The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Only legal if you shout INCOMING before firing...

I don't know why this has become a pi$$ing contest, but that's not what was intended. The subject of lethality came about because you said that a dummy launcher was not designed to be lethal. That is not disputed to a degree. But, I brought up that the proof of lethality lies with a court, dependant on the circs. That was it. I have shown that is both CPS guidance and legal opinion, at the moment. (The Law Commission have suggested a stipulated level of "lethal" should be legislated for, as low as 1.5ft/lbs!)

I will opine, discharge maliciously, a can launcher into someone's face, "firearm" and "lethality" will be high on the legal argument agenda.

As for the example of sub 12ft/lbs air weapons, they are already exempted from firearms legislation based on ME so the simple possession of would not require jury clarification on "lethal". Air weapons can be regarded as firearms for certain aspects of the law in relation to cause fear of violence, resist arrest, commit an indictable offence, etc. But due to their already exemption as a lethal barrelled weapon, no "lethality test" would be required only whether the actual harm caused was commensurate with s47, 20 or 18.

And CPS will run on a 51/49 chance of conviction....

I would have thought launching a tin or Rice Pudding at close distance into someone's face would certainly spoil their day.

The real problem is I cannot actually find one right now, so if anyone spots such a thing for a sensible prices please shout.

Ovenpaa wrote:I would have thought launching a tin or Rice Pudding at close distance into someone's face would certainly spoil their day.

So slapstick isn't allowed any more?

Laurel and Hardy much preferred the piano drop on the head....

There were some real comic geniuses and hard men in those silent days.

Buster Keaton has to be one of my all time favourites, some of his stunts were literally death defying, what a talent, what courage, what poignancy.

..and Buster Keaton did all his own stunts, the falling gable end is probably the most memorable however I seem to remember him playing with trains as well.

Ovenpaa wrote:..and Buster Keaton did all his own stunts, the falling gable end is probably the most memorable however I seem to remember him playing with trains as well.

Can you imagine this today? The film company's lawyers, not to mention in-house health & safety officers would have kittens. The star's insurance company would forbid it. If the intention got out on Facebook and Twitter, Keaton, Laurel & Hardy or whoever would become hate-figures for inciting the immature and stupid to hurt themselves copying dangerous stunts. Network Rail or its US equivalent would be appalled at the portrayal of dangerous driving on level crossings and would want the film censored, better still banned. Whatever the US equivalent is to our HSE would threaten prosecution and demand 500 risk assessments in advance ...........

And that's before the inevitable charges of racist typecasting, white male mysoginy, Hardy bullying Laurel etc got going. No doubt about it, the human race should have sat in its medieval hovels, North American native tepees, desert caves, or not even come down form the trees in the first place. Let's expunge the Duke of Wellington, Nelson, Sam Colt, John Moses Browning, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and Cecil Rhodes from history alongside Keaton and Laurel / Hardy. How dare they do anything without permissions in quadruplicate?

PS good luck with finding a can launcher. Are you on the Stalking Directory forum? That's the sort of place where some member still has one mouldering in a cupboard.

Sim G wrote:I don't know why this has become a pi$$ing contest, but that's not what was intended. The subject of lethality came about because you said that a dummy launcher was not designed to be lethal. That is not disputed to a degree. But, I brought up that the proof of lethality lies with a court, dependant on the circs. That was it. I have shown that is both CPS guidance and legal opinion, at the moment. (The Law Commission have suggested a stipulated level of "lethal" should be legislated for, as low as 1.5ft/lbs!)

I will opine, discharge maliciously, a can launcher into someone's face, "firearm" and "lethality" will be high on the legal argument agenda.

As for the example of sub 12ft/lbs air weapons, they are already exempted from firearms legislation based on ME so the simple possession of would not require jury clarification on "lethal". Air weapons can be regarded as firearms for certain aspects of the law in relation to cause fear of violence, resist arrest, commit an indictable offence, etc. But due to their already exemption as a lethal barrelled weapon, no "lethality test" would be required only whether the actual harm caused was commensurate with s47, 20 or 18.

And CPS will run on a 51/49 chance of conviction....

Not a p*** comp - just friendly debate.

The op was regarding possession. And my opinions are based on same.

Any article used intentionally or recklessley to injure, will of course be treated differently to mere possession.

A water pistol is not a weapon. Ammonia is not a weapon. You can possess both. A water pistol filled with ammonia and sprayed in the face of a cash in transit guard before you snatch his cash box ?

Back to the op. A device to launch dummy birds for training, possessed without malign intention is not a weapon and is not lethal. To say otherwise is paranoia and to speak like some of those silly FEOs we criticise for taking letter of the law to silly extremes.

A "barrel" has not been defined neither. Should we start worrying whether tubular parts of innocent items we possess, could be defined as "barrelled" ?

Should those tennis training ( aarrrggghhh some are even semi automatic with huge magazines and high rate of fire ) be regarded as lethal barrelled until a court case decides ?

Despite what some would have us believe, common sense DOES trump poorly worded legislation more often than not.

Ovenpaa wrote:I would have thought launching a tin or Rice Pudding at close distance into someone's face would certainly spoil their day.

The real problem is I cannot actually find one right now, so if anyone spots such a thing for a sensible prices please shout.

Not in the "sensible price " bracket but:-
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Lite-Launcher ... 5d56787e2b