richieh

see this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...nd/4503595.stm

first you will need a licence and a renforced case to keep it in then after about a year they'll ban em.
good old uncle tone
richie

Iain Young

Good. Can't see why anyone should be able to keep a gun of any sort in their home or on the street without a special license. Yes, there are people who do have legitimate (sporting) uses for them, but some of them are very accurate replicas of real guns and are increasingly being used in crime. I know if I had one pointing at me, I couldn't tell the difference...

ajm

Labour nanny state ban culture. Criminalising the innocent and taking the burden of responsibility off the shoulders of the criminals.

richieh

i dont think people should be allowed high performance cars without a special licence-in fact unless you are a racing driver you shouldnt have one at all.
similar principle and i probavally couldnt tell the difference between an my94 or 95 if they were trying to run me over-luckily things like that dont happen often
richie

Iain Young

Who said anything about banning them. I just said you should have to have a license to have / use them. Makes perfect sense to me. How does a shop owner know that the person the other side of the till isn't holding a real gun? Anything that can help the rapidly increasing amounts of gun crime in this country has got to be a good thing.

Not the same principal at all richie. Replica guns are being used in crime all the time. They are reasonably cheap, can slip into your pocket, and are difficult to tell from the real thing, especially when they are pointing at you. How is this similar to a scooby, which in fact you do need a license to use (i.e. a driving license), and the registration document ties the car to the owner?

richieh

like i said you dont need a performance car-they are being used in crimes all the time cos they can escape the police and they are cheap especially when you steal them
its very similar
we should be dealing with the crims not restricting the law abiding further
richie

Iain Young

You're still not comparing like with like though Richie.

If the car is registered to a person, then used in a crime, then the police can track the owner and catch the villain. That's what the registration document is for (amongst other things). For this reason, cars used in crime tend to be stolen. High performance cars are not as common as you think in crime simply because they tend to generally be a lot harder to steal, but when they are used, police tend to track them from the air (helicopter) rather than by chasing them with a Panda car.

Where airguns are concerned. Anyone can walk into a shop, buy one, and then use it for whatever illegal purposes they desire. If there was licensing in place, then there would be a paper trail leading to the firearm. You could argue that they could still get hold of a gun, but they'd have to do it illegally. Cutting of an easy supply of weapons like this can only be a good thing in my book, and moves us one step further towards reducing gun crime.

Why is forcing "legitimate" people to have a license, restricting them? Personally, if I had an airgun, I would have no objections at all in having to get a license for it at the same time. I can't understand why anyone would object, unless they wanted to use it for some dodgy purpose.

rgv_stu

sorry but your talking crap
99%+ of gun crime happens with illegally held firearms
how are you supposed to licence all the black market guns that get into this country.
since the knee jerk reaction of banning handguns, the availability of hand guns on the black market is higher than ever before.
all you are doing is making it harder for people to enjoy any sporting activity.
next your be telling us we need to licence baseball bats just in case someone uses one in a robbery it can get traced

Iain Young

Here we go. Back to the normal SN debating quality and start throwing insults around

So surely it's worth bringing in a license to stop even the remaining 1%.

Who said that you could? The illegal gun market is a seperate issue, and one which is trying to be tackled by the police.

I've never tried buying a gun on the black market so I don't know about that. However, how do you don't know whether that increase in guns wouldn't have happened anyway (with or without a ban)?

Why does having a license make it more difficult to enjoy a sporting activity? All it does is to tie the gun to the owner.

You have to have a license to own a dog, but that doesn't that stop people from owning them. You have to have a license to race a car, but that doesn't stop people racing them. Heck you have to have a license to own a tv, but that doesn't stop people from owning them either.

Why is there so much objection to having a piece of paper saying that you are the legal owner of a firearm?

What an intelligent comment <sigh>

OllyK

In an ideal world yes, but then in an ideal world the problem wouldn't be there in the first place. By introducing a license they focus on the 1%. Lots of publicity that things are being done to tackle gun crime. Probably a fee for the license to cover all the adminstration they need to run the system. The law abiding people will cough up and gun crime figures will remain pretty much the same. Does that sound anything like another debate we have on a frequent basis?

You're way out of touch - dog licenses went years ago.

Iain Young

Well it was years ago that I last owned a dog

Still don't understand the objection to having a bit of paper stating you are the legal owner of the gun though.

OllyK

It isn't a major object to the principal, I'm jut questioning the benefit. In the odd few cases where somebody who legally owns a gun, then uses it in a crime, how much of a deterrant would having a license make to them? I suspect in the odd cases (the Humgerfords etc) then person's mental condition is going to dictate the outcome and not the license (or absence).

Everybody else then has to have a license, and would have to pay to fund the red tape. Again the law abiding would do to remain law abiding. A few may not be able to afford it and now become criminals.

The main issue for me is that it focuses a huge amount of effort and resources in to setting up a system that has little effect on the gun crime figures. With the limited resources we have, I'd rather see it being used to tackle the underground gun market. If they announced this in conjunction with say a £20 million crack down on on the black market I'd have more sympathy, it just strikes me that the government are picking on the easy targets to generate revenew and enforce controls rather that getting to the heart of the problem.

scoobydooooo

i know a few people who if they could get a gun would have killed someone by now , licence or no licence !!

Iain Young

Maybe and maybe not Olly. The thing about the gun black market is that the police activities are kept very secret (so as not to endanger operations), and so none of us really have any idea of what is being done.

I agree that it would have little effect in the great scheme of things, but if it deters just one person from buying a gun (for illegal purposes), or saves just one life, then it's worth it in my book.

Like you, I suspect that this particular initiative is just an election / revenue generation ploy. I still believe all guns should be licensed to be legal though.

OllyK

I'm well aware of the need for operational security, that doesn't however account for the lack of regular press releases of "X people arrested on gun trafficing and dozens of weapons siezed". The lack of such headlines suggest the lack of any real impact IMO.

As fire arms other than shot guns (except in a few special cases) are illegal and you need a license for a shotgun, all this is about air guns - correct? So what else do we have that is potentially as lethal as an air gun? I reckon my bow would do considerably more damage than an air gun, are we to license those? What about carving knives? At the end of the day, you can turn pretty much anything in to a weapon if that is your intent.

Only law abiding people who genuinely have a use or interest in such a weapon that would register them. In the odd case where somebody does go nuts, they are usually caught at the scene or kill themselves or get shot by the police. The license really isn't going to stop such a person, unless you are suggesting it needs renewing anually and needs to be accompanyied by some sort of psychological evaluation?

I appreciate the "if you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about" statement, however, if we are not careful every damn thing becomes licensed and controlled and the law abiding suffer all the embuggerance of registering numerous things, and the criminals just ignore it and carry on as before.

Iain Young

I see your point, and I tend to feel the same way. However there are occaisional reports of successes. Only a couple of weeks ago there was a big raid in Swindon. The police ended up capturing not only people, but sub-machine guns, bulletproof vests, lots of bags of drugs (cocaine I think it was), and a few hundred thousand in cash!!!

Very true. I guess the factor here is that a lot of airguns are made to look exactly like the real thing, and so when they are used on the street, the victim has no way of knowing if it is real or not. Perhaps there should be a law in place to force all air gun makers to make them bright yellow (or something like that), so it is obvious what they are.

Very true as well. It's very difficult to know where to draw the line...

OllyK

Must have missed that one!

Interesting idea, if you are using it for legitimate use then the colour should not be important, but then cans of black spray paint aren't exactly expensive!

My tolerance is wearing thin. I don't mind enduring a bit of pain if there is a benefit, but I feel the law abiding majority are being repeatedly bludgeoned and restricted for little apparent gain. Now that may be perception on my part, but seeing how NL like to put a spin on everything, I suspect things aren't even as rosey as they try to portray.

I'm not a gun user / owner but it worries me that the "ban it" culture is becoming the "solution" to everything when so far it hasn't proved to be in any case I can think of.

The Zohan

Could not have put it better myself.

Where does it stop.
People get killed by cars - ban all cars
People get killed with knioves, ba 'em all
Drink kills - Ban it
Smoking - and that
200+ people a year die falling down stairs - ban all houses other than bungalows or insist on a lift being fitted
people die drowning - i say ban all water over 3 inches deep!
The list goes on....

As i have said many times before, criminals operate outside the law, they do not nip down to their local sporting goods shop and pick up a shooter for their next job, they buy from other criminals (yes, still operating outside of the law!), the ones who are bringing in firearms and drugs etc on the same routes as the illegals are brought into this country 'cause it is so easy to do so.

For a change they should try tacking the problem and sorting it properly!

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

When will you do gooder idiots realise that banning them will NOT solve the problem it will only effect the honest law abiding users!! has the handgun ban stopped the amount of gun related crimes in the UK or has it just made grandad hand in his WW2 german service revolver he brought back with him???????

Criminals will not be handing them in you can count on that! all it will serve to do is make more criminals out of more law abiding citizens and swell the government coffers in fines and fill the already overcrowded prisons with people that do not belong their. Just like speed cameras are currently doing to motorists.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Michael Ryan had licences for his AK47 and hand guns he used in Hungerford .

So did that other idiot in Dunblane!!!!!!!

Iain Young

Yet another SN user resorting to insults rather than hanving an intelligent debate. Beginning to see a pattern here....

I've no idea. You don't know what it would have been like if they hadn't been banned (it might be far worse than it is now) so it's difficult to form an opinion either way.

Criminals won't be handing them in, but it makes it slightly more difficult to get hold of them in the first place. Also, what's the point in police trying to crack down on the illegal gun trade, when they can just go down the road and buy an airgun replica, which looks identical, and as far as the person that it is being pointed at knows, is real.

Makes me laugh why so many people seem to object to legally admitting they own a gun and being responsible for it.

Different debate.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

I have no objection to admitting I legally own 2 air rifles.

and criminals don't seem to have to much trouble getting hold of guns at the moment do they and if the government ban airrifles this is not going to have one iota of effect on the hand gun criminal scene.

"Yet another SN user resorting to insults rather than hanving an intelligent debate. Beginning to see a pattern here...."
this is twice you used this line in this thread!!!

I also can not see to many criminals using an air gun in a crime anyway!

Iain Young

What point are you trying to prove? He wouldn't be able to get licenses for them now.

The point behind licensing is that if a firearm is found at the scene of a crime, and is licensed, then it can be traced. It also makes it less attractive for the casual buyer (chav) to go into a shop and buy one for nefarious purposes...

Iain Young

Good for you. I have no objection to you owning them either, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to use them for dodgy purposes. However sadly, there are many people who will. Introducing a licensing scheme would help weed out the opportunistic gun crime (i.e. pop into a shop, buy a gun, use it, throw it away). It's small potatoes to a lot of gun crime but it's a start, and for the sake of forcing people to spend a couple of quid on a piece of paper, I think it's worth it.

So what. That's because two different people have done it.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

What point am I trying to prove???

Well you seem hell bent on saying that as long as a weapon is licenced then gun crime will decrease, which blatently isn't the case as proved time and time again.

and yes I will agree that there is a slight possibility that a disgarded weapon might lead back to a licenced user but it is highly unlikely that it will. Or if it does it is probably a fair assumption to make that the person registered to that gun is not the person who dropped it. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of guns found will not lead back to a licencee!!!!

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Iain, I seriously do not think there are to many opportunist gun criminals, the ramifications are to high to even contemplate, I would say that all gun crime is planned or organised, you don't just walk into a gun shop buy a pistol then go and rob the bank next door just because it seems like a laugh!

Iain Young

Well, if you actually read what I wrote, you would see I didn't say that at all. If stuff is licensed, then crime committed with "legal" guns will decrease, as it makes it harder for people to get hold of them. Also nothing has been proven at all as far as dcrease / increase is concerned since the introduction of the ban. As I said before, how do you know the situation wouldn't have been even worse if the ban hadn't been introduced?

I've still not heard a convincing argument as to why spending a couple of quid on a license which allows you to legally own a gun is a bad thing? If I had one, I certainly wouldn't mind buying a license.

Iain Young

You obviously haven't walked around Swindon lately then. This has happened a few times lately (was reported in the local paper). People buying an air gun, holding up people at gunpoint, then scarpering. Beginning to get a bit of a problem in some of the estates.

Even where I live, (on the outskirts) there are groups of teenagers, who use them at night to smash windows, break streetlights, shoot pets etc.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Tiz a bit of a hike from Stuttgart to Swindon

Iain Young