[Ghost]

Punishing everyone because of a few irresponsible people is not the way to go.

Didn't you learn anything in kindergarten, UT? Everyone knows that's how the world works. Since Johnny decided to throw mashed potatoes at Bobby, we all have to sit out.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by AnnihilaterD


Can airsoft guns still cause the loss of an eye? It looks like it should be able to, given the speed.

Yes, they can - that's why everyone who palys wears safety goggles. But are you going to ban something because they can put out an eye? You might as well ban sticks then!

And Ghost - I was hoping the elected leaders of the free world had graduated Kindergarten

[Fineus]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Yes, they can - that's why everyone who palys wears safety goggles. But are you going to ban something because they can put out an eye? You might as well ban sticks then!

That doesn't really work. An airsoft gun (or a gun that can fire of any kind) is designed to be shot. People do use them as display pieces, hanging them on walls and such. However at the end of the day - guns shoot.

Not that I'm saying it's the guns fault. It's totally the persons actions that are the cause. That's the point.

[Rictor]

My view, and I think it's perfectly reasonable, is that the potential saftey of the very, very few should not be cause to infringe on the liberties of the many. Honestly, how many innocents (that is, non-airofters) are hurt each year because of airsoft guns? One? Two?

And if you're stupid enough to wave a replica AK-47 around in the supermarket, well I'm afraid that's Darwin at work, and you deserve what you get.

[Unknown Target]

For all the airsoft people out there, here's a petition to at least get them to repeal the airsoft part of the bill:

http://www.petitiononline.com/airsoft/

Anyway, like Rictor said: if you're waving a replica airsoft gun in public, then you deserve whatever you get.

But Kalfireth, if you ban airsoft guns because they can potentially be used for harm, then you should ban everything, including computers, because they can potentially be used to hack government systems - but only a few people do that. Now they're cracking down on airsfot because, suprise suprise, only a few people use them incorrectly, therefore no one can use them.

[AnnihilaterD]

That is not what the bill says. It says you cant use them in a public place. There would be nothing to stop you going to a club, out of the way of people who could accidently get injured.
That is the difference between an airsoft gun and a stick. Its much easier to accidently shoot someone (say they walk round a corner into the line of fire), than it is to poke them in the eye with a stick.

[Unknown Target]

What are they defining as a "public place"?
And no one in their right mind would be shooting the gun in an area where someone could just randomly walk around the corner and get shot.
But where many people play, such as remote woods, deserted buildings, etc, where no one walks - they can still be defined as a public place.

[AnnihilaterD]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
And no one in their right mind would be shooting the gun in an area where someone could just randomly walk around the corner and get shot.

Unfortunatly, that is the problem; there are a lot of people who are not in their right mind.

"But where many people play, such as remote woods, deserted buildings, etc, where no one walks - they can still be defined as a public place."

True. It would be interesting to know if the bill actually just says 'public place' or gives more specific locations.

[Clave]

What about accurate replica .44 Magnums?

*thinking I might have to throw something away soon*




BTW: the police here armed, when it counts, just go to any airport...

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
For all the airsoft people out there, here's a petition to at least get them to repeal the airsoft part of the bill:

http://www.petitiononline.com/airsoft/

Anyway, like Rictor said: if you're waving a replica airsoft gun in public, then you deserve whatever you get.

But Kalfireth, if you ban airsoft guns because they can potentially be used for harm, then you should ban everything, including computers, because they can potentially be used to hack government systems - but only a few people do that. Now they're cracking down on airsfot because, suprise suprise, only a few people use them incorrectly, therefore no one can use them.

[color=66ff00]Now that gives me an idea.

We start dropping PC's on people and see if the government will ban the computer!
[/color]

[Unknown Target]

Clave: I heard they're going to specifically target replicas next.

Unfortunatly, that is the problem; there are a lot of people who are not in their right mind.

So you're going to stop the 99.9% (actually, considering recent events, more like 95%) of the people who are in their right minds because of the few? No, that doesn't make sense.

And Maeg: Careful, that might actually work I can see it now "Computing liscences" where you have to go out and apply for a liscence before you can own a computer

[Clave]

Ah well, looks like dump time for my old friend (plastic but looks like metal)

[Unknown Target]

Don't dump it just yet:

Contrary to popular belief, this bill if passed, affects retailers, importers (including private individuals importing from overseas) and manufacturers within the UK. Current owners and airsofters will still be allowed to keep and use airsoft products even if the bill is passed as Law.

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/ is probably the best resource for all of this, them being the largest UK airsoft website.


However, it also notes how one person in the UK was shot when a wooden chair leg was mistaken for a real weapon (I think it said around 91 or 93). BAN ALL CHAIR LEGS!
Geeze, you Brits are turning into a paranoid lot.

[vyper]

Don't tar us all with the same brush. I mean, Blair isn't exactly representative of the population... come to think of it there's no party representative of the UK population.

[Unknown Target]

Well, then you government and your police departments are all wusses

[vyper]

Our Government is full of control freaks and our police are too busy finding new ways to sit on their arse flashing speed cameras to actually do some police work.

They'll stop my mate walking through his middle class neighbourhood (and believe me you'd never expect this guy to be up to anything - bar combing his hair) and demand to know where he's going, yet they don't go near large groups of neds (trouble making young thugs).

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
My view, and I think it's perfectly reasonable, is that the potential saftey of the very, very few should not be cause to infringe on the liberties of the many. Honestly, how many innocents (that is, non-airofters) are hurt each year because of airsoft guns? One? Two?

And if you're stupid enough to wave a replica AK-47 around in the supermarket, well I'm afraid that's Darwin at work, and you deserve what you get.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series5/gun_crime_replica_weapons.shtml
[q]In 2001/2002, there were 12,340 recorded offences where air weapons were used.

Of these 166 involved serious injuries, and in two cases the injuries proved fatal.

A small proportion of these weapons have proved to be vulnerable to conversion to take conventional ammunition.

Because of this they have become popular with certain criminals, and have been used in a number of serious crimes including murders, hold-ups and muggings.

Scotland Yard said 75 per cent of the guns it seizes on the streets are adapted air weapons.
[/q]

(offhand, a kid was killed and another nearly blinded in Scotland this year; those were the main cases fuelling the drive for a ban)

It is a small number; IMO the concern from the polices view is more along the lines of armed response units and how they react to replica or airsoft guns.  The police are held heavily liable for any time they fire in this sort of event (and thus firearms officers are liable for civil or criminal proceedings under certain circumstances); so I can understand why they'd want to remove replica weapons on the grounds of allowing firearms units to make threat judgements that are less likely to see them in court themselves.

Ultimately, the government view is to shirk the problem, though; trying to treat symptoms rather than the underlying cause.

[Fineus]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
But Kalfireth, if you ban airsoft guns because they can potentially be used for harm, then you should ban everything, including computers, because they can potentially be used to hack government systems - but only a few people do that. Now they're cracking down on airsfot because, suprise suprise, only a few people use them incorrectly, therefore no one can use them.

Not at all, guns are designed for one single purpose - to be shot. Computers are designed for all manor of things from gaming to office work. They've a far more versitile application.

I agree that not all airsoft guns are used to harm others, but the very fact that they're designed to be shot implies that at least monitoring them would be a good idea.

As an example, a friend of mines mother was shot with a .22 rifle from the top of a multi-story car park. The shooter was never found and my friends mother survived as the shot didn't break through her skull.

The point is that guns should be monitored, that much I agree with. Banning them totally might be a step too far but at least limiting their sales might reduce the number of violent instances.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by aldo_14


http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series5/gun_crime_replica_weapons.shtml
[q]In 2001/2002, there were 12,340 recorded offences where air weapons were used.

Of these 166 involved serious injuries, and in two cases the injuries proved fatal.

A small proportion of these weapons have proved to be vulnerable to conversion to take conventional ammunition.

Because of this they have become popular with certain criminals, and have been used in a number of serious crimes including murders, hold-ups and muggings.

Scotland Yard said 75 per cent of the guns it seizes on the streets are adapted air weapons.
[/q]

 

You can not, I repeat, can not convert an airsoft gun into firing real weapons. Why? Because A) The internals are completely unable to accomodate bullets, and B) The guns are made out of plastic.  The weapons that  caused serious injuries are air guns, not airsoft guns. Look, you can go here: www.airsoftretreat.com and get the full story on that. In reality, there was only ever one airsoft gun that could be converted into firing live ammunition, and you know what happened to it? All 2,000 something unites were recalled and destroyed, and there are only about 25 remaining in the entire world today.

The media goes nuts over these things, airing commercials where a six year old kid picks up his dad's plastic airsoft gun, puts bullets in it, and go shoots his friends. That is not only feasable, it's physically impossible, for the reasons I stated above.


Kalfireth - either you're talking about an air gun, or a real rifle. Air guns are actually lethal - people use them for hunting. But once again, I have to reiterate: it is physically impossible to make an airsoft gun lethal. If you don't believe me, look it up. All the high-quality guns, the ones that would stand the most chance of being converted, are manufactured in Japan, which has the most stringent gun laws in the free world (I believe you have to get a liscence to even own a replica). So do you think the Japanese government would let potentially lethal guns out into the market? No, they wouldn't. That's why they ordered that rifle destroyed, and that's why they maintain strict regulations on all airsoft guns.






Once again, the guns that they are talking about are air guns, such as the like manufactured by Daisy Air Rifles in America. These guns shoot metal pellets at extreme velocities, and are designed to kill small game. Yes, the names airsoft and air rifle are similar, but do NOT confuse the two - it's like comparing a stick with a knife - they're two seperate things.

I'm sorry, but it's still bothering me that after all my explaining, people are still referring to airsoft guns and air rifles as the same thing.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target


You can not, I repeat, can not convert an airsoft gun into firing real weapons. Why? Because A) The internals are completely unable to accomodate bullets, and B) The guns are made out of plastic.  The weapons that  caused serious injuries are air guns, not airsoft guns. Look, you can go here: www.airsoftretreat.com and get the full story on that. In reality, there was only ever one airsoft gun that could be converted into firing live ammunition, and you know what happened to it? All 2,000 something unites were recalled and destroyed, and there are only about 25 remaining in the entire world today.

The media goes nuts over these things, airing commercials where a six year old kid picks up his dad's plastic airsoft gun, puts bullets in it, and go shoots his friends. That is not only feasable, it's physically impossible, for the reasons I stated above.

You do realise none of the articles initally quoted in the first post even mention the word airsoft?  I'm not even sure what the classification of airsoft guns are vis-a-vis other air-powered weapons (albeit I do know they are classed as toys).

In the case of airsoft, the legal reason for a ban or control would probably be likely to be under the replica legislation.  The ban on airguns would likely be for a different reasoning.

I will admit that for me, any air-powered gun is an air-powered gun.  Regardless of the ammunition type or muzzle-speed.  I posted the only 'casualty' stats I could find on air weapons, because I don't believe there is a difference in calculation or collation between the two when recording crime statistics.