Is it just me, or is the whole fuss about airguns completely overblown? Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s awful that this little boy was shot and killed with an air rifle. But does that really justify the time and money that would be spent trying to ban something that, in the big scale of things, isn’t that dangerous? I live in the country that has the worst knife-crime record in Europe, the worst record of heart disease in Europe; people binge-drink and smoke themselves into early graves, children get obese through eating too much fatty food and lose their teeth from drinking too many sugary drinks – airguns are the least of our worries.
We have become a knee-jerk society that cries loudly for short-sighted legislation based on unique circumstances, while turning a blind eye to the long-term issues that will kill a huge percentage of our children.
mrBen
Well, yes. Certainly in Scotland they should be focusing much more on the banning of knives than airguns. Having said that, I’d still quite like to see them banned, since they serve no real purpose, but there are more important matters to see to first.
Noelhinho: Lots of things serve no real purpose, but are interesting to a minority. It’s called hobbies. My boss has a collection of airguns. He never uses them, but appreciates the craftsmanship behind them, the detail in their workings, the complexity of taking them apart for servicing, and so on. Would you still recommend banning them to him? I mean, if we’re going to ban things that serve no real purpose, then maybe we should ban my collection of paraffin railway lamps as well.
Maybe if people came out with more sensible suggestions, like the licensing of dangerous items, then I would listen, but yet again it’s the kneejerk reaction that mrben talks about that springs into play.
Noelinho: Airguns do not “serve no real purpose”. They are a source of harmless fun to thousands of people across the UK, often combined with serious physical exercise.
Banning things even if they do “serve no real purpose” is a stupid idea anyway, particularly because it’s very subjective, as you’ve just demonstrated. If something isn’t doing significant harm, and airguns aren’t no matter what the media say, then banning them is irresponsible.
Question is, how many people use airguns responsibly? Most people I know that owned airguns would tell “amusing” stories of how they’d shoot birds, rabbits or cats. Because airguns aren’t seen as lethal, adults aren’t too bothered about keeping them secure. Licencing them seems like a good idea.
I was always bothered about the pawn shop a few doors down from me that had airguns, crossbows and various melee weapons in the window. Was the owner making sure he was selling them to people who would only use them on non-living targets?
I think we need tougher laws on Airguns, better controls on who have access to them, at the end of the day, a baby is still dead after some idiot had the stupid notion of shooting it young Andrew Morton. Neds and idiots use them to shoot at animals, some hobby that is.
Kyle, why can’t your boss just buy replicas to satisfy his need for how guns work.
I am not proposing a ban, but more control is needed. I would like to see how people would feel about airguns if the were in Andrew’s parents postion, or if they or someone they care about lost and eye as a result of some idiot “mucking about”.
You want to shoot guns? Show that you are responsible and then join a gun club.
GI
In Saturdays Daily Record (glasgow) there was a story about a man who randomly opened fire with an air gun and hit two women (and a car and someones window – not perhaps as random as all that then).
I think it is entirely appropriate that there should be tighter controls on airguns. I would well have randomly shot people if I had access to one when I was younger. (Have fortunately got past this desire to be a sniper).
As for it being a hobby… well if my neighbour told me that my guitar playing was injurious I would have a hard time accepting that.
On a slightly different note, the Record also reported on Saturday that an Australian man, Shane Willmott, is teaching three mice how to surf on their own little surf-boards. How good is that?!
The problem here is one of utility… One of the biggest killers in many nations is the car. Very little is done to curb car use because of the economic impact that will have. What you get instead is awareness compaigns about the risks involved which I’m sure do some good or they wouldn’t exist – or perhaps they exist, as a lot of law does, to appease a disgruntled mass looking for “answers” (quick, easy answers with little thought or logic involved are often the most popular).
My own feeling on the banning of this or that is that a society should be as permissive, as free, as is sustainable. The heavy hand has existed for a long time but it offers only revenge for victims rather than any sort of protection for us all. There’s more focus on punishment than prevention.
I have a conflict here when it comes to arms… There’s only one intent behind a gun – to emit a projectile as fast as possible into flesh or a target representing flesh. The thing is, I have a certain respect for those who promote responsible gun use. I know no amount of wishing will make the implement cease to exist so those who educate on the topic of firearms are the next best thing.
This leads me onto the larger issue of the nature of personal responsibility in a society where law is the arbiter of morality. The problem isn’t knives or guns or any other weapon – it’s people. “Duh” I hear you say. Are we fighting the wrong battles? I say we stop talking about fighting and start talking about how everything we do has a consequence and we must take responsibility for these consequences. Sounds obvious? Well, I didn’t learn it in school… I had to read all sorts of literature for years to realise it, but I might be a bit slow that way. I didn’t feel personally responsible for my actions until a surprisingly late age – my primary concern was the law/getting caught.
Why is this? Well, when I grew up the law was something to fear. It was omnipresent and could take your life away if you crossed it – scary stuff. I never learned about how my actions influenced my environment and those who live in it – it wasn’t on the curriculum. If it was I might have realised how futile the law is a lot sooner. As I say, it offers revenge for the victim but does little to actually protect you from threats. If people knew more about the nature of action/reaction they might take better care of their communities and the people around them.
Just a side note… My education also involved the cultivation of an aggressive instinct. Combine this with a morality which simply involved not getting caught and you might start to understand vhy there are so many little thugs running about the place!
Also, sorry if this sounds like rambling… it is Friday night
I think that is a very helpful reply.
I was like that when I was smaller – into all sorts of random cruelty and vandalism.
Partly I’m not like that so much any more because I’m less energetic.
But mostly, I think, it is a sense of responsibility.
There is so much to say about this – but it is Satuday night and I’m not convinced I’d make much sense
i am trying to get in touch with Shane Willmott and his amazing surfing mice. i was wondering if you would be able to help?
thanks
siobhan flannery
Dear Siobhan,
Here’s some help, you can talk to me directly with your enquires about my surfing mice.Reply to my mates email at: clanmcburney@hotmail.com. and ill get back to u.
Shane