct with said weapon could result in revocation of licence (and prosecution for said conduct).

I don't quite get the opposition to licencing when lack of licencing means that numpties can have unlicenced guns. We are living in a society where not all people are responsible, and it seems that the irresponsible ones don't come out of the woodwork until something nasty happens. If licencing means that some of the less responsible become responsible, and the ones that aren't conducive to becoming responsible get caught and their guns taken off them, then I really don't see what the problem is for those that are already responsible.

If a knife licence meant I could keep my fixed blade bushy knife in my daysack, rather than having to plan ahead and specifically go out and do some bushy stuff (or even for when I'm up the allotment), then I'd rather have a licence and the freedom to carry and use my knife when the need happens to arise. That seems to me to be a better alternative than either the current knife law, or having a situation where there are no controls and thus numpties carry knives without risk of prosecution.

Why do we have driving licences? Firearms and shotgun certificates? If airguns should be unlicensed, what about those?

 

[FGYT]

Sorry Oakleaf ((well said Bro)) and I should have let it go there but sometimes times things just stick in me craw and then I'm just like a dog at a bone, Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

Tough ... I was annoyed when I couldn't go back to the pistol range after the mad c##t Hamilton f####d it up for every shooter in the UK, my practical shotgun pals were ****** off when they had to plug there guns down to three slugs after nutter ryan,
But regardless off what you think? Scottish independence or not but if Scottish law now dictates you now need a licence to carry a airgun in Scotland, then quicker you learn to deal with it the better ...

Aye 18/9/2014

THis is nothng to do with the vote

Im on the southcoast of England and really don't care one way or the other on Scottish independence and havent looked into if i should care or not

I was just pointing out big flaws in the system intended that are easy for criminals to exploit

 

[Oakleaf]

Nomad - in short, the current mentality on licensing is a placebo - there are demonstratably better ways to achieve the desired effect. By and large they aren't such an obvious 'sell-in' to the 10 second attention span society, so they get shelved. New law comes in, everyone back slaps and feels safe, new attrocity happens and the only explanation is that previous measures were not strict enough - and so the cycle goes.

Ultimately you reach China state - where even empty cartridge cases attract huge custodial sentences - so 'terrorists' carry out mass attacks with edged tools.

Don't misunderstand me - I do not argue for no control - I passionately argue for sensible control that works. I'd happily suffer inconvenience for those, but such solutions are simply not on the agenda.

I dislike bad language, but recently came across Penn & Teller - Bovine Waste material ( paraphrased ). Watched one and was addicted. I still loathe their language - but in an interview they explain it was deliberately used for legal reasons and allows them to say things that in plain speak they'd never get away with. Think its all right-wing/ NRA etc etc - especially after their Gun Control episode? Well ( and its the reason I raise them here ) take a look at their views on the death penalty - they may surprise you.

Be warned in advance - very intelligently put together, but very bad language and many of the visual examples seem to involve scantily ( or zero ) clad young ladies.

Said it at the start - every point on this thread comes back to hopolophobia - think about it. Whether the subject is guns, knives, cars, drugs, crime etc etc . Addressing the symptom not the cause is usually a poor approach.

 

[Corso]

Sadly banning a tool does not prevent offences. The offender simply buys a different tool.

I would imagine everyone here understands that however your average DM/DR reader seems not to...

 

[FGYT]

I haven't read the thread since my last post, I got fed up of it, and I have only quickly read Oakleaf's posts on this last page.

Personally I have two issues.

I don't want numpties with guns. End of.

but.... I don't want to see the ability to own and use guns removed from ordinary people.

That's the bit that too many just don't see; just refuse point blank to take on board.
That's the issue that not only folks like me are struggling with, but that the politicians, that we elect, are struggling with.

In some ways the OTT NRA hype really, really, does the shooting fraternity (and when did it become a fraternity, when did it become de rigeur to follow the party line ? Most of the folks I know who shoot, just quietly get on with it; they don't want any hassle about it; just dinner after a good walk) no favours in this country.
Neither does the perception that it's an exclusive 'sport' for the wealthy. Both those make the shooters into minority interests, so of course the majority win the vote.

I keep saying it; the only way is education, is in making it not only accountable but available.

Otherwise, tough, they'll have you counting pellets before you know it, and it'll be catapults next
Talking of which, I found the 1/4" square rubber in the shed yesterday and I know where there's a quarter pound of mint imperials

Cheers Oakleaf I think in someways our agree to disagree is the only civilised way to deal with this thread Your arguments are well thought out and explained, but I think the writing is on the wall with this issue of licences.

I do think the English need to start accepting that if it becomes an issue down south, from any other incident where someone is hurt, then they'll be on a back foot re licencing there too. They need to encourage best practice, now; they need to encourage teaching, active participation and some kind of restriction when it goes wrong with the numpties....because as sure as eggs are eggs, there will always be a numpty who behaves badly with a airgun, and society as a whole, especially when the media hype and high dudgeon get involved, don't own airguns and are frightened of the numpties using them.
Urbanised society in the main, and that's not a countryside/town split to the matter. I know that the folks in the country would have conniption fits if folks were only allowed to shoot in the country because all those townees would then feel vindicated in taking their guns to the countryside to shoot.....wonder how long that would go peacefully ?

I said it before, and I'll say it again. With rights come responsibilities. When those who claim the right behave irresponsibly, society will act to restrict. The biggest issue is how to restrict without removing rights from all.

atb,
Mary

there are 2 points only really

1 there is a massive massive airgun problem in scotland

there isnt (unless the 171 offences are all deaths which they are not )

2 Licencing Airguns @ massive expense and incompetence will stop 1

it wont as we all know why




unfortunatly we have a religion v science argument going on
People believe there is a problem
and Believe they have a solution that works

however there isnt a problem (statistical numbers dont show it compared to pretty much every other problem) and experience of similar laws show it dosnt work any way.



Refs to shooting being elitest is one of the last points draggeed out as reason I cant do it so you shouldnt
well this law will prevent the bottom cheapest entry of all to any shooting ie cheap airguns plinking on your own garden

you will need elite access to hunting land suitable or the time and money to join and shoot at a club


No another shooting dosnt mean a big law we had that a while back when a guy went ona spree in the lake district it was treated sensibly as he broke the law and he as a individual was to blame and a mass banning of anything would make no difference.

unfortumalty we live i n a world where selling newspapers drives law making