Forum menu
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.