You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
After some education on gun licenses and not something I know anything about.
Looking at gov.uk it appears for a shotgun 3 referees are needed and then it is down to the police (with input from GP) to decide whether the person is fit to have one but also has a reason to need one.
If that is the case then what sort of reasons are acceptable reasons, i.e. what sort of reason would Jake Davison have had for needing a shotgun at 22 years old living in a residential area?
I would like to think you need a very sound reason and can't think of any he would have. Clearly the controls generally work as we don't have shootings all the time but maybe that is more down to luck.
For shooting clay pigeon etc I'd imagine.
If that is the reason that would not be a good enough reason for me but then I don't see clay pigeon shooting as a need.
I used to be a licence holder and gun owner, when I shot competitively. Having your own gun that you are used to, fits, etc is very important. But it was kept in the gun cabinet at school most of the time and in a cabinet at home at other times, and I gave it up when I stopped shooting regularly.
You don't need a pump action for shooting clays.
If that is the reason that would not be a good enough reason for me but then I don’t see clay pigeon shooting as a need.
Popular sport in which the UK excels internationally, with hundreds of clubs and tens of thousands of participants. Accessible to all ages and one of the few sports where wheelchair users can compete alongside the able bodied. Loads of different ways to participate such as Skeet and Trap which are Olympic disciplines, as well as English Sporting, FITASC, Helice, simulated driven game shooting etc. From big manicured and well equipped shooting grounds with hundreds of automatic traps to improvised 'hay baler' shoots on farms, thousands of people will be enjoying it without bothering anyone, all over the country, every weekend of the year. You or I not liking or understanding someone else's hobby/sport/pastime is not a reason to stop them doing it.
From Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/uc95/uc9505.htm
Prohibition on the possession of all pump-action and self-loading shotguns
At present, long-barrelled pump-action and self-loading shotguns with large magazines may be held on a firearm certificate. Among the "good reasons" for possession of such a shotgun are the control of large quantities of vermin (such as wood pigeon) or for practical target shooting under the auspices of a relevant organisation (the UK Practical Shooting Association).
A single certificate for shotguns and other firearms (abolition of the shotgun certificate)
At present, shotguns are subject to a less strict form of licensing than other controlled firearms. The three main differences between the controls imposed on shotguns and other firearms are as follows:
Holders of a shotgun certificate must notify the police when they acquire or dispose of a shotgun but need not otherwise seek police approval. Certificate holders may thus acquire any number of shotguns on the strength of their shotgun certificate, providing they have secure storage facilities for them;
The applicant for a shotgun certificate is not required to provide a "good reason" for wanting to possess a shotgun. It is in effect for the police to prove that no such reason exists. This may allow the police to turn down an applicant who has an unacceptable reason for possessing a shotgun or who refuses to offer a reason. In practice, this means that the police have no discretion to refuse any plausible case for wanting to own one or more shotguns unless they have reason to believe that the applicant cannot be entrusted with firearms without danger to public safety or the peace;
The police may revoke, or refuse to grant, a firearm certificate if they have reason to believe that the holder or applicant has serious criminal convictions, is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or is in any other way unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm. The police may revoke or refuse to grant a shotgun certificate if they have reason to believe that the holder or applicant cannot be entrusted with firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. These two different tests have led to cases where the courts have supported the revocation of an individual's firearm certificate but overturned the revocation of a shotgun certificate, on the grounds that an individual was unfitted to own firearms but not considered dangerous.
In practical terms, the dual system of controls means that the police must deal with two sets of certificates and other forms, and two sets of slightly different legal provisions. This adds to the complexity of the licensing system and may give rise to confusion about how the law applies in particular circumstances.
The document goes on to lay out evidence for and against a single certificate for shotgun ownership, as well as considering restrictions on shotgun ownership in urban areas....
At the risk of seeming flippant in the light of the tragedy in Plymouth. The Thin Blue Line still has the most succinct somethingion of the issue IMHO
No such thing as a gun licence. Lets get this right. You don't need a reason for a SGC. You do need a reason for a FAC. For a SGC you have a right to it as long as you are not deemed unsuitable in some way. And this is no difference to a car apart from the fact that you as a person are checked out and references taken. You are assessed and proved suitable.
I can see that this is going to turn into the old "guns are dangerous and pointless" session purely because of one incident. Yes it is substantial but lets think about how many people are killed by cars a year. Does the press and the un-educated get up in arms? Nope.
It is impossible legislate against nutters. If this chap didn't have a gun he could have used a knife or a hammer. It is not the apparartus that killed but the person. A 200 mph motorcycle isn't dangerous, it's the idiot riding it at that speed that is. Absolutely no different to the deresticted ebikes out there.
RE the urban aspect. I've a friend who lives in city but his passion is various hunting sports. He spends regular weekends stalking deer, shooting or beating for grouse or pheasant.
Absolutely no different to the deresticted ebikes out there.
It's pretty difficult to kill 5 people in 12 minutes with an ebike
If this chap didn’t have a gun he could have used a knife or a hammer
yes - and he would not have been able to kill so many people so quickly
It’s pretty difficult to kill 5 people in 12 minutes with an ebike
Is there a Strava challenge for that?
If this chap didn’t have a gun he could have used a knife or a hammer
People defend themselves from knifes and hammers purely by running away. This fella would have wounded 1 person and got stopped if that was the way it was going down. Sinking a knife into a person is a lot tougher emotionally than pulling a trigger too. All those comparisons don't hold up to even cursory scrutiny.
FWIW I shoot clays from time to time, and my dad owns a few shotguns. There's no need for those weapons to be anywhere other than the gun club.
Is there a Strava challenge for that?
you'd be top of the board for tastelessness 😉
If that is the case then what sort of reasons are acceptable reasons, i.e. what sort of reason would Jake Davison have had for needing a shotgun at 22 years old living in a residential area?
I was a similar age when I had a firearms license and my own shotgun, that was for clay pigeon shooting and the odd game hunt at the local Estate. Didn't keep the shotgun at home, it was held in the Estate's secure Gunroom as a lot of others did. Getting the license was surprisingly easy as I just had to get a few referee signatures from the grounds staff and a quick chat with my GP, I think there was also a background check too. I do remember that a condition of the license was I had to inform the police if I took the shotgun off the estate, don't know why as I never did it. I know there were extra steps if I kept it at home though with random inspections of your storage a possibility but that never bothered me.
As I grew up around military kids and a few farmer's offspring guns were just sort of always around but rarely seen. I gave up my shotgun and license in 2004/5 after a particularly nasty incident at a clay shoot was at that left two people injured and involved a big investigation. I've only fired anything once since at a stag party clay shoot and really didn't like it, I was never a gun lover before but the sense of danger an inanimate object possesses is quite frankly scary. I know the rules have definitely changed since then, there was a lot of talk about it where I grew up but I think it was more just procedural changes rather than a massive change. Either way I have no intention of getting one again or even using one. I don't particularly agree with the 'Sport' side any more either so would happily agree to tighter regulation for non-work use and possession.
Clearly the controls generally work as we don’t have shootings all the time but maybe that is more down to luck.
The people who have these guns for legitimate reasons are well aware that any major incident could lead to further restrictions so the community around them really does try and keep things as safe as they can. Without that these rules would fall down and we would see more shootings, either by accident or design.
By and large I think gun laws are very effective in this country. I think it’s perfectly possible that a 22 year old living in an urban area could have a legitimate reason for holding a certificate. The question for me is whether this particular 22 year old fell into that category, given his mental health history, and what seem to be other warning signs.
Absolutely no different to the deresticted ebikes out there.
Ladies and gentlemen, yes, it's early days, but I think the bawbag of the week crown has found itself a Barnet to rest upon. 😂😂😂
The question here is not why someone needs one or has one or should they be banned etc.
The question here is why he was handed his gun and cert back after it being removed and returned after anger management courses had been completed.
Where was the GP involvement and what what the FEO's decision based on.
You cannot ban mental health issues.
If this chap didn’t have a gun he could have used a knife or a hammer. It is not the apparartus that killed but the person
Which is why the British army are primarily armed with knives aside from the special forces which are allowed hammers. Oh wait thats not right is it?
There is a reason armed forces primarily carry firearms rather than melee weapons. Outside of some very specialised scenarios the firearm wins.
Nope. It is impossible legislate against nutters.
Actually you can via mental health orders etc. However it misses the point. If someone comes at me with a knife I would make the world 100m record look slow as I disappear in the other direction. I wont be able to make it look slow enough to outrun a round though.
You only need to look at the US for examples of what poor support and easy access to firearms results in. Sadly thursday really would be an unremarkable day there.
I don't think Mattsccn is trying to say owning a de-restricted e-bike is comparable to owning a shotgun, more using it as an example of laws, rules and their nett effects.
Then his comments get snipped and taken totally out of context, which is more of a bawbag of the week move imho 😉
Bawbaggery is tongue in cheek, as ever, but it's classic whataboutery!
I'm another one on the 'guns don't kill, people kill' side but I also agree that if someone's of that mind a gun facilitates it massively. And further - a pump action vs a o/u clay gun, or a magazine fed assault rifle vs a single shot target .22 facilitates it far more. There is no need for these (multi shot repeater) types of guns to be in public ownership, and probably not in club ownership either. Although as other posters have said, most gun clubs and professional clay shoots are incredibly well run and controlled, and there may therefore be an argument that they are manageable.
And even the Boxing Day farm clay shoot despite being amateur and let your wife and mates have a go have been incredibly well self policed - each stand would have a supervisor stood behind the shooter to catch and prevent the accidental turn around where someone hits a clay and then tries to turn round with a live one in the second barrel to say "Wow, did you see that!"
I think it’s perfectly possible that a 22 year old living in an urban area could have a legitimate reason for holding a certificate. The question for me is whether this particular 22 year old fell into that category, given his mental health history, and what seem to be other warning signs.
This will be the crux of it, especially since his gun(s) was seized temporarily while an assault was investigated and recently returned. What the police knew or didn’t know about his MH and so on will be a part of that.
On a UK SGC a pump action shotgun can’t have a capacity of more than 3 cartridges so no different to a triple barrel shotgun in terms of when you need to reload.
The question here is not why someone needs one or has one
Um, apart from that is the question that I asked. If it turns out he doesn't need a reason then I don't think that is very good control and I have learnt something.
Basically I want a gun because I fancy one and because there are no reasons why I should not have one then I can have one. Nobody is interested in what I am planning to do with the gun when I get it.
You only need to look at the US for examples of what poor support and easy access to firearms results in.
Just have a think to yourself about the absolute headcases you've met during the course of your life, then imagine them all having access to firearms
Truly terrifying.
In this case I don't see how anyone could retain a license after having repeatedly been flagged up as having mental health and specifically anger management issues
I also look forward to Jordon Peterson and his fan bois talking down the roll of his/their vile misogynistic INCEL shit in all of this too. He was very into all that and hated women
Where was the GP involvement and what what the FEO’s decision based on.
The role of the GP in licensing is unfortunately a bit of a grey area. It is the local police force’s responsibility to determine applicants suitability. There is no contractural obligation to respond to the police request for a factual report on applicants medical history and so although the BMA have advised that a response to the request is given within 21 days otherwise they could be at ‘professional risk’ the response could simply be they do not wish to provide the information as some may have a conscientious objection to the general public owning firearms. Or they can respond that complex behavioural problems are outside their area of medical expertise, or produce the report and charge a fee and if the applicant refuses to pay they won’t produce the report, or they will provide the report for free.
I know that BASC oppose the mandatory GP screening that some forces apply and others do not (!), perhaps because believe strongly that if a report is required it should be for free. My own position for what it is worth is that GP’s should be involved but as they are providing a service that is outside their normal duties they should be provided with a reasonable remuneration (£50-75?) as I have seen first hand the work involved in producing such a report. If you can afford a shotgun you should be able to afford the fee.
@kerley Ok
In the UK you are entitled to a shotgun certificate. The Chief Constable has to issue it unless they have a good reason not to give you one based on you as a person.
FAC is entirely different.
A shotgun is a piece of sports equipment as well as a tool.
The question here is why he was handed his gun and cert back after it being removed and returned after anger management courses had been completed.
Where was the GP involvement and what what the FEO’s decision based on.
I’m going to take a punt on the decision being based on the fact that the guy hadn’t been charged with anything and then successfully completed the anger management course he had been told to go on. This leaving very little to justify a block on his entitlement to own a shotgun should the guy have appealed the decision (and I suspect little prospect of support for the officer making the decision due to the cost of proceedings at court from management or cps, should they be involved in fighting any appeal / instructing counsel).
I arranged for someone, who was ostensibly law abiding, to have their shotguns removed a few years back, we could link them to an OCG but even that was a borderline case with a lot of unusable intell. The firearms people were more than happy to do it but were quite open that they might lose any appeal if they were even allowed to contest it.
The GP has an obligation to flag any issue that would affect the persons fitness to keep guns.
That is only relevant if the person has been involved with his GP of course.
Given the level of snooping police do into stuff like animal rights and environmental protestors etc, you'd think they would be better at picking up on a guy who's previously had a gun taken off him due to anger issues.
It appears that he had his gun confiscated and licence suspended last year following an allegation of assault but the gun was returned to him in July. That part of the tragedy seems a mistake in procedure as much as anything. As for legitimate reasons he could have been a member of a clay pigeon shoot, just speculation. As @reluctantjumper states, just because you hold a certificate doesn't necessarily mean you have a firearm at home, it could be stored at an estate gunroom or at a gun club.
Mental health history is only taken into account at the time of application/reapplication so if someone develops problems, that aren't obvious, after that then they won't be picked up. Not everyone with mental health issues seeks help, they may not even see their views/situation as being that and others close to them might be "Oh, it's just him being him.", so there may not be any official record.
The alleged assault may have been an argument that got out of hand, unlikely that any firearm was involved as the police would certainly not have returned it.
I grew up on a farm and we had three shotguns. I'd shoot occasionally, usually just to scare pigeons, crows, etc. off crops. That will have been on my father's licence. I will have been somewhere in my late teens the last time I fired one. After my dad died my brother then had a licence for the same reasons but gave it up following the Tony Martin case as, living alone in an isolated farmhouse he didn't trust himself not to do similar.
@jimw - GP practices regularly charge for such things. Three years ago my wife and I took part in a bike event in France - the event rules stated that we needed a medical certificate from our doctor to confirm that we were fit enough to do so. That cost us £40 each for a letter that basically said: "I see nothing in his/her records to prevent them taking part". You aren't asking the GP to fix you but provide a service outside their normal day to day work.
The GP has an obligation to flag any issue that would affect the persons fitness to keep guns.
The issue with this is that what expertise does the GP have to make this decision? Is anger management a mental health issue serious enough to prevent a licence? The local police force obviously didn’t believe so once a course had been completed.
My experience is that most GP’s are well aware of their moral obligations and take the matter very seriously and do support the process fully. One interesting point, GP practices often code into their records that a shotgun licence has been applied for, but as far as I am aware they are not informed if the licence has been granted or revoked by the police. Not all practices have a flag that the patient has a current licence, so in a large practice it may occasionally be that a GP treating someone with a mental health condition may not be aware the licence is held. As I said, it’s a very grey area at the moment and this can lead to people slipping through the net.
As usual, when you have multiple agencies or disciplines dealing with an issue, they usually aren't talking to each other.
Simply completing an anger management course is a spectacularly low bar for reacquiring a firearms licence. It's a tickbox exercise, like a speed awareness course.
I also look forward to Jordon Peterson and his fan bois talking down the roll of his/their vile misogynistic INCEL shit in all of this too. He was very into all that and hated women
There is some delightful specimen on Twitter just now saying it's the fault of all the women in Portsmouth for turning him that way. I won't paste a link to it.
Clearly this could have prevented if more good guys had guns.
Obviously
Or if women would stop moaning and being so demanding, and just put out
Jesus. These people walk among us. 🙁
https://twitter.com/AlanFreestone/status/1426225025737166851?s=20
That's the one I was referring to but I preferred not to give him publicity.
Just have a think to yourself about the absolute headcases you’ve met during the course of your life, then imagine them all having access to firearms
Truly terrifying.
That’s nothing compared to the hard of thinking and their access to motor cars.
Every time I leave the house it’s not people with guns that put me in fear of my life it’s the motorist, they kill 5 people every day and seriously injure many more.
If ever there was a need for tighter restrictions it’s the car that should be at the front of the queue, speed limiters, ban for mobile phone use etc. The benefits would be huge for society at the cost of the motorist using the queens highway as a race track.
Or if women would stop moaning and being so demanding, and just put out
Laughing/Trivialising people with severe mental health issues and extreme difficulty fitting in society who are at the bottom of a self-loathing and self-destructive vicious circle seems rather nasty and unproductive.
back to OP. A person with such extent evidence/reports of mental health issues shouldn't have been allowed a gun license or storage of it in the house. This whole situation is now being independently reviewed.
Laughing/Trivialising people with severe mental health issues and extreme difficulty fitting in society who are at the bottom of a self-loathing and self-destructive vicious circle seems rather nasty and unproductive.
No-one's laughing. The post is about the misogynistic talking points we have come to expect (and, as you can see from the Twitter post, have arrived bang on cue). It is this 'community' of damaged individuals, and those who exploit them, who are blaming women and women only for self-destructive behaviours rather than confront all the root causes you describe.
Every time I leave the house it’s not people with guns that put me in fear of my life it’s the motorist, they kill 5 people every day and seriously injure many more.
If ever there was a need for tighter restrictions it’s the car that should be at the front of the queue, speed limiters, ban for mobile phone use etc
Although I wholeheartedly agree with this it’s not what is being discussed here. Of those five deaths per day I doubt any will be as a result of someone leaving their house with the intent of hurting or killing someone. Therein lies the difference.
Ownership of a firearm makes doing what this person did a much simpler proposition. Thankfully we have pretty strict rules around gun ownership, hence why when this sort of thing happens it’s shocking, horrific and rare. Tragically it seems like something was missed in this instance. Hopefully lessons can be learned and the chances of another incident like this reduced as a result.
Seems barking mad to me that you can get a shotgun license so easily.
Although not as barking mad as the ebike comparison.....
brads
Free MemberYou cannot ban mental health issues.
Basically this. It's easy to look for simple solutions. But imo we're right now in the opening stages of a mental health crisis, you could say pandemic, that's going to ruin a hell of a lot more lives than guns do in this country and the same things that help save those lives, also help to stop people getting shot. But frankly we're not going to do enough, we're probably not really going to try.
As an aside, I hate when people say "how can someone with a history of mental health issues get a gun". They do it in the states too. I have mental health issues, it wouldn't make me a less suitable gun owner. Lots of people hide their mental health issues, and that probably helps make them a less suitable gun owner. But the sheer weight of numbers... Something like 1 in 10 of all students will experience a disruptive mental health issue in the few years that they're at university, frinstance. About the same proportion of new mothers will suffer postpartum depression. Anxiety and depression are a totally rational response to the last decade. It can't be something that just disqualifies you for chunks of life, just like being in a wheelchair shouldn't exclude people from public spaces. Maybe it's not easy but that's no excuse.
This incident reminds me of the administrative cockups (or something more sinister) that allowed the perpetrator of the Dunblane atrocity to hold a firearms cert' and several handguns.
I surrendered my SGC in 2005. It was getting expensive to clay shoot twice a week. I do remember firing at close range at a pattern plate and being somewhat repulsed by the devastating power of a 12 bore discharging a no. 8 3" cartridge at close range.
Seems barking mad to me that you can get a shotgun license so easily.
Yep, which is why I started the thread which has confirmed it. Just seems odd to me that the reason for use is not required.
"Can I have a shotgun?"
"Yep sure you seem alright. By the way what are you going to use it for"
"Never you mind what I am going to use it for"
"Okay, on your way sonny, take care now"
Laughing/Trivialising people with severe mental health issues and extreme difficulty fitting in society who are at the bottom of a self-loathing and self-destructive vicious circle seems rather nasty and unproductive.
who’s laughing and trivialising? As a father of two teenage daughters it makes me apoplectic that the likes of snake oil salesman Jordon Peterson are making money legitimising this misogynistic, women-hating bullshit by lending it some kind of academic veneer
This INCEL shite is telling social deviants who spend their lives ****ing to hardcore porn in the bedrooms at their mums house, that none of their problems are their own fault - perish the thought - it’s the fault of the women who reject them
It’s a vile, backward philosophy, hardly different in its attitude towards women than the Taliban, and in light of what’s happened, this INCEL bullshit should be called out for what it is… hate speech and incitement to violence!
And ****s like Jordan Peterson need to be treated like the charlatans they are and not given air time in the mainstream media for their disgusting misogynistic views
A very interesting and thoughtful post from Northwind.
Kerley I’m not sure it’s all that easy to get a certificate, but is possibly easier to hold onto one, or reacquire one, once you’ve had one. Anecdotally (and I have no evidence to back this up) I have heard that firearms licensing officers are as stretched as every other part of the police force, and there must therefore be the temptation to cut corners. Again I don’t know that’s the case but it would make sense, and if so resourcing needs to be looked at.
Anxiety and depression are a totally rational response to the last decade. It can’t be something that just disqualifies you for chunks of life
As a fellow diagnosed person, I don't think that IF my diagnosis results in materially greater risk to myself or others if I engage in a specific activity THEN maybe I shouldn't have free rein to engage in that activity. I wouldn't object to an epileptic not being allowed to be a jet pilot or whatever.
As to whether there is a materially greater risk - I have no idea. That's up to medical specialists, regulators and statisticians to advise upon.
When I applied for my firearms license, I was taking Paroxetine for anxiety and panic disorder. This was flagged (rightly) by my GP. Subsequently, I was "interviewed" at my home by the firearms liaison officer. My certificate was granted as it was clear to him that I was not a risk even though being treated for a mental health issue.
It'll be fine, the government will perform some half-witted knee-jerk reaction to this then get back to the important job of ignoring the mental health crisis in the UK in favour of hating immigrants some more and spending 100's of millions on a boat that nobody wants.
It's fair to say that this guy shouldn't have had a shotgun, but the government in charge could have done more back in 2010 when Derrick Bird, another individual with mental health issues, killed 13 people in Cumbria.
Guns are not and have never been the problem, money poured into the areas that are needed to regulate who is fit to have a firearms license and who shouldn't is. Britains not any safer because they banned access to most types of firearms after Dunblane, if that was the case there wouldn't be so many unregistered firearms in circulation, but there are not many criminals taking out their revenge with a spirited pillow fight.
I had a firearms license before Dunblane and shot competitively. While you had to have a secure place to store firearms and ammunition separately, you had to pass police checks and a home visit, after that you were left pretty much to your own devices until you needed to make a change to the license or renew it. The press and the government all said the "signs were there" with Thomas Hamilton, but they really weren't. I was a member of the club that he was and there was no suspicion from anyone regardless what was said by the secretary of the club during the Cullen enquiry. But then there was an awful lot of hand wringing that needed to be done.
The opinion at the time of Dunblane in the shooting community was that while the government will ban most firearms, they won't do anything really to shotguns or single shot target rifles because it's the hobby of the upper crust and always has been and required by farmers and estate workers. They don't want to piss of their base. That's why sod all was done after Cumbria, and sod all will be done here, because then they would have to admit that the failings go right to the top and they would have to actually spend money where it's needed and not on their oversized trains sets and toy boats.
Good contribution Darthpunk.
I could never understand that subsequent to the Hungerford massacre, only rifles above .22 calibre were banned in semi-auto format.
A Ruger 1022 with a 30 round banana clip of .22RF would be devastating in the wrong hands.
There is no need for a self-cycling rifle in any calibre.
it’s the hobby of the upper crust and always has been and required by farmers and estate workers. They don’t want to piss of their base.
If the Tories have a base, it's not the rural upper crust and farmers (neither of whom even exists in large numbers any more) nor estate workers. It's suburban, older, worse-educated white people. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/04/25/demographics-dividing-britain
Fox hunting was a signifier for the death of the traditional Tory power base. Johnson could have repealed the bans but not even the Tory MPs really care about it any more. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/28/countryside-alliance-conservatives-foxhunting
I just don't think a ratcheting up of firearms law in this country would alienate Tory voters - especially if it were framed as a (((crackdown))) on (((urban))) gangs.
Well said by darthpunk. Mental health underfunding/failings allow this kind of event to be more likely.
I have no issue even with American style ranges where you can try your hand with ridiculous levels of firepower. But outside of a secure range environment, you need to have a bloody good reason to have access to any type of gun*
We need to see exactly what went wrong here, and learn lessons from it. Possibly lessons that should have been learnt after the Cumbria shootings, but not all circumstances can be forseen in advance. Is there any requirement to check social media posts before approving/returning a license? There obviously should be, but was social media a thing the last time the regulations were updated?
*and that probably could be extended to crossbows and even regular archery bows, not sure what ownership/storage rules they have, if any.
Sorry Darthpunk =- thats the most absurd self serving bullshit
Britains not any safer because they banned access to most types of firearms after Dunblane
yes it is as there are less guns in circulation and not most / all of the recent mass shootings have been with legally held guns
Got to agree with TJ there.
That’s the biggest load of old bollocks I’ve ever heard
That’s like saying that Britain’s not any safer since they introduced limits on how much you could drink before getting behind the wheel of a car
This thread is about, after all, someone with mental health issues going on a killing spree with a legally held firearm. Which would suggest they should have gone much further.
I struggle to think of any genuine reason why a 22 year old with mental health issues should own a shotgun with a license.
But I agree with you that they won’t do it because it’d upset there rich mates and their ability to carry on doing whatever the **** they like
Sorry Darthpunk =- thats the most absurd self serving bullshit
Nope it’s not.
Firearms crimes are up due to the large number of illegal guns around.
And most shootings are with illegally held weapons. Mostly imported from Eastern Europe.
Handguns are not banned by the way, but the reduction in the numbers held did nothing for public safety or firearms crime.
Cite?
Its just pure nonsense to say taking guns out of circulation does not reduce gun crime
all the mass shootings in my lifetime have been with legally held weapons
But I agree with you that they won’t do it because it’d upset there rich mates and their ability to carry on doing whatever the **** they like
Rubbish.
The vast majority of shotguns are owned by normal everyday people.
yes it is as there are less guns in circulation and not most / all of the recent mass shootings have been with legally held guns
They were all committed by legally held guns, can't argue with that. Legislation post each mass shooting was put into place to limit the availability of each type of firearm - but, that was only limited to Hungerford (assault weapons and magazine limits on shotguns) and Dunblane (pretty much everything else but mainly semi-auto pistols and revolvers of higher calibres and barrel lengths amongst others)
Sod all was done post Cumbria.
The highest rate of crime based on firearm is perpetrated using a pistol, but if they were banned for the most part, and they're being used in crimes, then it stands to reason these are illegally held firearms, no?
Sorry Darthpunk =- thats the most absurd self serving bullshit
Just about anything can be turned into "self serving bullshit" as you put it, and the point I was trying to make is that regardless what they might have done over the years, taking firearms from the law abiding people doesn't actually stop the shootings. Pouring money into the areas that need it, such as mental health, of which all perpetrators of mass shootings in the UK have suffered from mental health issues for where there was little support or the police stepping in to remove firearms from known troubled individuals, because lets face it, the emergency services have even less money.
......oh, and that's before pointing out that all mass shootings that have been committed by legal gun owners happened under Conservative governments, but i'm sure there's no link between them funding the health service and mass shootings. But i'll let you don your tinfoil hat before checking that one out
and, please don't be so rude
Guns were only reduced for a short time. Illegal importation has ramped numbers in the country up again
Legally held guns were rarely used in crime and also , mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of the numbers of shootings in the uk.
There are people shot in the UK on an almost daily basis.
citation please and daily gun crime is an absurd claim
How many MASS shootings have there been with illegal guns and how many with legal guns?
Legally held guns are a fetish for most - yes some folk need them for work but the vast majority - its a fetish about power and control
taking firearms from the law abiding people doesn’t actually stop the shootings
Yes it does. Someone like Hamilton would not be able to perpetrate a mass killing now
and when you spout such obvious bullshit I will call you out on it.
the point I was trying to make is that regardless what they might have done over the years, taking firearms from the law abiding people doesn’t actually stop the shootings.
The problem is you are lacking evidence for your claim. Whilst it might not stop all shootings heavily restricting firearms access does seem pretty good at reducing the number of mass shootings.
That you note that nothing was done post Cumbria to further tighten the laws doesnt really support your case. Given a choice of someone waving an M4 around or a 3 round shotgun I would prefer the latter or even better just have them with a penknife.
Sure mental health could do with better funding but we need better taxation for that. Maybe we could charge more for firearm licences since at the moment they are generally at a loss so the general taxpayer has to pick it up.
If resticting availability of guns does nothing then how come we don't have the level of mass shooting they have in the US?
2020, London alone 288 shooting incidents. Add in the other major cities and yup, almost daily.
Roughly 35 - 50 shooting deaths per year. Nowt compared to knife killings obv but 6 people dead in a mass shooting in the last decade makes up a small percentage of overall shooting deaths.
Handgun restriction has done nothing to curb handgun crime, because legally held guns were and are rarely used in crime.
Handgun ownership for self defence is legal in the UK (NI) but even though there are a large number of pistols held there, pistol crime in that area is almost exclusively with illegally held pistols.
In fact there are thousands of legally held pistols in the UK as a whole, yet pistol crime is exclusively with illegal guns.
I can't find a case of shootings with a legally held pistol going back to the restrictions on there availability.
Legally held guns are a fetish for most – yes some folk need them for work but the vast majority – its a fetish about power and control
Yeah, we're probably going to need your citation on that as you are so keen for others to point out where their evidence comes from.
If resticting availability of guns does nothing then how come we don’t have the level of mass shooting they have in the US?
5 minutes of googling will tell you there are more factors involved in the US level of mass shootings. For a true comparison you really have to compare the US to other countries that have high levels of legal gun ownership while comparing the UK to other countries with equally as strict gun laws.... Like Australia. So if you want to get all scientific about it, at least take in other factors such as socio economic, the gulf between rich and poor, unemployment, race relations.
I made my point, I'm going to walk away before I become the person that gets the thread shut for saying something properly uncouth.
Rubbish.
The vast majority of shotguns are owned by normal everyday people.
Fair point. Most social housing nowadays has a gun cabinet
Roughly 35 – 50 shooting deaths per year. Nowt compared to knife killings obv but 6 people dead in a mass shooting in the last decade makes up a small percentage of overall shooting deaths.
I get where you’re coming from but you aren’t comparing like for like. I’m guessing those deaths are ‘by other’ and don’t include suicides. Also guessing that because they are with illegal fire arms they are likely gang related. Not the same wheelhouse as a mentally ill person who legally owns a gun going on a spree and taking the lives of innocent strangers is it? Tackling illegal guns is a tricky prospect, limiting legal sales, not so much. Seems that mass shootings i the UK are perpetrated with legally held fire arms. Therefore it makes sense that limiting legally held fire arms would have a positive impact on mass shootings. Just seems logical to me.
Happy if my guesses above are wrong and if you can provide details that would be great. Given that it’s rare to have shootings on the national news or threads dedicated to them on here I’m pretty happy in my assumptions though.
I can’t find a case of shootings with a legally held pistol going back to the restrictions on there availability.
so the restrictions worked then?
Its obviously a power and control fetish for many folk - liten to how they talk - same with "everyday carry knives"
Darthpunk - australia made gun ownership very resticted after one mass shooting - huge gun amnesty and guess what - gun crime went down as there are less guns in ciculation
Handguns are not banned by the way
Well, effectively, they are. Only the security forces/Police, some vets, and a very small number of gamekeepers can routinely own them.
Everyone who used to hold them before Hungerford had to either sell them (abroad mostly) or hand them in to their local Police when the Law changed. The compensation did not cover the cost of the better target pistols.
I dont know about now, but 10 years ago, even the Olympic Pistol Shooters could not practice in the UK, as they werent allowed to own them in the UK.
Handgun restriction has done nothing to curb handgun crime, because legally held guns were and are rarely used in crime.
Aside from it a)it reduces the chances of a legal gun holder going on the rampage or b) someone stealing those weapons if they are fairly widely available say if a website such as Guntrader got hacked.
Sure someone suitably motivated and with the right connections could acquire a firearm but the majority of people couldnt easily. I can think of a maybe one or two pubs where I could start the process of acquiring a gun but I reckon the outcome would be me beaten senseless and moneyless.
We can look at Mexico where quite a few of the weapons are legally brought in the USA or even on a smaller scale Chicago which despite having some semi sensible laws is completely hamstrung by its neighbours which dont.
Well, effectively, they are. Only the security forces/Police, some vets, and a very small number of gamekeepers can routinely own them.
Nope. There are thousands owned. A large number of recreational deer stalkers use them for instance.
The number of black powder pistols owned for target shooting is huge also. Add private ownership in NI for allsorts, including home defence, etc etc
@tjagain You're drifting into insulting so I'll bow out of our discussion for now, but you know I know what I'm talking about.
@funkmasterp You can't just discount all gang related stuff and restrict your arguments/discussions to mass shootings with legally held weapons !! Kind of silly to think you could tbh
Not silly at all considering it’s the subject of the thread. How’s it silly to discount illegally held weapons on a thread with gun licensing at the heart of the original post?
You can’t licence or regulate illegally held ones so why bring them up?
2020, London alone 288 shooting incidents. Add in the other major cities and yup, almost daily.
Roughly 35 – 50 shooting deaths per year. Nowt compared to knife killings obv but 6 people dead in a mass shooting in the last decade makes up a small percentage of overall shooting deaths.
Drug dealers shooting other drug dealers. It's pretty disingenuous to compare this kind of criminality with nutjob mass shootings.
The number of black powder pistols owned for target shooting is huge also.
And how many vs the number of owners? Plus whilst I wouldnt like to be on the wrong end of a blackpowder muzzleloading revolver ultimately there is a reason they are obsolete weapons and our military and police dont go around with them.
Add private ownership in NI for allsorts, including home defence, etc
As far as I am aware whilst NI allows home defence as a reason to own a pistol its pretty unlikely you will get it unless you are a police/military/intelligence services. There is a reason why the IRA tended to smuggle or steal its weapons. If you lived in the bogside and applied for an M82 I somewhat doubt it would be approved but you would certainly get some keen interest shown in you.
People defend themselves from
knifesknives and hammers purely by running away. This fella would have wounded 1 person and got stopped if that was the way it was going down. Sinking a knife into a person is a lot tougher emotionally than pulling a trigger too. All those comparisons don’t hold up to even cursory scrutiny.
Yeah, right…
#rollseyes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-22924456
https://news.sky.com/story/reading-stabbings-how-the-terror-attack-unfolded-12011902
someone wanted a citation on the fetishing of guns as instuments control and power
the bold is my highlights of the key phrases
this pattern is repeated in all the literature
“Here’s the truth about guns that no one, on either side of the debate, wants to tell you: shooting them is fun. I’m a bleeding-hearted, left-leaning liberal and I get a cheap, easy thrill out of shooting my little .38 caliber pistol. The “I am woman; hear me roar,” thrill I’ve gotten the few times I shot an Uzi, AK, or even a Glock is enough to leave a tremble running up my arms (though in reality, that’s likely just kickback). But the emotional component here is huge. That thrill at the range translates to confidence outside of it. And confidence was a great comfort.”
Just what is it that makes shooting fun? There’s an undeniable sense of power that comes from shooting a gun. A patient of mine once told me that guns were for cowards, but he was a 200-plus-lb. African American man who had won well more than his share of fistfights through the years. Psychologically speaking, guns aren’t so much the tool of a coward, as a way for someone to equalize power and overcome perceived oppression. In America, that dynamic began with our independence from England and hasn’t faded since.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201510/the-psychology-guns
I'm not sure how those links refute me.
Amman’s rampage was ended after 62 seconds when armed police shot and killed him outside Boots shortly before 2pm on Sunday February 2 last year as horrified members of the public looked on.
Both his victims – the man, and a woman pushing a bicycle – survived.
In all those incidents there would have been very many more people killed if the perp had a gun.