• Welcome to The Bushcraft Forum

    You are currently viewing the site as a guest and some content may not be available to you.

    Registration is quick and easy and will give you full access to the site and allow you to ask questions or make comments and join in on the conversation. If you would like to join then please Register

did not know there was a difference

Medwayman

Medwayman

Quite Addicted
Messages
923
Points
1,190
Age
48
rtl247.uk

Pensioner who killed great-grandson, 6, with air rifle is jailed for 3 years

.
rtl247.uk

Feel the family of course but i was wondering about the rifle itself then i read this:-

ScreenShot_20190702150459.png


I assume that its power is longer relevant, just owing one is now enough for a criminal charge?
 
The other thing many are unaware of is that in England and Wales (and previously Scotland) legally speaking an air weapon is still technically a firearm the moment an offence is committed and attracts firearms offence punishments by default.

38
 
True, anything over one Joule is classed as a firearm and is subject to legislation, it also makes it so that previous medical conditions or criminal convictions can prevent someone owning an air rifle in Scotland.
Harsh but it will at least mean that it raises the bar as far as standards of marksmanship and responsible ownership are concerned. After hearing of the manslaughter conviction yesterday of a 76 year old man, for shooting and killing his six year old great grandson, I can sometimes see the point of controlling airguns.
Edit; on checking I've got mixed up, 1 joule is what the home office consider to be the threshold for what is lethal, however since the home office definition of a firearm is "a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which a bullet, shot or other missile can be discharged" logically it would seem that air-soft are indeed firearms. However the threshold for what is considered lethal is 1 f/lb or 1.36 Joules.
 
Last edited:
Ystranc said:
After hearing of the manslaughter conviction yesterday of a 76 year old man, for shooting and killing his six year old great grandson, I can sometimes see the point of controlling airguns.
Click to expand...
Accidents happen, we seem to have forgotten this as a society. You'd be better banning cars and deep fat fryers, you'd save more lives.
 
Ystranc said:
True, anything over one Joule is classed as a firearm and is subject to legislation, it also makes it so that previous medical conditions or criminal convictions can prevent someone owning an air rifle in Scotland.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about this? Our airsoft weapons are allowed without legislation up to 1.2 joules limit in the UK. You can buy a two-tone one (Imitation Firearm) as long as you're over 18 but to buy a non-two-tone you need to be registered with UKARA as a 'skirmisher'.
 
G1ZmO said:
Are you sure about this? Our airsoft weapons are allowed without legislation up to 1.2 joules limit in the UK. You can buy a two-tone one (Imitation Firearm) as long as you're over 18 but to buy a non-two-tone you need to be registered with UKARA as a 'skirmisher'.
Click to expand...
I would refer you to chapter 2.4 of the home office guidelines on firearms licensing. That is where I got the figure of 1 joule. I was incorrect in describing it as the threshold for legislation, it is described as the minimum threshold for being lethal.
 
Last edited:
Airsoft and Air rifle i think a big difference

Airsoft in France little yellow balls for paper targets 2.8j in France , would probably bounce of a tin can , my rifle at 19.9 j capable of a lot lot more damage regardless of pellet used
 
An air weapon is a firearm but one that does not require a FAC however it is still a firearm in the eyes of the law if an offence is committed. Airsoft maybe the same in terms of status but would almost certainly be treated as a firearm if used to rob a bank.

38
 
Bam said:
Accidents happen, we seem to have forgotten this as a society. You'd be better banning cars and deep fat fryers, you'd save more lives.
Click to expand...
I would have agreed with you if what happened to the child could truely be considered accidental but if you check into the details of the case then you'll find that the old boy was negligent in the extreme and stupid to the point of being an imbecile. While alone in the kitchen with the boy he discharged a modified air rifle at the child to check if it was loaded, then lied to police claiming it was a ricochet (as if that would be any better) this was subsequently disproved by forensics ..after it took the kid two hours to die.
 
I do appreciate that there's a vast difference between an airsoft rifle firing a plastic pellet and an air-rifle firing a lead one.
I'd think a plastic BB with 1 joule of energy would make a mess of an eyeball but would be very limited in lethality.
I'm not contradicting you @Ystranc, I just found it an interesting fact.
 
I was being a little inaccurate Gizmo but when you read between the lines of the home office guidelines if one Joule is their threshold for lethality then those firearms producing between 1 and 16.27 Joules (0.74 f/lbs and 12 f/lbs) are subject to the new Scottish legislation unless they've been specifically exempt. Air soft guns over 1 Joule that are capable of fully automatic fire would actually be prohibited weapons throughout the UK as per section 2.4 and 2.5 of the home office guidelines to police officers responsible for firearm licensing. However the following section (2.6) contradicts this by stating that fully automatic air soft guns up to 1.3 Joules and semi automatic up to 2.5 Joules do not exceed the threshold of lethality and so they're not to be classed as firearms.
You're right when you say that there is a world of difference between air soft and an air rifle but they are still subject to the violent crime reduction act and mis use can result in prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Ystranc said:
I would have agreed with you if what happened to the child could truely be considered accidental but if you check into the details of the case then you'll find that the old boy was negligent in the extreme and stupid to the point of being an imbecile. While alone in the kitchen with the boy he discharged a modified air rifle at the child to check if it was loaded, then lied to police claiming it was a ricochet (as if that would be any better) this was subsequently disproved by forensics ..after it took the kid two hours to die.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a prick but wee 'whoopsadaisys' will still happen. I'll not dwell on the tragic case but do you mind the Austrian lad ploghing a plane into the mountain ? The flight crew couldn't get into the cockpit because of 9/11 security. We've not knee jerked because of that but its an extreme example to make a point.

Some things are more emotive than others, cars kill more people than knives..... It could have been me. ...... Basically if someone gets run over the perpetrator isn't going to be treated as someone who uses a kinfe to either purposefully or accidentally attack an individual. We're becoming angrier and while you can ban or legislte against EVERYTHING it doesn't mean we're all going to comply.
 
An accident is stubbing your toe, shooting someone "accidentally" like that takes a series of errors or misjudgments culminating in pointing it at the boy and pulling the trigger....non of which could have taken place if the owner of the gun had not been either negligent or an utter moron.
 
Ystranc said:
An accident is stubbing your toe, shooting someone "accidentally" like that takes a series of errors or misjudgments culminating in pointing it at the boy and pulling the trigger....non of which could have taken place if the owner of the gun had not been either negligent or an utter moron.
Click to expand...

Plenty people get killed 'accidentally', you can dress it up as the actions of morons if it suits you but that doesn't change that people die 'not on purpose'. The great grandad went to jail for manslaughter not murder. People get killed by cars 'not on purpose' quite often too, and yes, quite often its negligence or stupidity that causes it but for some reason people getting killed by cars 'not on purpose' is generally treated differently, probably because most people drive so can relate to the odd bit of 'bad practice'.


1 shot willie said:
Hi Bam.

I agree to a point.

As far as any firearms are concerned.....there are no accidents......only negligence and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Its not just firearms, firearms are just more emotive. As an aside, I see kids in London* have stopped stabbing each other to death since the supermarkets have stopped selling knives individually.......

I'm not suggesting we go all wild west with our legislation, and we should always aim to reduce accidents/deaths etc but knowing that as soon as you put people in the mix, there's the potential for something to go wrong.


*Other cities are also available.
 
Bam said:
we should always aim to reduce accidents/deaths etc but knowing that as soon as you put people in the mix, there's the potential for something to go wrong.
Click to expand...
Very true, people are fallible and emotional creatures, we're prone to making misjudgments. All the more reason to hold firearm owners to some sort of higher standard.
In the past, if you behaved in an irresponsible or dangerous way it would have been criticised as unsportsmanlike behaviour which is a much stronger pejorative than most of us would assume it to be these days. It was enough to guarantee that you would not be invited to shoot with anyone who'd heard of your reputation and no responsible landowner would grant you a permission, it may not have been law but it was understood.
Most of the standards of behaviour that go with shooting for sport are seen as etiquette but in fact they're almost all based on safety.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t read the facts on this and probably won’t. But! I have seen stupidity and accidental with air rifles. Both could have been prevented. If the old boy aimed the rifle at the child then I would say stupidity!! And holds full responsibility for the outcome. If he was handed a loaded gun and the child ran in-font of him as he squeezed the trigger. Then he holds responsibility for not checking the chamber! Or who and what is in the direction of the bullet/pellet and were it will go after impact if anywhere.

IMHO accidents with any firearm shouldn’t happen in public or at home unless the rifle falls and hits someone on the way down. It should have not been loaded!!! Or pointed in anyone’s direction Period!!!

But we do have to understand that :poo: happens and it can’t be stoped without foresight.
Sill there is a responsibility that a gun holder should yield and abide by....especially at home with children.

Just my pennies worth. Not directed at anyone’s posts:thumbsup:
 
There are plenty of "experts :rolleyes:" that make an ass of themselves as well, not just a kid shooting out his monitor with an airsoft ...there is almost always a common denominator of stupidity involved although there is a very instructive one that shows how dangerous rebounds and ricochets are when shooting at hard objects like iron engine blocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top