cops with cameras

[triggersqueezer]

just sat here watching cops with cameras and it winds me up that when they raid a property they parade air weapons (rifles)in front of the camera as if they were unlicenced uzi's.they were break barreled springers.i'm all for making people pass a competancy test and have an air rifle ticket if it stops wallys shooting them but if air rifles don't need a ticket why confiscate them calling them weapons.

[Mike6.5]

When police raid a property I’m sure they have solid evidence of serious criminal activities being carried out, any object they come across that could be used as a weapon would be a concern I guess.

They have a tough job to do imo dealing with wasters/wa**ers on a daily basis anything extra they can lay on them is a bonus...

[achosenman]

When police raid a property I’m sure they have solid evidence of serious criminal activities being carried out, any object they come across that could be used as a weapon would be a concern I guess.

They have a tough job to do imo dealing with wasters/wa**ers on a daily basis anything extra they can lay on them is a bonus...

 

I agree.

 

I dated a WPC for a while and the human trash she came into contact with on a daily basis was a real eye opener. There are people walking the streets who should have access to nothing more dangerous than a rubber chicken...and then only under supervision.

 

ATB

[triggersqueezer]

i agree but owning one is not elligal.i just thought they were not helping publick perseption,no wonder people are so quick to pick up the phone when they see a rifle.

i could not do what the police do,putting up with mouthy yobs but untill they bring out a season when you can legally hunt them what can you do

[achosenman]

i agree but owning one is not elligal.i just thought they were not helping publick perseption,no wonder people are so quick to pick up the phone when they see a rifle.

i could not do what the police do,putting up with mouthy yobs but untill they bring out a season when you can legally hunt them what can you do

 

The trouble is that those types of youths tend to be irresponsible with them. A 12ftlbs air rifle is dangerous in the wrong hands. That tends to work against the responsible user of those rifles.

 

Having witnessed the distress a neighbour suffered when his cat was shot by some little t***er for a bit of a laugh, I would rather they licensed all air weapons. However, I think that an individual should be licensed and not the rifle. That would allow those licensed within certain power categories to purchase any rifle as needed without the entire hoop jumping we suffer in the current system.

 

ATB

[TonyH]

Licencing air weapons would be another nail in the coffin of gun ownership, a waste of time, and yet more illiberal legislation of the sort that has made our everyday lives very much more circumscribed by law than our grandfathers experienced 100 years ago. Automatic weapons were banned from civilian ownership before WW2 - with zero evidence that they caused a problem or that they had ever been used in crime in the UK.

I don't join those who want to give the plods the benefit of the doubt in this case. For far too long, we have seen a nearly 100% consistent hostility by the police/Home Office establishment in general, and ACPO in particular, toward gun ownership. They never miss an opportunity to villify guns - any sort of guns - and they make deliberate use of the public's general ignorance about guns by blurring the distinction between different types - in this case, between air weapons and firearms.

Firearms misuse/ownership statistics have tended to include trivia from the start, when the Met did a survey of London gun crime in 1911-1913: the figures didn't just cover actual criminals pointing guns in crime, or shooting at the police (nb in 1908 when there was zero gun control, they recorded just three shots fired at police officers - one PC injured...), but minor incidents also that didn't have any serious result.

So when the plods wave air weapons about after some raid or other, I don't see why they should be congratulated - it's just crude propaganda. Let them come down hard on real yobs, sure, but remember that the airgun-waving is part of their long-running non-stop campaign against your right to own a gun.

And Mike, I'm very sceptical that the police necessarily "have solid evidence of serious criminal activities being carried out" when they raid a property: since they've shot & killed more than a few people by mistake, I would trust them on raids about as far as I'd trust them on the identification of armed criminals - which is not very far.

Tony

[triggersqueezer]

it was on a pikey camp site so we all know that has bad all over it and they went on to find a machine gun.that they can parade as a job well done but at the end of the day if air rifles are not eligal stop making out they have just found an arms stash.my bedroom had three guns in it when i was a kid ,a gat gun a webley pistol and an air rifle.if you need to pass a test to drive a car in publick or a top handle chain saw, i see no harm in passing a test and having a air gun in your name.you don't even need an eye test with your firearms i wonder how many people should wear glasses when shooting.

 

mike

[achosenman]

Licencing air weapons would be another nail in the coffin of gun ownership, a waste of time, and yet more illiberal legislation of the sort that has made our everyday lives very much more circumscribed by law than our grandfathers experienced 100 years ago. Automatic weapons were banned from civilian ownership before WW2 - with zero evidence that they caused a problem or that they had ever been used in crime in the UK.

 

Tony I am at the opposite end of the spectrum to you on this. I do not believe it spells the death of firearms ownership at all. I grew up with firearms. I started shooting at 14, wandering around our farm shooting vermin etc. That was then this in now. Those days have gone so no use citing them as relevant. The truth is that 12ftlbs air rifles cause concern for the public. The non shooters are the majority of society. They have a right not to be endangered by a minority …and yes I too don’t want to be endangered by them.

 

I don't join those who want to give the plods the benefit of the doubt in this case. For far too long, we have seen a nearly 100% consistent hostility by the police/Home Office establishment in general, and ACPO in particular, toward gun ownership. They never miss an opportunity to villify guns - any sort of guns - and they make deliberate use of the public's general ignorance about guns by blurring the distinction between different types - in this case, between air weapons and firearms.

 

Granted the police have made some howling mistakes. But that does not justify vilifying all of them. We take exception when law abiding shooters are portrayed as villains. Pot, kettle, and black springs to mind.

 

Firearms misuse/ownership statistics have tended to include trivia from the start, when the Met did a survey of London gun crime in 1911-1913: the figures didn't just cover actual criminals pointing guns in crime, or shooting at the police (nb in 1908 when there was zero gun control, they recorded just three shots fired at police officers - one PC injured...), but minor incidents also that didn't have any serious result.

So when the plods wave air weapons about after some raid or other, I don't see why they should be congratulated - it's just crude propaganda. Let them come down hard on real yobs, sure, but remember that the airgun-waving is part of their long-running non-stop campaign against your right to own a gun.

And Mike, I'm very sceptical that the police necessarily "have solid evidence of serious criminal activities being carried out" when they raid a property: since they've shot & killed more than a few people by mistake, I would trust them on raids about as far as I'd trust them on the identification of armed criminals - which is not very far.

 

As you say statistics etc have been used to our detriment. How will being anti police etc help promote our cause?

 

We cannot stand by and let those with irresponsible criminal intent destroy our sport in the name of freedom. I would rather those truly interested in shooting be required to make an effort to get a license and enjoy their legitimate pastime than champion the right of the local hoodie to vandalize and terrorize his neighbourhood and in so doing, help destroy our sport.

 

ATB

[TonyH]

I do not believe it spells the death of firearms ownership at all. I grew up with firearms. I started shooting at 14, wandering around our farm shooting vermin etc. That was then this in now. Those days have gone so no use citing them as relevant.

 

I didn't mention "the death of firearms ownership" as some imminent catastrophe; I was suggesting that the whole process is incremental, and unless resisted will inevitably lead to virtually no lawful gun ownership, maybe like Japan – and even a cursory look at the history of serious firearms control in this country (less than a century, that is) reveals that it has been absolutely that, a sequence of Firearms Acts, mostly based on zero evidence and/or an inappropriate response to some furore, and/or unstated agendas by the political & police establishment, that have incrementally reduced our freedom to own firearms. This really is the case: it's the plain truth. Look at the laws, look at the crime stats, look at the evidence (lack of).

 

I started shooting with the air rifle I was given on my 13^th birthday, and I'm puzzled by your "then and now" suggestion that circumstances and the logic of firearms control have changed: they're just the same as ever. In parallel with ever greater gun ownership restrictions, gun crime has increased! Now, just as in the decades before WW2, there is virtually no (and I really mean almost zero) evidence that "gun control" has had much if any effect on armed crime.

 

The truth is that 12ftlbs air rifles cause concern for the public. The non shooters are the majority of society. They have a right not to be endangered by a minority …and yes I too don't want to be endangered by them.

 

I suggest politely but forcefully that you have the wrong end of the stick! All sorts of things "cause concern" but is this really a proper basis for legislation? Because a lot of people barely know the difference between an Uzi and an air rifle, it's OK for their "concern" to ride roughshod over liberty, and enact further bans or restrictions? Surely not! Your implication that registering air weapons might prevent this minority of yobs from endangering us is, frankly, very naive: it is exactly the same error that lies behind most "gun control" legislation, the idea that preventing the law abiding from having guns, or certain types of gun, in some mysterious way stops criminals from having guns! As we all know, this is completely wrong-headed to to an almost pathological degree; and even those whose memories don't extend to the 1967 and 1988 Acts will surely recall that following the 1997 "handgun ban", handgun crime went up significantly – to the surprise of no-one who actually knew something about guns, laws, and crime....

 

Really, did banning machine guns in 1936 help anyone at all? No it damn well didn't! Criminals weren't using full-autos in this country then – but they were by the 1980s & '90s, when drug gangs fought turf wars in our cities, armed with sub-guns. I suspect they not only didn't study the 1936 legislation beforehand, then decide to break the law anyway; in fact I suspect they didn't give it a thought, and wouldn't have given a toss if they had!

 

As you say statistics etc have been used to our detriment. How will being anti police etc help promote our cause?

 

Please provide one instance from the past 100 years when shooters' being "pro police" has helped to stave off anti-gun legislation even one tiny fraction. I suggest you are making the same mistake that many shooters have over the years, in thinking that if we're nice and polite, and bend over backwards to co-operate, they'll let us keep our guns a bit longer. Fat chance, I'm afraid. Lots of individual coppers might be nice blokes but ACPO has always been consistently hostile or at best unhelpful.

 

We cannot stand by and let those with irresponsible criminal intent destroy our sport in the name of freedom. I would rather those truly interested in shooting be required to make an effort to get a license and enjoy their legitimate pastime than champion the right of the local hoodie to vandalize and terrorize his neighbourhood and in so doing, help destroy our sport.

 

Sigh... See above. We are all licenced to the bleedin' hilt, and (to repeat – it can't be said too often) it makes not a blind bit of difference to criminals and yobs, who have always been able to get whatever guns they want without giving a moment's thought to the law. Licencing air weapons will not stop yobs from misusing them; if they were banned tomorrow, with the death penalty for possession of a BB gun, airgun misuse would still occur – there are zillions of them out there. Look up the numbers of multi-shot pump and semi-auto shotguns imported to UK prior to the late '80s, then (following the 1967 and 1988 Acts that put all shotguns on ticket, and multi-shots on FAC) look up the numbers of them that were sold to dealers, handed in, or destroyed: there is an interestingly large disparity.... Surely, thousands of people didn't just stick their semis & pumps under the floorboards? Surely not...

 

I know you mean well, and we all want to see yobs kept in their place, but even more gun restriction is not the way to do it.

 

Regards, Tony

 

[achosenman]

Tony sporting guns are not banned in this country. Any law restricting ownership to fit persons is not a ban. You speak of liberty, but liberty does not confer an automatic right to get hold of and use weapons at a whim. Restriction it certainly is, but a person is still at liberty to get a licence with a valid reason and use it as and when they want.

 

I suggested registering the person not the airgun, a bit like a driving licence.

Just because the airgun problem is difficult is not reason enough to not try to deal with it. It strikes me as odd that if our firearms laws do not work as you claim, why then do we not see these same airgun toting yobs using high powered rifles such as we all use on this forum? At a guess Id say its because (despite the media hype) theyre not quite so easy to get hold of

 

A machinegun has no civilian application so I dont care that they were banned way back. I quite like the fact that they along with many other military weapons are banned.

 

Cause for concern is a valid fear. As a lot of dinosaur union barons are finding out, just saying no doesnt work any more. We can either be sat at the table and have some control and input over what comes to pass, or we stamp our collective feet and just say no. If we are not sat at the table we just get to have something imposed upon us for someones political agenda or just plain ignorance.

 

I know which scenario I prefer.

 

ATB

[baldie]

Airguns should have been licensed years ago.

 

Any offence committed with an air weapon is automatically upgraded to a " firearms offence"

 

Where do you think all the firearms offences come from Tony ?

 

Our local airgun shop closed down last year. Several customers asked me if i had plans to take it on.

 

Not bloody likely. I saw the scum of the earth that frequented that place on a saturday afternoon. Those thieves, druggies, pikey,s scumbags, all had legal access to dangerous weapons there, regardless of their criminal records.

 

Their ensuing misuse is used as a stick to beat legitmate gun owners like ourselves with.

 

You explain to me why a scrote can buy a dangerous weapon, if he is over the age limit, when he has nowhere safe to shoot it, or store it ?

 

And dont quote civil liberties to me either, because those tulips in Amsterdam deserve none.

[Chris-NZ]

There was an infamous case here Dave about 3yrs back where an undercover cop was killed after being shot in the neck by a druggie with one of those seriously grunty air rifles. Obviously hit an artery or similar. This led to a change in the law whereby high-powered air weapons became subject to the same ownership rules as std rifles. There had been previously no restrictions on air weapons.

 

We too have the press at least over-stating what was found in cop raids. You can partially forgive them for their ignorance but the same doesn't apply to cops talking about what they confiscated.

 

In NZ, the shooter is licensed, not the firearms unless they are pistols/full auto/mil type. They gave up serial number tracking of individual std firearms a good 20yrs ago, and there's been more than one or two occasions where the cops have regretted it in terms of trying to solve murders. The reality is of course than most serious gun crime involves stolen/ illegally-obtained weapons so no tracking system will ever get on top of that.

 

Chris-NZ

[TonyH]

I doubt if this is going anywhere - and in all honesty, these same suggestions/assumptions about what banning this or that gun "might" do or might have done have been gone over time without number. I really have heard it all before... The simple fact is (and yes, all the stats on criminal firearm misuse are out there, together with the weird history of UK "gun control") that there is virtually no connection between our (anti-) firearms laws on the one hand, and criminals' misuse of guns on the other. Shooters who call for this or that type of gun to be banned, or placed under greater restriction, are just doing the anti-gun Establishment's work for them. It's happened so many times it's depressing. When I showed pics of me and friends at the range holding AR-15s and other semi-autos pre-1988, some shooters ("game" shots and others) would gasp in shock: My God! Surely you can't own things like that? When I shot Practical Pistol, I met rimfire target shooters who thought we were a bunch of reckless bloodthirsty cowboys and that centrefire handguns should be banned. When I was on the committee of a national angling association, there was widespread hostility to foxhunting and they laughed when I said the antis would continue to agitate against angling - and they continue to do just that... At the same time, there have been centrefire shooters who've told me they think game shooting is disgusting and pheasant rearing should be banned!

Good grief. Sometimes it really does not surprise me that UK shooters have allowed themselves to be squashed further and further into the ground, when they all seem to be stabbing one another in the back at every opportunity.

Calling for airguns to be licenced comes under the same heading, I'm afraid. It might make some people feel temporarily noble, make them think they're among the good guys, legitimate shooters, responsible folk demonstrating that they disapprove of the yob element.... Unfortunately it won't do a blind bit of good in terms of protecting public safety or ensuring the survival of our natural liberty to own weaponry.

 

I agree entirely about licencing the individual, not the guns themselves - something argued years ago by e.g. the Shooters' Rights Association.

 

Baldie writes,

Any offence committed with an air weapon is automatically upgraded to a " firearms offence"

Where do you think all the firearms offences come from Tony ?

Exactly. Some kid puts a pellet through someone's greenhouse and it all goes down as a "firearms incident" that is then used to argue that we need even tougher anti-gun laws. It's been going on for many years!

Chris-NZ writes,

The reality is of course than most serious gun crime involves stolen/ illegally-obtained weapons so no tracking system will ever get on top of that.

Which in a way sums it all up neatly. Crims/yobs don't apply for gun licences. They don't use legally registered guns. (Anti-) gun laws affect only the law abiding. Please don't argue for even more anti-gun laws than we already have.

Tony

[achosenman]

Sorry Tony, you are neatly classifying criminals and yobs as the same thing. They are not and never have been.

 

I used to help out in a mates gun shop. I used to see the yobs regularly buy legal airguns. They were the most unsavoury characters you can imagine. Their other pet love was a crossbow or the biggest knife we had.

 

I don’t understand how any shooter with an ounce of sense would want these characters to have legal access to anything remotely like a rifle. By doing so, we are handing those that have ulterior motives for gun ownership a big stick. They then beat us with it. It doesn’t take the brains of an Arch-Bishop to know what these clowns will be getting up to. You are correct in that it will not stop the criminals getting them, but this is not what it's about. It’s about public perception. If Ryan and Hamilton had had their guns confiscated before the massacres as we all know they should have, we would both still be shooting practical pistol and the practical rifle boys and girls would be using proper AR15’s etc.

 

Using stats to win an argument will not work when the truth doesn’t matter. You are assuming that all laws enacted are based on fact. History tells us they aren’t. E.g. the government have walked all over sections of society in the name of public security. I know this first hand; I work in the aviation industry. We who work at the airports etc can produce all the facts and evidence that blow all the government spin, lies and half truths out of the water. What passes for security is pure political eye wash for the ignorant masses. But as long as the spin is popular, the rules stand.

 

The gun ownership debate has now morphed into a far more devious campaign. They are playing the long game. We need to understand our enemy and counter the real threat wherever we find them.

 

ATB

[TonyH]

It's about public perception.

Sorry, but "public perception" is no democratic basis on which to enact any sort of law – see below.

 

If Ryan and Hamilton had had their guns confiscated before the massacres as we all know they should have, we would both still be shooting practical pistol and the practical rifle boys and girls would be using proper AR15's etc.

 

Entirely correct – couldn't agree more. But what you say reinforces my argument that gun laws are mostly bad because they are futile and ineffective as well as illiberal. The police and others always argue that guns must be tightly administered (by them of course – they scream blue murder at any suggestion of an independent firearms licencing authority) and that all the FAC etc checks are absolutely essential for public safety. Then Ryan & Hamilton commit unspeakable acts – and all sorts of evidence emerges (plus much else is suppressed – one wonders why...) that the evidence was there for years that both men should have had their tickets revoked, but this didn't happen because all those controls that mess us about weren't applied properly and/or didn't work.

 

Using stats to win an argument will not work when the truth doesn't matter. You are assuming that all laws enacted are based on fact.

No, I'm not - but legislation ought in principle to be enacted only after the most rigorous examination of the facts. It is notoriously the case that our firearms laws are a mish-mash of suspicion, hidden agendas, bureaucratic momentum, paranoid speculation, moral panic, news-driven hysteria - but not facts..

 

 

The gun ownership debate has now morphed into a far more devious campaign. They are playing the long game. We need to understand our enemy and counter the real threat wherever we find them.

ATB

They always have played the long game. Even I have been watching the "game" for decades, and I'm only middle aged, not ancient.

Regards, Tony

[achosenman]

Tony coulda, shoulda and ought to, don’t matter in present day UK. We have all seen what happens with legislation. Unless we deal with the very effective demonization of shooters by the politically motivated, we will be effectively aiding them in their cause.

 

Personally I’m not prepared to champion a yobs right to destroy my sport. I have gone through the required vetting/ licensing procedures so that I may enjoy my shooting as has everyone else who uses firearms legally. I don’t see why others who have a desire to enjoy shooting and are serious, should not do the same. I am willing to prevent any casual user or yob getting any kind of weapon legally just on a fleeting whim or desire to impress their peers, especially if that threatens our sport.

 

It shouldn’t be this way, but it is. So we had better deal with it or they that govern will have their way.

 

ATB

[forbie]

As far as I am aware ANY shop ANY dealer have/has the right to refuse the sale of any of their goods to anyone. No one has a right to buy. So who is to blame for the scum plebs druggies etc owning them? As for the above arguement it's going round in circles. I agree with Tony as regards legislation. One thing for sure it's going to get worse with the underhand ways the "establishment" are restricting legal use and ownership mostly on target shooters. Range charges/changes are continually going through the roof and it all hits us the hardest ie our pocket when it will get to the extent that most of us can't afford to do as much shooting as we wish. I've also seen it on here forces restricting the use of certain calibers for shooting certain animals. Started with the roe in england and look where it's getting us now can't shoot foxes with 308 blah blah. How has this come about? Where is it going to stop. If you want to go shooting will we end up running down to the local station ask for a round so you can go shooting better make that 2 incase I miss. "What you might miss" Fill in the proper risk assesment for that eventuality an come back and see if we will accept it. Sounds daft I know but who knows.

Our own club now has to pay for 2 range wardens to travel 100 miles (one way) to do our flag work even though we have people quite capable of doing the job already.They also have to be paid by the hour. One of the yearly shoots is no longer being supported by the military too expensive apparently. Whats that going to do to the cost of our shooting? well we will just have to wait and see. OK for you guys in the south with a higher ratio of shooters more people to spread these costs.

Me I personally want to shoot F class open or FTR haven't decided yet. I know that I am ever unlikely to win the championship nothing to do with the shooting ability, don't know if i will ever be good enough. BUT purely on a logistical basis and cost. Blair (went there last year for a look see) liked it a lot. Hour hour and a half drive ONE way, fuel costs I can handle. Diggle 6 7 hours one way fuel costs getting to the limit for more than once a year. Bisley forget it may as well be in France. On another site I go to (The self appreciation society, although I think that has changed as thhey are all mumpin about it)they all go on about coming along and havin a go CSR etc MQueens put your money where your mouth is an all that At the end of the day I can load and shoot a bl%*dy lot of rounds for practice/competiton nearer home with the money i save on fuel.

[TonyH]

......................Personally I'm not prepared to champion a yobs right to destroy my sport...............ATB

 

Forbie has it right: we're going round in circles. In brief:

1. "Demonisation" of our sport does not even begin to depend on our keeping yobs from getting airguns. Were you around in 1996, when all of us handgun owners came in post-Dunblane for the most vicious slagging-off I've ever known? Newspapers vied with one another to portray us as trigger-happy loons! The Guardian wrote such a repellently savage editorial, worthy of Goebbels, that I wrote a letter to the editor – which to my surprise they published (with the usual Guardian typos...). This wasn't brought about by yobs with airguns, but by a man with an FAC that had been renewed more than once.

 

2. Further to this, it should be obvious that more of the same (licencing, that is) is a pointless exercise. The police can bug*er us all about, and do, but they didn't do the same (clearly) with Ryan & Hamilton! All the oppressive legislation in the world is useless (apart from the fact that it is largely futile in itself) if not applied!

 

It really has never been "the yobs" (or even straightforward criminals like armed robbers) who have brought about specific changes in our gun laws, the incremental tightening up that has lost us the freedom to own all sorts of guns and made our lives more oppressive. The original 1920 Act didn't happen because of any crime wave with guns – there wasn't one! Armed crime at that time was remarkably infrequent! The 1967 Act that put shotguns on ticket was prompted by the murder of three London coppers by crims armed with off-ticket handguns – explain that if you like! Every time, it's been the same.

 

Sorry, I don't doubt your sincerity, but the facts speak for themselves: demonisation of shooters has nothing to do with yobs and airguns. I've been demonised - been there, got the T-shirt, and while I've owned airguns since I was 13 I'm not a yob and have never committed a criminal offence! Alas, it made no difference...

Regards, Tony

[achosenman]

Tony I agree we are going round in circles.

 

Yes I was there in 1996 and before that.

 

Looking back at what happened to pistol shooters should tell us that the facts don’t matter in this game. The “no” arguments were tried and were not successful.

 

The demonization game is one the antis have now learned from that fiasco. A yob (shooter) with an airgun (any gun) plays into their hands. The politicians / papers have enough ammunition to fire at us without us gifting them more. We came in for the most vicious slagging off you mention because one of us “pistol shooters” (Joe public’s perception) slaughtered innocent babes. The powers that be don’t make fine distinctions when there is hysteria and money to be made.

 

As I have already mentioned I am in the aviation game. Parliament is going to change the UK flight time limitations to limits that science and medical experts say is fatiguing and dangerous. The politics is one of further EU integration at any cost, so fact and science is ignored. This is the reality of the UK today and it simply will not matter how much we shooters march in the street (remember the countryside alliance) or say “no”, they will ignore us and use spin and fear to push ahead anyway.

 

ATB