Forum menu
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.
Count Zero - a knife is much harder to do mass killings with than a gun. Its an arms length weapon v a distance one
Yeah, right…
#rollseyes
What a stunning counter argument. Think about all those scenarios and how they would change if the criminal had access to firearms.
Lets just take London bridge. How do you reckon a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk would have done against an Ar-15 variant. My money is on the AR-15 user.
Sure you still get nutters but the risk they pose is greatly reduced if they are waving a knife from argos vs a modern semi auto rifle with large capacity mag.
He did correct a spelling mistake though so that's me told.
@tjagain could you cite a source outside of the US which, culturally, has an hideously toxic relationship with firearms. Quite frankly you're being insulting in your assertion that gun ownership is some sort of fetish. I enjoy shooting because of the discipline and self control required, not because I see it as some sort of willy waving exercise. Quite frankly anyone who finds empowerment behind a gun doesn't deserve to handle one much less own it.
If you still want to talk about power play kinks go find a BDSM group, I'm sure you'll have quite the education.
There is a guy repeatedly letting off his shotgun in the garden next door. About once every 30 mins. Asserting his rights? We’re about 15 miles from Plymouth. There can’t be much sport to be had, it’s not that big a garden.
You may find it insulting squirrelking but its all over the literature
Its all about feeling powerful and in control for many people. Thats what the research shows.
Its also obvious in the way folk on here and in other places talk about guns and knives.
you may be an outlier but that is what its all about for many folk
There is a guy repeatedly letting off his shotgun in the garden next door.
You sure its a shotgun? Would seem odd using it in not that "big a garden". Chances of it being safe or legal unless you have a decent amount of land to play in is fairly low.
Yes, it is odd, that’s why I brought it up. And yes, it is a shotgun.
Oh, I’m not against the ownership of shotguns, my mum has working gun dogs… but why does anyone need one at home? Never mind someone living in a city, like Plymouth.
Yes, it is odd, that’s why I brought it up. And yes, it is a shotgun.
I would be tempted to phone 111 or whatever that nonemergency number is and ask for the firearms licencing units opinion on it.
but why does anyone need one at home?
If you spend your weekend claypigeon shooting where would you keep it? I guess at the club but then that gives a nice target for criminals and also means they need to invest in decent security. Or if you shoot at several clubs then what?
I am not sure there is an easy answer. Maybe start with raising the requirements for a shotgun licence to match a section 1 firearm licence? Depends on what comes out of the review into how he got the licence restored I think.