UK: Ball-bearing gun ban a step closer

MicroBalrog

New member
Ball-bearing gun ban a step closer

Gaby Hinsliff, political editor
Sunday May 29, 2005
The Observer

Ball-bearing guns used by children could be banned after a string of cases involving serious injuries.

The pistols, which fire plastic pellets, are not classed as firearms because they are considered too low-powered to be fatal.

But the death of two-yearold Andrew Morton after being shot in the head with an airgun in Glasgow earlier this year prompted safety concerns. Police officers have also warned that teenagers carrying them may be mistaken for armed criminals and shot by marksmen.

Article continues
Conservative MP Anne McIntosh, who came near the top of last week's annual ballot of MPs selected to introduce their own legislation, now hopes to pilot a private member's bill banning the guns. 'If these things are shot at a child's eyes or face they could have serious consequences - they might blind a child or kill them,' she said. 'These things can cost up to £300, which seems a significant amount of money. They are not toys.'

She said she had asked constituents for ideas for an issue for her bill, but, after being contacted by two mothers whose children had been injured by ball-bearing guns, she said that this was her preferred option.

By law, children under 17 are not allowed to buy ball-bearing guns or use them except under adult supervision. But a study carried out for the Association of Chief Police Officers in Manchester last year showed that the average age of children involved in ball-bearing gun incidents was just 13.

Last week in Hamilton, Lanarkshire, an eight-yearold boy shot with an airgun underwent surgery to remove the pellet from his ribs. The weapons commonly cause bruising, but if fired at close range can cause more severe injuries.

Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, has signalled proposals to clamp down on replica guns in the government's forthcoming Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
 
Am I being paranoid, or is this just a case of linguistic differences?

I have read a number of articles from the UK dealing with concerns about airguns. The vast majority of the articles use the term airgun, althoug a few use the term pellet gun. Now, this article uses the term ball-bearing gun.

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the term ball-bearing gun sound more sinister than pellet gun or airgun?
 
Is this article confusing Airsoft type guns ("which fire plastic pellets") with BB or pellet guns that fire lead pellets or steel shot?

Or are people really getting killed with those little 6mm plastic pellets?
 
Back
Top