Judge wants review of weapons law

[Barry C]

harlequin - 26/5/2005 9:23 PM

Do you still not give a ####?

</p>

I'm not keen on the crude way you phrased that question. But, not being a particularly cynical person, I would not oppose a form of licencing should#it prevail.</p>

[Gold Flinger]

There've been good points raised for both arguments, and though I'm in favour of the status quo, I'd like to raise a point "Devil's Advocate" style.
It used to be law that one needed a licence to own a dog (I bought a black and white dog thinking the licence would be cheaper! ). It wasn't expensive, and it wasn't difficult to obtain - pretty much like a rod licence for anglers.
They abolished it in the late eighties (I think) on the grounds that it was too expensive to administer.
Before the abolition, if there was the slightest suggestion of dogs being abused, it was quite a straight-forward procedure for the RSPCA to terminate the owner's licence and make it a criminal offence for that person to own a dog.
Nowadays, it's far more difficult - and expensive - for the RSPCA to prevent a person owning a dog. Dogs now seem to be the ubiquitous accessory for those who, to put it bluntly, are barely capable of looking after themselves.
Law abiding and responsible dog owners would welcome a licencing system if it helped stamp out abuse.
Our sport differs in that bows aren't abused on a regular basis, but I wouldn't be completely opposed to a scheme where insurance or affiliation to a governing body was compulsory.
My biggest concern would be that such a scheme would be quite indiscriminate in its remit: Kids bows and arrows with suckers on the end would effectively become illegal. And let's face it, these toys are often what give kids the desire to pursue archery in a more serious way.

[Matatazela]

The problem with this scenario is that, all too often, the licensing system is intended to do one thing, but is hijacked by the legislators for political reasons. When expedient, the politicians will use the licensing system to enforce draconian controls over the already controlled, law-abiding archery enthusiast, while effectively excluding the nutter that does not want to get a license and probably acquires his bow through theft. </p>



In the event of the misuse of a bow, the crime should be criminal endangerment, using a deadly weapon or assault with intent to do GBH, rather than owning an unlicensed bow. Trying to control objects is very difficult and costs the Nanny State a not-so-small fortune, while actually creating criminals out of law abiding people that commit an administrative error, such as forgetting to renew his/her permit or license. </p>



I do feel that a system such as NAUI and PADI diving organisations is workable, but this is enforced within#the diving community and you do still get idiots that attempt to go to 80m under and drown. With a bow, it is seldom the archer that endangers him/herself, and herein lies the difference. </p>



If the industry could request a membership card before you buy equipment, then they can effectively say &quot;he isn't one of ours&quot; when someone does something incredibly stupid, and in the event of an accident, the legislative body (GNAS) can either distance themselves from the persons actions or help if the incident was a genuine and unpreventble accident, such as equipment failure.</p>

[Jenny]

Matatazela - 27/5/2005 10:51 AM

If the industry could request a membership card before you buy equipment, then they can effectively say "he isn't one of ours" when someone does something incredibly stupid, and in the event of an accident, the legislative body (GNAS) can either distance themselves from the persons actions or help if the incident was a genuine and unpreventble accident, such as equipment failure.</p>

I know that some has already pointed out that with online shopping it would be impossible to have "controls at point of purchase" but if you have to have a licence (or membership) to buy a bow then you would also have to be registered to sell them. A national register could be set up where everyone is assigned an membership number and this would have to be provided & checked before purchasing online (and cross-checked with delivery address to prevent fraudulent use).

Just a thought...


~Jenny~

[Gold Flinger]

Any measures that involved increased beaurocracy will ultimately need paying for. As end users, we're the ones that will suffer from higher retail prices and increased fees for GNAS etc.
Let's no talk ourselves into unnecessary restrictions!

[Dave]

Jenny - 27/5/2005 11:37 AM

I know that some has already pointed out that with online shopping it would be impossible to have &quot;controls at point of purchase&quot; but if you have to have a licence (or membership) to buy a bow then you would also have to be registered to sell them. A national register could be set up where everyone is assigned an membership number and this would have to be provided &amp; checked before purchasing online (and cross-checked with delivery address to prevent fraudulent use). Just a thought... ~Jenny~

</p>

This would all be fine but:</p>

a) Someone would have to set up a national register and fund it
b) It still won't stop the nutters
c) How would it work in the second hand market?</p>

[English Bowman]

Another thing to consider when talking about restricting the ownership of bows, is that it is not too difficult to make a bow or crossbow from scratch, how do you limit this?
What I would like to see, however, is more responsible selling. I would want e-bay and the like to stop the selling of archery equipment, crossbows and broadheads in particular, and the retailers only selling to club members. I know that this will not stop idiots getting hold of archery kit, but it would make it more difficult, then maybe they'd go for a different weapon.
I am against licensing or registration of bows or crossbows, because it doesn't keep them out of the hands of criminals. The increasing gun crime is proof of this.

Daniel

[Matatazela]

I think this is a great debate!</p>



When one begins to look at arms control, anywhere, anytime, a pattern begins to emerge.</p>



Good, law abiding people lose the right to own a weapon, and crime with illegal weapons against newly disarmed members of the public begins to increase. The number of illegal weapons increases and the ability of the public to defend their prperty and lives decreases. At the same time, police are required to respond to armed criminals. </p>



The bottom line is that gun control does not equal crime control. I am certain that the same will be true for bows.</p>



One thing that the bow has in its favour is that a firearm is far easier to conceal and use than a bow. The number of criminals that use a bow will thus never be huge, but the media attention given to the case will be huge, as in &quot;Man Bites Dog&quot;, sensationalist and out of proportion kind of response. </p>

[Armchair Archer]

At least we all seem to agree on one thing, Licensing won't stop the nutters !!!!!

[Furface]

Hah, it gets worse.
After the plans to ban "hoodies" by a shopping precinct (and, believe it or not, there's a story in today's Times about an ASBO being issued banning some yob from wearing either them or basball caps, so it's catching on), a group of doctors has now asked for a ban on the manufacture and sale of ...... sharp kitchen knives. Apparently, when someone is angry, all they need to do is open the kitchen drawer and find "row upon row of murder weapons". Knives are fine, but they must be blunt. Interestingly, the spokesman for kitchen knife retailers said they were needed, not for cutting things up in the kitchen (for which they are indispensable) but because "people look for the whole 'kitchen' image".
I do hope, if the time comes, our sport can find a better defence for itself than "we like to look cool"!
It is people and their behaviour we need to guard against - not hoodies.