Carry a cap gun and win a trip to jail

[Renagade 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640221.stm

Now let me add some of my own comments

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Our crackdown on airguns is part of the government's wider commitment to tackle the anti social behaviour which blights some of our most vulnerable communities and breeds a fear of crime."

<span id='postcolor'>

yes a good idea, penalise the whole of the UK for some inner city shitholes

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's about people causing difficulties for police officers and that's obviously different from a child in the street playing cowboys and indians<span id='postcolor'>

not that that hasn`t stopped them frrom putting 2 pre-teen kiddies in the copshops cells before

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Home Office is also examining a ban on the sale, manufacture and the import of tandem air cartridge systems, such as the Brocock ME38 air pistol, which can be illegally converted to fire bullets.

<span id='postcolor'>

.38 shell and .22 or .177 barrel and the cheapest one is Å60 the next Å140 then over Å200 for the pistols.

Follow the link and make ur mind up for urselfs

http://www.profhk.com/product/brocock/bac38.htm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But he has insisted the new measures are not a snap response to the New Year shooting in Birmingham in which two teenage girls died<span id='postcolor'>

u know i might agree with him that these laws arren`t a snap reponse becuase those laws were already made,they just needed the right opportunity to put them into action or i could be wrong which would mean it is a snap reaction which will probably do fuck all to stop gun crime,either scenario isn`t good

I think i`ll extend this to a new gun control thread and maybe a little wider as we haven`t had one in ages and it would give the opportunity for the newer ppl to voice their thoughts and also give a chance to discuss any new changes that weren`t available last time round

[CosmicCastaway 0]

It's a classic case of treat the symptoms and not the cause. Replica weapons, as was the case with real firearms in the pre-ban years, are an easy scapegoat. Heaven forbid the government would have to pull its fingers out of its ears and address the real issues behind it. Nah, it's much cheaper and easier to introduce more legislation against anything resembling a firearm. Still, the people voted that muppet in.

[OxPecker 0]

Typical government over reaction. A friend of mine once got arrested here in Australia for going to a nightclub (a fancy dress party) as a cowboy with a plastic silver six shooter. I think they eventually dropped the charges of carrying a replica weapon, but they actually dragged him from the nightclub and put him in the lockup for a few hours.

[Mister Frag 0]

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion....on.html

This is what happens when governments try to ban guns

By Mark Steyn

(Filed: 05/01/2003)

You would think if "gun control" was going to work anywhere it would be on a small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity searches on the off-chance you've got an extra bottle of duty-free Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to notice.

But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire - draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime.

What happened at that party in Aston? I don't mean "what happened?" in the sense of the piercing analysis of Chief Superintendent Dave Shaw, who concluded: "There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and causing this incident." You can't put anything over on these coppers, can you? But my question is directed at the broader meaning of the event. Chief Supt Shaw went on: "We have never had to deal with anything like this. In terms of the nature of the incident, it's almost unprecedented in Birmingham." He didn't quite say Birmingham is one of those bucolic tightly-knit communities where everyone in the village knows everyone else and no one locks their doors, but you get the drift: this is some sort of bizarre aberration.

I think not. When those young men decided to open fire in Birchfield Road, they were making an entirely rational decision. One reason why Chief Supt Shaw has "never had to deal with anything like this" is because Aston was long ago ceded to the gangs. And, if you can deal drugs with impunity and burgle with impunity and assault with impunity and use guns with impunity, who's to say you can't murder with impunity? The West Midlands Police have offered a reward of Å1,000 for information leading to the arrest of those involved. Think about that: would you name a known gang member for a thousand quid? Once the funerals have been held and the media's moved on, the constabulary will go back to forgetting about Aston. But you'll still have to live there.

When Dunblane occurred, all of us - even, if they're honest with themselves, the shrieking hysterics baying for pointless legislation - understood it was a freak event: a nut went nuts. It happens, and, when it does, the event has no broader implications. But what happened in Birchfield Road is of wider relevance: it's a glimpse of the day after tomorrow - not just in Aston, but in Edgbaston and Solihull and Leamington Spa.

After Dunblane, the police and politicians lapsed into their default position: it's your fault. We couldn't do anything about him, so we'll do something about you. You had your mobile nicked? You must be mad taking it out. Why not just keep it inside nice and safe on the telephone table? Had your car radio pinched? You shouldn't have left it in the car. House burgled? You should have had laser alarms and window bars installed. You did have laser alarms and window bars but they waited till you were home, kicked the door in and beat you up? You should have an armour-plated door and digital retinal-scan technology. It's your fault, always. The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding.

The gangs on Birmingham's streets instinctively understand this. They know, even if the Government doesn't, that the Blairite "total" ban, which sounds so butch and macho when you do your soundbite on the telly, is a cop-out: it makes the general population the target, not the criminals. And once that happens it's always easier to hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than the Yardies with the Uzis. When you disarm the citizenry, when you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should "walk on by" if they happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will obviously be the criminals. Aston is the logical reductio of British policing: rival bad guys with state-of-the-art hardware, a cowed populace, and a remote constabulary tucked up in bed with the answering machine on.

I see I haven't yet mentioned the touchy social factor which even squeamish British Lefties have been forced to confront: Aston is yet more "black-on-black" violence. The reason I haven't mentioned it is because there hardly seems any point. What's new? Canada also had a Dunblane-like massacre, followed by Dunblane-like legislation, and, like Birmingham, boring, bland Toronto has lately been riven by gun violence from - wait for it - Jamaican gangs. But in neither Britain nor Canada is it politically feasible to suggest that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. As it happens, that Canadian massacre, of Montreal female students 12 years ago, was committed by the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, but, although we all claim to be interested in the "root causes" of crime, they tend to involve awkward cultural judgments. It's easier, like Mr Blair, just to go "total": blame everyone, ban everything.

This basic approach of addressing any cultural factors apart from the ones that correlate was pioneered by American progressives. The corpulent provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling for Columbine, currently delighting British audiences, spends an entire feature-length documentary investigating the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over half the murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill at about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians.

But, as I said, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to Britain. In my part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any gangster who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose pick-ups are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem.

Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it.

[Renagade 0]

eheh now some of the papers are spouting crap.

One article which caught my eye was about this c02 pistol which their saying is super powerful.

Basicly it was just a bb gun with a 15 round mag that shot the bbs out at full auto at a higher than normal power level, that is if there is any shred of truth to the story

<edit> i might add that their not ones u can buy of the shelf to avoid any confusion <edit>

[ralphwiggum 6]

just paint the barrel bright orange. jeesh.

[MrMilli 0]

It really is Government logic at work

Two young women are tragically shot dead by a sub machine gun (illegal iirc since 1968)

Ergo its time we Introduce new laws about Replica's.

*sigh*

On the Brocock revolver

BRILLIANT piece of journalism.

The Police have gone to Brocock and requested they stop manufacturing them

Brocock have said they will stop manufacturing them

and now Newspapers call for a ban on manufacture.

[NavyEEL 0]

sounds similar to the case here in the US about a year or two ago where a elementary school child was given out of school suspension for making his fingers into a pistol while playing "cops and robbers" on the playground during recess. its friggin cops and robbers! what kid hasn't played that game?!?!? lol that game's older than people are! society is really going down the drain these days. people get arrested or sued over the stupidest stuff... (please dont press charges against me for posting my views on this forum heh)

[Paratrooper 0]

I agree with you all. It isn't the guns it is the people, Guns are prevalent in Switzerland they don't have this nonsense. I am also sure Denoir will tell you that Sweden isn't riven with gun crime.

The problems of poverty, lack of repect for the law and drugs that are to blame. Get tough on those not replica guns!

[USMC Sniper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 10 2003,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It isn't the guns it is the people, Guns are prevalent in Switzerland they don't have this nonsense.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you want to go rob a house where the people inside are armed with Sig 552's and MG3's???

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Jan. 10 2003,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 10 2003,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It isn't the guns it is the people, Guns are prevalent in Switzerland they don't have this nonsense.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you want to go rob a house where the people inside are armed with Sig 552's and MG3's???<span id='postcolor'>

I mean they don't have a culture of gun violence, despite the prevalence of guns. Therefore guns are not the cause of gun related violence and a 'crack down' on replicas won't do anything, it is the intent not the guns. Tackling the drug ang gang culture in inner-cities is the task for the government.

[FSPilot 0]

I'm glad I live in the good old US of A.

Murder with a gun = illegal

What makes people think that if we make guns illegal, criminals will stop breaking the law? It's not like they use legal guns in the first place.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 10 2003,06:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm glad I live in the good old US of A.

Murder with a gun = illegal

What makes people think that if we make guns illegal, criminals will stop breaking the law?  It's not like they use legal guns in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

Quite.

[Oligo 1]

Luckily I just bought a Diana air rifle with a 370 m/s muzzle velocity, paid for in cash, no ID shown. Now if they ban then, I already own one, so I don't care, because I am not giving it back.

Anyway, when it comes to home defence, I think my glass-fibre laminate bow and katana sword will do. If the government assholes ban guns, you'll just have to think creatively. In cramped indoors spaces, a sword has much nicer engagement properties than a gun.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 10 2003,08:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, when it comes to home defence, I think my glass-fibre laminate bow and katana sword will do. If the government assholes ban guns, you'll just have to think creatively. In cramped indoors spaces, a sword has much nicer engagement properties than a gun.  <span id='postcolor'>

Note to self:

Never turn up unannounced to Oligo's house.

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 10 2003,11:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I mean they don't have a culture of gun violence, despite the prevalence of guns. Therefore guns are not the cause of gun related violence and a 'crack down' on replicas won't do anything, it is the intent not the guns. Tackling the drug ang gang culture in inner-cities is the task for the government.<span id='postcolor'>

Very wise words there...

The underlying issues that lead to murders must be confronted first.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 09 2003,23:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In cramped indoors spaces, a sword has much nicer engagement properties than a gun.  <span id='postcolor'>

Not really. Handguns are very compact and can be kept close to your body in truly cramped spaces. You also don't need to swing a gun. Finally, a gun is not a contact weapon, so you don't need to allow your component to get close to you.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Jan. 09 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 10 2003,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It isn't the guns it is the people, Guns are prevalent in Switzerland they don't have this nonsense.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you want to go rob a house where the people inside are armed with Sig 552's and MG3's???<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, walk inside, shoot everyone because you know they have weapons, rob the house, go outside, steal the car and get outta there...

Even if you have weapons, when some homejacks you, those persons won't gently walk in and ask you to give your car keys etc. You can't carry your weapons all day just in case someone might come. When you really are being homejacked, you probable won't have time to react. Even when you reach your guns, you are easily outnumbered, and most criminals use guns with rather big firepower. Most of the people who do homejackings aren't sissy. Even here in Belgium there have been executings during homejackings, not because the innocent people did something wrong, just cuz they want you dead. When i say executions i don't mean killing someone while he runs away, i'm talking about grabbing someone who did nothing bad, taking him outside and shooting a bullet through his neck...for no reason.

I'd never react when someone would ever homejack me, at least i'm not planning to, if i see that dickhead standing with his back to me i'd be happy to stab him in the back but i'd rather stay calm and hope that they don't feel like killing.

It's not because you have a gun that you are safe, i'm rather sure that criminals don't care about what weapons you have, they have better (illegal) weapons anyway and they are at least with 3 guys.

I'm not saying that having guns is bad, if none had guns, the criminals wouldn't fear to be shot while doing naughty stuff.

Guns aren't bad, as long as only the normal, peaceloving people with a "gun education" can get them.

Sometimes cops do overreact when they see people walking around with fake guns, but let's not forget that it's their job to protect us all. Just thinking that the gun is probable fake isn't enough to make sure that the man carrying the gun isn't a dangerous man.

And you have to remember that not everyone is sane, there are some lunatic people who we would rather not want to see running around with guns, i'm happy that cops take care of our safety (or at least try to)

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Murder with a gun = illegal

What makes people think that if we make guns illegal, criminals will stop breaking the law?  It's not like they use legal guns in the first place.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. All they are doing is giving the criminal more laws to break, like he cares anyway.

Look at the U.S. and Canada back in the 50's and early 60's. Guns were everywhere. You could go into a store and buy a surplus Lee Enfield and surplus .303 ammo with no questions asked. There were shooting ranges at schools!, kid's even brought their .22's into class for show and tell. Yet they didn't have all those massacres that happen today and kids didn't go around shooting one another because they felt left out.

Society has changed alot since then, guns always stay the same.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 10 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at the U.S. and Canada back in the 50's and early 60's. Guns were everywhere. You could go into a store and buy a surplus Lee Enfield and surplus .303 ammo with no questions asked. There were shooting ranges at schools!, kid's even brought their .22's into class for show and tell. Yet they didn't have all those massacres that happen today and kids didn't go around shooting one another because they felt left out.

Society has changed alot since then, guns always stay the same.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, the gun itself isn't at fault, its the operator. But having a gun requires certain responsibility. If the members of that society can't handle that responsibility then they shouldn't have guns. Removing the guns in such an unstable society won't solve the underlying problems, but it will reduce the negative consequences.

It's for the same reason why you don't give guns to children. It's not the gun's fault that a child is too immature to handle that responsibility. It does however mean that since the child is immature that it shouldn't have a gun.

If you have a society without violence problems, then guns are no problem. If the society however has violent tendencies for one reason or another then access to guns should be restricted.

[Mister Frag 0]

I think it is safe to say that children shouldn't have guns because they don't understand what they are dealing with.

On the othe hand, to say no adults should be allowed to have them because some elements of society intentionally abuse them is narrow-minded and an infringement of your basic right to self-protection.

Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that my personal freedoms are defined by the actions of criminals? Surely passing more laws on top of the ones already being ignored by the criminals will stop them...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 10 2003,21:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the othe hand, to say no adults should be allowed to have them because some elements of society intentionally abuse them is narrow-minded and an infringement of your basic right to self-protection.

Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that my personal freedoms are defined by the actions of criminals? Surely passing more laws on top of the ones already being ignored by the criminals will stop them...<span id='postcolor'>

If you feel that you need to have a gun for self protection there are two possibilities:

1. The society you live in is so dangerous that you might need a gun.

2. You are paranoid.

A violent society should have as little weapons as possible and paranoid people should not have guns because they are likely to hurt innocent people.

The right to 'self-protection' you say. Does that include for instance having a nuclear weapon? What's the matter, don't you trust the citizens to have nukes? I mean why should the good law-abiding citizens have to endure a nuke-ban just because some criminal elements might use them in an inappropriate way.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 10 2003,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, walk inside, shoot everyone because you know they have weapons, rob the house, go outside, steal the car and get outta there...<span id='postcolor'>

But they'll fight back. They have guns.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 10 2003,13:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

The right to 'self-protection' you say. Does that include for instance having a nuclear weapon? What's the matter, don't you trust the citizens to have nukes? I mean why should the good law-abiding citizens have to endure  a nuke-ban just because some criminal elements might use them in an inappropriate way.<span id='postcolor'>

Come on, Denoir, you're smarter than that, you don't need to rely on preposterous analogies to make a point.

If you want to have a sensible discussion, fine, I'll play along, but not like that...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 10 2003,22:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 10 2003,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, walk inside, shoot everyone because you know they have weapons, rob the house, go outside, steal the car and get outta there...<span id='postcolor'>

But they'll fight back. They have guns.<span id='postcolor'>

It's probably a cultural thing. Europe has had a very violent history, but we evolved away from it. We don't have the death penalty and we don't consider killing people as an acceptable alternative.

I guess it is something America will have to figure out by itself over time.