UK ban on 'replica' guns

Swords, Knives, Guns, Lightsabers, etc...
Have a link, need help finding something...post here

Moderators: Zendragon, Fifthrider

Postby Raiderbabe » Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:13 am

JuliaCroft wrote:
knock yourself out.


why would I? :D


lol....you can sign it! because if the law changes here as it has in other countries it will proberly effect others too.,
User avatar
Raiderbabe
Expedition Leader
Expedition Leader
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 7952
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:54 am
Location: Le Serpent Rouge

Postby melloncollie » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:22 am

jutsreading afew airsoft sites now and look like the govt is still puhing ahead with the bill and will be passed in march if they egt enough votes etc.

I have no diea if we'll all ahve to give up our lara guns or what (no idea about 'real' lookign toy guns they migth be ok .. i dunno)

oddly deactivated friearms are not included in the bill (i thought the whole poitn of it was to stop ppl suign 'replicas'/ 'real'lokmign wepaons to ge tup to msicheif surelya dectaivated firearm is more real lookign than plastic airsoft?
User avatar
melloncollie
Myth
Myth
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:52 am
Location: UK

Postby Sir C » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:59 am

Ah, gun control, which in the USA means hitting what you aim at... :wink:

The trouble with gun control is that it doesn't really work. The bad guys will always be able to get their hands on guns whether they're legal or not.

At the pawn shop we sell guns. We have a Federal Firearms Licence to do so. Which means that no bad guy is gonna come to us to buy a gun. When we sell a gun we run a background check, by phone, to the FBI. If the applicant has any record of arrest, court orders, etc, then their application is denied. If the feds want to check further on an applicant they will instruct us to delay the transaction. Or, they will tell us to proceed. If the person buying the gun turns around and gives it to a friend, who cannot legally purchase a gun, and who then uses it in the course of a crime the buyer is also held responsible. Also, in this state, in order to actually "carry" a firearm one must pass qualification and be registered with the State Police. So, there is a mechanism, in place, for dealing with the buying, selling and owning of guns that, for the most part, works for those who want a gun to collect, to hunt or for personal protection.

I don't care if my next door neighbor has a 9mm Glock or an M60 machine gun mounted on the roof of his pickup, as long as he doesn't point them at me...

The UK is still so weird... The wealthy landowners can own all the guns they can buy but the average joe or jill in the street can't even possess a replica? Are they still afraid that the peasants will revolt if they got their hands on firearms?
User avatar
Sir C
Expedition Leader
Expedition Leader
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:47 am
Location: The Phantom Zone

Postby melloncollie » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:51 am

it's typical new labour - ie all shiny 'oh yes lets do something so teh daily mail will like us!' but it doesn't make any sense...(and the aristorcay should be the last people to have guns)

It's bonkers it is illegal and so it should be to wave any kind of gun real or not round in public i dont see what good the new law will do cos afaik it's just stopping ppl buying them and wont make anyone destroy the ones they already have so there will still be all the replcias ppl have anyway.. and seeing as the police shoot ppl carrying a table leg cos they mistook it for a gun we're all doomed anyway. but eh some focus group porbaly wants it.
and you think the govt might want to set a good example by stopping exporting REAL guns and various dubious deadly weapons to dodgy regimes where they are actually used to kill ppl as oppossed to going all out on banning plastic guns.
it's almost as carzy as the drugs laws...
User avatar
melloncollie
Myth
Myth
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:52 am
Location: UK

Postby Kt_Templar » Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:53 pm

Ah, but they did good with the smoking ban. And if we can get rid of Livingstone that would be a very good month in government. ;)

Kt.
"Figuring things out for yourself is practically the only freedom anyone really has nowadays. Use that freedom." Jean Rasczak
Kt_Templar
Archaeologist
Archaeologist
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:53 am
Location: London, UK

Postby melloncollie » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:16 pm

Kt_Templar wrote:Ah, but they did good with the smoking ban. And if we can get rid of Livingstone that would be a very good month in government. ;)

Kt.

aww I like ken!
User avatar
melloncollie
Myth
Myth
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:52 am
Location: UK

Postby Corellia » Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:54 am

Kt_Templar wrote:Ah, but they did good with the smoking ban.


hmpf yeah I wish they'd start getting active on that here in austria too... there's been talks, but nobody seems inclined to actually do something. as usual :?
Corellia
Expedition Leader
Expedition Leader
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5401
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:14 am

Postby Gemma » Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:01 am

Illuminata wrote:
Kt_Templar wrote:Ah, but they did good with the smoking ban.


hmpf yeah I wish they'd start getting active on that here in austria too... there's been talks, but nobody seems inclined to actually do something. as usual :?


The whole ban is a joke, and completely un-enforceable. I don't smoke myself, but I do have to breathe in the fumes that come out the back of cars and, while I have a choice to not go into a pub, I don't have a choice as far as walking down roads! So, I'm unfussed as far as sitting in someone else's smoke goes.

Also, people get away with smoking on buses here (and not just normal ciggies - gawd I hate the smell of pot :x , especially at 7 in the morning! ) and, although there's a maximum £500 fine no one ever receives one. If the bus driver can't/won't do anything in such a contained area there's no chance of enforcing a blanket ban in pubs etc...
My moral standing is lying down
User avatar
Gemma
Historical Legend
Historical Legend
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2536
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Starting to head in the right direction

Postby Corellia » Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:35 am

then the bus drivers or companies should pay peoples lung cancer treatments :? for the least.

okay but we're not going to let this become a smoking or non smoking thread... it's still about guns, so sorry for the off topic intermezzo :lol:
Corellia
Expedition Leader
Expedition Leader
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5401
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:14 am

Postby LLC » Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:26 am

melloncollie wrote:jutsreading afew airsoft sites now and look like the govt is still puhing ahead with the bill and will be passed in march if they egt enough votes etc.

I have no diea if we'll all ahve to give up our lara guns or what (no idea about 'real' lookign toy guns they migth be ok .. i dunno)

oddly deactivated friearms are not included in the bill (i thought the whole poitn of it was to stop ppl suign 'replicas'/ 'real'lokmign wepaons to ge tup to msicheif surelya dectaivated firearm is more real lookign than plastic airsoft?


Seems typical. This as Sir C has mentioned really does not do a lot but make for good looksie feelie for politcal purposes.
A lot of places in the States that went to easily obtainable CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) actually had a big drop in crime rates.

Here is another weird one for you -
In CA it is illegal to import sword canes and throwing knives. However, you can have delivered straight to your door a black powder firearm and a conversion cylinder (no paperwork including federal) to shoot full cartridges.
CA considers throwing knives to be dangerous weapons but not black powder firearms.
Any plan in which you loose your hat is A BAD PLAN!
LLC
Adventurer
Adventurer
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:56 am

Postby Kt_Templar » Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:28 am

Gemma wrote:
Illuminata wrote:
Kt_Templar wrote:Ah, but they did good with the smoking ban.


hmpf yeah I wish they'd start getting active on that here in austria too... there's been talks, but nobody seems inclined to actually do something. as usual :?


The whole ban is a joke, and completely un-enforceable. I don't smoke myself, but I do have to breathe in the fumes that come out the back of cars and, while I have a choice to not go into a pub, I don't have a choice as far as walking down roads! So, I'm unfussed as far as sitting in someone else's smoke goes.

Also, people get away with smoking on buses here (and not just normal ciggies - gawd I hate the smell of pot :x , especially at 7 in the morning! ) and, although there's a maximum £500 fine no one ever receives one. If the bus driver can't/won't do anything in such a contained area there's no chance of enforcing a blanket ban in pubs etc...


We are a generally law abiding country. See the seatbelt ban, and gradually the in car phone ban. You don't often hear of people getting caught doing these things but it's cos they feel so silly. I know of someone fined for using their mobile in the car (Not me!).

I think there will be some resistance at first, smokers can be a petulant lot. I don't care. I has someone very close to me die from lung cancer caused but breathing in their smoke. Courts may make an example of a few high profile people to make the point. But before long I think people will knuckle down.

Yes, pubs will change, and for the better. If you have been to any of the places that have a ban in force eg. California you will be amazed at the difference it makes to an evening out.

The £2,500 fine will sway the landlords.
"Figuring things out for yourself is practically the only freedom anyone really has nowadays. Use that freedom." Jean Rasczak
Kt_Templar
Archaeologist
Archaeologist
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:53 am
Location: London, UK

Postby Sir C » Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:19 pm

LLC is right about California having their own weird and whacky laws and restrictions... The black powder thing seems to be nationwide, though. We are not even required to run a background check on the purchase of a black powder rifle chambered for .50 Caliber but we do have to run one on the purchase of a .22 single shot rifle. And, of course, we can't even SHOW a weapon to anyone under 21 or a handgun to anyone with an out of state driving licence.

As a cigarette smoker of more years than most of you have lived I've always been polite, in public, and not rolled one up unless others were already smoking. Indoor or out. But I don't see why, in a so-called free society, I should give up my right of individuality. If I want to smoke, that's my business. If someone else wants to go a week without bathing or washing their breath that's their business. Until it gets all up in my face.

And as Gemma pointed out, you can walk away from a smoker but unless you're housebound you HAVE to breathe the toxic fumes of our cars and trucks and buses that are as clearly destroying our health and the environment as these cigarettes may be destroying my health (or not?). When do we ban public use of the internal combustion engine? When do we enforce personal hygiene for the public good?

And if we ban smoking altogether how do we make up for the shortfall in the tax revenue that our government takes to pay for all the other "services?" Where do we find the jobs that would be lost in the tobacco industry? And do we really need to hand over another mega-money making opportunity to the wide world of organised crime?
User avatar
Sir C
Expedition Leader
Expedition Leader
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:47 am
Location: The Phantom Zone

Postby Fifthrider » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:11 am

I've been gone from the world of forum posting for too long. The comments above sound pretty conservative. ( No offense ) To me it's always been the lefties trying to stop the sale of guns and banning smoking and the righties promoting them. I'm interested to hear others and their points of view on how they came to their conclusions. ( Not intended to stir up political debate here or push political views, folks. )


So far, the ban on smoking in California HAS afforded us some pretty clean environments. As a non smoker I kind of like it. I don't smell smoke when I go into certain restaurants and businesses and there's no cigarette odor wafting around the air anymore. ...on the other hand, as a person who values liberty I'm concerned to see ANY political regime force smokers to have to lock themselves in their car and obstruct the windows just so they can have a place to smoke. It's like they're being herded off as criminals. I think it went too far. ...and yet reap the benefits of cleaner air and the possibility of not contracting second-hand smoke issues.

As for guns, it's like it says above. In states where CCW permits were issued more freely, crime drops. In places where the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens, crime is lower. Ban guns and the criminals still get guns; it's a documented fact. Evil and malice will rear it's ugly head with or without the presence of a specific weapon in it's society. The illegalization of a particular weapon merely limits the law abiding. Although I haven't run the numbers, something tells me that the non-gun related events of 9/11 caused more deaths than all handgun-related crimes in the last 20 years of this nation.


I guess my underlying point here was, when I rob people at the ATM I use an icepick and get in really close. Stick it into their shirt, near a rib so they can feel it, ya know? ...unless it's Dick Cheney, and then I don't get anywhere near the guy. I don't want to get shot.
User avatar
Fifthrider
Expedition Leader
Expedition Leader
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 9:16 pm
Location: San Diego

Postby melloncollie » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:57 am

I'm eprosnally inf avor of the moking ban. sure i can chose not to go in clubs but wehn 99.99999999999% of these places are smoking i dont have much chocie if i wanna go see a band etc.

of if they dotn ban smkoing they should give out free febreeze to non smokers so our clothes don't stink for years after.

and it'sa fact oflife while yes you should not give gusn to any old loony somehow any old loony will end upw ith one or make some sort of dealdy potion in their basement from perfeclty legal ingredients. or you do nothginw rogn ever and get shot for wearing a backpakc on the tube...
we are in short all doomed.
User avatar
melloncollie
Myth
Myth
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:52 am
Location: UK

Postby Sir C » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:16 pm

Don't be such a pessimist, Chloe. We're not doomed. We just need to find the right balance between responsible, fair government and individual personal freedom.

I believe in government of, by and FOR the people. I have no problem with paying higher taxes if it means that some unwed and abandoned young mother living in a trailer park can pay her bills and keep her kids clothed and fed. I believe that we owe it to our future to give everyone equal opportunity to the best education, the best healthcare, the best housing. We really can't afford to short change those who happen not to have the same chances as others while catering to the greed and lust for power of those who look down their noses at those they exploit.

But a free society is suppossed to be just that; freedom, personal liberty, the right to do as you please as long as no one else gets hurt in the process... Thus, I personally reject the labels of Liberal. I believe in capital punishment, which I think should be immediate (none of this sitting on death row for 30 years BS) but I also think our legal system needs an overhaul to insure that only the guilty are convicted.

I believe in the individual right to bear arms. It is a human instinct to defend oneself and home or to, at least, be prepared to. Guns are like guitars or bikes or cars. Not everyone likes the same model even if it serves the same purpose. However, I don't know if I believe that individuals actually need to own fully automatic weapons, though, unless it's a collectable. An Ingram Mac10 or an Uzi is not a hunting or target gun. Such things are more appropriate to the military. But if someone feels the need to possess one it's OK with me as long as they don't point that thing at me. Personally, I prefer revolvers for personal defense. Like the .38 Smith & Wesson Victory Model 10 from 1943 that I have or the more contemporary .357 Magnum Smith Model 19 that I'm on the verge of buying... You can keep yer Glocks and yer Desert Eagles. At handgun range all you need is six and a pocket full of speed loaders...

Actually, Fifth, I'm not so sure that "In states where CCW permits were issued more freely, crime drops." I had an Indiana carry permit that was as easy to get as a library card (form, fingerprints, $20 and two weeks wait) but I haven't gotten one in Arkansas because the application costs $150 and one is required to attend classes at a liscenced range, which costs another couple of hundred bucks, before the permit is issued. And yet the incidence of gun crime is proportionately higher in Indianapolis than in Little Rock. Which actually surprised me because Arkansas is a state with higher than average poverty. What seems to make the differance is that Indianapolis is a much wealthier city making the disparity between the haves and the have nots that much greater. So, maybe they're just making it easier for the haves to defend themselves...
User avatar
Sir C
Expedition Leader
Expedition Leader
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:47 am
Location: The Phantom Zone

PreviousNext

Return to Prop Weapons

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron