Glasgow Airgun Tragedy

Sparks

Bad news from across the water:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4319149.stm

Minister reviews airgun measures

Cathy Jamieson said legislation on airguns would be reviewed
The justice minister has promised to look again at legislation governing airguns following the fatal shooting of a two-year-old child.
Cathy Jamieson said she would have talks with the Home Office after the death of Andrew Morton on Friday.
She said that while some responsible people use airguns for sport, others must realise the risks of using them.
The chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, Norrie Flowers, is calling for a total ban on airguns.

Andrew died in hospital on Friday, two days after he was struck in the head with an airgun pellet as he walked to a chip shop with his brother in Easterhouse, Glasgow.

No word on what kind of airgun this was yet, though obviously that's an irrelevancy for the family involved. Hopefully the idiot who pulled the trigger will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and hopefully the various shooting organisations (the NSRA and BASC in this case) will call for that publicly. The idiot in question appears to have been shooting at firefighters and missed and hit the toddler in the head (at least, that's the most generous interpretation), and if it is the 27-year-old who's in custody tonight, he deserves to spend a large portion of the rest of his life behind bars. Anyone else reminded of Michael Ryan? :mad:

Meanwhile, as you can see from the quotes in that article, the kneejerk reaction has already started

Irishglockfan

The united kingdom,a hundred years ago a nation of rifleman.Nowadays a nation afraid of anything that might go bang or cut things..Who would care to live there anymore?This place isnt utopia either but we still seem to have somewhat a grip on reality.Even with our gun laws.

Here is a new description of what us shooters can expect again after this clu$%^F*(ck. Bend Over Here It Comes Again [BOHICA]. Shades of Dunblane ?damn right! anyobne ever noticed when things might look a bit brighter for gun ownership .Some fool with a bigger shoe size than their IQ number,goes and screws things up royally?

Sparks

It's more shades of Hungerford Glock, since Ryan had a history of shooting at people with an air rifle. A question now is how will the shooting organisations react, and can they defend their/our interests without seeming like insensitive monsters? And of course, the question that the 97.5% of the population over here would be asking is "what do we need to change to ensure this never happens again?". And unless the shooting organisations publicy condemn this animal for his actions, noone may listen when they point out that what needs to be changed is policing budgets so they have more people walking the beat so that they catch these louts before someone gets hurt - after all, what he was doing was highly illegal allready, so it's an enforcement problem, not a legislation issue.

gouda

Irishglockfan wrote:

The united kingdom,a hundred years ago a nation of rifleman.Nowadays a nation afraid of anything that might go bang or cut things..Who would care to live there anymore?This place isnt utopia either but we still seem to have somewhat a grip on reality.Even with our gun laws.

Here is a new description of what us shooters can expect again after this clu$%^F*(ck. Bend Over Here It Comes Again [BOHICA]. Shades of Dunblane ?damn right! anyobne ever noticed when things might look a bit brighter for gun ownership .Some fool with a bigger shoe size than their IQ number,goes and screws things up royally?

Seems like a human tragedy to me, my hearfelt sympathy goes to the family of the child that was killed, may he Rest in Peace. What kind of people put their sport before the life of another human being? Cop on!!

Irishglockfan

Seems like a human tragedy to me, my hearfelt sympathy goes to the family of the child that was killed, may he Rest in Peace. What kind of people put their sport before the life of another human being? Cop on

Gouda,
that wasnt my intention ,and it was not supposed to come across like that.
Personally I think that moron who did that should be taken to a public place to be publicly stoned to death by the kids family.However as we live in a "civilised" society,which is great a punishing the collective[shooters] rather than the individual who comitted the crime.WE Shooters are the criminals to be blamed yet again.

I dont know about you.BUT I AM SICK AND TIRED of being blamed indirectly for every blooddy fools misuse of dangerous weapons cars,sharp objects,etc.AND suffering the consuquences indirectly of their moronic actions.
Yes this kid is dead,more the pity.Nothing anyone does will bring him back.
But WE have to now live with the consuquences to our way of life[I dont consider it a "sport"."Sport is to me a bunch of millionaries kicking a ball around a field.Being egged on by two tribes].I was brought up in a shooting and hunting family since I was born,and therefore consider it a way of life.

Call me pessimestic but I dont think ANY of the shooting organisations in the UK have done or had a good handle on PR damage control in any of the shooting incidents.
Witness the"dignified silence" plan after Dunblane[AKA sticking ones head in the sand,leaving ones ass up to be rightly kicked].While we kept silent the anti faction rolled over us with a media blitzkreig.
All it takes is one crying mother to go on about more gun bans as "it's for the childrens saftey"[properly backlighted and filmed of course]and your best constructed rational locic arguement is out the window minus a parachute! The GCN consists of these types of media savvy,emotive arguers.

"For the children"arguement is the tactial nuke of modern day arguements when the opposing side wants somthing quickly and have run out of logical responses.God knows it has proably been used to argue the price of North sea oil!How do you stand up to it ,especially if you are a parent yourself?
Emotion overrules logic and always will especially where kids are concerned.

Call me callous and hard.But if we the shooters who had nothing to do with this dont start coming back hard and fast on these incidents with efficent,functional and coordinated public relation damage limitation exercises.
The only shooting we will be doing is on a playstation or via computor remote controlled firearms somwhere in Texas!

RuggieBear

i can kindaaaa see where you are coming from Glock....but your "callous" arguments will get up more peoples backs and probably be detrimental to your otherwise well argued case....people will just think you are ultra aggressive and do we really want you with a gun

personally i'd be against all "non working" guns (just declaring my hand, not trying to argue, please don't hate me:))


Anyway, what sort of a ****ing idiot shoots at fire officers. I just can't even begin to imagine the mindset of someone like that....reminds me of a story my dad has. he's a GP and was in the back of an ambulance, late one night bringing a seriously injured carcrash victim to hospital, and joy riders were ramming the back for sport! :eek: WTF!!!?

Irishglockfan

i can kindaaaa see where you are coming from Glock....but your "callous" arguments will get up more peoples backs and probably be detrimental to your otherwise well argued case....people will just think you are ultra aggressive and do we really want you with a gun

What Moi?? Callous?I wouldnt try using a tragedy like this to further my political agenda.But GCN and all the other anti gun nuts will use any tragedy to further their aims.Thats Callous!!

personally i'd be against all "non working" guns (just declaring my hand, not trying to argue, please don't hate me.

Whats a non working gun?do you mean deacts?Or a specific type?


What you describe and what that idiot did,is becoming more and more common with "the children"out there.Despite that the fact these children are 16 year plus fully functioning violent juveniles ,they are painted as innocent little cherubs. Or in PC speak"troubled youths".Maybe if these "troubled youths" were given 20plus year sentences with no chance of for parole.For hindering emergency services in the course of their duties,and prefably not in a holiday camp style jail.We would see less of this nonsense.Ditto for firearms abuse.The Swiss have it well down,do a armed raid with either a bananna or a RPG rocket launcher,you will do fifteen plus with no parole.Ergo the gun crime rate over there is very low.

RuggieBear

Irishglockfan wrote:

Whats a non working gun?do you mean deacts?Or a specific type?

sorry i meant like farmers using them for shooting pests and the like....not that i want to diss on your sport or anything

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

Ergo the gun crime rate over there is very low.

I don't think it's down to the nature of the punishment Glock, but to the actual culture surrounding shooting over there. (After all, murder carries a life sentence, but it still happens!). When all of society regards firearms as being like power tools, and where teaching non-shooters to shoot isn't an actual criminal offence as it can be here (teaching someone to shoot on something other than a club rifle is illegal unless they have a full licence for it themselves!), you basicly get a better end result. But it's a hard way to do it, it involves long-term committment from society as a whole. No quick fix here, so no interest in implementing it

Also, there are whole philosophical and judicial arguments around the concept of mandatory sentences and the general educated consensus about them seems to be that they're a bad idea. So I don't think a quick law making it mandatory to impose a long sentence on people who shoot at other people will fix the problem, counter-intuitive as it sounds!

Irishglockfan

I don't think it's down to the nature of the punishment Glock, but to the actual culture surrounding shooting over there. (After all, murder carries a life sentence, but it still happens!). When all of society regards firearms as being like power tools, and where teaching non-shooters to shoot isn't an actual criminal offence as it can be here (teaching someone to shoot on something other than a club rifle is illegal unless they have a full licence for it themselves!),

It can be even a crime to instruct somone even if they do have a liscense as well.Somthing in the anti terrorism laws of yore about reciving instruction in theuse and drill of arms.

But it's a hard way to do it, it involves long-term committment from society as a whole. No quick fix here, so no interest in implementing it

Of course,everyone wants quick fix.Noone wants the long term proper solution.We are too tolerant,and demanding of instant solutions.So long as it happens to everyone else but me.FU I'm all right Jack.

Also, there are whole philosophical and judicial arguments around the concept of mandatory sentences and the general educated consensus about them seems to be that they're a bad idea.

Hmmm maybe those kids who went thru bootcamp in Maricopa county AZ,might disagree with you on that one

Of course if that is coming from the legal viewpoint,I wouldnt be surprised.Crime to them is their raw material of their industry.It Never was about serving justice,rather mammon.The old saying "crime does not pay"is patently false.Considering it keeps at least three ancilly industries going.Security,law enforcement,social services,justice&law.
It pays to have crime in society.And will continue to do so untill the general pouplance wakes up and realises it does directly or indirectly affect them.
Plus the fact the way a "long" stretch can be reduced with things like good behaviour,deals cut,time spent in remand,parole,space requirements etc.It makes a "life"sentence [15yrs plus] chopped down to ...eight?
We really have no deterrant anymore in Western law anymore.At least under Muslim law,there are still some very effective and nasty deterrants.
The Chinese dont have a large drug problem.They simply shoot the dealer and user,and bill the family or next of kin for the costs.Wonder if we did that would our drug problem be such an issue?Bar legalising it and putting the stuff under govt control,I dont see any way of solving that one.

So I don't think a quick law making it mandatory to impose a long sentence on people who shoot at other people will fix the problem, counter-intuitive as it sounds

So what are we to do to stop little cretins shooting kids,ramming ambulances etc?

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

It Never was about serving justice,rather mammon.

Rather law I'd think. I think the quote goes "This isn't a court of justice, it's a court of law"!

At least under Muslim law,there are still some very effective and nasty deterrants.

And a rather irreversable one if I remember correctly, to say nothing of the Islamic ideal that church and state should be one body which would make life much more interesting...

The Chinese dont have a large drug problem.

No, but they do have massive human rights problems, which makes up for it...

So what are we to do to stop little cretins shooting kids,ramming ambulances etc?

Generally, I seem to recall it being called "Parenting"
Failing that, the US has seen good results with putting kids through boot camps...

E@gle.

i heard a story like this a few years ago a 10 year old boy was walking home from school and some teenagers shot him in the neck(with an air gun). he did not die but was seriously injured.

There was talk of a ban on airguns also at the time.

Irishglockfan

Irishglockfan wrote:

They simply shoot the dealer and user,and bill the family or next of kin for the costs.Wonder if we did that would our drug problem be such an issue?Bar legalising it and putting the stuff under govt control,I dont see any way of solving that one.

Strange, how the thread began with the condemnation of an innocent child shot dead, and finishes with Glock calling for the death (by shooting) of every kid who has taken a puff of weed.

Ok, thats unfair - and glock, I do understand your position, having also been brought up in a hunting family, but you must understand that a tradition is not a right.

Granted that a ban on airguns is a blatant and over the top knee jerk reaction, but if, as Glock says, there is a rise in gun crime caused by "Troubled Youths", is more stringent gun control really all that bad?

How can you admit that the problem is growing, and then be against a practical and realistic solution (increased gun control)? It should not effect you, as a law abiding citizen, and the open acceptance of such policies by National shooting bodies is good PR spin.

A tradition is not a right, and as innocent people are dying from the misuse of guns, responsible gun users must do all (and accept all that is done - tough policies included) in order aid authorities in righting this problem and to prevent the sport from recieveng a tarnished name and a black eye from which it might not recover.

By accepting gratefully, and working with gun control policies now, hopefully we can prevent blanket bans later .

civdef

How can you admit that the problem is growing, and then be against a practical and realistic solution (increased gun control)? It should not effect you, as a law abiding citizen, and the open acceptance of such policies by National shooting bodies is good PR spin.

You assume increased gun control measures work - this is by no means a certainty. Good "PR spin" is not what I'd call meekly accepting the destruction of shooting sports.

By accepting gratefully, and working with gun control policies now, hopefully we can prevent blanket bans later .

Experience has shown around the world that working with gun control proponents just makes the blanket bans happen sooner.

as opposed to writing statements that will get peoples backs up?

What then is a practical response to someone calling for a blanket ban because their two year old got gunned down??

civdef

original_psycho wrote:

as opposed to writing statements that will get peoples backs up?

What then is a practical response to someone calling for a blanket ban because their two year old got gunned down??

You make very clear that the two-year old child was shot by a criminal scumbag not a legitimate sportsperson. You point out that numerous existing laws were already being broken. You call for more serious sentencing of firearms offences by the courts. You point out that a blanket ban on all airguns would not increase public safety, but result in the loss of legitimate recreational activity for thousands of people.

You work very hard to try and prevent the issue becoming a political football. Don't get drawn into "debates" with the gun-control fundamentalists - you won't convince them anyway - and their particular shrill brand of noisemaking gets too much airplay already. Focus on constructive approaches with the police and lawmakers, examine and present alternatives that are focussed on reducing criminal - not legitimate - use of firearms.


Or else we could do as you suggest, roll over, give up and take up darts or fishing (until they're banned too). :rolleyes:

abccormac

If you look in the back pages of any UK mens magazine you will see adds for mail order airguns. You need no licence or qualification in the UK to buy one, you just need to be over 18 (I am ready to be corrected on this by people who understand uk gun laws better than me!). Surely the fact that any muppet can buy one of these guns is a contributing factor here? I can't see any problem with th UK tightening control over air guns. And I'm not a shooter and know very little about the sport, so apologies if everything above is completely untrue

civdef

Agreed, much of the selling of unregulated airguns in the UK is of a questionable nature - they seem to appeal to the "scally" element of society. You see the same sort of shops selling cheap chinese airguns & "ninja" swords etc.

Most of the "firearms" crime reported in the UK involves criminal damage with airguns, and it's a fairly regular occurence for full police firearms teams to be scrambled to calls involving the misuse of airguns. I think the sensible tightening up on the sale of airguns is well overdue in the UK, some form of certificate is probably needed, along the lines of the shotgun certificate over there. At the same time, airgun shooting is an excellent inexpensive introduction to shooting sorts for many young people - so every effort should be made to preserve the accessibility of the sport.

This is all far cry from the kneejerk total ban being demanded by some.

civdef

civdef wrote:

You work very hard to try and prevent the issue becoming a political football. Don't get drawn into "debates" with the gun-control fundamentalists - you won't convince them anyway - and their particular shrill brand of noisemaking gets too much airplay already. Focus on constructive approaches with the police and lawmakers, examine and present alternatives that are focussed on reducing criminal - not legitimate - use of firearms.

Your missing the point Civ, you say that getting drawn into debates is bad - but the point is not to convince the "gun control fundamentalists", but rather the crowd to which they preach. If you engage them on a public forum, you restrict the damage that they can do.

That is, of course, if you dont have people like Glock making well intentioned, but rather cavalier speeches that will not be understood by the non shooting public - which will be interpreted in an arrogant and very negative light.

I have been involved in many election (both student and local gov) debates, and one of the first lessons that I learned was that it is the lay people who decide your fate - and they usually neither care nor understand about the subtleness that is involved in the subject being debated.

That is why the anti gun lobby can rustle up support, because they use blatant facts (guns kill) and simple solutions (hence ban guns).

People like yourself and Glock use arguements that will make sense and appeal to people involved in the Sport, but those people should support us already.

It is Mr. Joe Bloggs out there who must be convinced, of course you have to "Focus on constructive approaches with the police and lawmakers", but you must also have some PR spin that makes it sound to J Bloggs that restrictions are taking place - he will not care what they are, but will sleep sounder because they are there.

Whats wrong with Darts?

civdef

There's the thing, the electorate don't make the law either, they elect public representatives to do the job. They're the ones that need to be convinced.

Public opinion is easily swayed by simplistic arguments, particularly if they are well funded to create a high media profile - eg the Snowdrop campaign. The other side of it is that public opinion has a very short attention span (seen much on TV about the Asian Tsunami lately?). Shooting organisations can't match the resources of something like when "The Sun" supports a ban, so often the best tactic is to concentrate resources on direct lobbying of lawmakers.

Irishglockfan

Bravo civdef.
You summed it up nicely for an ideal world where folk would be rational and logical.Hwever we are not,the majority of us, logical or rational anymore.We are kneejerk emoticons,and are regulary conditioned to be so by a now all invasive media as to how we should ,think,do and act in almost every situation.
Your arguement is an epitome of logic and practically.However all it needs to destroy is one greiving granny or one well trained media savvy woman to turn it on it's head.[GCN network media spokeswoman is one media savvy woman]With a statement of "but if it saves one childs life it will be worth it."or somthing to that effect.
Without sounding sexist remember boys,we are being backfooted regulary in the gender war.If you are white,hetro,and male.You are getting a bum deal.Witness here car insurance,we all end paying for the boy racer idiot in a higher premimum payment than any woman.TV ads make us ut almost to be a neanderthal .
So society is beginning to portray us as a obsolete hunter gather who should be emasculated as quick as possible. To sum it up,if you is white twenty to middle age male.IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!! So why would any sane person[woman] want to allow such a dangerous animal near any dangerous impliments??
And of course as somone said advertising airguns,knives etc in "pseudo porn mags" of the UK variety.[For those tooo chicken to go and buy a copy of Playboy or Hustler ] Only gives the anti gun,and other femm groups a readymade arguement of linking sexual explotitation of women with dangerous weapons,reckless sports and fast cars.Ergo us males are potential raping homicidal manicas!
Dont belive me?If you can get the tapes of SKYNEWS studio interview with Micheal Yeardley, on the gun ban issue.A hostile woman presenter and a hostile woman opponent.It was a masterful piece of demonising or propaganda show trialling I have ever seen.
Witness some of the more crazier arguements of the fem and animal nazis about the correlation of porn,gun ownership and child and animal abuse! :eek:

What we do need is actually a woman PR for shooting.The NRA had Tanya Metaska,who was anti gun until a relative of hers was killed in Killen Texas massacre,I belive.
Psycho
As for "traditions" not being a "right".There are many groups that will take umbrage at that[commonn law traditions do apply as a right to a certain degree,the walking of a piece of land by one person for seven years every day,does under common law give that person a claim to right of way on that land for example.]
witness the chador [headscarf]debate with muslim girls in schools in France.Or our traveller debate here onthe infringement of Irish society on their traditional rights.Or the foxhunting saga in the UK

All and sundry of the liberals will defend their "traditional rights or lifestyle".[Bar foxhunting and shooting of course]Anything that impinges on a minority groups liberty in a democracy is not a democratic action.A majority cannot enforce a dterimental to their liberty or well being on a minority in a true democray.

Parenting
Yeah,great idea again,but what happens when the parents are no great role models to society themselves??Bet if you went and found out what Mr moron who did this you would find his parents would be no better in outlook of life.
We could always reintroduce the old German law[much used and abused in the 3rd reich] of "sippenhaft" Which meant that if you committed a crime,you and your whole family were punished for your misdeeds.

What to do?
Well,if you get coked and boozed up climb into your car and plow into a bustop full of people.The law will throw the book at you,and rightly so.So what is the problem with making it a heavy rap for obstructing or injuring emergency personel in the course of their duties,or for using a firearm in a crime?AND finally carrying through the course of justice??

Sparks

civdef wrote:

You make very clear that the two-year old child was shot by a criminal scumbag not a legitimate sportsperson. You point out that numerous existing laws were already being broken. You call for more serious sentencing of firearms offences by the courts. You point out that a blanket ban on all airguns would not increase public safety, but result in the loss of legitimate recreational activity for thousands of people.

Amen to that though I think the first thing is to be the loudest voice condemning the so-and-so who pulled the trigger. And sadly it seems that noone wants to ever do that because they're afraid that they'll be seen as perscuting a shooter. Which is utter nonsense - I've nothing in common with Michael Ryan and people like him and neither do other legitimate shooters!

civdef

And sadly it seems that noone wants to ever do that because they're afraid that they'll be seen as perscuting a shooter.

This not something I've ever seen or heard of happening.

Haket

http://tinyurl.com/5mqmx

The Mirror "newspaper" story about this killing. I was amazed when I read the article, it mentions banning airguns 3-4 times and nothing about doing something about the <insert expletive here> fool that was shooting at fire fighter. A 27yr old was taken into custody says the rag . . . . 27 yr old shooting firemen trying to put out a fire . . . . the solution . . . . ban airguns. My mind boggles.

MARK

Sparks

civdef wrote:

This not something I've ever seen or heard of happening.

Well, you have, you may just not have noticed it - look to the BASC's comments at the time in the recent past where several people were shot accidentally by lampers for the most recent example I can think of. And I don't recall any public statement by the NRPAI or NARGC when a woman was hit by a spent .22 round in Roscommon last year either. Not condemning other shooters is a rather deeply-engrained response with many shooting organisations, mistakenly so in some cases (if more people had been willing to report odd behaviour around guns, Hamilton might have been caught before Dunblane, and Ryan most certainly would have been arrested long before Hungerford).

Irishglockfan

I see we have had an almost simmilar type incident here in Limerick last week.Some idiot shot at a CIE bus with an air rifle Put two pellets in the front drivers window!Usual squakin from Henry st gardai in the Limerick Leader about the illegality of air rifles,and their deadliness,etc.Ya really got to wonder if people are just being born naturally mentally retarded and stupid nowadays,or do you have to go on a degree course of idiocy to be so stupid?? :mad: :mad:

Trouble is in the Hamilton and Ryan cases;How do you know they are acting oddly???As you said Sparks it takes two weeks of intensive observation in a clinic before a doc can make a estimate of sanity or insanity.How then are us shooters supposed to recognise,odd and possibly dangerous behaviour?

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

Trouble is in the Hamilton and Ryan cases;How do you know they are acting oddly???As you said Sparks it takes two weeks of intensive observation in a clinic before a doc can make a estimate of sanity or insanity.How then are us shooters supposed to recognise,odd and possibly dangerous behaviour?

You know they were acting oddly because in Hamilton's case he threatened a woman by pointing his pistol at her (after she'd reported him to the police for coming to her house to show his guns to her son, which she was unimpressed by - remember, Hamilton was already considered dodgy by many because of his interest in children which was seen as being a bit too familiar for comfort); and in Ryan's case he'd shot at his neighbours with an air rifle for months before the shooting, and had been disciplined in work for turning up with a sidearm in his belt and a knife in his boot, claiming that he had to be able to protect himself while out fencing (in the middle of the english countryside where the most dangerous thing for miles was probably Ryan and maybe a miffed badger or two).

These weren't cases of suspected depression, these were actual illegal and unsafe acts. I'm not suggesting we "turn in" a shooter for being eccentric or
perhaps because he or she is a little under-the-weather, I'm saying that if someone actually commits an illegal and malicious act with a firearm that there shouldn't be any hesitation about condemning it publicly.

Irishglockfan

OK,so we have two criminal ACTS that were reported to respective police forces,and seemingly nothing effective was done by the police.Now we must ask why? Was there somthing more sinister with Hamiliton ,considering that the report is sealed for 100 years?

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

OK,so we have two criminal ACTS that were reported to respective police forces

No, we don't. That's the tragedy. The woman did report Hamilton's visit, but not the later assault (pointing a firearm at someone, even if it's unloaded or a replica, is assault in the UK). And noone ever reported Ryan at all. If they had, who knows? Ryan would have been arrested, and Hamilton was likely to have been. 16 people wouldn't have died in Hungerford and another 16 might have lived in Dunblane. That's why it's important that we not hesitate to address dangerous or illegal practises, whether by condemning the kind of idiot that shoots at bus drivers with air rifles or by reporting someone who fools about habitually with firearms. There can't be any attached stigma to this, and there should be a stigma to not doing so.

Haket

Haket wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/5mqmx

The Mirror "newspaper" story about this killing. I was amazed when I read the article, it mentions banning airguns 3-4 times and nothing about doing something about the <insert expletive here> fool that was shooting at fire fighter. A 27yr old was taken into custody says the rag . . . . 27 yr old shooting firemen trying to put out a fire . . . . the solution . . . . ban airguns. My mind boggles.

MARK

What do you expect?? They can’t mention the man until he is proven or strongly suspected because of the fear of a libel suit.

Also, the writer seems to regard the licensing of Air Guns synonymous with a blanket ban - this is where what I said before comes into play.

If the shooting bodies openly embrace the licensing - the anti gun crowd will be neutered, that is of course, if people don’t regard the possession of an unlicensed air gun as "tradition", and therefore as a constitutional right.

That is not rolling over and accepting a life of darts - but rather a proactive and practical response to an appauling situation.

Sparks

original_psycho wrote:

What do you expect?? They can’t mention the man until he is proven or strongly suspected because of the fear of a libel suit.

Actually, he's been named already.

If the shooting bodies openly embrace the licensing - the anti gun crowd will be neutered, that is of course, if people don’t regard the possession of an unlicensed air gun as "tradition", and therefore as a constitutional right.

I think that if the NSRA or BASC were to propose extending the licencing (don't forget, air rifles with muzzle energies over 12 ft/lbs in the UK are already licenced) to cover all airguns, there would probably be uproar from their members, and from Countryside Alliance and from the AirSofters, and probably from the non-airgun people too. Especially since the GCN is calling for the licencing since they were central figures - in the media at least - during the handgun ban over there.

What is needed is for the NSRA and BASC to abandon the "dignified silence" approach, hire a professional PR company and pursue the agenda of seperating themselves from the image of chavs who buy airguns over the counter along with fake samurai swords and the like.