England: BB Gun Registration

[Skyrad 0]

Englands gun cime has gone up. Thanks to the wave of eastern european gangsters that have flooded this country in recent years. As Matt said though this legislation isn't about bb guns but Air weapons capable of killing. Anti social behaviour is a massive problem in this country and anything that gets weapons out of the hands of morons gets my vote. If you don't live here you simply won't understand no matter how much you read. At the time of the hand gun ban the majority of illegal weapons were aquired from legitamate ownwers in burglarys. Things are different now. But unlike in the states legal gun owners were never allowed to carry concealed weapons in this country. So all this crap about the good guys being disarmed is just cultral ignorance.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Englands gun cime has gone up. Thanks to the wave of eastern european gangsters that have flooded this country in recent years.

But guns are illegal in England, how did these gangters get guns? How did they get them into the country?

Quote

At the time of the hand gun ban the majority of illegal weapons were aquired from legitamate ownwers in burglarys. Things are different now.

They sure are! Gun crime has skyrocketed in jolly ol' England.

Quote

So all this crap about the good guys being disarmed is just cultral ignorance.

The good guys weren't disarmed? What did the government do with all of their guns?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Englands gun cime has gone up. Thanks to the wave of eastern european gangsters that have flooded this country in recent years.

Do you think the rise in "gangsters" has to do with them having an easier time of things when citizens are disarmed? Think the new black market for guns may have drawn them there?

I'm willing to bet the number of gangsters went up when Prohibition became US law.

Quote

As Matt said though this legislation isn't about bb guns but Air weapons capable of killing.

What's the difference between a bb gun and "Air weapons capable of killing?"

Quote

Anti social behaviour is a massive problem in this country and anything that gets weapons out of the hands of morons gets my vote.

So everyone in the UK is a moron? Or have these laws gone too far and taken rights and property away from honest, non-moronic citizens?

Quote

At the time of the hand gun ban the majority of illegal weapons were aquired from legitamate ownwers in burglarys. Things are different now.

So it's better now that guns are smuggled in and home owners are 100% disarmed?

Quote

So all this crap about the good guys being disarmed is just cultral ignorance.

So home owners were never able to defend themselves?
.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Do you think the rise in "gangsters" has to do with them having an easier time of things when citizens are disarmed? Think the new black market for guns may have drawn them there?

Speaking of gangsters...

"Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety Locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

-Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, Mafia turncoat, asked about gun control in an interview in Vanity Fair

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Englands gun cime has gone up. Anti social behaviour is a massive problem in this country and anything that gets weapons out of the hands of morons gets my vote.

Um, I thought we've already adequately illustrated that the gun control -- the gun BAN -- has FAILED to get weapons out of the hands of "morons" (which I take you to mean "criminals"?). Now that the legislation that "got your vote" is exposed as a flop, what do you propose? Do you still favor the laws that keep the victims disarmed?

Quote

If you don't live here you simply won't understand no matter how much you read. At the time of the hand gun ban the majority of illegal weapons were aquired from legitamate ownwers in burglarys. Things are different now.

Things are different now how? Who cares if the guns that criminals acquire now no longer come from home burglaries but from black market sales? The guns are still there, and there seems to have been no point to taking them away from those who had them peacefully, for purposes of sport or target shooting, or for defense.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

The guns are still there, and there seems to have been no point to taking them away from those who had them peacefully, for purposes of sport or target shooting, or for defense.

What's the old saying? Something about how it is morally superior to be beaten, broken, or even dead, than to be holding a smoking gun with a dead attacker at your feet?

I just don't get it.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Englands gun cime has gone up. Thanks to the wave of eastern european gangsters that have flooded this country in recent years.

So the problem was not guns owned by law-abiding British citizens, but one of gangsters. Maybe instead of disarming the law-abiding, they should have attacked the gangsters. Oh, but it's much easier to take guns away from the law-abiding. And it makes it look like you are "doing something" to fight crime.

Quote

Anti social behaviour is a massive problem in this country

So the problem is not one of guns in the homes of law-abiding citizens, but one of culture. Maybe they should work on that anti-social behavior problem, instead of taking guns away from good guys.

Quote

anything that gets weapons out of the hands of morons gets my vote.

Well, since the gun confiscation hasn't worked, because gun crime has gone up dramatically since, then obviously the people from whom the guns were taken were not the "morons". Therefore, that confiscation was unnecessary and wrongful.

Quote

unlike in the states legal gun owners were never allowed to carry concealed weapons in this country. So all this crap about the good guys being disarmed is just cultral ignorance.

They've been disarmed in their own homes. Concealed carry doesn't enter into that picture.

[mr2mk1g 10]

It always surprises me that Americans are so much more animated about whether or not the British are armed than the British are themselves.

I’m afraid that it has a lot less to do with any concern you may have for our well-being and a lot more to do with a selfish wish to point out failures in gun control overseas in an attempt to prevent such measures happening in the US.

Give it up - there are so few people in the UK that actually give a damn that you end up arguing with yourself and have 5 or 10 rampaging posts against the one or two people who says anything remotely contrary to your view. Seriously - go back and look at this thread and see if there is any serious debate, or it this is simply another example of you and your mates standing round and shouting about the topic to anyone who comes close enough to hear. You’re starting to sound like the guy with a sandwich board in the city centre shouting: “REPENT - you’re all going to hell”

Now do you want to debate the issue that started this thread? The fact that the UK legislature wants to bring the controls on a type of weapon that currently falls into a lacuna in line with the rest of their firearms legislation. I'm not too interested in debating if there should be any legislation - that topic gets done to death on here, but feel free to address that specific topic with me.

Do you think Brockock weapons should be freely available to any 16 year old? or do you think that there should have [I]some form of regulation? Have you ever used a Brockock type weapon? Or do you think this legislation is about those little plastic things that fire yellow balls? Remember, there is no ban being proposed - merely licensing of them.

[jakee 1,257]

Law abiding citizens have not been disarmed with this legislation, or indeed with any legislation in the last 10 years at least. Self defence has not been a legit reason to own guns in England for at least my lifetime.
Yes, handguns have been completely outlawed since Dunblane, however before Dunblane those that had handguns for target shooting (no other lawful reason) were supposed to leave their handguns in the care of their shooting club, NOT take them home.
The gun clubs proved incapable of enforcing the law and therefore handguns became completely illegal.

Rifles and shotguns are for hunting, clay and target shooting and are to be locked up when kept in the home, have been for years.

Rising crime levels in Engand are not due to tightened gun legislation because it has not affected our ability to defend ourselves. Try looking at the recruitment crisis in the police force and the complete lack of prison space, that might tell you something about why crime is rising.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Now do you want to debate the issue that started this thread?

We were doing that. What got us off on this track about gun crime in the UK was an offended Brit, not one of the pro-gun ownership advocates.

No one has yet explained how registering air guns is going to reduce air gun crime. All firearms were registered. Yet that didn't stop the criminals from using guns in crime, and the government went ahead and confiscated them anyway. So by their own previous example, registration is useless. Yet here they go trying it again. And I wouldn't be surprised if history repeats itself, and a few years down the road these air guns are confiscated also.

Quote

Remember, there is no ban being proposed - merely licensing of them.

Um, you must not have read one of the stories that was used to start this thread:

Here it is again.

Quote: "ONLY a handful of the estimated 800 people in Tayside who own airguns, which are soon to be outlawed, have applied for a firearms certificate... That means hundreds of self-contained gas cartridge airgun owners in Tayside have until May 1 to apply or surrender the weapon, or they will be liable to a minimum five-year jail term... Since January 20, under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, it has been an offence to manufacture, sell, purchase, transfer or acquire any air weapon that uses a self-contained gas cartridge system..."

They've been banned. The only ones that can still be legally owned are those already in private ownership, which will be grandfathered as legal, as long as they are registered.

I love the irony of Brits telling us we don't know what we're talking about because we don't live there, while at the same time they're not even aware of what is going on in their own country, as illustrated by your response and this newspaper story.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I'm not expressing a view here on the proposed legislation, just clarifying exactly what the issue is because people appear to be under the impression the legislation refers to those little plastic things which fire neon yellow 6mm ball bearings.

In the States, the term "BB Gun" refers to air or spring powered rifles and pistols which fire hard metal ball bearings. It generally is not used to refer to the type of plastic toy gun that fires neon yellow plastic projectiles. It can sometimes be used to include air or compressed gas rifles that fire small lead projectiles of the type described by the legislation, although such guns are generally referred to as "pellet guns" rather than lumped into the general class of "BB gun".

I think it might just be a cross-pond semantic difference.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Law abiding citizens have not been disarmed with this legislation, or indeed with any legislation in the last 10 years at least. Self defence has not been a legit reason to own guns in England for at least my lifetime.

I just love this Orwellian Newspeak: Handguns are not "arms", therefore by confiscating them, no one was disarmed!

Well, if guns are not "arms", and they weren't allowed to be used for self-defense, then why did you bother to confiscate them? By your logic then, they were harmless already, and not a factor in crime.

Quote

Rising crime levels in Engand are not due to tightened gun legislation because it has not affected our ability to defend ourselves. Try looking at the recruitment crisis in the police force and the complete lack of prison space, that might tell you something about why crime is rising.

I'm not suggesting that the gun confiscation is responsible for gun crime going up. I'm saying that confiscating the guns, was useless at reducing gun crime. Therefore, the property of gun owners was confiscated for nothing.

And by pointing to the police and prisons, you seem to be acknowledging this yourself.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote: "ONLY a handful of the estimated 800 people in Tayside who own airguns, which are soon to be outlawed, have applied for a firearms certificate... That means hundreds of self-contained gas cartridge airgun owners in Tayside have until May 1 to apply or surrender the weapon, or they will be liable to a minimum five-year jail term... Since January 20, under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, it has been an offence to manufacture, sell, purchase, transfer or acquire any air weapon that uses a self-contained gas cartridge system..."

Wow. They must really like those air guns to have applied for all those licences to keep them.
Oh wait, silly me, they didn't bother. They could have kept them, they just didn't care enough.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Fair enough - I hadn't read that article, only the first one where it refers to the licensing of them. I've checked the act and you're right - they are being put into the same class as other semi-automatic pistols and revolvers.

Is there a reason why you think these weapons should be excluded from the ban on firearms?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Wow. They must really like those air guns to have applied for all those licences to keep them. Oh wait, silly me, they didn't bother. They could have kept them, they just didn't care enough.

Are you guys bothering to read the referenced news stories?

The police acknowledge that the new requirement has not been well advertised, and that most air gun owners didn't know about it. That could be one reason they haven't been signing up.

Another possible reason that comes to mind, is that they have learned the lesson of history: they saw what happened when firearm owners registered their guns - they were subsequently confiscated. So they can likely see the writing on the wall now that the government insists upon their air guns being registered.

Third reason: stupid laws breed civil disobedience.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I just love this Orwellian Newspeak: Handguns are not "arms", therefore by confiscating them, no one was disarmed!

I shall clarify.
Disarmed for the sake of sport shooting at a registered club, Yes.
Disarmed for the sake of self defence, No.

Quote

Well, if guns are not "arms", and they weren't allowed to be used for self-defense, then why did you bother to confiscate them? By your logic then, they were harmless already, and not a factor in crime.

Like I said, the gun clubs were not able to enforce the laws of the time and people were bringing their pistols home. This was a naughty thing to do. Their pistols were taken

Quote

And by pointing to the police and prisons, you seem to be acknowledging this yourself.

As population and immigration increases more, better funded police are nessesary, this hasn't been happening, hence people get away with more crime, hence more crime is committed.
No jail space means more criminals getting off lightly.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Is there a reason why you think these weapons should be excluded from the ban on firearms?

Yeah; common sense.

First, they aren't "weapons", they're target guns.

Second, as long as they are used legally, the owners should be left alone to practice their sport all they want.

The light weight of the pellets fired from these guns makes them harmless beyond 100 feet or so. They are nowhere near as dangerous as real firearms.

Only the criminals who mis-use air guns should be punished. Gosh, what a concept: punishing the guilty, rather than the innocent!

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would subject innocent person to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for the unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
- Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments,Italian criminologist, 1764.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

The police acknowledge that the new requirement has not been well advertised, and that most air gun owners didn't know about it. That could be one reason they haven't been signing up.

Ok, I apologise for my sarcasm.

Quote

Another possible reason that comes to mind, is that they have learned the lesson of history: they saw what happened when firearm owners registered their guns - they were subsequently confiscated. So they can likely see the writing on the wall now that the government insists upon their air guns being registered.

Interesting view. Hypothetically speaking why would they prefer to risk criminal prosecution than face the risk of maybe having these air guns confiscated at a later date? It will be very difficult to go target shooting or whatever with an unlicenced gun with police on the lookout.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Oh absolutly - the misusers should be punished - no argument there. But thats true of the wider debate... I'm looking for something that makes these different to any other firearm.

The goverment here has taken away many of our target guns too, unless they didn't have a magazeen. These have magazeens so again they fall into the same catagory.

Yep they are less lethal - thats really the only argument without entering into the wider gun debate. The problem is they are still lethal and have been the cause of people's death.

I personally don't see enough of a difference between Brockock style weapons and their "real" firearm counterpart to justify distinguishing the two at law to the extent that they were. The only requirement for owning a Brockock gun was that you were 16 - thats it. You didn't even need to register it. I would have liked to see these held on a shot-gun license or firearms license a total ban is perhaps over the top - but there was a need for legislation on the subject.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction

Give me an example of the uses of a TARGET gun that places it along side water and fire in a list of things not to ban. That quote would only be relevant in a discussion of concealed carry licences etc.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Skyrad 0]

I'm not offended just bored of people in America trying to make an argument for gun ownership on the grounds of self defence in the home when they haven't got the first idea of UK legal requirments for ownership of weapons. You can't simply blow someone away for breaking into your house over here. There is a rule of minimum force and one can defend oneself with reasonable force. Ownership of a firearm in the UK requires that the weapon must be kept securly locked away when not being cleaned that has always been the case. Legal firearms were a main source of illegal firearms following burglary. That source has now been reduced. The man who committed the Dunblane killings was a legal owner of his firearms as was Michael Ryan man who carried out the Hungerford massacre.
I enjoy shooting myself but realise that there is a need for tight weapon controls. As for the point of this thread, I'm for the registration of these potentialy lethal weapons. In my youth I owned several and would have had no problem with having them registered. What argument do you have for not having them registered?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The man who committed the Dunblane killings was a legal owner of his firearms as was Michael Ryan man who carried out the Hungerford massacre

Half of the one's they used were illegal at the time of their use. Tony Martin shotgun was unlicensed but would have been legal.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

If you don't live here you simply won't understand no matter how much you read.

Same thing should apply when you talk about US. But this is not the case with you, where you seem inclined to harsh comments towards US, yet you fail to see you own failures, with a pretense of superiority. This is what fuels animosity.

I lived in your country for 2 years. Never again

Quote

At the time of the hand gun ban the majority of illegal weapons were aquired from legitamate ownwers in burglarys. Things are different now. But unlike in the states legal gun owners were never allowed to carry concealed weapons in this country. So all this crap about the good guys being disarmed is just cultral ignorance.

Maybe when you get robbed at gun point you will change your opinion. You should have a right to self defense, and not let the government take that away from you.

In regards to the cultural ignorance, please get a mirror will you?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

You should have a right to self defense, and not let the government take that away from you.

oooo - I participated in a very heated debate a couple of weeks ago about that. Gun ownership is a means to self defence not the right. The two concepts exist entirely separately.

[juanesky 0]

I guess you are ok with the idea that if you have an intruder at home, you should have on you a gun, a bat, a knife, and when confronting the attacker drop what is excesive. Pretty efficient way to defend one self. You rather give the assialant the right to tresspass and kill you instead of defending yourself.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon