You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hyperbole much?
Its a further restriction on gun ownership. its certainly one worth considering.
We do not have many of these mass killings but this one and others would have been avoided if the gun was not kept at home
There are other issues to address as well but a move away from the presumption that as long as you are not an overt psychopath you can get a shotgun and keep it at home is a measure worth discussing.
I think kelvins idea of a further check may also be worth considering. A reversal of the presumption so that you have to show good character and a valid reason to keep it at home. there are some folk ( farmers etc ) that a gun at home is a needed tool
Every time something like this happens the knee jerk reaction is always “this must be somebody’s fault, there must be someone we can blame to make it feel like there’s something we can do about it”
the fault here doesn’t lie with people who legally own guns
You’re ignoring the fact that impulsive and mentally unbalanced people aren’t always thinking things through. This is why a number of minor steps to slow down destructive actions are effective even though it ought to be trivial to circumvent them
e.g. putting paracetamol in blister packs of 12 instead of jars of 100
you know people still take overdoses right? you know people who really want to kill themselves can still plan and use other means right?
or putting anti-jump nets along the “popular” suicide bridge an adjacent bridge is unguarded.
Despite which suicide rates don't seem to change dramatically... ?
It’s a lot harder to snap and shoot your victims when there’s a 20 minute gap while you’ve got to pick up the guns from the gun club.
There's no evidence that he (or indeed most other mass shooters) snapped - rather he's been heading this way for ages. Perhaps something happened on Sunday which made him say - ok today I do it, but if he'd been delayed by 20 minutes and not done it this week it would be next week, or the week after - very few people who are on the brink of mass shootings turn there weapons in and never have homicidal thoughts again. Suggesting that this could be avoided with a 20 minute cool off period means a time delay lock on home gun safes could achieve the same thing. I don't know whether people suggesting that really believe it or are just jumping on the "something must be done" argument.
FWIW its probably far less inconvenience to many shooters to have to store their gun somewhere else than the actual solution - better, more frequent, vetting, and funding of license process.
I think kelvins idea of a further check may also be worth considering
It wasn't my idea. I called for no keep at home at all, someone else suggested that as sensible compromise, and won me over. It makes sense in so many ways. More so than a ban, I have to admit.
better, more frequent, vetting, and funding of license process
Agreed. And one way to do that is to make keep at home an additional application/license, and perform targeted deeper continual vetting of those who want that, including checking their reason for needing keep at home. That default to allowing keep at home, without even needing to provide a reason for it, seems increasingly odd the more I think about it.
We do not have many of these mass killings but this one and others would have been avoided if the gun was not kept at home
you keep saying that - but have no evidence. your "regime" would only work if people were not allowed to remove their weapon temporarily (and presumably sales all took place via some secure transport network). you say some people would be allowed to have weapons elsewhere if its for work etc - do none of those people EVER pose a risk?
you say some people would be allowed to have weapons elsewhere if its for work etc – do none of those people EVER pose a risk?
They could easily be required to follow stricter testing and licencing. Any storage and transport would also fall under H&S at work. Not infallible but more hoops so reducing risks
What about restricting the availability of ammunition, such that is was only available where the guns are allowed to be shot and can’t be taken off sight? To continue the golf club analogy above it would be the equivalent on only allowing golf balls at golf clubs and driving ranges.
you effectively turn every club / range / shooting estate into licensed firearms dealers. I suspect that reduces the control you actually have - from a small number of largely scrupulous people who's entire business depends on their compliance to a large number of people doing it as a sideline/hobby; and of course ignores the various people who have a legitimate interest in carrying a weapon and amo for vermin control, sports shooting, farming etc - and no way to know how many of their rounds were fired and how many were pocketed for later.
the various people who have a legitimate interest in carrying a weapon and amo for vermin control, sports shooting, farming etc
You are just listing people who could probably give a valid reason when applying to keep guns at home, and who should face stricter vetting and checks, no? Same goes for cartridge control.
you know people still take overdoses right? you know people who really want to kill themselves can still plan and use other means right?
Yes, and yes. I also know that incremental changes are effective in preventing impulsive homicides. Many murderers and suicides aren't big on planning, improvising, adapting and overcoming - what with them being mentally unbalanced at the time.
You probably do too but are deliberately missing the point. It's odd how the gun boys here keep reverting to the "you're not going to prevent everything so nothing else should be done".
Despite which suicide rates don’t seem to change dramatically… ?
Banning guns entirely wouldn't change the murder rate dramatically in the UK: there are too many men murdering their partners and children at home, and murdering each other over drugs and bravado for that. But it would reduce the number of mass murders. And if you don't believe incremental measures work, then a total ban is all that's left on the table...
Poly - well argued
To me removing the presumption that you can keep a gun at home seems proprtionate?
I don't understand why anyone should be allowed to own a gun, outside of a few neiche cases, like certain types of farmers or hunters, like if you live in alaska or somewhere where you might get eaten by a bear.
Bloody bonkers.
Shooting is great fun. Try it. But then so is motor racing. But not on residential streets.
Shooting is great fun. Try it.
Was that the terrorist from Plymouths' defence argument? 😀
I don’t understand why anyone should be allowed to own a gun,
I don't understand why everyone doesn't own a gun and enjoy shooting. It's great, even my grandkids enjoy it.
I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t own a gun and enjoy shooting. It’s great, even my grandkids enjoy it.
You could say that about basketball, mountain biking, ballet, piano, guitar, frisbee, archery, skimming pebbles, football..
But you’d still be really short on understanding. It’s simple enough that we all like different stuff? (Life Of Brian joke goes here)
Disclaimer: I do actually like target shooting. Scoped, unscoped, any kind of gun, preferably powerful air rifle but have shot 303.
I think the internet is more dangerous than gun licenses.
I think the internet is more dangerous than gun licenses.
That idea is certainly proving to be true with the anti-gun cranks pouring out their crap on this thread. Absolutely no idea any of them.
It’s a lot harder to snap and shoot your victims when there’s a 20 minute gap while you’ve got to pick up the guns from the gun club.
If it was a heat of the moment thing, yes. Between Ryan, Hamilton, Bird and Davison how many were spur of the moment? I know how far you can get I 20 minutes, I know what you can do in about 40. If that's not long enough to change your mind, nothing will.
Banning guns entirely wouldn’t change the murder rate dramatically in the UK: there are too many men murdering their partners and children at home, and murdering each other over drugs and bravado for that.
So, how about instead of banning the tools we spend the money sorting out the men that do these things before they do? You're trying to treat the symptom rather than the disease. The problem isn't guns, it's mentally ill and/or abusive people. But that isn't a nice easy fix is it? It's much harder than just using the stick.
But in a hypothetical situation where you can only keep guns on a secure range, would you be happy to relax the rules on gun types provided the facilities to shoot them existed? For example pistol shooting and 50 cal.
That idea is certainly proving to be true with the anti-gun cranks pouring out their crap on this thread. Absolutely no idea any of them.
Not seeing any "anti gun cranks", that is in your sensitive head. I don't have to have any idea about guns, I have no interest in them and I know in perspective they are not a major issue in the UK.
However, I still think it is odd that anybody can have one with no reason required (which is why I started the thread) and still don't know why Davison needed on (i.e. what did he use it for, was he in a gun club etc,.).
I could basically get into my head that I want to kill a load of people. I could get a firearms license very easily (I am efficient at paperwork), the GP would okay it, I have nothing whatsoever to go against my application. The day after getting my gun I could then commit mass murder with it.
The fact people could use a knife, not many mass shootings occur etc,. doesn't change that.
That idea is certainly proving to be true with the anti-gun cranks pouring out their crap on this thread. Absolutely no idea any of them.
I think you'll find that many don't see the need for guns rather than being "anti-gun" per se. Just because someone isn't "for" something doesn't mean they are "against" it. I've used guns from shotguns up to army assault rifles but don't see the need to own one. I've as much interest in using one as in playing golf, i.e. none. If I lived somewhere like Spitzbergen where there's a risk of large predators, i.e. polar bears, then I'd own and learn how to use a firearm.
The total pistol ban is as much about ease of policing as anything. Personally I don't see why they couldn't be used (and kept) at secure ranges. I doubt you'll change politician's minds though, always having one eye on the polls.
Even a complete (I'm not advocating this before you misquote or partially quote me) ban on firearms wouldn't solve the problem of the very occasional rogue "lone wolf". Generally I think we've got things about right, sure there'll always be edge cases or an odd combination of circumstances which are either too onerous or too slack but letting the tail wag the dog isn't how things should be done.
With the Plymouth killings, an underlying cause would seem to be lack of resources in assessing applicants. Why is there a lack of resources? Maybe the cuts to the Police budget have something to do with it?
The total pistol ban is as much about ease of policing as anything. Personally I don’t see why they couldn’t be used (and kept) at secure ranges. I doubt you’ll change politician’s minds though, always having one eye on the polls.
TBH as a shooter I was comfortable with this, and after Hungerford with the auto/semi-auto bans - as these are the weapons that are causing the vast majority of deaths in countries where they are legal (and pistols are just too easily concealed).
Scotland's implementation of licencing for airguns annoyed the arse out of me though, as it just wasn't required and pretty much came from a single incident that caught politicians 'attention'. The only guaranteed way of killing someone with an airgun is using it as a blunt instrument.
The requirements to have an airgun licence are actually greater than is needed for a shotgun and TBH I had considered just applying for an FAC instead as my son at the time was shooting .22's at our local club - the only additional check would be the Police visiting and reviewing my 'security'. My neighbour has a 'range', so I can shoot from home.
The total pistol ban is as
Pistols are not banned.
I could basically get into my head that I want to kill a load of people
This is the crux of the issue for me, the folk who want either guns to banned from storage at home or don't understand the "need" for a gun, pretty much tar everyone with the same brush; you're making the assumption that people who want or need guns are automatically a risk. And when a incident like this happens look to restrict the rights of people who've no other connection with the killer other than they have a gun. This guy had a beard, are beardy men a risk? That would be daft wouldn't it? Yet here you all are making that exact same link. He had a gun, therefore everyone with a gun should be further restricted "just in case"
makes zero sense
I don’t understand why anyone should be allowed to own a gun, outside of a few neiche cases, like certain types of farmers or hunters, like if you live in alaska or somewhere where you might get eaten by a bear.
Bloody bonkers.
Not as bonkers as smoking, I mean people know it kills them yet they willingly pay £10 for a packet of 20 cancer sticks and smoke them!? I mean WTF?
This is the crux of the issue for me, the folk who want either guns to banned from storage at home or don’t understand the “need” for a gun, pretty much tar everyone with the same brush; you’re making the assumption that people who want or need guns are automatically a risk
Nope, doing no such thing. I do admit I don't see the "need" for a gun just because someone fancies having a shotgun in their house which is why I asked the original question and hadn't thought it would be so easy.
My example of a planned killing spree by a sane person (according to GP) and non-criminal (according to Police) being able to easily get a gun just proves that point. Until that happens a lot more often/at all then not something we need to worry about I guess.
And when a incident like this happens look to restrict the rights of people who’ve no other connection with the killer other than they have a gun. This guy had a beard, are beardy men a risk? That would be daft wouldn’t it? Yet here you all are making that exact same link. He had a gun, therefore everyone with a gun should be further restricted “just in case”
makes zero sense
Sorry, I'm not anti-gun or anti-shooting, in the right situations, but this is just not comparable.
I get that not all gun owners are murderers, I used to be a gun owner and I'm not (although there are times, when argumentative folks on the internet do push me in that direction). I get that we may equally say beards, or men, or men with beards called Jake.
But the gun is more than a connection, it's also the tool. The beard didn't facilitate the murders. The gun did. To ignore that as a factor degrades your points.
Reductio ad absurdum. Why not extend ownership and allow semi-automatic assault rifles to be in public ownership. They're great fun, I had the chance to shoot M16 and GPMG and SMG, and also 9mm and 44 Magnum as a cadet. As long as they're only in responsible hands, what's the risk? The vast majority of gun owners could be trusted, after all?
I could basically get into my head that I want to kill a load of people. I could get a firearms license very easily (I am efficient at paperwork), the GP would okay it, I have nothing whatsoever to go against my application. The day after getting my gun I could then commit mass murder with it.
No you couldn't, unless you're confusing a section 1 firearms certificate with a section 2 shotgun certificate. S1 isn't a paperwork exercise, be under no doubts.
S2, as said, isn't a done deal either. As I said, I know someone who's been waiting years for one. After this I suspect he'll be waiting longer if he doesn't have it already.
But as I said before, how about rather than treating the symptoms we treat the disease?
As long as they’re only in responsible hands, what’s the risk?
Sure, the word "responsible" is doing some heavy lifting here, Like probably a few folk here I've paid to shoot those weapons in ranges in the US, and the one I was at was all about range safety and briefings on gun safety and so on, and it was totally safe...There's probably no good reason why that can't exist in the UK, is there? Are we so completely untrustworthy?
To ignore that as a factor degrades your points.
Yes, fair point, the point was somewhat tongue in cheek, but we agree, I think, that the problem here isn't necessarily the weapons, it's the folk that own them, right?
'necessarily' is doing some lifting too.
how about rather than treating the symptoms we treat the disease?
But the point is that while treating the disease (whatever you see that as being - mental health, incels, etc.) as it stands there is a non-negligible chance that mistakes get made, and if they do then people have guns in their homes with the potential outcomes like last week's. So we also should see if we can deal with symptoms too, and one way of doing that is making access to guns harder, particularly in this sort of instance.
Yes, it's inconvenient for the majority of owners, I see that. I'm not calling for an outright ban on home ownership, in specific cases with a clear demonstrable need. But presumption should be 'No' and if there isn't infrastructure in eg: shooting grounds for this, then we should be looking for a means to do it in other ways.
It's not a black and white issue, I think the pro gun owners see this as a tragic accident but happens so rarely that it's 'acceptable' compared to the convenience of keeping guns at home. I don't, there is no acceptable level of collateral damage in this.
But as I said before, how about rather than treating the symptoms we treat the disease?
Because that is just avoiding the issue. You know full well that the 'disease' is never going to be fully treated and there will never be the resources or money to ensure that everyone's mental health is 100%.
However, controlling (or rather not 'giving out' guns to anyone that wants one) is a more realistic thing that could be done.
and if they do then people have guns in their homes with the potential outcomes like last week’s
How can you write that and not expect others to interpret that as the singling out of people who just happen to have a gun at home. You're saying (whether you intend or not) that you suspect all home gun owners to have the potential to be mass murderers.
Everyone has the potential to be a mass murderer given the wrong circumstances.
I'm not singling out gun owners and saying the specific desire to be a gun owner makes them unsuitable to be allowed to have guns at home. I'm saying that no-one should be allowed to (except in very specific circumstances yada yada)
(and yes, why are we allowed knives, or baseball bats which could also be used, but then we'll be on a third lap around that point)
Everyone has the potential to be a mass murderer given the wrong circumstances.
They do yes, but how many people actually become a mass murderer? Not many is it and most of those that do don't use a gun as they are typically more sinister/serial killer category.
But on the rare occasions when they do it's within tolerable levels?
I’m saying that no-one should be allowed to
...because of the implied danger (you believe) that one day one of them will go off the rails, and become a mass murderer. It doesn't matter how you say it, you keep saying the same thing.(intentionally or not)
it’s within tolerable levels?
Yes. 138,000 people own guns, less than 2 people are murdered in mass shootings every year on average. Murder with a gun is 5th on the list of ways to be murdered. Knife murder is dramatically more dangerous, and if you want to prevent unnecessary death, then stopping 12 year olds feeling they need to carry a knife around with them would be a more productive campaign than not allowing guns to be kept at home which wouldn't prevent death in any meaningful way. Stats show that 23 children (under 17) have been murdered with a knife since March 2020.
Direct your intolerance of death in a more productive direction.
because of the implied danger (you believe) that one day one of them will go off the rails, and become a mass murderer.
It's not implied. It happens. Rarely, thankfully, but as last week shows, it happens.
Direct your intolerance of death in a more productive direction.
Because there are worse things then we shouldn't suggest something to prevent bad things?
It’s not implied. It happens
And here you are again, implying that everyone with a gun is a potential murderer, you really do need to stop doing that
then we shouldn’t suggest something to prevent bad things?
There's no evidence to suggest that what you want to do will reduce harm.
And here you are again, implying that everyone with a gun is a potential murderer, you really do need to stop doing that
Why should I stop doing it when it's true. They are. We all have that capability in the wrong moment / under the wrong circumstances. But they've got ready access to guns, which facilitates it.
There’s no evidence to suggest that what you want to do will reduce harm.
There’s no evidence to suggest that what I am proposing will NOT reduce harm. It's a proposal for debate, not shouting down because you don't like it.
There is evidence that having a gun at his home facilitated Jake Davison to murder five people with it though.
Knife murder is dramatically more dangerous
If course that is true, but it is extreme whataboutery. Knives are kind of essential for cooking and as utility tools.
What do you think the gun crime statistics would look like if literally every household had a colt 45 in the kitchen draw?
Good point.
Can we live without knives - not easily, big impact to cookery, various tasks
Can we live without cars - not easily, big impact to many lives
Can we live without guns - 99.8% of people in UK seem to be able to (based on the 138,000 owners) so I am going to say yes, very easily
Because that is just avoiding the issue.
Er, no, it's not. As pointed out there are plenty of abusive and mentally unhealthy people out there. Banning guns from the home without good cause isn't an answer for practical reasons already outlined. What WOULD produce tangible results is giving Firearms Enforcement Officers the resources to do their bl9oody jobs properly rather than loading them, and these armourers with MORE responsibility with presumably the same funding. At the same time improving the general mental health of the nation, seriously tackling domestic violence and employing some joined up thinking (different agencies/departments/services actually speak to each other) would improve outcomes in far more than just gun ownership.
You know full well that the ‘disease’ is never going to be fully treated and there will never be the resources or money to ensure that everyone’s mental health is 100%.
So we should just skip that bit and make sure folk only get stabbed or beaten in future?
However, controlling (or rather not ‘giving out’ guns to anyone that wants one) is a more realistic thing that could be done.
How many times? SHOTGUN LICENCES ARE NOT JUST GIVEN OUT! Yes, they are less stringent than Firearms licences in terms of onus on proving need vs proving no need but they are NOT a free for all. You have said umpteen times you know nothing about firearms so stop repeating something that isn't true.
there is no acceptable level of collateral damage in this.
That's a completely unrealistic stance to take. Short of banning all (and I mean all) weapons that's never going to happen.
That’s a completely unrealistic stance to take. Short of banning all (and I mean all) weapons that’s never going to happen.
Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon, I could probably beat someone to death with a wooden spoon if I was determined.
The only purpose of a gun is to kill stuff with, it has no other use.
The only purpose of a gun is to kill stuff with, it has no other use.
Same for bows, swords and throwing axes.
*awaits BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT! response*
No difference.. Bows maybe if your a davey crocket type living in the yukon... Again nieche cases.
Swords.. Just for Killin.
Axes (not the throwing type) are apparently useful for chopping up fire wood.
How many times? SHOTGUN LICENCES ARE NOT JUST GIVEN OUT! Yes, they are less stringent than Firearms licences in terms of onus on proving need vs proving no need but they are NOT a free for all.
So if I was apply for a shotgun license do you think I would get one?
I would put a lot of money on me getting one and as a, on paper, law abiding and mentally stable person I am not alone - there are literally millions of us.
At the same time improving the general mental health of the nation, seriously tackling domestic violence and employing some joined up thinking (different agencies/departments/services actually speak to each other) would improve outcomes in far more than just gun ownership.
Yes we should do that. We should also improve road safety and all the other whataboutery you seem to excel in.
Maybe start a topic on mental health to go with the road safety topic that I still haven't seen yet and stop with all the whataboutery BS.
What WOULD produce tangible results is giving Firearms Enforcement Officers the resources to do their bl9oody jobs properly rather than loading them, and these armourers with MORE responsibility with presumably the same funding.
Good point but who will be paying for this? As it stands the cost per licence is rather low and the burden is already picked up by the general taxpayer.
Why should I stop doing it when it’s true. They are. We all have that capability in the wrong moment / under the wrong circumstances. But they’ve got ready access to guns, which facilitates it.
That sums up the level of utter garbage being spouted on here quite neatly.
Yes we should do that. We should also improve road safety and all the other whataboutery you seem to excel in.
Maybe start a topic on mental health to go with the road safety topic that I still haven’t seen yet and stop with all the whataboutery BS.
EDIT:
It's not whataboutery. It's tackling the root of the problem rather than the results. I don't know why you have such a hard time agreeing with this, whether I agree with tightening up or not this STILL results in improvements and not just in one narrow area!
It's alright, debate is not aimed for you. You're so myopic to your own opinions there's no hope you'll even consider the thought that others exist. I'm actually quite pro gun ownership but I also think that changes are needed to tighten up further and I hope there are enough that are reasonable enough to see that too.
Just shoving your fingers in your ears and claiming it's all OK because 'only' 2 people a year get shot and that more people die by other means - if all gun owners were like you I'd hope for a total ban.
^ I hope he doesn't have access to a gun with a temper like that
[EDIT now has edited to remove the swearing / abuse directed at another forum user]
@theotherjonv I think you should quietly consider that perhaps you don't know what is happening in my life right now and maybe you should just back off before you say something really hurtful.
I also never abused any forum member. I swore a bit and decided it wasn't conducive to anything and came back with a more reasoned reply.
I am getting extremely frustrated with the fact that people who confess they know nothing about the subject are proposing this and that with NO idea of the impracticalities of what they are proposing then getting bent out of shape when people suggest that tackling the root cause is a better idea.
and you don't know what's happening in mine, or indeed why I am so outraged by the murder of 5 people last weekend and the way people on here are defending it as 'within tolerable limits' and dismissing counter opinions as 'absolute garbage'
So I'm sorry if you're upset by it, but I suspect it's minor compared to Sophie Martyn's family right now.
I also never abused any forum member. I swore a bit and decided it wasn’t conducive to anything and came back with a more reasoned reply.
It's OK. We all have the potential to flip based on external factors. As I said earlier.
Okay I'm going if you're just going to resort to crass digs.
Enjoy your echo chamber, feel free to put whatever words you like in my mouth.
Good point but who will be paying for this? As it stands the cost per licence is rather low and the burden is already picked up by the general taxpayer
They should just raise the cost to reflect the cost for the force. Make the standards clear for the certification. Defer to the side of caution with an appeal process (costs recoverable).
Grew up on a farm in the country and my dad had a gun. Shot things myself and am good at hitting clays.
I still think we should have more restrictive access to guns, not looser controls.
You have to legislate for the mal-adjusted, unfortunately.
So if I was apply for a shotgun license do you think I would get one?
Unless anyone else here actually knows you then it's purely speculation - but if this is true:
as a, on paper, law abiding and mentally stable person
and you've no previous convictions, no medical condition that would make a GP show cause for concern, and you can find someone who had genuinely known you (police forces have guidance on who and how well) that is also of good character, to provide a reference, and you can show you have suitable secure storage then there is a good chance that you would be granted a shotgun license in due course. Whilst the wording legislation is different between showing a reason for owning a FA v's a SG - they CAN still refuse if they don't believe you have a legitimate reason for owning a SG. [Note you will need to provide home addresses for last 5 yrs, GPs details for last 10 yrs, you'll have to disclose convictions - including road traffic matters like speeding, and even police warnings from 20+ yrs ago and you'll not only have to disclose mental health conditions but various physical conditions like MS or Epilepsy]. However, IF you meet ALL the criteria and both your GP and referee say the right things when asked, then I'd expect that eventually (2-3 months for a shotgun cert when things run smoothly, precovid) you would be granted a shotgun license. Is there some reason that you shouldn't? An argument that hypothetically you might go crazy immediately after the grant is probably only valid if there is evidence that this is something that happens - from what I have read the vast majority (possibly all UK?) mass shooters had clear signs beforehand that they were unsuitable to hold firearms or shotguns. I think there are probably arguments for making it easier for doctors, referees, family members to alert the police to concerns about suitability after grant (there is a slight anomaly that family members cannot be referees - but surely should be able to be whatever the opposite of a referee is and say - "are you joking, he's Mr Angry on a bike forum after a few drinks, imagine if he got really pissed off for some reason").
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't hold a shotgun certificate or firearm certificate. I have fired air rifles and shotguns under supervision. I don't have brads' enthusiasm for it - although I could see (esp with air rifle) that it involved skill and the competitive element was fun. I have no desire to keep a firearm or shotgun at home but can clearly see that stopping people from doing so introduces other potential vulnerabilities, or encourages people to bend the rules. I doubt it would often achieve the stated aim of avoiding attrocities.
There is a legitimate question about who would you trust with a shotgun that you wouldn't trust with a rifle - I can't think of anyone and therefore can't see why a shotgun certificate is easier (but still not trivial) to obtain? Those seeking change have far more prospect of success pushing for that than a ban on home storage; in fact it might even be supported by all the FAC holders who probably wonder why they are considered so much riskier.
Whilst of course it's not mutually exclusive to fix the cause and the symptom it's niave to think that governments wouldn't take the easy knee jerk option, to be seen to do something. The worst possible outcome is they do something to appease the media (like ban home storage) which either has no impact, or worse a negative impact. In terms of impact: addressing the risks from Incels, tackling internet misogyny, and generally holding angry aggressive people to account would have greater impact than any licensing change - not just by reducing once-in-a-decade atrocities but by having in-roads to the domestic issues that happen every weekend and never make the front pages.
However, if people want to get irate - they could ask why the government closed a consultation on licensing guidance 2 years ago but has still to draw any conclusions on a way forward. Especially since the proposed guidance would have placed a requirement on police to keep licenses under continuous review.
However, IF you meet ALL the criteria and both your GP and referee say the right things when asked, then I’d expect that eventually (2-3 months for a shotgun cert when things run smoothly, precovid) you would be granted a shotgun license
Yep, and that is a very likely outcome. I see absolutely no reason why I would not be granted one. The difficult part appears to be getting GP approval, not because of any issues with me but because GPs don't want to be approving the requests. Presumably because they don't feel they are in a position to approve gun ownership for a patient, which is understandable.
It’s not whataboutery. It’s tackling the root of the problem rather than the results. I don’t know why you have such a hard time agreeing with this, whether I agree with tightening up or not this STILL results in improvements and not just in one narrow area!
Where have I said I don't agree with improving mental health, improving road safety and all the other whataboutery you have come up with.
The thread is about gun licensing (it is even in the title!) and not about mental health or road safety or knife controls or baseball bat controls or etc,. etc,.
Poly,
Thanks for the detailed response. I have been reading up on it and that matches what I have read, along with the GP aspect that was brought in and is a stumbling block that gun associations try to assist with.
I know how governments work and the likely response although saying and doing are different things and I would guess a lot of Tory MPs are on the shooty side so even if a proposal came out this week so the government can show their concern it would probably never actually be implemented.
Don't worry if your GP won't provide you a reference, or you're worried they might say something that might compromise your application. BASC has a list of GP members who will supply one for you. Simples!
https://basc.org.uk/providing-a-solution-on-medical-firearm-verification/
We have identified individual BASC members who are doctors and willing to provide verification to medical declarations. If a member experiences a problem obtaining medical verification or their GP demands an exorbitant fee, they can contact the BASC firearms team. Following this, details of GPs willing to assist will be provided to the member. This is an important membership benefit that is not available to anyone who is not a member!
A lot of people are under the impression that they must supply a medical report to demonstrate their suitability to have firearms. That is not the case; the only requirement is for a GP to look at the patient’s medical records and verify that the declaration on the form is true. Doctors are not being asked about suitability; that is a matter for the chief police officer alone.
Yes, I found something similar hence my comment around gun associations assisting. Must be a list of gun happy GPs I suppose.
Gunhappy GP,s ffs
This is exactly why this discussion is becoming worthless.
It’s a list of GP,s who will do a report, not a list of ones that will turn a blind eye to reasons not to grant a cert.
But hey, that doesn’t fit your narrative I suppose.
It really doesn't concern you at all?
It’s a list of GP,s who will do a report, not a list of ones that will turn a blind eye to reasons not to grant a cert.
Why would a GP put themselves forward to approve any person (a person they have never even seen) who wants a license? Why would they be interested in doing that specifically, could it be they are interested in guns themselves?
This is exactly why this discussion is becoming worthless.
Maybe don't offer your worthless comments and it may help a bit?
And silly bickering aside, I am still interested in what the original reason was for Davison having a license and why that reason was so strong that it was felt necessary to give back the license even after needing to attend anger management as a pre requisite.
I am still interested in what the original reason was for Davison having a license
Membership of a shooting club with somewhere to shoot would be enough currently I believe. Or written permission to shoot on land.
Why would a GP put themselves forward to approve any person
GPs don't "approve" anything, they are just required to compare a patient record with an application and agree (or disagree) with it's factuality. Approval is down to the cops
Why would a GP put themselves forward to approve any person (a person they have never even seen)
Do you have a specific GP or like many others are you simply a member of a practice and get whoever is available on the day? What sort of relationship do you think you have with your GP that they could assess you any better than anyone else with patient record access?
Where have I said I don’t agree with improving mental health, improving road safety and all the other whataboutery you have come up with.
Nowhere but you have amply demonstrated that reading and comprehension aren't your strong points throughout this thread. Read my posts again, properly.
Maybe don’t offer your worthless comments and it may help a bit?
So you only welcome comments from the equally clueless and misinformed? Seems about right.
I am getting extremely frustrated with the fact that people who confess they know nothing about the subject are proposing this and that with NO idea of the impracticalities of what they are proposing then getting bent out of shape when people suggest that tackling the root cause is a better idea.
Story of my life at work tbh and quite frankly modern life across the world (see Brexit, vaccines etc and all the armchair 'experts').
Membership of a shooting club with somewhere to shoot would be enough currently
Shotgun licence doesnt even need that. You can have it simply to have one (in theory I guess so you can pass the ancestral shotgun collection to the next gen). Firearm licence needs a bit more effort but shotgun is more along the lines of permitted unless good reason not to.
Nowhere but you have amply demonstrated that reading and comprehension aren’t your strong points throughout this thread. Read my posts again, properly.
More insults I see, along with those you edited out. Oh dear.
Membership of a shooting club with somewhere to shoot would be enough currently I believe. Or written permission to shoot on land.
Or some other reason, the reasons are not prescribed. That's the point though, what was the reason in this case and why was that reason so compelling that license was given back?
What sort of relationship do you think you have with your GP that they could assess you any better than anyone else with patient record access?
None, but isn't it odd that GP's would actually actively provide their services for this when most don't want to touch it. Do you not think that would be because they are interested in guns/own guns etc,. and want others to have guns?
None, but isn’t it odd that GP’s would actually actively provide their services for this when most don’t want to touch it
I can't be bothered to ask them, but I would guess that it's probably a time/fee issue rather than a burning desire not to have patients with weaponry issue. My GPs spend a good deal of their day doing all sorts of paperwork that "sort of needs a GP but doesn't really". from fitness to drive for the DVLA to cabby health/fitness reports for the council to bus pass applications, PIPs to medical reports for insurance claims and on and on and on. I employ a 1/2 admin person/week just to track the fee requests, completing the reports, the chasing of money the redacting of names and so on, and so and on. It's a major PITA for everyone. I don't think my GPs would care about the gun issue (one of them is pretty keen on fly fishing, I don't think for a second he wouldn't fill one in for a patient who wanted to shoot driven birds) it just wouldn't be a priority right now
I can’t be bothered to ask them, but I would guess that it’s probably a time/fee issue rather than a burning desire not to have patients with weaponry issue.
I know why GPs don't want to to do it and have evidence of them not wanting to do it but my question is the other way round and about GPs actively putting themselves forward to do it when as you say they already have enough paperwork, patients etc,.
It's not about where guns are stored, it's about who has access to them.
The licensing system needs a massive overhaul and gun owners should pay the full cost of proper background checks before being issued a certificate. The current system is subsidised by the taxpayer, under constant scrutiny and ineffective. The general public has lost confidence in it and gun owners find the process frustrating, slow and inconsistent in its requirements.
One of the worst examples (other than incidents like the recent Plymouth shooting) - Greater Manchester pulled 100 random certificates in around 2015. They found 6 of those should never have been issued or should have been revoked. It sparked a massive investigation and full review of all cert holders in the area. But if you extrapolate those numbers up - there are about 10,000 certificate holders in Greater Manchester so that would have meant about 500-600 people had been issued certificates who weren't fit to have access to a gun, regardless of where they were stored.
BTW - The BASC GP scheme are GPs who review a patient's medical records and flag if there is anything in there that would be an issue. I have zero relationship with my GP. I've moved 3 times in the last 5 years and have been never even visited 2 of the practices (including the one I am currently registered with) so it would make no difference whether I used the BASC scheme or my own practice.
about GPs actively putting themselves forward to do it
Oh that's easy. Say you're a qualified GP and can't be arsed to see patients? well, a glittering career awaits you in the field of hawking your services out to various firms (solicitors, insurance, and so on) or alternatively one of the indemnity organisations to do essentially this sort of work. Compiling of reports, commenting on treatments, expert witnessing and so on. It's not the same sort of money as a GP granted, but you can still make a pretty good living without all the hassle of having to deal with patients.
The BASC GP scheme are GPs who review a patient’s medical records and flag if there is anything in there that would be an issue.
That's not my interpretation of what the BASC site says. I have bolded the bit that I think contradicts that statement
A lot of people are under the impression that they must supply a medical report to demonstrate their suitability to have firearms. That is not the case; the only requirement is for a GP to look at the patient’s medical records and verify that the declaration on the form is true. Doctors are not being asked about suitability; that is a matter for the chief police officer alone.