Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Police planned burger reward in gun amnesty

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
08 July 2007
SENIOR police chiefs considered offering free junk food and CDs as "inducements to surrender" in a desperate attempt to cut the number of potentially lethal airguns on the streets of Scotland.
Documents obtained by Scotland on Sunday have revealed that the rewards - which also included mobile phone credits - were to try to make an airgun amnesty work in the wake of the death of toddler Andrew Morton, who was shot in the head in Glasgow.

But the extraordinary idea was ditched by politicians who insisted the police concentrate on the hand-in of weapons.

There are more than 500,000 airguns in Scotland and more than two Scots are injured every week.

Police chiefs are now hoping tough enforcement of UK-wide legislation which comes into effect in October will make a difference. It raises the age limit for owning an air weapon to 18 and bans their sale from non-approved outlets.

Minutes of an airgun campaign strategy meeting held by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland in the run-up to the amnesty in 2005 state: "The question of inducements to surrender were discussed, such as credit for mobile phones and vouchers for fast food, CDs or school vouchers."

They add: "It was also intimated that should such an initiative take place the police service should have no role in administering [it]."

However a month later, at their next strategy meeting, the police chiefs were told that "the question of incentive schemes had been further discussed within the Scottish Executive. It had been agreed not to proceed with same but to focus on the hand-in of weapons".

The anti-airgun campaign launched by the former Executive had already been branded a publicity stunt by Andrew Morton's mother. Sharon McMillan reacted with fury after the former Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson, introduced the amnesty.

Former First Minister Jack McConnell made his campaign against air weapons a personal crusade right up until the May election, insisting that a total ban should not be ruled out.

But senior police officers consistently poured cold water on calls for an outright ban, instead backing the new Westminster legislation.

The SNP last night used the revelations as evidence that the former Holyrood administration had failed to get to grips with the dangers posed by the weapons and pledged that First Minister Alex Salmond would take early action to bring them under control.

A party spokesman said: "The fact of the matter is that the last administration failed to deliver effective action on air weapons.

"Scottish families are crying out for action to rid their communities of these weapons. The SNP will work to free our parliament to free those communities from the scourge of air weapons. We believe there needs to be consolidated legislation on firearms designed for Scottish needs and Scottish circumstances."

Glasgow MSP Patrick Harvie, of the Green Party, said he viewed the burgers-for-guns idea with deep suspicion, and called on the government to come up with more meaningful action. "I usually support the idea of coming up with a few quirky ideas to tackle a problem, in the hope that at least one of them might work, but I am no fan of encouraging people to eat more fast food and I simply can't see how anyone can believe doing this could really induce someone to give up a weapon in their possession."

Harvie also pointed out that a number of local authorities, including Aberdeen, used by-laws to restrict the sale of air weapons.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 July 2007 6:22 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Airguns
 
1

W Smith,

Middle East 08/07/2007 04:49:01

1) Is this the same 'two salaries' Mr Salmond who voted against anti-terrorist legislation?

Is this the same Mr Salmond who was upstaged by a 'one salary' baggage handler?

This lad thought it was his "civic duty" to tackle the terrorists Mr Salmond.

Did you hear that Mr Salmond?

2) Going back to airguns - whatever happened to a slap round the head and the Policeman's size 11 shoe up the a#$e?

2

Tearlach MacPolk,

08/07/2007 04:53:37

http://www.gridskipper.com/travel/tijuana/tijuana-safe-ag...

This makes about as much sense as when the Mexican government took all of the guns away from the Tijuana police and replaced them with slingshots. The drug dealers had automatic machine guns, and the city was burning around them, but let's take their guns.

3

nell from falkirk,

08/07/2007 05:58:13

#1 "whatever happened to a slap round the head and the Policeman's size 11 shoe up the a#$e?"
we moved into the twentieth century and stopped all that - when we get round to moving into the twenty-first century, we'll ban airguns too.

4

Tearlach MacPolk,

08/07/2007 06:43:29

#03

I suspect more people get injured or killed by cars, swimming pools, and heart attacks during romance than by air guns. Perhaps we should all ban those devices and activities as well? I shall never surrender my weapons to anyone.

5

Jings Crivens,

Paisley 08/07/2007 07:26:16

Once again SNP grandstanding about doing something but will they deliver?.

Experience shows that it is easier for any politician to make a headline but then they have to face the reality of actually delivering on there promises, which is probaly what hapened to Jack McConnel.

6

Jings Crivens,

Paisley 08/07/2007 07:39:08

#3 Tearlach MacPolk

I'm see that you state that you have weapons and the OED definition of a weapon is

"• noun 1 a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. 2 a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself. "

So which definition applies to you, I hope its the last one for defence. After all you get a lot of rabbits carrying Kalashnikovs and crows carrying sidewinder missiles in Scotland.

Anyway I don't know what the figures are but you’re probably right about death /injuries by cars

But how do explain why you haven't got better controls over airguns to the families who have either had a relative killed, blinded or injured by these things. How do you convince pet owners whos pet has been killed or maimed by airguns.

Have a look at the hollowing link that summaries some deaths/injuries caused by airguns for just one month in 2006

http://www.gun-control-network.org/INS0706.htm

7

Jeeemy,

08/07/2007 07:43:24

The fact that the police themselves do not want any attempt to bring in a control on air guns, but to remove them from society speaks for it's self.
The simple, way would be to bring all fire arms including air weapons under the current fire-arms legislation, which would mean that all fire-arms would then be held either in registered armouries (clubs) or in secure locations.
All holders of fire-arm certificates would be on records accessible to all relevant authorities, (not Cooncelors)
Data protection and all that!
Mind you that would mean that a hell-of-a-lot of computer software would have to be scraped as it is Not Fit For Purpose.

8

Boy Wonder,

08/07/2007 07:45:10

Wonder where I stand with my archery and crossbow gear?

All of my family have been keen archers for decades. Back in the '40s, my grandad was never happy 'cos he could never hit those big winged things that fly through the sky though with their nice big targets on each wing.

9

Jeeemy,

08/07/2007 07:56:46

Jings Crivens, Paisley.
Control means control your buddies have been trying to get a register of fire-arms certificate holders running through-out the OK for 11 years.
Note I said Trying; they can’t do it because the computer soft-ware that is being used though out the relevant forces can not talk to each other.
A Giant Cock-up!
A quart can not go into a pint bottle, I question the numbers of air weapons supposedly in the public domain,
I do have reason to also question the number of fire-arms legally held in Scotland that I have positive Knowledge of one Force that had its number of fire-arms listed on one Certificate double that which were in-fact in existence.

10

Jeeemy,

08/07/2007 08:02:07

Boy Wonder#
I want you on a register, and your crossbow held in a secure location i.e. locked up.
As you can not go onto a range with it except under strict rules, therfore you can not keep it in anything other than strict rules.
other wise as far as I am concerened you are out-side the pale.

11

Jings Crivens,

08/07/2007 08:26:40

10 Jeeemy

Sorry you have me confused, as far as I know neither any of my friends or the people of Paisley have been trying to set up such a Register.

The point I was tmaking is that for any politician it is easier to blame the last lot and make policy through headlines than get things done. Hundreds of policies seem easy to achieve but hit the buffers when the time comes to actually deliver. This usually comes down to

Lack of clear objectives
How will it be achieved
Who pays for it
Influence of the pressure groups

With other gun control measures it was easier to achieve after Hungerford, Dublane. Within Scotland and the rest of the UK that public pressure for air gun control doesn't exist yet. So the policy (under any government) will probably fail

12

Mikey,

08/07/2007 09:29:12

AM2, what a life you must lead, being the ignoramus of the pride. I really hope for the sake of society that you're not bringing up children.

Now take your sectarian self off to where you belong!

13

Erse,

Middle East 08/07/2007 10:59:32

#1. Do you miss having a size 11 shoe up your arse then?

14

r chee bold,

08/07/2007 11:30:59

1st thing take the ammo of the shelves now, then the guns, without ammo the guns are no good,I own and use daily numerous shotguns and find no need in our society for either airguns or crossbows, which appear to be easily purchased by anyone not like a shotgun.

15

Weary of Legislation,

Edinburgh 08/07/2007 14:47:09

Dear me her we go again.
all the anti gun nuts are crawling out of the woodwork with their emotive nonsense about guns = evil
codswallop.
There is no airgun 'problem or 'menace' or 'threat'.
last time I looked it took a Ned to perpetrate acts of vandalish or harm.
All of the injuries to people animals or property that you are referring to are already illegal ....making them more illegal wont make it stop.
Fullbore hanguns have been all but banned since 1997 and yet crime using them has more than doubled. That handgun ban was reallly effective wasnt it? NOT Same with other bans. Nice feel good factor for the politicians who can demonstrate 'doing something' never mind that its ineffective, has nil effect on crime and impacts many law abiding folk. wake up and smell what you are peddling.

APPLY the EXISTING LAWS and PUNISH the GUILTY
Stop harrasing the rest of us, we dont want a police / nanny state thanks very much.
The core problem seems to be that the exisitng laws are not enforced and the punishments available are almost never fully applied. Even when they are applied prison looks like a home from home for some of the misbehaving scum. Cable tv and playstations 8(
We need to be able to hand out hard labour as a punishment. Make punishments a deterrent again.

16

Wyatt Earp,

San Diego CA 08/07/2007 16:10:28

Watch out Scotland!
Your forks, and steak knives are next! Then it will be your cajones. What has happened to my Scottish forebearers? I went to my gun collection and found none of them has jump out of my home and killed anyone! So far Teddy Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have. It is a proven fact that a gun owning society is a polite society. With your liberal immigration laws and the mixing and mingling with them English/Scotland as we have known it will cease to exist by 2012. God help you all...opps sorry... maybe mention of God is a crime there now...

17

Mr K. Weddell,

edinburgh 08/07/2007 16:25:09

well done to the comment on reply number 7. what does the OED say the definition is of an AIRGUN.

After all this is whats being discussed, the SNP quite rightly will just use what ever they noticed the last government got popularity votes with, atleast Tommy the commie is out the way he's more of a danger to us than any airgun could possibly be! (what kind of man uses the death of a child who's mother supplied her sons murderer with drugs to try and bring in a bill for his popularity, good riddance)

It's diabolical that they waste time 'faffing' about with 'new' legislation when the current laws are more than adequate to deter young individuals from even attempting to touch am AIR RIFLE or AIR PISTOL. But in stead it's about votes and popularity instead of real issues, wouldnt the time be better spent dealing with some of scotlands real issues that matter to the people. Too many people who are incapable of enjoying themselves shouldnt be allowed to stop others from enjoying there past times, problem is the MSP's dont have a problem like westminster using the scottish shooting calender to have a rediculously lengthy summer holiday! about time they were entitled to the same holidays as the working class people there suppost to represent!

They cant afford to licence them, the police are far enough behind trying to deal with firearms and shotguns to worry about trying to licence millions of airguns.

Scotland doesnt have the power to ban and if they did the would have to have closed borders, where does the money come from?

Who is going to compensate for these weapons, you cant just remove them, it's theft.

Out of curiousity hand gun crime has increased after a knee jerk reaction 10 yrs ago! how is this possible? It also cost the taxpayer 94 million pounds to compensate only 164,000 handguns!

This lets you see how much it could possibly cost in compensation but secondly scotland would be bankrupt in the process.

Lets b

18

nell from falkirk,

08/07/2007 17:35:13

Has somebody translated the last three posts from their original Mandarin Chinese using the Babylon translation software?

19

Conan,

Here 08/07/2007 19:12:41

Much ado about very little. What about an amnesty for cars which kill and injure many more every day than airguns do in a year?

20

Jings Crivens,

Darlington 08/07/2007 20:11:45

#23 Cona

You are quite correct about car deaths but not many people are killed by deleberate aimed cars. Whereas airguns only use is to shoot

21

Rob J,

08/07/2007 21:59:24

Yet again the anti-gun nuts come out pontificating about stuff they know nothing about. Does it make you feel all superior, giving airgun shooters a kick? The truth is that only a tiny, tiny minority of airguns are used illegally, latest figures available showed it was about a fifth of a single percent across the whole of the UK. 'Jings Crivens' said an 'airguns only use is to shoot', he's right... Airguns are designed purely for target shooting (although some do shoot rats and rabbits, which an airgu can be an ideal tool for.) they have NEVER been designed as weapons, though, like golf clubs, cricket bats, baseball bats (all of which are used for violence FAR MORE OFTEN THAN AIRGUNS, though scummy grandstanding politicians don't want you to know that!) thay can be preverted into weapons.

The real problem isn't airguns, it's a society that has allowed neds, chavs and yobs to flourish, and feel that the law can't touch them... Why have we allowed these idiots that care nothing for the law and their fellow people to become so prevalent? Don't blame the tool, blame the idiots and the neds that are prepared to hurt people for fun. If it wasn't an airgun they'd be hitting people with golf clubs, or baseball bats, or throwing stones, or even just their fists.

Don't make the law-abiding, responsible and safe airgun shooters (the vast majority) suffer for the actions of a few neds! Where's the fairness in that?

22

Jings Crivens,

Paisley 08/07/2007 22:35:22

25 Rob J

Dear dear Rob calm down, someone has touched a raw nerve.

In a debate there are 2 sides and perhaps instead of shooting off you should listen to the legimate concerns that people have about air guns.

Air guns are weapons and have been used by the military since 1780. Webley produced a range iof air pistols to get round legislation on restricting hand guns in the 1920s. If they are not weapons, why they does a UK web site sell air guns modelled to look like M16s, Heckler Koch sub machine guns, SA80s???

Yes air guns are used by neds and if they didn't have them they would probaly use golf clubs, etc. Except that way they couldn't hide 20m away and take pot shots at you without warning.

23

Roy G,

UK 08/07/2007 23:02:04

Jings Crivens Except that way they couldn't hide 20m away and take pot shots at you without warning.

Yes you can if you are using a slingshot / fishing bait catapult which can be far more deadly than an air rifle at close range given the size of object fired. There are sufficient laws in place at present to cope with the situations that arise governing air rifles. Passing further laws will NOT stop the problems that exist and would only affect the law abiding shooters.

24

Brandon the airgun champion,

Canada 08/07/2007 23:03:45

If you own an airgun and you use it for lawful and recreational purposes[target practice , pest control etc] then you don't have to hand it in , but if you are an airgun abuser and you intend to use it for mischief than I strongly suggest you hand it in to the police because they are apparently not for you.

Hey airgun abusers! at least you'll get burger king/mcdonalds coupons and coupons for cds

25

Roy G,

UK 08/07/2007 23:19:18

If you take this arguement to its logical conclusion what do you do in the event of someone dropping a brick from a bridge over the motorway onto a vehicle? Do you ban the vehicle? or do away with motorway bridges? or ban bricks?
The answer is of course to prosecute the perpetrator who has dropped the brick and those laws already exist whether the scote who is perpetrating the act is dropping a brick or pulling the triggger on an air rifle!
So why when we have an incident involving an air rifle (brick) does it become reasonable to ban all rifles (builders/bricks)????

26

Rob J,

08/07/2007 23:19:51

I do have a raw nerve when it comes to airguns. I'm a law-abiding and responsible airgun shooter, and I'm sick and tired of rags like "The Scotsman" distorting stories and sensationalising ned gun crime. I'm also sick of those that know NOTHING about airguns and our already extremely strict airgun laws (some of the strictest in Europe in fact) crying for a ban on airguns due to the actions of a few neds with plastic BB guns!

Yes, there are two sides to any debate. So why does "The Scotsman" keeps demonizing airgun shooters? Referring to every 'plastic BB gun' incident as a 'pellet gun' incident to make it sound as if a proper airgun has been used? And adding links to the Gun Control Network to the gun-related stories with no balancing links to the Scottish Air Rifle and Pistol Association, or BASC?

Airguns aren't 'weapons' at all, you're just showing your ignorance now. The weapons you refer to (pneumatic rifles) were only used for a very short period and were a dead-end in the evolution of the airgun. The airguns we use now evolved from entirely different target guns, spring-powered pistols known as 'saloon pistols' or 'gallery guns' that were used for informal indoor target shooting (often with darts at a dartboard) so don't try to confuse the issue claiming that airguns have evolved from weapons. They haven't. Airguns aren't weapons, FACT.

As for Webley producing airguns in the twenties to get round handgun restrictions, get real... Webley were designing air pistols well before 1920, the first UK handgun restrictions didn't come in until 1929... You really should stick to stuff you know about Jings! :) Webley started making airguns for target shooting, training and practise use, it was nothing to do with 'getting round legislation' at all! You're hilarious, you really are!

Regarding airguns being weapons: yet again you show your ignorance, the M16s, HKs and SA80s you refer to are plastic ball firing BB

27

Rob J,

08/07/2007 23:26:49

It's already illegal for anyone under eighteen to buy a proper airgun, it's also illegal for anyone to give an airgun to someone under eighteen. Neds will break the law no matter what. It's illegal to fire one anywhere where you don't have permission, especially in public. Shooting a person with an airgun can get you life imprisonment or a conviction for GBH or malicious wounding.

Why should the vast majority of law-abiding and responsible airgun shooters have to give up their sports and pastimes due to the actions af a few thugs? We don't need more laws, we need the laws we have enforcing, and we need the neds to be taught to respect their fellow people (and animals too come to that). We need the police out on the streets instead of sat in cars and offices, catching these neds. We need them enforcing the law instead of filling in forms and doing paperwork. Most of all, we need the neds, thugs and yobs, that think it is ok to go round hurting people (whether it's with airguns, BB guns, golf clubs, or whatever) that behaviour like that is utterly wrong!

We are supposed to live in a tolerant society... I wish that people would stop letting idiot politicians like Tommy Sheridan, and rags like "The Scotsman" whipping them up into a frenzy like this. Law-abiding, safe and responsible airgun shooters deserve a bit more tolerance and acceptance. Please reserve your anger for the thugs and neds. Law-abiding and responsible airgun shooters don't deserve any more legislation or persecution.

28

Mr Smithe,

Dundee 08/07/2007 23:30:52

Rob J has it spot on for me.

29

Conan,

Here 09/07/2007 03:23:40

If I turn in my Twin 20mm Oerlikon can I have a steak and chips dinner?

Seriously, Jings Crivens, #24, yes, yes, I understand; all injuries with airguns are deliberate acts of wanton rage intended to kill or maim. Whereas, being injured in a car is but an incidental mere accident - entirely unintended. Just the price we pay for mobility. Ok, ok - makes no sense - but ok. So, why isn't the incidental injury or death associated with airguns the price we pay for pest control, recreational shooting and/or serious target shooting?

Point is, old chap, what are we attempting to do? 'Prevent' death and injury" Is one less injured or dead if the act is done by an airgun, or a car?

No, the point is that the thing we call a car is FAR MORE INJUROUS AND DEADLY than any airgun could be - and the indicence of such outcomes with cars is greater by a factor of thousands over that of airguns. That's what's called 'a fact'.

The point is that 'we' are not serious about the issue of injury or death - for if we were we would be BANNING CARS.

Banning cars, you say? Have you gone, or are you, mad?

No.

Quite the contrary.

The fact is we could get along just fine without cars, or certainly with maybe about one-hundredth of the cars we are presently cursed with. A lot of things would change. Sure. But, so what. We'd adapt. Who says we 'have to have' cars?

The point is that cars have proven to be the bane of all modern societies. They are tools of mass injury and killing, cost a fortune, are bad for the planet, etc., etc. And its getting worse each year.

Think about it - I promise it won't hurt.

30

Miss H,

09/07/2007 08:36:15

The air guns problem has existed for a long time.

I personally know of one case about 15 years ago where an airgun was fired into a Primary 1 class. The teacher is a friend of mine. She said that the shot did not actually have sufficient velocity to kill or seriously injure someone but the children were absolutely terrified and so was she.

The culprit in that case had no conceivable legitimate reason to possess an air weapon - but there was nothing to stop him owning one.

As I say this has been a problem in some parts of Scotland for many years and action is long overdue.

It is completely misleading to say that the SNP supports an outright ban - what they want is rules for who can and cannot own an air weapon. That will not impede any legitimate use of air weapons where it is necessary e.g. pest control.

As for the argument that cars are more dangerous than air weapons. Two points on that - firstly, the number of people who own a car is very much higher than the number of people who own an air weapon. So it is not surprising that there are more deaths and injuries caused by cars than by air weapons. It would be interesting to see what a per capita comparison would look like.

Secondly, there are quite strict rules about who can and cannot drive a car. You have to sit a test before you are allowed to drive on the roads to prove that you are a fit person to be in possession of a driver's license. In the same way, you should have to be tested to prove that you are a fit person to be in possession of an air weapon license.

31

Rob J,

09/07/2007 09:49:49

I'm all in favour of keeping airguns out of the hands of yobs and criminals, it's already illegal for anyone who has had a jail sentence to own one, I think if the jail sentence was six months or so then that person is prohibited for five years, if it's a longer sentence, then it's life (if I remember correctly).

My problem with rules like this is that they are open to abuse by the powers that be. It'll take many years for a licensing system to have any effect, as the neds will hide guns away and bring them out in the future at some point. So if you introduce licensing, all the law-abiding shooters will get licensing, while the neds won't... They don't even register, license or insure cars so why would anyone assume they will apply for licenses for airguns?

So licensing won't stop the neds... And the next time some ned shoots a little kiddy, the lying, grandstanding, bandwagon-jumping politicians will use the incident to get themselves in the papers saying "Well, licensing hasn't worked, so let's ban them altogether!". Idiots like Tommy Sheridan, happy to use tragic incidents to boost their profiles, and rags like "The Scotsman" will start campaigns, and get the populace whipped up into a frenzy about something they know little about (how many of the people on here screaming for a ban know how strict the laws already are?).

So, like the law-abiding shooters after Dunblane, law-abiding, responsible and safe airgun shooters (like me and the vast majority of airgunners) will lose out because of the actions of a few neds. Where's the fairness in that?

I fully agree that it's despicable that a yob would shoot an airgun into a school. If I caught someone doing that my response would probably land ME in jail, and there's the problem... The neds know that they are practically untouchable. The police are mainly stuck inside doing office work, instead of outside enforcing the law and apprehending criminals, and if they s

32

fishfinger,

Sydney Australia 09/07/2007 12:47:48

At age 10 (54 years ago) my father gave me a package he'd bought from the local newsagent. He told me he would never buy the bike I'd been nagging him for because they were too dangerous. Instead I became the proud owner of a Daisy BB airgun. Then, much later in high school, I was taught to fire light and medium machineguns, submachine guns, 2 inch mortars and rifles. I still shoot regularly. The last time I checked I hadn't robbed a bank, run over a pedestrian nor committed a massacre. So all my firearms training hasn't turned me into the killer that the antigun lobby claims I should have become.
Are all you Bravehearts turning into a bunch of jessies?

33

Yonthing,

09/07/2007 13:56:35

You cannot rid the country of weapons - handgun crime is at its highest rate ever, despite them being banned for nearly ten years.

The fault lies with society not teaching respect for ones self, for ones peers, and for the community. There are too many people being told it is their right to behave as they like rather than being educated about everyone elses rights.

As for getting a thick ear from the Police (#1 and #3). Fine, we can't condone Policemen "hitting" people, but there was a time when being brought home by the Police was shameful. Now its considered a badge of honour. How sad a society we have become.

34

Tearlach MacPolk,

09/07/2007 14:34:52

#08
I have four rifles and two pistols, all powder activated. I have no intention of taking them to some one elses' armory, nor getting a government certificate to own them. They are mine, and I will use them whenever I wish without anyone elses' permission, thank you.

35

Tearlach MacPolk,

09/07/2007 14:38:14

#37

You have hit the nail on the head.

"there was a time when being brought home by the Police was shameful. Now its considered a badge of honour. How sad a society we have become."

36

Tearlach MacPolk,

09/07/2007 14:56:44

#07

I have looked at your link of "alleged gun incidences", and I say it means beans to me. It rambles on about one unsubstantiated case after another without citing sources. It even includes multiple cases where people were "allegedly" charged with a crime, but never convicted to bolster its' bogus case.

38

Rob J,

09/07/2007 15:58:27

The 'Gun Control Network' is a shady, secretive organisation that allegedly comprises only seven members. They have been guilty of distorting statistics, placing misleading adverts on hoardings, and generally misinforming people about gun-related issues.

They really do not deserve the prominence that press, media and government give them. They're a bunch of fanatics who will happily distort the truth to suit their agenda.

And, that includes portraying airgun shooters as lawless and callous thugs, when, in truth, according to Home Office statistics, at the very most, 0.2% of airguns are used illegally in a year. Of that tiny minority of airguns that are used illegally, most will just be used for vandalism, cases of airguns actually being used as weapons (despite the press and 'ban-it' brigade constantly referring to ALL airguns as weapons, which they aren't) are thankfully extremely rare, far rarer than beatings with baseball bats, rarer than beatings with golf clubs, rarer than cricket-bat beatings. Luckily, mostr incidents where people are shot with airguns only lead to "superficial bruising" according to the UK Home Office.

So, don't believe sensationalist newspapers and politicians who want the publicity, this epidemic of airgun crime is a figment of their imagination that exists to divert people's attention away from THEIR failure to do something about lawlessness in society. Don't let them make airguns or law-abiding airgun shooters into scapegoats!

39

Jings Crivens,

Paisley 09/07/2007 19:30:56

33 Conan

I think you must be imaging things, I never said anything about banning cars maybe all this firing air guns is affecting your eye sight.

I agree cars are bad for the environment and its a sorry state that the government moved away from trains, trams, etc and moved to cars in the 1960s. However car users are taxed, licenced, subject to monitoring from police, CCTV, speed camera and a lot more controls to ensure their safe use.

At no point in this debate has anyone actually explained why we need air guns and what fun people get our of them

40

Jings Crivens,

Paisley 09/07/2007 19:42:48

#30 Rob J

The point I was making that you are incorrect in saying they are not weapons as they have previously been used by the military as you yoursef agree.

If they are not used as weapons whyare the following statements used on a UK website for an air rifle and air pistol(not a BB gun or anything else)

Massively Powerful full-sized under lever hunting rifle with safety.

Walther CP88 4" Black
The Walther PPK is one of the worlds most popular pistols in production today. The development of the CO2 model with repeating slide and solid metal construction, fulfils the desires of even the most demanding airgun shooter. Guaranteed for some very accurate action over a long life span.

Note the pistol looks like a real gun

The manufacturers want these to look like weapons, the owners want to thing they have weapons and the are weapons

QED

41

Rob J,

09/07/2007 22:50:50

Jings!

The pneumatic rifle was designed for, I think it was the swiss army, well over two hundred years ago. It was a handmade, large calibre rifle firing a round ball weighing over a hundred grains (if I remember correctly) at well over a hundred foot pounds of energy. They weren't very effective, were very difficult to maintain and extremely expensive. The idea was shelved. Then, about a hundred years later, German and American gun makers decided about the same time to make target guns for amusement. These were known as gallery guns or saloon pistols, and were not pneumatic, like the weapons described above, but were spring powered, and originally designed for shooting darts at dart boards. These 'amusement' guns (they were never designed as weapons) were what modern airguns evolved from, they are nothing whatsoever to do with the original military pneumatic rifles. Modern airguns shoot much smaller lead pellets with about 8% of the energy that these military arms were capable of.

So they aren't weapons, end of story.

Congratulations on finding the CP88, it is one of a tiny few Co2 pistols that are designed to look like a real gun. I tend to ignore these naff co2 powered things as they aren't the type of airguns that I'm interested in. As for the "massively powerful" quote you included, that's just marketing rubbish. If these guns really were 'massively powerful', you'd need a firearms license to buy them. It's just exaggeration on the part of the website owner to try and sell a few more rifles. In any industry you get people that exaggerate a bit to make a sale, trust me, if that rifle was above the 12 foot/pounds legal limit the seller would be in hot water with the police in very short order.

Most manufacturers don't make airguns that resemble real guns. I can't think of a single British airgun maker that has ever made a replica of a real gun, of any type.

Jings, if you review the stats that I quote abov

42

Rob J,

09/07/2007 23:09:48

Jings said: "At no point in this debate has anyone actually explained why we need air guns and what fun people get our of them"

I thought this was supposed to be a free country! Why should anyone have to justify their likes and dislikes to another if they do no harm? I can't see why anyone would like 'line dancing', or rap music, but do I want to see them banned? No. Actually, there might be a case for banning rap... but I digress...

Airguns are used in various Olympic sports, known as disciplines. The UK always does well in shooting sports at the Olympic games and the Commonwealth games. Airgun shooting is a sport where able-bodied and disabled people with different challenges can compete on an equal basis.

It's also a cheap sport and hobby, a high-quality tin of 500 pellets can be got for six or seven quid, while paper targets can be got for a few pence each. The lead pellets can be recycled if recovered after shooting.

For me, a lot of the enjoyment comes from my interest in mechanical things, I get a lot of satisfaction repairing and renovating old airguns, one of my old pistols is about seventy years old now, and still works okay!

I also like anything that is well made. I have a lathe that is sixty-five years old and still works, numerous old carpentry tools that were bought or made by my grandfather. Many of my airguns are thirty or forty years old now, a couple of them are family heirlooms that have been willed to me. There's something special about machines that can work for decade after decade (with just a bit of oil) and work well, maybe even outlasting their owners. It's sad, but not much that is made nowadays can boast a useful life of many decades. I just like quality things, and that includes airguns.
We still make some of the best airguns in the world here in the UK. I have a couple that were made right here in Scotland by Milbro actually!

Airgun shooting, when conducted safely and re

43

There Must Be A Better Way...,

E/burgh 09/07/2007 23:17:23

Jings Crivens wrote "At no point in this debate has anyone actually explained why we need air guns and what fun people get our of them".

Thousands of honest citizens every week get lots of enjoyment shooting all kinds of targets in the Lothian area alone. Everyone from properly supervised youngsters bonding with their dad and learning safety, skill, and respect from other sportsmen, to OAP's who's big highlight of their week is knocking down some metal targets, to honest to goodness working men and women who like nothing more than to go to their local club after a hard days work and plink at some targets.

Hundreds of thousands of pellets every week are shot by law abiding citizens for their own pleasure, and the pleasure of their peers.

Restrictive legislation will not only be UTTERLY ineffective in reducing any crime, it will make Scotland the laughing stock of the world, where it's government cannot even trust it's populace with low powered target rifles that are much less lethal than cars, golf clubs, darts, javelins, pint glasses, kitchen knives, and pretty much anything else apart from a pencil eraser.

It would cost the taxpayers millions of pounds, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever!

Thankfully, there is a lot of others in this thread who understand the issue, and will not tolerate misinformed laws getting thrust on us by possibly well-meaning, but ultimately ignorant and publicity seeking politicians.

It's time we stood up as a nation against the thugs and extremists, and stopped whining for a nanny state to coddle us into a false sense of security that will never happen!

Good night!


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.