107 replies to this topic

[crystal palace fireworks]

These eurocratic proposals will have little effect in stopping terrorism, as darkfang intimated, the outcome will be see more terrorist factions involved in underground distillation processes to make chemical they can`t buy. This however will also see an increase in accidents for legitimate hobbyist in trying to cope with another aspect of chemistry that they sometimes don`t really want to be involved with.

If the banning of certain chemicals go`s ahead, many honest practising chemists & pyro making members of the UKPS will suffer, we will see price increases for various reasons involving stock pileing (thanks chris m), registration & licensing fees, and the possibility of chemical distributing companies creating cartels in respect of price fixing.

Before this even reaches the directive stage at EU member levels, we need to make our voices heard by making representations to EU Justice Minister `Beatrice Ask` at `The Stockholme Programme`.

Apart from rejecting these proposals out, and as a last resort compromise if we are forced to accept these stupid proposals, I think we should consider proposing a security check option for members of the public to buy chemicals along the lines of a CRB check!

Come on Sweden, you gave us ABBA, Blonde Babes, Volvo, & Bofor Guns = pretty good, but please not this nonsense!

Edited by crystal palace fireworks, 23 September 2010 - 09:43 PM.

[exat808]

They banned hand guns - the effect? Legitimate shooters can't persue their hobby & there are more hand guns in the hands of crims than ever. Crims don't usually obtain things through legitimate channels - that is traceable.

This is just 'gold plating' of existing legislation that gradually erodes our freedoms, but if we complain we are accused of being irresponsible.

Hopefully if the 'more freedom less control' mantra of the current administration is more than just talk, this will not be agreed in the UK. On the other hand the EU usually seems to get it's own way and all governments want more control - whatever they say in opposition.

Said it before but:

'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'. (Ben Franklin)

The banning of certain types of weapons post Hungerford and Dunblane was IMO very much a knee jerk reaction by the Governments of the day where the actions of individuals ultimately impacted upon the lives of many. However the catalysts were not criminals but disturbed individuals.
The freedom to possess certain explosives remains for those who have a legitimate need to do so and I would like to think that any future controls on the possession of certain chemicals will allow for legitimate possession by those who can justify it.

[RFD]

Whatever legislation is used, fanatics will always get hold of what ever they require,where legislation does work is to make it very difficult for the potential kin nutcases that fancy trying make a name for them selfs regardless of the consequences,ime not sure handguns being banned or not makes a difference,legally held handguns,rifles and shotguns, rarely unless stolen came into criminals hands,the majority are eastern European imports and garden shed conversions,believe me ide have the old mans colt autos back tomorrow,and yes i despise the nanny state that the EU forces on us, but how else can we control the looneys out there.

[darkfang77]

how else can we control the looneys out there.

At the risk of over-posting in this thread, there is only one solution: mind control.

At the risk of a all-out argument exat, what you're saying is, that as long as we have a legitimate reason to own explosives, we have nothing to be afraid of.
Most of us do not own fireworks factories, or have jobs which involve the demolition of buildings, how do we obtain a legitimate reason to own BP? Or flash?

[Potassium chlorate]

They banned hand guns - the effect? Legitimate shooters can't persue their hobby & there are more hand guns in the hands of crims than ever. Crims don't usually obtain things through legitimate channels - that is traceable.

This is just 'gold plating' of existing legislation that gradually erodes our freedoms, but if we complain we are accused of being irresponsible.

Hopefully if the 'more freedom less control' mantra of the current administration is more than just talk, this will not be agreed in the UK. On the other hand the EU usually seems to get it's own way and all governments want more control - whatever they say in opposition.

Said it before but:

'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'. (Ben Franklin)

Words! Something is very sick with a law if its effect is that the people abiding it are the ones who will suffer from it .

[phildunford]

So hard to come by reliable figures, but given that 56 were killed in 7/7 in 2005 & I don't recall any other deaths from terrorist incidents in the last 10 years, this amounts to about 6 deaths a year in population of 60 million.

2538 road deaths in 2007

3000 deaths a year from accidents in the home - (average).

So the likelyhood of a dieing from a terrorist incident is vanishingly small.

Why then are we willing to sacrifice any freedom to combat such a tiny risk?

[Potassium chlorate]

At the risk of over-posting in this thread, there is only one solution: mind control.

At the risk of a all-out argument exat, what you're saying is, that as long as we have a legitimate reason to own explosives, we have nothing to be afraid of.
Most of us do not own fireworks factories, or have jobs which involve the demolition of buildings, how do we obtain a legitimate reason to own BP? Or flash?

As long as you don't harm other people on purpose or out of gross carelessness, I don't see any reason whatsoever that someone should have to justify their aqcuiring or use of anything. I actually see it as outright ridiculous and fascist that you have to give a "legitimate reason" to make and shoot fireworks on your own land. It's totally absurd.

[exat808]

At the risk of over-posting in this thread, there is only one solution: mind control.

At the risk of a all-out argument exat, what you're saying is, that as long as we have a legitimate reason to own explosives, we have nothing to be afraid of.
Most of us do not own fireworks factories, or have jobs which involve the demolition of buildings, how do we obtain a legitimate reason to own BP? Or flash?

Flash can be held without any certification. If you keep more than 5kg then you will have to register or license the storage.

BP- please see the recent thread regarding BP licenses. Phil Dunford is applying for a certificate to acquire and keep BP for use in manufacturing pyrotechnic articles under 100gr in accordance with MSER 2005.

So darkfang - you dont need a firework factory or to be a demolition contractor. Your reason for legitimate ownership of BP and Flash Powder is there on a plate for you.

Edited by exat808, 23 September 2010 - 09:26 PM.

[rr22]

[quote name='phildunford' timestamp='1285276682' post='68497']<br />So hard to come by reliable figures, but given that 56 were killed in 7/7 in 2005 & I don't recall any other deaths from terrorist incidents in the last 10 years, this amounts to about 6 deaths a year in population of 60 million.<br /><br />2538 road deaths in 2007<br /><br />3000 deaths a year from accidents in the home - (average).<br /><br />So the likelyhood of a dieing from a terrorist incident is vanishingly small.<br /><br />Why then are we willing to sacrifice any freedom to combat such a tiny risk?

Logically this is ill thought out knee jerk legislation .or another ratcheting of the control freakery that can only end with everyone RF ID chipped ,and eating our government prepared nutrients with a rubber spoon.
The USSR was nothing compared to what will be imposed upon us,whether the motives are benign or ill the result is the end of the autonomous citizen.

Edited by rr22, 23 September 2010 - 09:39 PM.

[darkfang77]

Flash can be held without any certification. If you keep more than 5kg then you will have to register or license the storage.

BP- please see the recent thread regarding BP licenses. Phil Dunford is applying for a certificate to acquire and keep BP for use in manufacturing pyrotechnic articles under 100gr in accordance with MSER 2005.

So darkfang - you dont need a firework factory or to be a demolition contractor. Your reason for legitimate ownership of BP and Flash Powder is there on a plate for you.

My bad, sometimes the fine print slips.
Still, the government are putting this attached shame to anyone who may be tangibly related to fireworks, as pyroswede says, as long as we're reasonable human beings, why do we need a legitimate reason to possess certain explosives?

[exat808]

So hard to come by reliable figures, but given that 56 were killed in 7/7 in 2005 & I don't recall any other deaths from terrorist incidents in the last 10 years, this amounts to about 6 deaths a year in population of 60 million.

2538 road deaths in 2007

3000 deaths a year from accidents in the home - (average).

So the likelyhood of a dieing from a terrorist incident is vanishingly small.

Why then are we willing to sacrifice any freedom to combat such a tiny risk?

Phil,
I think that the issue is not how many people have been killed but how many have not. Sadly we cannot answer this. If the number of terrorist related deaths drops year on year then something must be working. Legislation, Intelligence, Enforcement , changes in Policies, Political bias etc etc etc.
I still advocate that some balance is needed in this debate.
Also by way of example. The recent Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2010 are a by product of EU Directive 93/15 .
Legislation in the UK 17 years after the EU said we had to do it!

[phildunford]

I think that the issue is not how many people have been killed but how many have not.

Think you should be a politician!

Of course no one can say, I can only suggest that the ratios of those that have been killed are highly suggestive. - Are you suggesting that without current controls, 3000 people a year would be killed by terrorism in the UK? - Not an entirely serious comment, but what we don't know can be used as an argument for either case...

Edited by phildunford, 24 September 2010 - 10:36 AM.

[helix]

So hard to come by reliable figures, but given that 56 were killed in 7/7 in 2005 & I don't recall any other deaths from terrorist incidents in the last 10 years, this amounts to about 6 deaths a year in population of 60 million.

2538 road deaths in 2007

3000 deaths a year from accidents in the home - (average).

So the likelyhood of a dieing from a terrorist incident is vanishingly small.

Why then are we willing to sacrifice any freedom to combat such a tiny risk?

There are arguments for and against but the sad truth is that in time it will probably become law.

As depressing as the prospects of further legislation are, experimentation with fireworks is not exactly a mainstream hobby and any loss of freedom has probably never been considered. Most of us will never know the true extent of terrorist threats that our country faces - as we only find out when measures designed to protect fail. From a legislative point of view I'm sure its an attractive proposition to make it harder for terrorist organisations to obtain specific chemicals.

I would anticipate however that it would be extremely difficult to prohibit the supply of chemicals to the extent where a device could not be made, especially by persons with a suitable background in chemistry and suitable resources. Prohibition of the sale of specific firearms for example doesn't seem to have stopped criminals/ drug gangs obtaining them illegally; the reality is that those with a desire to obtain specific chemicals will do so and we will be faced with yet more legislation.

Hopefully the UKPS will be in a position to influence the events in the forthcoming years to enable us to pursue our hobby and still access oxidisers etc .

[dr thrust]

control freakery that can only end with everyone RF ID chipped ,and eating our government prepared nutrients with a rubber spoon.

quote of the year!
are they planning on banning matches and petrol?, because thats all yer basic nut job needs to wreak havoc

[helix]

quote of the year!
are they planning on banning matches and petrol?, because thats all yer basic nut job needs to wreak havoc

The way its going in another 20 years time they probably will!