US - Airsoft under threat?

[Leo Greer]

1 hour ago, RostokMcSpoons said:

 

Have you heard the saying "it's the exception that proves the rule".   For a long time I really didn't understand the logic of that saying, but I think I do now.  You've just given us an example.. you think armed Good Guys will stop the Bad Guy, but you're linking an article from 2019.  It just doesn't happen enough, they're exceptions.

 

I don't think widening gun ownership to the point everyone is carrying is the way to go.  The idea of all those untrained itchy trigger fingers, all those guns owned by double-digit IQ idiots, all those angry people with hot tempers... Too likely to get shot by accident or anger.  Scary.

When talking about civilians, you’re probably correct. This does not, however, account for any kind of preventative protection, or cops, who are also “Good Guys With Guns”.

In many areas, a large percentage of people carry. Half my coworkers carry, and their wives. And my bosses. And their wives. And their parents. (Not their children 😂) I’m in Central Texas, which is both a very gun-rich area, and a very safe area.

 

This is not a hard fact, but cities and areas with stricter gun laws tend to be far less safe. I have been to every state and almost every major city in the USA—the areas that make it hard for citizens to defend themselves experience more violent crime. This is what I’ve seen from personal experience. Anyone can twist numbers to say what they want.

 

Obviously there are people in the world and even in my city that I wouldn’t hand a loaded handgun to. But, who am I to arbitrarily make that decision? What if someone else arbitrarily decided that I shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm? It’s a slippery slope, deciding who should be allowed to do what.

I think I’ll agree with Colin; my view on these things is extremely simplistic. However, I see nothing wrong with that. I’m not an extremist of any wing trying to either set the 2nd amendment into iron, or to tear it down. I’m just an ordinary Joe who wants the ability to defend his family, and for his family to be able to defend themselves. I also don’t have any kind of political agenda—this is just an engaging discussion with me and a bunch of Brits on an online forum dedicated to shooting plastic balls at each other l. 😂

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

3 hours ago, RostokMcSpoons said:

 

Have you heard the saying "it's the exception that proves the rule".   For a long time I really didn't understand the logic of that saying, but I think I do now. 

At risk of seeming pedantic, the logic of the saying is apparent when one remembers that 'prove' and 'test' are synonyms e.g. proving ground/test ground meaning the same thing.  

 

 

[Emergencychimps]

The majority of murders in the us are in the top 6 cities with the strictest gunlaws. 

 

There are too many guns in America to magically just remove them, so as has been stated firearm legislation only affects those who follow the law. 

 

As for the debate of ar15s Vs tanks and nukes,  It's a silly one. 

 

The west (including the us) had tanks and nukes for Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.....but it doesn't look like they won. This also assumes that in any civil war scenario all of the us military would be united behind the government. I suspect it wouldn't be that clear cut and even if they were, deploying nukes against your own populace seems extreme.....but I guess it depends on the situation. 

 

The us has huge social and economic problems, terrible healthcare and social support. The gap between the haves and the have nots is huge. Mass shootings are awful, I think we can agree that you need to be mentally unhinged to do that and becoming that unhinged doesnt happen in a few days. Other countries intervene sooner with healthcare or social care etc which the us doesn't do well enough. When they don't they go onto do mass stabbings like in France really. While they're unhinged, they go for soft, easy, gun free targets. As such, having examples for it means there needs to be a person on site who is breaking the law AND is willing and AND is competent enough to get involved.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_Park_Mall_shooting

 

This is another relatively recent example of a person stopping and intended mass shooter. This also doesn't factor in other crimes that legal firearm ownership prevents or the crimes that aren't even attempted due to the risk of the victim being armed.

 

Should you treat the sick person or take guns away from law abiding citizens? 

 

Switzerland has just under half the number of guns per capita, if the social healthcare and welfare systems didn't impact this, then they'd have just under half the mass shooting incidents, they don't. 

 

My personal opinion is that the country is messed up, reform is needed and I'd probably address the health care and social welfare available first as guns won't magically disappear. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Emergencychimps said:

The majority of murders in the us are in the top 6 cities with the strictest gunlaws.

Citation? Not questioning it, but would like to see the source for future ref, cheers

[Colin Allen]

21 hours ago, Enid_Puceflange said:

Having read their Govt proposals, no wonder they are shitting a brick

Have a look at some of their proposals

A ban on imports

Rifs manufactured in either a transparent plastic or non real looking exteriors

 

That is neither a ban on imports nor a requirement for them to be either transparent plastic or non-real looking colours. A 6mm orange band on the muzzle meets the requirements.

As for the testing regime, a "reasonable testing program" is required but what constitutes reasonable is not defined.  It is up to the manufacturer or "private labeler" to certify that the product meets the requirement of having the required marking.  This would probably not be an onerous requirement.

[Guest]

Aside from Airsoft, I have a nasty feeling this will impact upon two of my other hobbies, clay pigeon and target shooting. 

 

No firearms legislation ever makes ownership and use any easier. With the upcoming U.K. ban on lead ammunition, the Scottish parliament discussing changing laws on planning permission for shooting on private land and the U.K. gov. investigating ways to tighten up shotgun/firearms ownership in light of the recent tragic events in Plymouth and Epsom, it’s only going to get worse. 

 

 

[Colin Allen]

55 minutes ago, rocketdogbert said:

Aside from Airsoft, I have a nasty feeling this will impact upon two of my other hobbies, clay pigeon and target shooting. 

 

No firearms legislation ever makes ownership and use any easier. With the upcoming U.K. ban on lead ammunition, the Scottish parliament discussing changing laws on planning permission for shooting on private land and the U.K. gov. investigating ways to tighten up shotgun/firearms ownership in light of the recent tragic events in Plymouth and Epsom, it’s only going to get worse. 

 

 

I cannot quite see how US regulations regarding imitation firearms will impact shooting hobbies in the UK.

I expect new legislation will make ownership and use of firearms more difficult; given that we still have incidents such as the ones that you describe, that is almost inevitable.

To be honest, outside a few legitimate reasons, I cannot see why anyone in the UK needs to own a firearm.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Colin Allen said:

I cannot quite see how US regulations regarding imitation firearms will impact shooting hobbies in the UK.

I expect new legislation will make ownership and use of firearms more difficult; given that we still have incidents such as the ones that you describe, that is almost inevitable.

To be honest, outside a few legitimate reasons, I cannot see why anyone in the UK needs to own a firearm.

It’s called legislation creep. A prime current example is AI, one country starts talking about trying to legislate, other partner countries do the same.

Firearms even more so, as a large proportion of the UK population seem to think (as you appear to) that “nobody needs a firearm”.

In response to that, way more legally held cars kill and injure people in the UK than firearms. Almost nobody has a legitimate reason to own a car. Get a bus and/or a train.

Also, see my first point “First they came for the communists….”

 

Don’t f****** try and tell me what’s legitimate and what’s not in my life. ****

[Tommikka]

59 minutes ago, Colin Allen said:

To be honest, outside a few legitimate reasons, I cannot see why anyone in the UK needs to own a firearm.

There are two key points there …. “A few legitimate reasons”

and “need”

There is only ever a “need” for anything due to a “few legitimate reasons”

 

There are valid “needs” for firearms, and there are also valid “wants” for firearms.

Those are what the licencing process look at, and under the wider umbrella of firearms as defined by legislation there are those that do not require any licence/certificate/membership

 

 

[Tommikka]

6 minutes ago, rocketdogbert said:

It’s called legislation creep.
 

…….

Firearms even more so, as a large proportion of the UK population seem to think (as you appear to) that “nobody needs a firearm”.

….

I have a foot in both camps - don’t worry about the politicians / legislation creep etc and do worry about them - my greatest fear is “people”, and our greatest defence is our communities 

 

As I repeatedly point out, my world and pleasure lies in paintball.  I also have an interest in airsoft via events etc.

Whats more key are the two points of my passion in encouraging people to try things out, even namby pamby fashion obsessed airsofters,  (Especially as my real love of scenario paintball has a direct relationship to airsoft skirmishing) and in “safeguarding” the fun of shooting things

 

 

The odd anti gun politicians are very vocal, but don’t have as much influence as they may appear to - unless you look at Scotland 

My greater fear is with the dickheads, and Im very happy when existing legislation is used against them, to a degree I’m mildly happy when they get a slap on the wrist as that can be a sensible “education” but it does come with the risk of it looking like things are too soft and more legislation is required - as opposed to the police / authorities using some common sense and discretion

 

(Sometimes I read articles with a slap on the wrist, education and a statement that “no offence as committed” - that is a get out clause to avoid blaming the police for being soft but is rarely true, and would be more in line with “it’s not in the public interest to prosecute this case with some eduction getting greater benefit”)

 

There appears to be things happening at the moment with either deliberate or ignorant attempts to import “home defence” guns which get referred to the UKPSF (at the moment the relationship between the UKPSF/Home Office/police/customs/border force is working well, and on a parralel a major pyro company  have been contacted by the police for many years over misuse of pyro - advising on types of pyro and enabling safe/controled disposal )

There also appears to have been a “surge” in threads about airsoft/home defence/paintball being found & seized in “non standard” circumstances 

 

 

…….

one of my usual rambling posts - we should maintain an eye out on national and international things, condemn the wrong doers and advise the inquisitive

 

On the face of it, in my opinion, “we” have nothing to fear with a US version of the VCRA and I can see good reasons for them getting one.  But that doesn’t mean we bury our heads in the sand

 

 

 

[-Cowboy-]

22 hours ago, Dan Robinson said:

The irony of making replicas harder to buy and use than the real thing. 

Honestly I think it was easier to get a shotgun certificate, I certainly didn't have to join a shooting ground or prove I'd been to one to be able to buy a gun. I still find it weird I have to jump through hoops to get something that looks like a gun when I have a cabinet full of actual guns but then the UK's licensing system is an absolute mess littered with knee jerk legislation that often makes no sense at all.

[Rogerborg]

2 hours ago, Colin Allen said:

To be honest, outside a few legitimate reasons, I cannot see why anyone in the UK needs to own a firearm.

 

Careful now. Many people would apply the same argument to realistic imitation firearms.  And would not consider "running around in the woods dressed up as a pretend soldier going 'Pew! Pew! Pew!'" to be a legitimate reason.

 

We were only granted that as an afterthought, on a Ministerial whim that could be withdrawn at any time.

 

Back on topic, I do agree that this looks like a lot of doom-mongering over a tiny orange band, when airsoft toys seem to come fitted with full orange muzzle devices in the Colonies right now.  On a strict reading, you could even paint a bit of orange on the barrel of a pistol that's fully recessed inside the slide, since there's no requirement for it to be visible.

 

However, the kicker might be the interpretation of "manufacture", if it's interpreted to meaning removing or covering up the day-glo.

 

The lawyers will win, as always.

[rj1986]

I've had the misfortune of talking to a couple of Americans on Reddit about this. There seems to be a theme running through their thought process of only dealing in absolutes.

 

When the VCRA kicked it, we formed bodies, lobbied for compromise and tried to ring fence the sport (could strongly argue for the good).

 

The Americans are very much in the stance of the bill must be stopped at all costs, and not even willing to compromise on some sort of USARA or have a body formed to be that focal point between the law makers and retailers/importers/players.

 

Which is a tad ironic considering how much power the NRA holds over there, and their lobbying has made buying a gun in some places so simplistic.

[Dan Robinson]

I'm trying not to criticise the US too much because I know the UK system is far from perfect....  FFS my dad is safety officer for his Clay shoot and he can't tell the teals from the specs in his vision 🤣.

 

But at the same time I was genuinely emotional when I saw a video of a parent teaching her 5 year old what to do in the event of a school shooting and which way round to the put the body armour panel into her backpack.    I mean - how fucked is a society where this is the norm and people think that having every Tom Dick and Harry armed to the teeth is anything other than a bad idea.

 

Australia sorted their shit after Port Arthur and all their subsequent half dozen or so "mass shootings", bar one, have been people going nuts and shooting family members.  Switzerland is a bit of an anomaly in that they still have conscription, which I think is a good idea, but are also a neutral country - their take on potential invasions is fairly unique. However, they average less than one mass shooting per year.

 

We have only had nine since Dunblane and of those some didn't have any fatalities.

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, rj1986 said:

 

 

and not even willing to compromise on some sort of USARA or have a body formed to be that focal point between the law makers and retailers/importers/players.

 

They see the registration process as some form of infringement of their rights - not considering that they have to register and insure their cars.  Well the non sov-cits anyway.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Dan Robinson

[Cr0-Magnon]

20 minutes ago, Dan Robinson said:

They see the registration process as some form of infringement of their rights - not considering that they have to register and insure their cars.  Well the non sov-cits anyway.

 

They see it as giving more ground to people who aren't really seeking gun registration, but whose end goal is eventually banning all private firearm ownership. 

[sonofsammo]

11 minutes ago, Dan Robinson said:

We have only had nine since Dunblane and of those some didn't have any fatalities.

True. But in the preceding 27 years to Dunblane there were 17. 3 were terrorism. 1 was in Northern Ireland, where the law remains the same.
So arguably, 12. The removal of access to pistols has reduced the occurrance by 3 in a nearly thirty year period. 
Don't get me wrong, three fewer is good. 

 

BUT

 

People who are going to do bad things are going to do bad things.
If you are of a mind to kill people, you are willing to break the law. Therefore the legality of access to firearms is irrelevant to you.
In the UK nearly all gun crime is committed with illegally held firearms. 
The process of obtaining and keeping firearms in the UK is amongst the most stringent in the world, when applied correctly. There are failures, as in Plymouth, where the shooter should not have had a firearm. Even his own mother had pleaded with the Police to not return his gun. Failure to apply the law will not be changed by changing the law.
Of course, you could outlaw all firearms. That means bye bye RIFS too. 
So long to air rifles, catapults, bows, crossbows.... stones? Screwdrivers? Chainsaws... The list is endless.

If it's dangerous, it should be banned. There is more chance of you dying in the UK by crossing the road than there is of you being shot.
If it's dangerous, should it be banned? Should we live our lives in cotton wool? No. That would be boring. 
 

As the philosopher DMX once said
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

p.s. apologies for the ramble, three kids and 4 dogs impeding concentration.
p.p.s dogs kill people sometimes. They should probably all be banned.
p.p.s kids kill people. They should probably be banned too.
p.p.p.s Grown ups kill people... oh ffs

[Rogerborg]

2 hours ago, sonofsammo said:

So long to air rifles, catapults, bows, crossbows.... stones? Screwdrivers? Chainsaws... The list is endless.

 

Well, the existing list is pretty long.  Private ownership, in your own home, is currently a crime for:

 

Knuckledusters; sword-sticks; hand-claws; belt-buckle knives; shuriken; butterfly knives; telescopic batons; blow-guns[1]; kusari-gama; kyoketsu shoge; kusari[2]; any disguised knife; ceramic knives other than cooking knives; any "straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheon (sometimes known as a baton)"[3]; a sword with a blade over 50cm but only if curved; any blade with a cutting edge and serrated edge but only if it has an image or words that suggest it is to be used for the purposes of violence; or a spiral knife with two or more cutting edges in a helix.

 

...and breathe.

 

It's genuinely a wonder that they haven't got around to crossbows yet.

 

[1] A tube

[2] A string with something tied to both ends.

[3] A stick!

 

 

[Madhouse]

18 hours ago, Colin Allen said:

I suspect that there are so many guns in circulation in the USA that you are truly fucked.

 

👆 This. I can't think of a single scenario that successfully moves the US away from tens of thousands of innocent people giving their life every year just so that others can have the right to own a gun on the off-chance they need to overthrow the government - let's not get into the debate that when they had the chance they opted to fight to keep a corrupt government in power, the exact opposite of what the second amendment is all about.

[Skullchewer]

Popcorn.gif

[Rogerborg]

43 minutes ago, Madhouse said:

let's not get into the debate that when they had the chance they opted to fight to keep a corrupt government in power

 

"Bad news from the Colonies, your majesty."

 

[Lozart]

5 hours ago, Dan Robinson said:

  Switzerland is a bit of an anomaly in that they still have conscription, which I think is a good idea, but are also a neutral country - their take on potential invasions is fairly unique. However, they average less than one mass shooting per year.

 

 

Have you seen the requirements in Switzerland? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland despite being one of the most liberal sets of legislation, they have much tighter control on the sale of ammunition and the actual use of guns.

 

The issue in the US isn't the guns, it's the fetishisation of gun culture among a relatively small section of society and the huge number of guns in the hands of criminals. Add to that a lobbying movement with huge coffers that has a vested interest in maintaining a multi-billion dollar industry and you end up with a country that offers little more than hopes and prayers when school kids get shot but woe betide you if you're not a straight, white, conservative.

 

I think the most telling stories about guns come from people that have left the US for other countries and then one day suddenly realised that actually, maybe the rest of the world was right after all!

[Lozart]

17 hours ago, Leo Greer said:

This is not a hard fact, but cities and areas with stricter gun laws tend to be far less safe. I have been to every state and almost every major city in the USA—the areas that make it hard for citizens to defend themselves experience more violent crime. This is what I’ve seen from personal experience. Anyone can twist numbers to say what they want.

 

Obviously there are people in the world and even in my city that I wouldn’t hand a loaded handgun to.

 

You're correct it's not a hard fact. It's not even a soft and squishy fact, when you look at gun deaths per capita by state and compared to the level of firearm legislation it's a very different picture https://www.criminalattorneycincinnati.com/comparing-gun-control-measures-to-gun-related-homicides-by-state/

 

Yes, lies, damned lies and statistics, but when there is such an overwhelming volume of evidence in support of better gun control I'm still gobsmacked how many people say more gun laws make places LESS safe.

 

As to your other point, from what I've gathered it seems that most of the people in favour of tighter gun control want just this; to stop that guy getting his hands on a gun. This pretty much sums it up:

 

 

[Dan Robinson]

Also:

 

 

 

 

[Leo Greer]

53 minutes ago, Lozart said:

 

You're correct it's not a hard fact. It's not even a soft and squishy fact, when you look at gun deaths per capita by state and compared to the level of firearm legislation it's a very different picture https://www.criminalattorneycincinnati.com/comparing-gun-control-measures-to-gun-related-homicides-by-state/

 

Yes, lies, damned lies and statistics, but when there is such an overwhelming volume of evidence in support of better gun control I'm still gobsmacked how many people say more gun laws make places LESS safe.

 

As to your other point, from what I've gathered it seems that most of the people in favour of tighter gun control want just this; to stop that guy getting his hands on a gun. This pretty much sums it up:

 

 

Stricter guns laws don’t necessarily make places less or more safe. They make me and my family less safe by removing our ability to defend ourselves if the worst should happen. I.e. they remove power from law abiding citizens. Those with malicious intent will, of course, ignore gun control laws.

 

Imagine, for a moment, if we enacted nuclear war gun laws. No guns for citizens, ever. At all. What happens? Criminals still have guns. How on earth does disarming your law abiding citizens help with criminals?

 

Maybe, over enough time, you’d be able to catch every criminal and find every hidden gun. But how many years is that? How many years of criminals knowing that a gun gives them power over any citizen who turned theirs in? Even assuming citizens retain the right to carry things like mace, switchblades, etc, etc.

 

In America, we’ve seen a wave of increase in “big government”. Many will disagree with me here, but I just don’t believe that the government really wants to help me, or any citizens really. They’re people, and as such they have all manner of motivations, chief of which is often money. Public office pays almost nothing—why, then, can an official enter office an ordinary citizen and leave extraordinarily rich? Thus, to some of us, government moves affecting gun control (or any increased control) look like power plays. When we assume that everyone has the chance to be corrupt, and everyone could simply be going for money, then we have to question the media, government, everything.

 

Sorry, “fact” is the wrong word. Coincidence is a better one. Gun death numbers have no bearing on how safe you are walking down a certain street in a certain city. It stand out to me how unsafe cities like Chicago and Portland are compared to large cities in other states with different laws.

[Dan Robinson]

24 minutes ago, Leo Greer said:

Stricter guns laws don’t necessarily make places less or more safe. They make me and my family less safe by removing our ability to defend ourselves

The rest of the world,  except maybe south Africa disagrees with you.😉