TargetTalk

Like the lobbyists say the existing English laws are sufficient.

Two thoughts on the subject:
1. As US citizens, it's none of our business - including the NRA's.
B. Canada has restricted airguns for years, and it doesn't seem to have had a profound effect.

And an afterthought:
III. Restrictive gun laws in much of the English-speaking world hasn't diminished essential liberties in any of those countries. Only Americans seem emotionally unable to accept that there is life - a good life at that - where firearms don't outnumber children better than 3 to 1.

"Restrictive gun laws in much of the English-speaking world hasn't diminished essential liberties in any of those countries."

I guess not, William, if you don't mind going to prison for defending yourself from, say, a home invasion.

But then, they are "subjects."

Rover wrote:"Restrictive gun laws in much of the English-speaking world hasn't diminished essential liberties in any of those countries."

I guess not, William, if you don't mind going to prison for defending yourself from, say, a home invasion.

But then, they are "subjects."

Puh-leeze, Rover, home invasions are rare in the armed to the teeth United States and even rarer in Britain - pure straw man. Funny thing, you know, none of my English friends and relatives feel the least bit 'subjected.'

Why?!?!?!
Is there widespread, rampant airgun crime in the UK???

gspell68 wrote:Why?!?!?!
Is there widespread, rampant airgun crime in the UK???

A child was shot a couple of years ago in an apartment and a hedgehog was rescued and x-rayed by the animsl charity RSPCA. Both cases hit the national media. Mostly property vandalism and wandering pets.
I think we need to extracate ourselves from the EU before wasting time on any more primary legislation like this

william wrote: Funny thing, you know, none of my English friends and relatives feel the least bit 'subjected.'

I was born in Britain, but my family moved to New Zealand in the early 1970s when I was a young child. My relatives back in Britain are happy with their lives, because that's all they know. I'm thankful every day that my parents made the decision that they did and know that my lifestyle and life choices are WAY better here in NZ, than it is for those back in Britain.

Point being, that if that's all you have then you accept it. Doesn't make mean that it couldn't be better (or less worse!)

j-team wrote:

william wrote: Funny thing, you know, none of my English friends and relatives feel the least bit 'subjected.'

I was born in Britain, but my family moved to New Zealand in the early 1970s when I was a young child. My relatives back in Britain are happy with their lives, because that's all they know. I'm thankful every day that my parents made the decision that they did and know that my lifestyle and life choices are WAY better here in NZ, than it is for those back in Britain.

Point being, that if that's all you have then you accept it. Doesn't make mean that it couldn't be better (or less worse!)

So, does that mean you don't need a license and body cavity search to buy a BB gun in NZ???

william wrote:Two thoughts on the subject:
1. As US citizens, it's none of our business - including the NRA's.
B. Canada has restricted airguns for years, and it doesn't seem to have had a profound effect.

And an afterthought:
III. Restrictive gun laws in much of the English-speaking world hasn't diminished essential liberties in any of those countries. Only Americans seem emotionally unable to accept that there is life - a good life at that - where firearms don't outnumber children better than 3 to 1.

Really depends on what you consider "essential liberties". A law abiding citizen should be able to own any weapon he chooses -- he is not part of the crime picture. A criminal should not be able to own any weapon period. These types of laws have no effect on criminals, only upon the law abiding - who don't commit crimes. When governments figure out how to disarm criminals without disarming the rest of us, I'm all for it.

william wrote:Restrictive gun laws in much of the English-speaking world hasn't diminished essential liberties in any of those countries.

More precisely speaking - as a jurist with some background in administrative and constitutional law - I would say that
a) a grave diminishment of essential liberties and
b) stricter weapons laws
have gone hand in hand, in England, Wales and Scotland. Both may not stand in a direct cause -> effect relationship, but they are watered by the same poisoned well.

Alexander

As an additional tongue-in-cheek remark:
I would be all in favour of a licensing of airguns also for England and Wales (following the bad Scottish example, from a legislation enacted when Alba was still under the scourge of the Sassenachs... that will hopefully soon change after Brexit), and I would clap my hands fervently and would jump up and down like a bouncing desert mouse, if
- and that is a very big IF -
IF airguns licensing meant a legal framework similar to the Isle of Man, where airguns are licensed just as well as all kinds of handguns and all other guns, and without much hassle in either case.

But then again, The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, and the Manx are not subjected serfs to the Queen, but are lieges under the Lord of Mann - and that makes quite a difference. And they have a venerably old parliament too.

Alexander

gspell68 wrote:So, does that mean you don't need a license and body cavity search to buy a BB gun in NZ???

Just have to be over 18 years old.

Alexander wrote:...

But then again, The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, and the Manx are not subjected serfs to the Queen, but are lieges under the Lord of Mann - and that makes quite a difference. And they have a venerably old parliament too.

Alexander

AKA tax haven.

William in New Hampshire, USA your statement about home invasions is incorrect.
Here is one of many examples of home invasion:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/motorsp ... cid=LENDHP
These NASCAR people are celebrities and have the wealth to live in the best gated communities with the best security measures but yet they are still victims of armed intruders.

william wrote: Puh-leeze, Rover, home invasions are rare in the armed to the teeth United States and even rarer in Britain - pure straw man. Funny thing, you know, none of my English friends and relatives feel the least bit 'subjected.'

There are about 400,000 burglaries in the UK every year, and in about 22% of these the burglar confronts the homeowner. That translates to about 88,000 home invasions per year. Police make arrests in about 10% of these.

Seems like criminals are everywhere :-(

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... n-a-decade

In the world we live in, today I choose to own a gun.

Chip

ChipEck wrote:Seems like criminals are everywhere :-(

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... n-a-decade

In the world we live in, today I choose to own a gun.

Chip

Most of our police officers choose not to carry a firearm despite being offered the chance. Literally a different world here - for now at least.

Sounds like a nice place. Merry Christmas!

Chip

Unless I misread the article, I don't find the reason why, quite suddenly, the air-gun ownership became an issue?
In Belgium, airguns are sold without any restriction to 18+. However, since the stricter gun-laws, there were more 'incidents' with children shooting with airguns to trains or cars. Mostly likely with guns that were available at their homes. Of course the press will mention the incident when some 'gun' is involved but when stones are thrown from a bridge e.g. it isn't even mentioned, unless people get killed.
Would it come all down to education?
Just my 2 cents.
Guy