Thread: Anti-tamper
View Single Post
Old 8th January 2015, 06:24 PM
skires skires is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 950


I'm not against you on this one fella.

I obviously don't know the real answers.

The ban button has probably been used too often on the BBS.

I never understand it when people get banned for wanting to discuss something in a civilised manner.

I remember the ... discuss AT and you are gone ... period on the BBS ( it's probably still the same ).

I just don't know. I'm really trying to find a reason as to why there is all the cloak and dagger? What advantage does the airgun industry gain by not telling us?

I believe you when you say that the Home Office say they had no involvement in this.

The only guy who has posted here that actually went to the meetings is Bob ... and he has said a couple of times now on this thread that there was a threat. In his last post he said that the airgun industry in the UK was told that they stop people tampering with power levels or face action. He didn't say who made the threat or where it came from? He did say that the guy changed departments and the threat went away.

Why would the airgun industry refuse to comment on this and Terry tell people to not talk about this on the BBS or face a ban? I don't know. Like I 'guessed' earlier ... maybe it was something to do with they had tried to convince whoever that threat was coming from that they had sorted it with AT ... so back off and take no action. Maybe they thought that open discussion and statements from the industry, that would be scrutinised on the boards, may reveal weaknesses in AT that would mean the threat was stronger than ever and leaving the industry with no where else to go.

On many occasions at work I've managed to talk an aggressive manager, chasing deadlines, down by promising him that I've got everything under control. The thruth was that I was sh1tting myself that I wouldn't make the deadline but I was bluffing on a pair of two's. After he had backed off and accepted my promise, if someone in the office had said ... Come on Col, let's see your cards, I'd have been down the road.

I don't know, but I can't see what gain they have by just saying nothing and telling everyone else to say nothing. So I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and hoping the silence was for everyone's benefit and not for their personal gain. I can't see any personal gain ... just extra expense of fitting AT and probably more guns coming back to them, costing even more, in warranty period, because customers couldn't do the work themselves.

There's the law issue ... where one can say they did it to cover their own backs if someone got caught with an overpower gun ... but I presume there isn't a massive list of cases where owners have been caught and prosecuted and the makers were looking the other way and whistling. We all know that the courts aren't full of people doing nothing wrong with guns doing 12.5fp and being carted off for a 5 stretch. It just doesn't happen. I think you ( or someone ) said earlier that police have said that there is virtually no instances of PCPs and air rifle crime. So I'm struggling to accept that the industry went to the trouble and cost of AT just to get them off the legal hook if someone is found with an overpowered gun.

Imagine a high profile case where some lad is caught with a gun that has crept to 12.5fp and his solicitor argues that he bought the gun in good faith with AT fitted and hasn't touched the gun and the AT is still intact. The police say that it's the lad's responsibility and the gun maker turns away and says ... " Don't know what you are talking about M'Lord ... nowt do with us". Who would buy a gun from that maker? So I don't see that as a great business plan. Maybe I'm wrong.

There's not enough cases with regularity, but I wonder if a rifle having AT would actually deter the police from testing a gun if it's going to cost them several hundred quid and the gun is at least understood to have AT so the power 'can't' be upped by the owner, and it's believed that it shouldn't be 'capable' ( given the AT is intact ). I still think the police only go to the trouble of testing a gun if the owner has been caught doing something silly with the gun ( that's what my firearms police told me ... they said they really weren't interested in airgun owners who weren't doing anything wrong ).

So given the above, and Bob's comments that there was a threat, and they had to do something to at least be seen to be stopping owners upping the power at home, it seems that the only reason for AT ( initially ) was to deter that threat.

I dunno mate.



Last edited by skires; 8th January 2015 at 06:47 PM.
Reply With Quote