James101

Rick O, on 30 June 2011 - 06:33 PM, said:

<br /><br /><br />

I fully understand your point. I guess peoples opinion on licencing or regulation depends on what they want to use their guns for realy. Target shooting is my thing as I'm not a big hunter which is why I haven't applied for a firearms licence, but yea I see what your saying. The only reason I am for some form of licencing is purely just to stop neds walking in to shops, seeing a cheap air gun and buying it because they think it looks cool. If kennys permit system proved to be successful in stopping this from happening then I will be the first person to put my hands up and say ok fair enough a licence was a bit too far.

rob72, on 29 June 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

<br /><br /><br />

Apologies for the late reply, I have been on a short sea voyage and my blackberry was out of signal range.

Geeee, I'm real sorry sir I thought we were in a debate about the future of air guns, not an english lesson. I apologise if my suffering from dyslexia offends you but there is no need for the personal digs.

To answer your question, no I do not want airgunning to become an affluent sport, I would just like to carry on with my target shooting in peace without being tarred with the same brush as neds who give all airgunners a bad name through their stupidity with their cheap airguns. And I AM in a position to call these neds idiots on low wages considering that the people who appear on the front pages for air gun crimes are usually people who sit about all day raking in benefits and who have got nothing better to do with their time than to misuse airguns, while responsible shooters like myself, a former servicemen and a serving officer in the merchant navy, get a bad reputation because of my choice of hobby.

SMK air guns ARE cheap and nasty and they are significantly contributing to scotlands air gun problem. If they are as good as you think then why do so many people round the world complain about the poor quality of chinese airgun makes such as industry brand or tech force (sold under the umbrella of smk). Not everyone that gets them are idiots on low wages, I am sorry if anyone on here took offence to that. But let's face it, smk punt these cheap airguns to anyone as they are out to make a profit. I know, just as many of you will know, they use to end up getting shipped to and sold in shifty second hand shops (for example the notorious victor morris in glasgow or edinburghs leith walk) run by dell boys who would happily sell them on to people well under the legal age - and please don't dispute this as I have seen hoards of under age neds get them this way with my own two eyes (this has obviously stopped in recent years due to tighter laws _but thanks to these clowns lots of these airguns are in the hands of neds).

Their range of rifles are purposely aimed at people who know very little about airgunning and simple people who are seduced by smk's false claims about their rifles being “FULL POWER“ at cheap prices. Do you realy think some ned is going to walk in to a gun shop and purchase a £500 PCP so they can start taking pot shots at cats and kids with the risk of having it taken off them by the police? Obviously not. I have lost count of how many times iv watched the news and seen the hero firearms officer saying he has siezed lots of deadly weapons from the streets, and when the camera turns to the guns, I see G10 air pistols which are very easy to spot, and smk air rifles that are easily identifiable due to their cheap shiny wood/gloss stocks and other items like tubes of bb`s etc. Come on guys you can't deny this.

Again as I said before, not everyone who buys smk guns are idiots on low wages. I fully acknowledge that they can be used to introduce airgunning to youngsters and they can be used for plinking purposes, however I strongly feel that smk share a large portion of the blame for scotlands air gun problem due to their unsound marketing methods.

The majority of people who hold firearms illegaly are members of gangs or some how connected to the drug trade and they get money for the crimes they commit, ie drug dealing, robberies and muggings etc (a bit off the point but you will find most illegal firearms are actually converted replicas imported from germany - namely frankfurt and hamburg which caused friction between the german and uk governments, and they only last for a few shots before falling to pieces).

As for the millions of unregistered guns that would remain in circulation, I understand your point. However the responsibility lies with the gun owners to register them, and if they dont that's their problem. The authorities would give ample time for people to surrender their airguns if they don't want them and they would be compensated. But if they refuse to do this and punt them on to a ned after the licencing then they are just as liable for any negative actions the neds take ie shooting someone.

Licencing in my oppinion would take any negative stigma off of airgunners, as checks would be made to ensure the potential owner is suitable. Any crimes caused by idiots who refuse to hand in their air guns and get the medias attention would be a problem for the police not us. Currently the hysterical anti gun lobby band wagon are jumping at ANY opportunity to persicute air gunners. However if a licence was in place they can no longer tar the legal responsible shooters with the same brush as the police were not doing their job properley to keep airguns away from idiots. It would also prove that banning them would have no impact as the public would know that only the legal shooters would hand in their guns and the people holding them illegy would retain them, and any talks about a ban would just remind everyone about 1997 ban where they banned firearms yet gun crime increased by almost three times rendering the legislation usless.

My only concern with a licence is the same point raised by another guy on this form. If someone commits a crime with a pellet gun the first thing the pigs will do is swoop on any registered owners in the area. This is a genuine concern of mine because I have also been on the receiving end of police brutallity and hostillity towards legal shooters. I would just hope that a good investigation would prove that the legal owner of legal guns would be able to prove they were no where near the crime scene.

The licencing scheme would deter would be idiots from getting an air gun because they would no longer be able to walk in to a shop and buy one over the counter. And for your average idiot on a low wage, trecking down to england to get a cheap and nasty (mainly smk lol) pellet gun would be too much hasstle and that alone would act as a deterrant. And as I mentioned in my last post, if they some how did get one and got caught, the fact that the gun is heald illegaly, it would instantly take the heat off of legitimate regulated shooters and pass the buck on to the police.

Sorry but I still think that licencing would be the better option. I understand that this system is aimed at simplifying a licence, but if you do that then you are making it more simpler for idiots to get their hands on air guns. Look at the licence system in place for firearms like .22 rimfires, u never read about people getting shot with these rifles and if u do its extremley rare.

This simple proposal would combat the less serious crimes that occur with air guns for example, kids with replica bb guns shooting at their class mates. However the more serious crimes that happen with air guns that get the most coverage are caused by adult neds leaning out of windows taking pot shots at babies, cats, robbing bookies, etc.

If we prevent these idiots from getting the guns in the first place we are effectivley eradicating the problem. There would still be a lot of air gun crime after licencing due to the fact that there are millions currently in circulation, but atleast then, the media will have to say the weapons were held illegaly, meaning the police are at fault instead of legitimate shooters like ourselves.

That's just my opinion anyway.