British Law?

No law here denies the right for self-defence. Law just reflects how it is in society these days; banning knives is logical because your changes to get robbed or physically threatened is very low; it rather that the law tries to prevent overreactions which might easily happen when you start to wave around with the knife without knowing what or how to do.

I do not know if these tell you anything but last two cases where knives had been used went like this. Both happened within say last 6 months:
1) A raper attacked 24 yo woman, first breaking her nose and trying to force her into sex. The woman carried a knife, so she took it and put it on the rapers throat, forced him to go down and kept the knife there until police arrived. She surely knew how to use a knife as the raper never got even a tiniest wound. Woman was never charged even she illegally carried a knife; raper went to jail. That is how the law works. Had she stabbed the raper she surely would have been in trouble with the law as well.

2) Few months ago 18 year kid in a school class withdrew his knife and without any warning stabbed to death 18 yo girl that was sitting next to him. Then he escaped, went home, wrote a suicide note where he said that few days earlier he had gotten a note from some unknown schoolmate who had promised to beat him. He was just defending himself. Then he killed himself. No charges raised, of course as there was no-one to charge. Just a self defense of an unstable mind.

salior things like that need to be stopped but he still would have done that even if the law said all lawabiding citizens need leave your knives and other weapons at home. its not the weapons that need control its the people imo 1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Well stated my friend. If only politicians and the vocal minority had as much common sense as you. We might actually find a decent compromise to the whole issue of being armed in public.


Mick

Good list there bro!

Hi, I think we've chewed this bone before, but let me give it another try. Mine in bold...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sailor

No law here denies the right for self-defence. Law just reflects how it is in society these days; banning knives is logical because your changes to get robbed or physically threatened is very low; it rather that the law tries to prevent overreactions which might easily happen when you start to wave around with the knife without knowing what or how to do.

I believe you're from Finland, and I have not been there, but I can assure you that in Germany and the UK, while not explicitly denied, a civilian's right to self-defense is severely limited to using whatever the law there considers to be "reasonable" force. I'm 52 yrs. old. If I'm attacked by 4-6 aggressive young men who show every intention and ability of causing me serious physical harm, then here in Arizona and many other US states, I can use deadly force to defend myself. I do not even have to try and run away - it's called the right to stand your ground - and besides, I have bad knees. In Germany and the UK, attacks of this nature are happening on a weekly basis, with rising tendency. The increase of street violence in parts of Europe is a publically acknowledged and well-documented fact and problem. Nevertheless, if I were in the same situation as above and used deadly force in self defense say on a Berlin subway platform, with a small knife really being the only legal option over there, and I end up killing or severely injuring one or several of the attackers, there's a very good chance that I would be prosecuted on principle alone. If you're interested, PM me, I can provide you with some interesting case histories from the past few years. With that in mind, I do not believe that banning knives and other weapons for law-abiding citizens is logical at all, not even close to logical, but is on the contrary a governmentally authoritarian, ill-conceived, kneejerk reaction to the perceived increase of violence in society - the intent being to disarm criminals, the effect being to disarm those on whom the criminals would prey.

I do agree that training is required to effectively utilize any weapon, however, you as a military professional may have a hard time imagining that civilians can be quite capable of discipline, and are fully able to obtain proper training in the use of knives and other arms (see rule no. 34 above :-)). I have never been in the military or law enforcement, but I've worked private security cases for many years now, and have trained extensively on firearms, edged weapons and unarmed tactics with civilians, military and law enforcement personnel alike. I also provide training to civilian groups, most recently a Church congregation in Colorado. I can assure you that we can be as disciplined and effective as anyone in uniform... in some cases, more so!



I do not know if these tell you anything but last two cases where knives had been used went like this. Both happened within say last 6 months:
1) A raper attacked 24 yo woman, first breaking her nose and trying to force her into sex. The woman carried a knife, so she took it and put it on the rapers throat, forced him to go down and kept the knife there until police arrived. She surely knew how to use a knife as the raper never got even a tiniest wound. Woman was never charged even she illegally carried a knife; raper went to jail. That is how the law works. Had she stabbed the raper she surely would have been in trouble with the law as well.

See, this is what I mean, it's crazy - why should she have been in trouble with the law? THE GUY BROKE HER NOSE, THEN TRIED TO RAPE HER!!! That sounds like quite a hostile individual to me. Who knows what else he could have done... She should have just cut his throat and then called the police.

2) Few months ago 18 year kid in a school class withdrew his knife and without any warning stabbed to death 18 yo girl that was sitting next to him. Then he escaped, went home, wrote a suicide note where he said that few days earlier he had gotten a note from some unknown schoolmate who had promised to beat him. He was just defending himself. Then he killed himself. No charges raised, of course as there was no-one to charge. Just a self defense of an unstable mind.

That's tragic, especially for the poor girl. Personally, I don't believe that banning knives and other weapons is going to prevent guys like this from acting out. They tend to find a way...

---

Anyway, we probably won't ever quite agree on this. In the final analysis, my position is that I will take responsibility for my safety and that of my family, my friends... and if that means disregarding local laws at some point, that's a chance I'm willing to take. Best regards, -o

On the face of it, the list by deerhunter makes some sense. Especially that the root cause of most homicides is not the actual weapon but the person that uses it.
I've been a shooter since the age of six, I used to think that weapon control should only mean hitting what you aim at, but even I am beginning to see that wide ownership of firearms is creating more problems than it solves.
I'm no great lover of statistics, there are lies, damned lies .....etc., but one can see a strong correlation between countries with strict control of weapons and a low homicide rate.
Simply put, countries with the least constraints on weapons ownership appear to have more intentional homicides.
It may be that in countries that don't have a 'weapons culture', people are inherently more civilised.
Until recently, the UK was relatively peaceful and even now, the vast majority of our police officers still carry out their duties unarmed. Every time the Police Federation hold a vote on it, the majority of constables want it to stay like that.
We are gradually importing a culture of violence from outside our shores. Weapons have become more readily available in the UK, especially firearms and now our homicide rate is rising to reflect this.
I hate the thought of censorship, but graphic coverage of violent death, either ficticious or real, is present on every television channel. I'm certain that a lot of it is poisoning the minds of our kids. Despite the denials of those in the media, it could well be part of the problem.

I think a large degree of violent attacks actually go unreported in our countries with strict weapons controls, and by and large those very same countries like to report every single weapon crime commited in countries such as the US with less restrictions.
Several days ago, it was reported here how an 18 year old single mum shot and killed one of two men breaking into her home. She was on the 'phone to emergancy services at the time of the incident, scared to death, and the media here were more focussed on trying (unsucessfully I think) to make out like she was getting away with murder, as no charges were going to be laid on her. Indeed the charge of murder was laid, but it was laid squarely on the surviving house breaker, and rightly so in my opinion.
Just today it was reported how a man in this country has finally, after an entire year, been informed that he won't be formally charged by the police for stabbing a man who broke into his home with intent to do serious harm. I can tell you which sort of laws I would rather have, and it wouldn't have a damn thing to do with the stress of wondering if I am going to end up in jail for protecting myself from a criminal.

It just wouldn't do for people with few rights of self protection to know that the criminals really do have the upper hand.


Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickR

Several days ago, it was reported here how an 18 year old single mum shot and killed one of two men breaking into her home. She was on the 'phone to emergancy services at the time of the incident, scared to death, and the media here were more focussed on trying (unsucessfully I think) to make out like she was getting away with murder, as no charges were going to be laid on her. Indeed the charge of murder was laid, but it was laid squarely on the surviving house breaker, and rightly so in my opinion.

---

I agree, Mick. In most U.S. jurisdictions, in the commission of a felony, anyone involved in that act is responsible and will be charged for any deaths which occur, even if it's at the hands of the victim in the legal act of self defense.

I think this is one of the most enlightened legal theories out there where it comes to crime and punishment.

mick your right on spot there my friend. i say she should be given a pat on the back for protecting her and her kids. I must say even if i knew it was gonna mean me going to prison and being tried as an adult. id still do what was nesary to stop someone if they come in and threaten my little brother and sister and anut adn uncle. In my openion its the right thing to do if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and hes there to harm you. by all means shoot first then worrie about the laws at least the rest of my family would be alive to tell about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welshwizard

On the face of it, the list by deerhunter makes some sense. Especially that the root cause of most homicides is not the actual weapon but the person that uses it.
I've been a shooter since the age of six, I used to think that weapon control should only mean hitting what you aim at, but even I am beginning to see that wide ownership of firearms is creating more problems than it solves.
I'm no great lover of statistics, there are lies, damned lies .....etc., but one can see a strong correlation between countries with strict control of weapons and a low homicide rate.
Simply put, countries with the least constraints on weapons ownership appear to have more intentional homicides.
It may be that in countries that don't have a 'weapons culture', people are inherently more civilised.
Until recently, the UK was relatively peaceful and even now, the vast majority of our police officers still carry out their duties unarmed. Every time the Police Federation hold a vote on it, the majority of constables want it to stay like that.
We are gradually importing a culture of violence from outside our shores. Weapons have become more readily available in the UK, especially firearms and now our homicide rate is rising to reflect this.
I hate the thought of censorship, but graphic coverage of violent death, either ficticious or real, is present on every television channel. I'm certain that a lot of it is poisoning the minds of our kids. Despite the denials of those in the media, it could well be part of the problem.

---

Yep, even as a proponent of gun ownership, I can't argue that. Germany, for example, has a far lower murder rate per capita than the US, as does Canada (even though people do own a fair amount of rifles there, handguns are rare). I do think it's connected to the generally more civilised culture in those countries, but note that also, the level of day to day street violence, fights and assaults, has been increasing for some time now, as have firearm related incidents involving criminals. The UK has always had a low rate of gun homicide, but it's my understanding that other homicides, e.g. stabbings, have actually increased since the various additional edged weapon and firearms bans put into effect there over the last few years...

On the other hand, a country such as South Africa has fairly strict firearms control and one of the highest murder rates in the world, I believe higher than the US. In spite of the laws there, illegal weapons are readily available on the street, and the criminal element seems to be quite violent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickR

I think a large degree of violent attacks actually go unreported in our countries with strict weapons controls, and by and large those very same countries like to report every single weapon crime commited in countries such as the US with less restrictions.
Several days ago, it was reported here how an 18 year old single mum shot and killed one of two men breaking into her home. She was on the 'phone to emergancy services at the time of the incident, scared to death, and the media here were more focussed on trying (unsucessfully I think) to make out like she was getting away with murder, as no charges were going to be laid on her. Indeed the charge of murder was laid, but it was laid squarely on the surviving house breaker, and rightly so in my opinion.
Just today it was reported how a man in this country has finally, after an entire year, been informed that he won't be formally charged by the police for stabbing a man who broke into his home with intent to do serious harm. I can tell you which sort of laws I would rather have, and it wouldn't have a damn thing to do with the stress of wondering if I am going to end up in jail for protecting myself from a criminal.

It just wouldn't do for people with few rights of self protection to know that the criminals really do have the upper hand.


Mick

---

I read that story, here in the US of course, and in a German online paper. The Germans (Der Spiegel) started off on their usual "ach, zees crazy Amerikaners" slant, but as the details emerged, they were not able to introduce enough criticism into it, and yanked the story after only one day! It seemed as though they were loath to report an incident in which the use of deadly force was entirely justified, and probably saved her life and that of her children.

This incident occurred in a trailer park, and the young woman's husband had recently died. The day after his death, some crazy meth-head who also lived in the park tried to get a "date" with her, but she turned him away. On the evening of her husband's funeral, he tried again, she told him to leave and he started trying to force entry into her trailer. She got on the phone with emergency services, it took them 20 mins. to get a cop out there, meanwhile the guy is getting madder and madder, finally breaks down the door and advances on her with a hunting knife in hand. She blasts him with the shotgun, he's dead. This all going on while she's on the phone with the emergency dispatcher. The "sensational" part of the story was that at some point she asked the dispatcher what she should do, and the dispatcher told her to do whatever is necessary to protect her herself and the kids... Good job all around if you ask me!

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but given the history of Europe back to the turn of the last century, I question why some are calling Europe more civilized than the U.S. An armed and critical populace makes it more difficult for despots to take power and kill en mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markdfhr

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but given the history of Europe back to the turn of the last century, I question why some are calling Europe more civilized than the U.S. An armed and critical populace makes it more difficult for despots to take power and kill en mass.

---

You surely missed my parade, but that is a good question. I do not know if there could be one and only answer.
It is surely true that in Europe we have very bloody history. We've had maybe hundreds of civil wars and conflicts between ethnic groups. The civil war in my country was relatively more bloodier than yours. Like it was in many different conflicts in our continent. Then we had two major campaigns as well although you were there too.
What makes it special that most 'major' violence has always happened between one ore more organized groups trying to get rid of one or more on the other side, be it civil wars, ethnic cleanings or world war. There have been reasons or not for these conflicts, but when the time has come to take your gun and start shooting those on the other side, we have been really good in it.
When the conflicts have ended, such organized violence has ended also. In some countries more than others, but relatively in times of peace, in everyday life, people really do not need to walk around armed, just to defend themselves. Would be naive to say that crimes do not happen, but until these days it has been really rare to get robbed by someone using gun. Times are getting worse, but until these days even bad guys do not use or threaten with guns. Guns and weapons are for hunting and war; not to attack or defense against any human being. Even many cops here do not carry guns and it is illegal for even a cop to carry knife or gun when off duty. Even in Switzerland, where people have attack rifles in their home, they do not walk around armed. Also using gun against robbery is almost unknown, as people know those robbers are not armed either. And maybe it is the same here.
Of course this wasn't the answer to your question if we are more or less civilized than you and such question could never be answered. Maybe it is just attitude that in society no people should be afraid for they life. Until these days even those 'bad guys' have respected this too. We have no better or worse than you there, just different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markdfhr

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but given the history of Europe back to the turn of the last century, I question why some are calling Europe more civilized than the U.S. An armed and critical populace makes it more difficult for despots to take power and kill en mass.

---

I think Sailor above explains it pretty well. Europe does have an extremely violent history in terms of organized conflict (wars), and interpersonal combat (in France, Spain, Germany, it was pretty easy to get into duels well into the 20th C - Germany did not officially outlaw duels until 1917!!

However, between WW I, the Weimar Republic, the Spanish Wars, the Nazi-terror, WW II, The Cold War, left-wing terrorism, and ever-increasing weapons bans, I think we've seen the advent of a more pacifistic society, at least in theory, in which law-abiding citizens are generally more adverse to violence, especially armed violence, than here in the US, where most of my neighbors, good people, would not think twice about shooting an intruder in their home or going to the grocery store with a gun in their pocket. Whether the development in Europe is a good thing or not remains to be seen, but like Sailor says, it's definitely a very different attitude. I kind of like the Swiss model, where almost every citizen has a rifle in their home, and is ready to defend their country's independence - truly a well-regulated militia!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HamburgO

On the other hand, a country such as South Africa has fairly strict firearms control and one of the highest murder rates in the world, I believe higher than the US. In spite of the laws there, illegal weapons are readily available on the street, and the criminal element seems to be quite violent.

---

I think it would be safe to say that a country like South Africa (and quite a few others on that continent) is really just a place where power mongering is the be all and end all. The only interest there is getting more drugs, money, guns or any and all of those things to get more of those things. Maybe not fair to use as an example with the US where a relatively minor amount of people have that same focus...And usually the ones creating the crime in the first place :)...


Mick

The problem with making it hard for regular law abiding joes to get and legally defending themselves with firearms and knives is that no matter where they are it will be fairly easy for bad people to illegal weapons. For example, I live in the Midwest and even though I can go die for people rights, gain elected office, and am legally an adult at 19 I cannot but a handgun. But even being from a town of 30,000 I can go down the street and buy a black-market illegal glock for $300. All this literally 30 minutes away for the state capital, which happens to be the 3rd most violent city in America. Just my.02

Slightly off topic, with regard to the illegality of weapons.
I own a number of Co2 powered rifles, most are heavily modified for hunting rabbit for which they are ideal being silent and recoil less, the only thing you hear when I fire my rifles is a muted click of the hammer hitting the valve, a very quiet phutt, (thanks to the silencer) and the crack of the pellet hitting it's target, I do all the mods myself and own a chronograph to read the muzzle energy so that I ensure my rifles do not exceed the 12Ft Lb legal limit, which is handy because after working on one rifle it was producing 21Ft Lbs, using .22 14.5 grain pellets, no big deal you might think, it's only an air rifle of sorts, if I had left the rifle in that condition and was caught by the police with it anywhere including my home the minimum sentence that a magistrate can pass under the law is five years, as it would be regarded as a firearm.
It's a ridiculous situation but that's England for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HamburgO

I think Sailor above explains it pretty well. Europe does have an extremely violent history in terms of organized conflict (wars), and interpersonal combat (in France, Spain, Germany, it was pretty easy to get into duels well into the 20th C - Germany did not officially outlaw duels until 1917!!

However, between WW I, the Weimar Republic, the Spanish Wars, the Nazi-terror, WW II, The Cold War, left-wing terrorism, and ever-increasing weapons bans, I think we've seen the advent of a more pacifistic society, at least in theory, in which law-abiding citizens are generally more adverse to violence, especially armed violence, than here in the US, where most of my neighbors, good people, would not think twice about shooting an intruder in their home or going to the grocery store with a gun in their pocket. Whether the development in Europe is a good thing or not remains to be seen, but like Sailor says, it's definitely a very different attitude. I kind of like the Swiss model, where almost every citizen has a rifle in their home, and is ready to defend their country's independence - truly a well-regulated militia!

---

As you say, I think a lot of it has to do with history and perspective. It could certainly be argued that the tyranny and violence that is so much a part of European history may have been the direct result of the ruling class ensuring that the masses were defenseless and powerless (even if at times not all that compliant.) This certainly worked out in favor of the ruling class. Like the saying goes, in the land of the blind the man with one good eye is king. This was the exact environment that the founders of my country were willing to risk their lives to escape. Their new country began with the radical, and heretofore almost offensive notion that decent law abiding people should be free to manage their own affairs and live their lives with little or no government interference. More radical still was a commonly held notion amongst the founding fathers that an armed populace would foster an environment where the government feared (or at least would retain a healthy respect for) its citizens. Of course, the exact opposite was the reality in Europe at the time. Tyranical leaders ran rough shod over the common people who could offer little to no resistance. In lots of ways an armed citizenry was just another one of many checks and balances built into our system to ensure that the tryranny these people sought to escape would not simply re-invent itself in the new world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devilpup

The problem with making it hard for regular law abiding joes to get and legally defending themselves with firearms and knives is that no matter where they are it will be fairly easy for bad people to illegal weapons. For example, I live in the Midwest and even though I can go die for people rights, gain elected office, and am legally an adult at 19 I cannot but a handgun. But even being from a town of 30,000 I can go down the street and buy a black-market illegal glock for $300. All this literally 30 minutes away for the state capital, which happens to be the 3rd most violent city in America. Just my.02

---

You have my sympathies. Your state's policies in that regard are among the most extreme in the nation, on a par with NY (City, even though the state may issues permits, NYC categorically denies the right to carry, except to LEO, etc.), and DC (which wanted to ban firearms sales entirely, but that was defeated in court last year). Like you say, picking up an illegal weapon is a piece of cake in any of those jurisdictions, but penalties for being caught are stiff: A former US Marine is currently on trial in NYC because he didn't check the gun laws well enough and carried his firearm, legally purchased in his home state, to NY. He got busted when he tried to voluntarily check it in with Empire State Building security. There's a chance that he actually might receive the mandatory sentence: Three and a half years jailtime!

It never ceases to amuse me how these restrictive laws are being propagated and enforced by fat-cat politicos such as Bloomberg and Daley, who of course have armed security up the wazoo for themselves and their families - but of course, they're simply a better class of people ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osdset

Slightly off topic, with regard to the illegality of weapons.
I own a number of Co2 powered rifles, most are heavily modified for hunting rabbit for which they are ideal being silent and recoil less, the only thing you hear when I fire my rifles is a muted click of the hammer hitting the valve, a very quiet phutt, (thanks to the silencer) and the crack of the pellet hitting it's target, I do all the mods myself and own a chronograph to read the muzzle energy so that I ensure my rifles do not exceed the 12Ft Lb legal limit, which is handy because after working on one rifle it was producing 21Ft Lbs, using .22 14.5 grain pellets, no big deal you might think, it's only an air rifle of sorts, if I had left the rifle in that condition and was caught by the police with it anywhere including my home the minimum sentence that a magistrate can pass under the law is five years, as it would be regarded as a firearm.
It's a ridiculous situation but that's England for you!

---

Wow! 21 ft. lbs. is considered excessive? What's the reasoning behind that? I don't believe that would make it a lethal weapon to anything much larger than a rabbit. A "real" .22 LR 38grain bullet at 1260 ft/s produces 134 ft.lbs., and would at best be considered marginally effective as an anti-personnel round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HamburgO

Wow! 21 ft. lbs. is considered excessive? What's the reasoning behind that? I don't believe that would make it a lethal weapon to anything much larger than a rabbit. A "real" .22 LR 38grain bullet at 1260 ft/s produces 134 ft.lbs., and would at best be considered marginally effective as an anti-personnel round.

---

Yes, anything over 12ft lbs for a rifle and 6ft lbs for a pistol, in fact most rifles are tuned to around the 11ft lbs mark to be on the safe side. I was arrested once returning from night shooting rabbit, the police saw a gun slip on the rear parcel shelf of my car, pulled me over and requested that I show them what was inside, I had a bolt action PCP (pre charged pneumatic) rifle with a large 4-16x44 scope plus a hefty silencer fitted, one of the officers went ape because he was convinced it was a cartridge rifle, it eventually got sorted when the desk sergeant at the station recognised it for what it was. They still sent it off to be tested though, this is the procedure they use.

Air weapons seized by the Police are checked for safety, (unloaded) and submitted for testing by a Home office approved and trained firearms officer. The first stage is an examination of the gun, recorded is its calibre, any serial number the make or manufacturer and the overall condition.

The tester has to in the first instance be able to successfully load and fire the weapon . He will for instance attempt to clear a blocked barrel, but his interventions are limited.

He is in possession of a variety of magazines and fill probes to cover PCP,s he also has at his disposal Co2 capsules and a wide range of pellets.

He also has available a calibrated Skan Mark 9 chronograph hard wired to a PC. He also uses a calibrated weighing scale. Both of these devices receive regular calibration tests.

The test shots are fired at a distance of one metre from the Skan chronograph.

The pellets he uses are normally of a good quality brand, although the brand is not identified in his report.

He then proceeds to weigh five of each different brand of pellet, pre selected for their known propensity to be either light weight, medium weight or heavy weight.

The ambient temperature of the test site is recorded

The gun is loaded and each of the string of five shots is fired through the chronograph, ( this part of the test is not recorded) although the velocity appears on the screen of the PC. He then identifies which string of shots gives the most consistently high power.

( It should be mentioned here that light weight pellets are more prone to being over the limit in a spring gun, whilst a PCP generally produces higher readings with heavy weight pellets).The tester is obviously familiar with the power out put of various types of air weapons with regard to their construction & operational capacities.

Once he has established the highest output, he will then select ten pellets from that particular brand that gave high readings & proceed to record the velocity of each shot. Obviously what he is looking for are the shots that exceed the set limit, 12ft lbs for a rifle, 6ft lbs for a pistol.

He has discretion, but not much, if three or more shots in the fired string of ten shots exceeds the limit, his report will indicate a S1 firearm. Under 3 shots over the limit, he will mention this in his report, but not indicate that it falls into the firearms category.

Strict or what!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osdset

Strict or what!

---

No kidding, quite a procedure! As most things bureaucratic, makes little sense to me, especially since a decent slingshot can produce in excess of 20 ft./lbs. of energy. Are those also illegal in GB?

We can buy and use slingshot's (catapult's to us), bows, and crossbows without licence. It's always seemed strange to me that I can buy a compound archery bow that is potentially lethal, and is totally unregulated as far as power is concerned and the law does not bat an eyelid, but woe betide me if my rifle is over the legal limit. The law's an Ass.

Need a licence here in Australia for air rifles and cross bows as well. Sling shots are illegal in all but three Australian states (afaik) and silencers of any kind for air rifles or otherwise will send you straight to jail.


Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickR

Need a licence here in Australia for air rifles and cross bows as well. Sling shots are illegal in all but three Australian states (afaik) and silencers of any kind for air rifles or otherwise will send you straight to jail.


Mick

---

I don't understand this silencer thing, I can understand to a degree governments applying draconian laws with regard to cartridge weapons, but air rifles? Maybe it's because they begin to look too much like 'real' rifles or more likely that some air rifle silencers can be used with .22 cartridge rifles.
IMHO silencers are a bit of a 'must have' in a fashion accessory kind of way for some owners, most spring air rifles rifles will be mechanically noisy anyway, so a silencer is of limited use. PCP rifles just need the high pressure air blast from the muzzle suppressed, Co2 rifles sound like cannons, way too loud, they really need a silencer for hunting at any rate. No one needs one for target shooting outside.
I make my own silencers, I like trying out different designs, I enjoy the engineering aspect of it all, and getting a silencer to sound like a mouse fart is highly satisfactory!

Non lethal air weapons, well I just found this.

The ShinSung Dragon Slayer

The first Korean big bore gun I used in the field was the Dragonslayer, a .50 caliber production air rifle manufactured by Shin Sung. This rifle has evolved from the company’s Dragon model, based on input and direction from their US distributors. The Dragonslayer is a fairly large gun weighing in at 8.8 lbs, 40.3 inches in over all length with a 20.6 inch barrel. The barrels on the Korean guns warrant mention, they are very well made and inherently accurate, as a matter of fact they are OEM’d to some of the premium airgun manufacturers in Europe. This rifle has a single air reservoir (unlike the Dragons twin tube reservoir) that fills to 3000 psi and yields up to 10 full power shots per charge. A handy feature is the built-in pressure gauge which allows one to monitor the drop in air pressure as you shoot. I like this feature a lot, as sometimes during a day of hunting it is easy to loose count of how many shots have been taken, and an on-board gauge give you advance notice to refill. The trigger is a two stage adjustable and has a good tactile response, though the trigger blade is a bit too short for my taste. This does not adversely affect the shootability of the gun and the pull is light and crisp. The side-lever cocking mechanism, which also opens the loading port is ergonomic and is fast and easy to bring into action under field conditions. The Dragonslayer is not as powerful as some of the custom guns, however I’ve taken feral hogs inside of 50 yards, and smaller antelope in Africa at 70 yards. I have also used it to take jackrabbits at long distances (out to 100 yards), and coyote, raccoons and other hard to kill quarry at 60 – 70 yards. The Dragonslayer is on the light side for large feral hogs, but for service as an all around 60-70 yard predator rifle, I would recommend it without reservation.

On this site Big Bore Airguns- The Korean Connection - AirgunDepot.com

I can just imagine what the Home Office would make of that one:dropjaw:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osdset

I don't understand this silencer thing, I can understand to a degree governments applying draconian laws with regard to cartridge weapons, but air rifles? Maybe it's because they begin to look too much like 'real' rifles or more likely that some air rifle silencers can be used with .22 cartridge rifles.
IMHO silencers are a bit of a 'must have' in a fashion accessory kind of way for some owners, most spring air rifles rifles will be mechanically noisy anyway, so a silencer is of limited use. PCP rifles just need the high pressure air blast from the muzzle suppressed, Co2 rifles sound like cannons, way too loud, they really need a silencer for hunting at any rate. No one needs one for target shooting outside.
I make my own silencers, I like trying out different designs, I enjoy the engineering aspect of it all, and getting a silencer to sound like a mouse fart is highly satisfactory!

---

I own a suppressor for my 9mm - even here in the US, we have to go through a Federal permit process with the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) and pay a $200 tax. Silencers/suppressors, as well as short-barreled (<16" barrel, <26" overall) rifles/shotguns, and automatic weapons fall under the National Firearms Act. This was instituted in the 1930's after the prohibition era gangland massacres, during which the bad guys were all using these nasty weapons and accessories. The idea was that a $200 tax (equivalent to $2,800 today) would help to keep some of these arms off the street. The funny thing is that the tax amount has not changed since the '30s! Not a big deal to do, just takes a long time, from 4-8 mths.

I like using it to target shoot outdoors, but also keep it on my nightstand pistol. If I ever have to fire it in the house, at least it'll be quiet ;-), and also does a good job of suppressing muzzle flash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osdset

Non lethal air weapons, well I just found this.

The ShinSung Dragon Slayer

The first Korean big bore gun I used in the field was the Dragonslayer, a .50 caliber production air rifle manufactured by Shin Sung. This rifle has evolved from the company’s Dragon model, based on input and direction from their US distributors. The Dragonslayer is a fairly large gun weighing in at 8.8 lbs, 40.3 inches in over all length with a 20.6 inch barrel. The barrels on the Korean guns warrant mention, they are very well made and inherently accurate, as a matter of fact they are OEM’d to some of the premium airgun manufacturers in Europe. This rifle has a single air reservoir (unlike the Dragons twin tube reservoir) that fills to 3000 psi and yields up to 10 full power shots per charge. A handy feature is the built-in pressure gauge which allows one to monitor the drop in air pressure as you shoot. I like this feature a lot, as sometimes during a day of hunting it is easy to loose count of how many shots have been taken, and an on-board gauge give you advance notice to refill. The trigger is a two stage adjustable and has a good tactile response, though the trigger blade is a bit too short for my taste. This does not adversely affect the shootability of the gun and the pull is light and crisp. The side-lever cocking mechanism, which also opens the loading port is ergonomic and is fast and easy to bring into action under field conditions. The Dragonslayer is not as powerful as some of the custom guns, however I’ve taken feral hogs inside of 50 yards, and smaller antelope in Africa at 70 yards. I have also used it to take jackrabbits at long distances (out to 100 yards), and coyote, raccoons and other hard to kill quarry at 60 – 70 yards. The Dragonslayer is on the light side for large feral hogs, but for service as an all around 60-70 yard predator rifle, I would recommend it without reservation.

On this site Big Bore Airguns- The Korean Connection - AirgunDepot.com

I can just imagine what the Home Office would make of that one:dropjaw:

---

Thanks! I had no idea they made air rifles as powerful as this. I'll be working in Germany later this year, and it looks as though they're perfectly legal there. The rifles require a not hard to get permit, and the pistols are freely available to anyone over 18. These pistols are firing 4.5 mm pellets at 580 fps - quite impressive, and I would hate to get hit in the face by one: DIANA Mayer & Grammelspacher GmbH & Co.KG -LP8 MAGNUM SILVER

Air guns of that power (roughly) and calibres were made even around 200 years ago if I remember correctly.


Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickR

Air guns of that power (roughly) and calibres were made even around 200 years ago if I remember correctly.


Mick

---

The Lewis and Clark expedition carried an air rifle that was powerful enough to kill deer.
It had an air reservoir in the buttstock and a detachable barrel. The barrel was removed, and there was a pump that would insert into the buttstock. The other end of the pump was threaded to screw into a tree. The rifleman would rock back and forth against the tree to charge the rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

The Lewis and Clark expedition carried an air rifle that was powerful enough to kill deer.
It had an air reservoir in the buttstock and a detachable barrel. The barrel was removed, and there was a pump that would insert into the buttstock. The other end of the pump was threaded to screw into a tree. The rifleman would rock back and forth against the tree to charge the rifle.

---

I think I have seen an old drawing of that rifle somewhere, do you know if it was one shot per charge?

It is believed to have been able to fire multiple shots per charge, as evidenced by this journal entry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by (Smith and Swick, 1997) of a little known travel diary journal of a Thomas Rodney, who was a day visitor to Captain Meriwether Lewis while he was traveling down the Ohio River at Wheeling, Ohio in September of 1803, contains a tiny passage which has caused new thinking about the Lewis airgun. The passage reads

Visited Captain Lewess barge. He shewed us his air gun which fired 22 times at one charge. He shewed us the mode of charging her and then loaded with 12 balls which he intended to fire one at a time; but she by some means lost the whole charge of air at the first fire. He charged her again and then she fired twice. He then found the cause and in some measure prevented the airs escaping, and then she fired seven times; but when in perfect order she fires 22 times in a minute. All the balls are put at once into a short side barrel and are then droped into the chamber of the gun one at a time by moving a spring; and when the triger is pulled just so much air escapes out of the air bag which forms the britch of the gun as serves for one ball. It is a curious peice of workmanship not easily discribed and therefore I omit attempting it.”

---

from: New Page 1


In the late 90's I worked for a drafting and design firm and was involved with creating digital renderings of parts of the gun which were lost to history. At that time the rifle was believed to have been a single shot, and made by a gunmaker named Isaiah Lukens. Now it is not certain if Lewis carried a Lukens rifle. The journal entry above suggests it may have been something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

The Lewis and Clark expedition carried an air rifle that was powerful enough to kill deer.
It had an air reservoir in the buttstock and a detachable barrel. The barrel was removed, and there was a pump that would insert into the buttstock. The other end of the pump was threaded to screw into a tree. The rifleman would rock back and forth against the tree to charge the rifle.

---

Thanks mate, I knew I had heard about air guns from times past. That's the exact story I had read, it included diagrams. Now I just wish I could remember where I read it. More than likely from one of the many Australian Shooter mags I have scattered around the joint.


Mick

I'm pretty sure this one was the one used by Lewis,

Girandoni Air Rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a video. It's long winded and short on info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI

Not clear if this is the actual rifle or not.

Yep, ZZZZZ