Austeyr
Members
- Dec 17, 2024
- 944
- 1,522
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The lengthy history of crossbows is irrelevant. There seem to be two main arguments against the new approach:It's a bit of a stupid ban. Crossbows have been about for 2500 years or so. You can make them from sticks (View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTuzEFQNSU4
).
It seems to be more about control of the population than saving lives. I'd imagine bows and arrows will be next.
Th best way I heard it put was my freedom stops where my neighbour's freedom startsLiving in society requires us to work within a balance of freedoms and limitations in order for that society to function; we trade off some freedoms in return for the benefits of being part of society; that involves compromise,
Yes. I have a highly skeptical feeling that licensing is less about making things safer and more about fiscal benefits for the gov (not just this one, but all of them) imposed via licensing and fines though. Its a win - win for them as it looks like they are doing the pearl clutching and saving us all. And yet knifecrime...If it wasn't a cross bow used as a weapon - it would have been something else.Just another knee jerk PR stunt by the government to appear to be doing something while actually doing bugger all. Crimes involving crossbows are pretty rare and I wonder if this incident, as tragic as it is, would've made such an impact if it hadn't happened to the family of someone in the public eye.
I agree that some kind of licence would be the best but unfortunately these things have a cost to them. An outright ban is quicker and far cheaper
Micheal Ryan was carrying a loaded pistol daily. His workmates and boss apparently knew. If someone had called the plod, he would have lost license and guns due to carrying a pistol in public loaded, and with no good reason. IIRC Hamilton wouldn't have passed a DBS check. He shouldn't have had a license. Bird and the Plymouth shooter would these days have been flagged by their GP due to anger issues. They shouldn't have had guns.To say it only hurts legal owners of crossbows as 'criminals' would still have them doesn't make sense IMO...
1987 Hungerford massacre... legally owned weapons
1996 Dunblane massacre... legally owned weapons
2010 Cumbria massacre... legally owned weapons
2012 Horden shooting... legally owned weapons
2021 Plymouth shooting... legally owned weapons
add to that the many documented stabbings, bombings & vehicular killings.
Yes, criminals will have a source for weapons if they want one but personally I'm not keen on any knee jerk reactions for legislation, as much as I appreciate 'militaria' I can also appreciate the hoops a UK resident needs to jump through to obtain a weapon legally, crossbows are cool, longbows etc are cool too but I'd rather see a license requirement for them than a complete ban.