Airgun consultation?

[The Egg Man]

"Scotland will restrict airguns despite opposition to move.

A Scottish Government exercise on proposals for licensing air weapons returned 1,101 responses, with 87 per cent opposed to licensing."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3007870

Despite this, the Scottish Executive WILL legislate on licensing airguns. What on earth is the point of holding a consultation if you're going to ignore the outcome?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm in favour of controlling access to and the use of airguns but I struggle to see why we've spent time, energy and money on a 'consultation' that's to be ignored.

[Lucky Poet]

Not sure. No idea. I must admit, though, that seeing it called the Scottish Executive instantly sways me into being more sceptical about them and their actions. Cheers!

[The Egg Man]

Scottish Government is a rebrand. Scottish Executive is the legal title.

[Josef]

"Scotland will restrict airguns despite opposition to move.

A Scottish Government exercise on proposals for licensing air weapons returned 1,101 responses, with 87 per cent opposed to licensing."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3007870

Despite this, the Scottish Executive WILL legislate on licensing airguns. What on earth is the point of holding a consultation if you're going to ignore the outcome?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm in favour of controlling access to and the use of airguns but I struggle to see why we've spent time, energy and money on a 'consultation' that's to be ignored.

My interpretation of that article would be that the Scottish {whatever} intend to legislate on the licencing of airguns. The content of the legislation may be shaped by the consultation exercise.

The analysis of the consultation results is perfectly well explained in the article. It's important to consider the quality content and motivation behind the responses rather than just count the Ayes and Noes.

The proposals were described as “misconceived”, “disproportionate”, “draconian” and “heavy-handed” by opponents, some of whom argued that an airgun is not a weapon.[...]

Nearly three-fifths of the res­ponses came from England, and around a fifth came from cut-out coupons from shooting magazines, according to a government-funded analysis of responses published yesterday.[...]

Shooting is a sport which “is ideal for families, women, the elderly and the disabled”, licensing opponents said.[...]

The analysis states: “The term ‘air weapon’ was perceived by some to be emotive and misleading. The point was made that a ‘weapon’ is designed to injure or harm someone, and thus an airgun is not a ‘weapon’ unless it is used as such.[...]

The minority that supported stricter regulation said airguns are used to injure and kill wildlife, including swans, cygnets and livestock as well as pets. Some said they had been shot with an airgun.

So there, unsurprisingly, you have it. People with guns don't like the idea of having to licence them. People who have been shot with one think they should have to. Who was to know?

I'm particularly fond of the notion that a gun isn't a gun until it harms someone.

[Boxer6]

As an ex-soldier, current air rifle owner and licensed shotgun owner, I'm not really in favour of licensing airguns. Yes, air rifles can kill, but so can long- and cross-bows, catapults and a host of other "weapons", none of which engender the level of distaste accorded to gun-shaped items.

In fact, how many people are aware there isn't even a legal minimum age to purchase any of these, unlike airguns where you must be at least 14 years of age to use one unsupervised, and 17 to buy. Sadly, it will get passed into law due to the vociferous minority - as usual.

[Josef]

Yes, air rifles can kill, but so can long- and cross-bows, catapults and a host of other "weapons", none of which engender the level of distaste accorded to gun-shaped items.

For goodness sake, B. In what way is that an argument in favour of continuing to permit the over-the-counter sale of lethal weapons?

[Boxer6]

Yes, air rifles can kill, but so can long- and cross-bows, catapults and a host of other "weapons", none of which engender the level of distaste accorded to gun-shaped items.

For goodness sake, B. In what way is that an argument in favour of continuing to permit the over-the-counter sale of lethal weapons?

It isn't, I know. But the bill will be passed, so it doesn't really matter that it's a null argument does it? Just wanted to get the info about these other "weapons" out here on the boards for the naysayers to see.

I happen to know of at least 3 people who, to cater to their own sense of 'bigness' and 'pseudo frontiersman' personas, regularly go out with crossbows and shoot (at) deer, rabbits and all manner of innocent wildlife, all with scant regard for any suffering to these animals or, indeed, to anything or anyone else they may encounter. Sadly, the law being what it is, and patient confidentiality being what it is, there's nothing I can do about it.

Bit of a bugger, that.

[The Egg Man]

As an ex-soldier, current air rifle owner and licensed shotgun owner, I'm not really in favour of licensing airguns. Yes, air rifles can kill, but so can long- and cross-bows, catapults and a host of other "weapons", none of which engender the level of distaste accorded to gun-shaped items.

.................................

I'm somewhat surprised that someone who has gone through basic training, perhaps seen active service and may even have seen the results of someone being shot is content for the untrained and unlicensed to have access to what can be lethal weapons.

The 'argument' that there are other things out there which can kill so we don't need to bother with air rifles' seems crazy at best. There seems no doubt that public opinion in general is moving away from open access to air guns - that's why the shop on Argyle St (opposite whateverys) closed.

The challenge, I suspect, is that guns are still seen as macho and in an era where many have very little macho available to them, men will resist restrictions on their availability.

Worryingly, holding a consultation and then ignoring the results 'cos they're not the results you wanted strikes me as the thin end of the wedge.

[dimairt]

According to this article in yesterday's Daily Record, the Government's analysis of the responses shows that most came from England and many were in the form of a cut-out coupon from shooting magazines.

Durachdan,

Eddy


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... un-2066601

[Josef]

Worryingly, holding a consultation and then ignoring the results 'cos they're not the results you wanted strikes me as the thin end of the wedge.

You've made it perfectly clear on here that you're a Unionist, TEM, so I won't quibble about that, even if I don't quite understand why you're so in favour of prolonging the (to me) alien rule of Thatcher/Blair/Cameron over our nation. But I'd be grateful were you to respond to the comments on your original statement rather than simply restate it.

[The Egg Man]

Worryingly, holding a consultation and then ignoring the results 'cos they're not the results you wanted strikes me as the thin end of the wedge.

You've made it perfectly clear on here that you're a Unionist, TEM, so I won't quibble about that, even if I don't quite understand why you're so in favour of prolonging the (to me) alien rule of Thatcher/Blair/Cameron over our nation. But I'd be grateful were you to respond to the comments on your original statement rather than simply restate it.

I'm a non-Separatist.

Respond to comments - why? They're just comments. I try to answer questions where asked but comments are just that.

[Josef]

Worryingly, holding a consultation and then ignoring the results 'cos they're not the results you wanted strikes me as the thin end of the wedge.

You've made it perfectly clear on here that you're a Unionist, TEM, so I won't quibble about that, even if I don't quite understand why you're so in favour of prolonging the (to me) alien rule of Thatcher/Blair/Cameron over our nation. But I'd be grateful were you to respond to the comments on your original statement rather than simply restate it.

I'm a non-Separatist.

Respond to comments - why? They're just comments. I try to answer questions where asked but comments are just that.

A Harum Scare'm-ist then.

Ok, not responding to comments is perfectly acceptable, but not where you go on to repost the original.

[The Egg Man]

Some things are worth saying twice (or even more often)

[Lucky Poet]

Such as 'this isn't a politics forum', and 'this isn't your personal soapbox'.

[Alycidon]

As a former competative air rifle owner, I think that the licensing of air rifles will be no issue to responsible users. What is needed is more ranges where kids can be taught that competative target shooting under controlled, safe conditions can be great fun, and the dangers of uncontrolled rifle use can be explained. Sadly the number of clubs is decreasing, and the people who use rifles irresponsibly will continue to do so, and it will be hard for the police to control.