Scotland to introduce airgun licensing law

[mag41uk]

It must be getting close for Salmond wheeling out Sean Connery!

[saddler]

It must be getting close for Salmond wheeling out Sean Connery!

Naw, they're ALWAYS wheeling him out, plus quite a few other "Scots" (of the non-resident, millionaire actor, variety - i.e. folk that don't pay tax in the UK & will not have to live under the SNP jackboot, or in some cases are not even British citizens any more)

[Polchraine]

McArsekill is a tube, tosser, diddie, wallie, sleekit dreep etc etc. He LOVES unfit parents and much like a certain president and some UK PM's, he abuses dead kids for politiocal gain. SNP, Stupid Numpties every one of them.

Spoken like a true Scot!

[Chuck]

Aye intit!

[bitfield]

Are you a shooter?

I ask purely from curiosity.

I am (FAC/SGC holder and air shooter).

Of course, I'd personally prefer to be able to own and shoot any guns I want with no licence or regulation, up to and including armour-piercing anti-tank, but that doesn't mean I'd like to repeal all gun control legislation. What's good for me isn't necessarily good for the country as a whole, and I'm sure we all know people who we wouldn't care to have in charge of a firearm.

Airguns are less powerful than a rimfire, for sure, but I still wouldn't want to be shot with one. If you've seen what a headshot with an air .177 will do to a squirrel, you'll know what I mean. The difference is a quantitative one - it's not that firearms are fundamentally dangerous and airguns fundamentally harmless.

One problem with the debate is that we shooters, by and large, are responsible, sensible, and careful people who love our sport and take gun safety very seriously. It's not always easy for us to recognise that everyone is not like us. It's also not easy to make that jump from what we would like personally to apply to ourselves, to considering laws which need to cover the whole range of the population. But we can discuss it and think about it, especially if we turn off caps lock for a bit.

That said, I haven't really seen a more nuanced answer to my question here than 'guns good, licensing bad'. From my reading of the bill, no-one who wants to shoot an airgun and can safely do so will be stopped from enjoying their hobby. They will have to stump up thirty quid to continue shooting. I agree that that is outrageous, totally unacceptable, and borderline criminal, but that's government for you.

If the answer to the question "what is wrong with the proposed bill?" is that the AWC is too expensive, fine. We can have a discussion about that, even in all caps if you like. But if that's the case then that implies that we are all happy with the general principle, just not with the specific level of charges. If that's wrong, please say.

[saddler]

One of THE biggest changes will be that YES, the new law will allow continued use of airguns on Scotland. ..but NOT in your own back garden, just on approved land and at designated clubs.

Much of a change? Hell yes.
For the better? Hell no!!

[dromia]

It is a solution looking for a problem.

I am not against licensing and believe it is the individual that should be licensed however applying that to airguns is just the thin edge of the wedge for the Scottish government to reach its goal of banning the private ownership of fire arms full stop, that is a very important reason for opposing it.

Also such crass legislation will make 10s of thousands of law abiding people criminals over night.

Applying a reasoned argument to crass political dogma is a futile and worthless endeavour that history shows just allows law-abiding gun owners to get shafted be missing the point completely.

[Mr_Logic]

Are you a shooter?

I ask purely from curiosity.

I am (FAC/SGC holder and air shooter).

Of course, I'd personally prefer to be able to own and shoot any guns I want with no licence or regulation, up to and including armour-piercing anti-tank, but that doesn't mean I'd like to repeal all gun control legislation. What's good for me isn't necessarily good for the country as a whole, and I'm sure we all know people who we wouldn't care to have in charge of a firearm.

Airguns are less powerful than a rimfire, for sure, but I still wouldn't want to be shot with one. If you've seen what a headshot with an air .177 will do to a squirrel, you'll know what I mean. The difference is a quantitative one - it's not that firearms are fundamentally dangerous and airguns fundamentally harmless.

One problem with the debate is that we shooters, by and large, are responsible, sensible, and careful people who love our sport and take gun safety very seriously. It's not always easy for us to recognise that everyone is not like us. It's also not easy to make that jump from what we would like personally to apply to ourselves, to considering laws which need to cover the whole range of the population. But we can discuss it and think about it, especially if we turn off caps lock for a bit.

That said, I haven't really seen a more nuanced answer to my question here than 'guns good, licensing bad'. From my reading of the bill, no-one who wants to shoot an airgun and can safely do so will be stopped from enjoying their hobby. They will have to stump up thirty quid to continue shooting. I agree that that is outrageous, totally unacceptable, and borderline criminal, but that's government for you.

If the answer to the question "what is wrong with the proposed bill?" is that the AWC is too expensive, fine. We can have a discussion about that, even in all caps if you like. But if that's the case then that implies that we are all happy with the general principle, just not with the specific level of charges. If that's wrong, please say.

Sorry to have to point this out, but your points are codswallop.

Legislation has to be proportionate to the issue at hand. The flagship issue is that a toddler got killed with an air gun.

News for you - more toddlers are killed by medical malpractice than that. Or by incompetent parents. Or by falls.

Let's talk abuse of air guns more generally shall we... You always hear about murder with firearms as the press loves to vilify guns. So that was the only death which springs to mind, so that's a small number - just one, in fact. What about wider abuse? Sure it happens. What about knife crime - more, or less prevalent? If I am a criminal and I wish to do harm to someone, do I reach for my air rifle, or a big kitchen knife? Hmmm... that'll be the knife then.

So how about licensing knives - far more proportionate to the crime at hand. Oh no - knives are needed for other things than causing harm. News - so are air guns! They are useful for sport, and for pest control, and provide next to no danger. Criminal scum will misuse ANYTHING, so it should not come as a surprise when a nasty little chav manages to shoot a toddler.

How is it right or proportionate that the thousands of Scottish air gun owners are penalised for the actions of such a person? A person who can already be punished for their crime.

Answer it's not. Why, then, is this legislation being enacted? Simple - as has already been pointed out - it permits the Scottish Nazi Party to ban everything they hate. Therefore they will parade that kid's parents to all and sundry, and do anything they can to make them fit the victim's role, in order to further their own agenda. Be under no illusion - this is not about protection of the public and it's not about protecting anyone's shooting.

It's about a political group wishing to impose its will on others, and finding any way in which to get its agenda. It's anti-freedom, and it stinks like a whore-house in a Victorian sewer.

As for the a .177 air rifle on a squirrel - REALLY?!??! You mean, the squirrel dies. If you want to talk obliteration, try a rabbit with a 308 178 Amax - that's a mess.

Also, I accept where you're going with your point that we shooters are a responsible bunch, but, in other news, the General Public aren't generally in favour of shooting small children with an air rifle either. People are not the mindless morons that the SNP makes the out to be. They don't NEED to be molly-coddled at all ventures; they can cross the road on their own, go to the toilet on their own, and feed themselves on their own.

Contrary to the opinion of a lot of politicians, we don't need a politician to say something is OK before it is. Trust in people, and by and large they will repay your faith. Punishment for law-breaking exists to deter and to re-educate. It is neither fair nor prudent to try to prevent everything bad by banning it.

[25Pdr]

:lol: :lol:

[HALODIN]

What happened to that poor child is a tragedy, but deranged people will always find a way to turn everyday objects in to weapons. As dromia said, it's the thin end of the wedge and if they're licensed it will prevent a generation of people enjoying the sport, because no under 16 year old will join a gun club to shoot an air rifle.

I am (FAC/SGC holder and air shooter).

Of course, I'd personally prefer to be able to own and shoot any guns I want with no licence or regulation, up to and including armour-piercing anti-tank, but that doesn't mean I'd like to repeal all gun control legislation. What's good for me isn't necessarily good for the country as a whole, and I'm sure we all know people who we wouldn't care to have in charge of a firearm.

Airguns are less powerful than a rimfire, for sure, but I still wouldn't want to be shot with one. If you've seen what a headshot with an air .177 will do to a squirrel, you'll know what I mean. The difference is a quantitative one - it's not that firearms are fundamentally dangerous and airguns fundamentally harmless.

One problem with the debate is that we shooters, by and large, are responsible, sensible, and careful people who love our sport and take gun safety very seriously. It's not always easy for us to recognise that everyone is not like us. It's also not easy to make that jump from what we would like personally to apply to ourselves, to considering laws which need to cover the whole range of the population. But we can discuss it and think about it, especially if we turn off caps lock for a bit.

That said, I haven't really seen a more nuanced answer to my question here than 'guns good, licensing bad'. From my reading of the bill, no-one who wants to shoot an airgun and can safely do so will be stopped from enjoying their hobby. They will have to stump up thirty quid to continue shooting. I agree that that is outrageous, totally unacceptable, and borderline criminal, but that's government for you.

If the answer to the question "what is wrong with the proposed bill?" is that the AWC is too expensive, fine. We can have a discussion about that, even in all caps if you like. But if that's the case then that implies that we are all happy with the general principle, just not with the specific level of charges. If that's wrong, please say.