Forum menu
prospective murderers go on to commit fewer murders when they have less access to guns.
Given the the previous mass shooting to this one was Derrick Bird 10 years ago, and by all accounts no-one saw that one coming, and previous to that was Dunblane over 25 years ago. It would appear that the UK has largely got the balance right between the rights of folks to have guns and preventing murders from firearms. But realistically it's teeny problem, we have one of the lowest gun ownership populations in the world at under 3 per 100 people. Compared to the rest of Europe who's gun ownership is routinely double or treble our rate.
You could require people to keep them at gun clubs, but there's 1. clearly no need, and 2 you've immediately told every n'er-do-well in the county where all the guns are kept...
What estate ? I shoot in a dozen different places including private gardens, spread all over East Central Scotland.
Private gardens with a gun? unacceptable totally
What you do not realise is that for the safety of others guns need tighter control. You are also a complete outlier
I want them tightly controlled
No, you want them banned.
Did you know there are at least a half dozen rifle ranges around the outskirts of Edinburgh ?
Closest to you would be in Balerno I think. 1200mtr full bore target.
How much of an issue has that caused you ?.
tjagain
Full Member
Or for the deer stalking the gun is kept on the estate. Its not rocket science
Again, total lack of understanding of how deer stalking [insert any form of game shooting / pest control here] works or how it's undertaken. I shoot on 3 different farms. None of which is a grand estate with a gun room (and suitable security to store lots of firearms). They are farms. And spread over quite a wide distance. Shall I pop up to Lancaster to get my rifle for the place I'm going to tomorrow, which is near Nottingham?
Plus I could also chose to pay for a day accompanied stalking with one of the many guides who offer it. Any where in the UK.
Not rocket science, just totally impractical.
Utter tosh. You’re in danger of just making up allsorts here.
Nope - if you want to be a shooting range / gun club proper secure storage would need to be included in the busness
Private gardens with a gun? unacceptable totally
Why?
I'm seriously interested in this one.
nickc - to a great extent I agree that current arrangements do not work badly but how many deaths is acceptable to you or how many people need to die before further restrictions?
Brads - do not make shit up that you claim people want - I want guns tightly controlled not banned. I want a mechanism in place to prevent these mass shootings. No storage of guns at home would have prevented this one
I shoot on 3 different farms. None of which is a grand estate with a gun room (and suitable security to store lots of firearms).
So in order for shooting to be allowed then they have to provide secure gun storage. No storage, no shooting
Why?
I’m seriously interested in this one.
Lack of control, lack of safety. ( I guess tho your mental image of a private garden and mine are somewhat different 🙂 ) I am assuming yo don't mean 3 aciacia avenue suburbia
but how many deaths is acceptable to you
None obviously, but that's not going to happen. But the chances of me or you dying in a mass shooting in the UK are effectively nil, so stop worrying about it.
How are you going to get all the guns back from the bloke who's just broken into the gun club to steal all the weapons conveniently stored in one place for him, rather than currently dispersed who knows where all over the county.
EDIT
There were 600 murders in the UK in 20/21 so far which is down from over 700 in the last year (19/20). There isn't a problem with guns or storage of guns in this country that needs resolving. Most folk are stabbed, death by shooting is 5th on the list after strangled hit with something or just battered. most folk aren't being murdered with guns stored at home
Proper tragic this incident.
Being alive is dangerous and everyday we all do stuff that risks harming ourselves and others - driving is dangerous, crossing the road is dangerous, chopping veg is dangerous, giving an honest opinion on your wife's outfit is dangerous, even mountain biking is dangerous. We do this stuff because usually there's a benefit that outweighs the danger, and well, life would be boring if we or the government took a zero risk approach to everything we do.
Firearms are obviously very dangerous and clearly need controlling to an appropriate degree however the level of control is where most people will disagree, and also over what level of residual risk is acceptable in our society. Some will say there should be zero risk and call for an outright ban, and others will point to the low level of firearms deaths in the UK compared to other developed nations and say the current laws and controls are working as intended. Irrespective of which side of the fence you sit, incidents like this should trigger a proper review, which should look at both how firearms are licenced/controlled and what level of risk we are prepared to accept, sorry, what level of risk the government decides we are forced to accept as a society.
There's a case for using them for land management and agricultural purposes, and like it or not, there's also an economical benefit given the popularity of recreational shooting in the UK.
I don't think the government will ever ban firearms completely, but the way in which certificates are assessed and overseen should have a good overhaul - even if that only saves one life then the additional red tape is worth it.
incidents like this should trigger a proper review, which should look at both how firearms are licenced/controlled and what level of risk we are prepared to accept, sorry, what level of risk the government decides we are forced to accept as a society.
Yup - and what we are doing here is discussing further control measures
and like it or not, there’s also an economical benefit given the popularity of recreational shooting in the UK.
There is an economic benefit in allowing drink driving. ( rural pubs) thats a bogus arguement and of course in the case of grouse moors other useage could generate far more money ( eco tourism if they stop killing all unwanted animals including raptors)
Driven grouse shooting is on its way out anyway. There are less and less every year
There is an economic benefit in allowing drink driving. ( rural pubs) thats a bogus arguement
Create a false equivalence and declaim same as a bogus argument...Top work. There's no arguing with that!
to say we cannot reduce or ban an activity because of its economic benefit is bogus. there are plenty of things that create economic activity that are controlled or banned and drink driving is one easy example
To be clear.
I support shooting as a hobby, and I also recognise that some people need guns for their occupation. I shot as a kid and young adult, had my own shotgun, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I just think that restricting the keeping of guns in secure locations as far as possible is an inconvenient (and maybe in some cases with appropriate approval over-ridable) measure that should become the default.
In response to the
How are you going to get all the guns back from the bloke who’s just broken into the gun club to steal all the weapons conveniently stored in one place for him, rather than currently dispersed who knows where all over the county.
I think that's a false argument
1/ Plenty of guns are already stored in central locations - shooting clubs, cadet armouries in schools, gun shops.... how many of these are broken into currently? Is it because their security is already substantially higher than your average home location?
2/ Why would criminals want to break into these places to steal, say, 100 guns? Are they prepping for a robbery or a coup?
3/ They can be secured and eg: wired to the police station / armed response which is impractical for a home cabinet.
Well, that saved me typing... what he said.
From that ‘nuanced’ article
Or is it, as incels suggest, the fact that they feel marginalised in our current “woke” culture? I don’t have the answers to these questions, but if my research has taught me anything, it’s that we can’t help incels — and, in turn, protect our daughters — until we have that honest conversation.
That doesn’t sound ‘nuanced’ to me. Neither did the Guardian article. I actually think the ‘Unherd’ article does a more dangerous disservice tho by discarding/denying the possibility that boys/men/manboys are indeed being groomed/radicalised by this subculture and/or trolls who operate there.
It’s an objective fact that they are. Ask then and they will deny it of course. Because people being groomed/radicalised don’t tend recognise/admit it as such. Not until/if they realise it, which is normally some longer way down the road from where they are today.
Also
Interestingly, despite the certainty of many who have described him as an “incel”, Davison was also active on an anti-Incel “watchdog” sub, and two others dedicated to debunking the tenets of the incel ideology known as the “Black Pill”.
Imagine had he been a Muslim
Interestingly, despite the certainty of many who have described him as an “Islamist”, Dajani was also active on an anti-Islamist “watchdog” sub, and two others dedicated to debunking the Islamic ideology known as the “Quran”
‘Nuanced’ take?
(Still the fault of ‘woke’ culture though, naturally 🙄. Letting women choose who she dates, marries, etc … it’s just spoiled it for the male incels. /sarcasm
Interesting how incel/blackpill apologia closely resembles the more conservative attitudes of Islam. An Islamist might blame the downfall of the west on ‘wokeism’, you know, letting women have the freedom do what they want with their own lives, minds and bodies.
There isn’t a problem with guns or storage of guns in this country that needs resolving.
93% of homicides are committed by men. Maybe the problem is with men in this country and we should focus on stopping men getting hold of guns.
There isn’t a problem with guns or storage of guns in this country that needs resolving.
7 dead people would say different
Its not a huge problem by all means - but its still a problem.
tjagain
Full MemberI shoot on 3 different farms. None of which is a grand estate with a gun room (and suitable security to store lots of firearms).
So in order for shooting to be allowed then they have to provide secure gun storage. No storage, no shooting
So in order to reduce gun crime you want a farmer to instal a secure facility in his house to store my rifle? And give me access to his house at all hours to pick it up?
And as the guns have to stay on site, I’ll need a separate rifle for each location. So you’ve just tripled (in my case) the number of guns in circulation.
Good plan!
if I meet you halfway and agree that there are situations where it is necessary or justifiable for someone to keep their guns in their house/farm/shooting lodge, can you also go halfway and agree that for many - possibly the majority, IDK - a presumption that guns should be kept at their ranges or gun clubs unless there's a real and proven / risk assessed reason why not is not an unreasonable one.
Could one of those posting who does own/shoot rifles please clarify or possibly correct me please?
I thought that with rifles stored at gun clubs that the bolts were kept separate to the rifles themselves or by the owner? If that's the case it makes it less likely that someone will attempt to break in. Of course there's nothing stopping someone with a machine shop and lathe from fabricating the bolts but it's more trouble.
that was the case with the cadet rifles in our CCF at school, bolts were in a separate safe in the main school building, rifles were in the armoury in the Cadet hut.
I thought that with rifles stored at gun clubs that the bolts were kept separate to the rifles themselves or by the owner? If that’s the case it makes it less likely that someone will attempt to break in. Of course there’s nothing stopping someone with a machine shop and lathe from fabricating the bolts but it’s more trouble.
When my son shot at the club the guns were in one cabinet and the ammo in another. Not all guns have a 'bolt'.
Standard practice is to store guns separate from ammo and then make ammo hard to buy - face-to-face with a dealer, and a then only what you've listed on your certs.
Keeping bolts separate is good practice but its not required by the law. As regards keeping rifles at the club, my licence allows me to shoot at any approved club so its logistically difficult to get my home club to open up to allow me to collect my rifle to go and shoot elsewhere.
I get that you probably aren't a nutjob about to go rampaging through the streets, and there's a low risk therefore to you having guns and ammunition at home. But I'm afraid that's the inconvenience price that might be needed to protect against the possibility, with exceptions needed under careful proper scrutiny for those that demonstrably need (as opposed to prefer) to keep their guns at home/place of work.
I can see the argument for stricter measures for those wanting to keep firearms at home, and adding barriers to access such as keeping guns at a club, range, estate etc.
It might prevent the 'fit of rage' shootings, and give an opportunity for them to calm down, or time for the alarm to be raised.
There's a strong argument for storing the ammo separately from the firearms themselves. It takes away that spur of the moment misuse.
Back in the 1970s (maybe even later) there were high suicide rates due to aspirin poisoning. Back then aspirin pills were sold in bottles of 50 or 100. Then those were replaced with blister packs where each pill was "packaged" separately. The suicide rates dropped to near zero - the reason was that it killed (no pun intended) the instant urge to carry out the act: popping enough blister packs to get a lethal dose took enough time that it made the individual consider what they were doing.
We've a small gun cabinet in our house. I think the previous owner put it in, we just use it to store spare light bulbs and the like. It's really not going to stop a determined attack, but you'd make a lot of noise getting into it.
t would be akin to keeping your golf clubs at your local course and having to sign them out.
This is more akin to keeping your track bike at the velodrome. Now I want to race in Newport but my bike is held securely in Stratford. Or last minute a race is to be held in Derby and I have a place tomorrow but Stratford is closed for collection on the way (I can't bring it home a day early). I could ask the bike to be posted securely (and gun shops do this for purchases for non-certificate holders to inspect and buy), but it's more than a pain. Of course I might practice in Stratford most weeks, but will need it elsewhere on a very regular basis. Sometimes back to back. It's as much a sporting tool as my Dolan.
As for stalking and deer culling. Well which estate? And as noted, 5AM starts are normal in my family (I don't shoot living things and don't own a gun).
Yeah, it does sound like an inconvenience. I wonder how it compares to the inconvenience of organising a funeral for a family member.
This is the first mass shooting by a legally held gun owner in 10 years. Do people not think the system is actually working reasonably well?
I don't shoot and I have no interest in guns but we really do have to get a grip on the knee jerks.
Its a very sad situation for those involved including the family of the gunman, but its so rare in this country I think we really need to put it in perspective.
It is a pain but your golf clubs or your Dolan don't have the same potential to kill people, and so don't need to be restricted in the same way.
It is sporting equipment when used for sport. But a gun's principle purpose, what it was specifically designed for, is to kill.
This is the first mass shooting by a legally held gun owner in 10 years. Do people not think the system is actually working reasonably well?
Yes. I do. Do you not think we should try to make it work even better? Even if that's a bit inconvenient?
big_n_daft Opined yesterday
As for the energy in a single shotgun pellet comparator, the issue is most pellets have friends on a similar trajectory
I've been under a 12 gauge/bore discharge falling out of the sky at a decent range. Like rain on my coat. Being hit by an arrow from a war bow falling out of the sky is not on my list of things to try. (A lot of French knights at Crécy discovered an arrow storm is a bad place to be).
organising a funeral for a family member.
Indeed. Where would you like to store your kitchen knives and multi-tool?
The most common method of killing continued to be by a sharp instrument, with 275 homicides by this method, an increase of 15 offences (up 6%) compared with the previous year and the second highest annual figure since 1946.
Do you not think we should try to make it work even better?
Of course. And it’s the licensing part that failed in Plymouth.
back to what I said yesterday - irrespective of whether the licensing failed, if he'd then had to go to his gun club, and ask the armourer for his 'sporting equipment' to be released to him, would this have prevented the deaths of 6 innocent people?
I don't know, you would need to ask him as he may well have done that yes.
Do we know why he even had a gun, was it for a particular purpose or was it just because he wanted one? Was he even in a gun club so would keeping it at the club even apply here?
No storage of guns at home would have prevented this one
TJ - there is absolutely no evidence to support this. (1) Its not actually clear he lived with his mother (site of first shooting). The press describe a disturbance outside, him bursting in and then shooting her. They only refer to it as "her home". If he didn't the "calming down" argument is lost; (2) Nothing to stop him going to get the gun from its "safe place" and take away for whatever legitimate reasons are permitted (going to another range, taking for test/inspection/repair/sale, shooting rabbits/pigeon etc). I'm not sure who would want to be the armourer who decides that - or tries to stop someone as they head back from target practice with a loaded weapon; (3) Nothing to suggest this was a sudden split-second thing, rather it was premeditated and some obstacles would have easily been planned around; (4) we don't know what justification was/would be dreamed up for why he wanted a gun, but if we accept that some people can justify for farming, vermin, etc reasons keeping a gun at home (especially where home is also their workplace) then don't rule out the possibility that he'd have created a justification to fit.
There may well be questions to be asked about how he got and retained a license, and even whether the licensing scheme should be tougher, e.g. shotguns similar to firearms; shorter period for new/young/all licenses; easier ways to report concerns about license holders etc. but placing the concern on where the gun was kept is missing the point. Nobody seemed to think he should have had access to guns even kept at a range - so putting the effort into controlling that is a far better investment in legislative time and political debate.
The difference between the bike and golf club analogies is that if that was the rule, you could quite reasonably expect to pick up your bike/clubs the night before (or week before) and keep them safely at home / in the car. It would be inevitable that this would happen with guns too - but some (many?) of them would be less securely stored when "in transit".
I think you understand the proposition completely. It's not about this specific incident, it's about a reasonable, albeit inconvenient suggestion, that guns be kept under lock and key at proper facilities and only released for appropriate reasons. Not just kep at people's homes. With appropriate exceptions allowed for those with demonstrable reasons to need their gun at home - eg: as part of your occupation.
Inconvenient for sure but if that inconvenience stops another 3 year old being shot by someone who's flipped and has a gun and ammo in his house, I'd accept it. As an ex-shooter myself.
Pretty well every system has holes in it, it's events like this that expose them. Invariably if you design a system then you are blind to its flaws, it's why you have third party testing for example. And that's perhaps a flaw in itself, many of these systems and practices tend not to have been stress tested prior to release.
Last night I watched "8 Days to the Moon" about the Apollo 11 moon landings. Armstrong and Aldrin are sat in the Lunar Module running through the checks when they discover the switch on a circuit breaker is missing/broken. No big deal, well apart from the fact that it's the switch that enables the rocket to get them off the moon. The most expensive project in history could have failed because of a broken switch.
Given the rarity of gun crime (outside inter-gang violence) in the UK, the firearms licensing system probably isn't too bad but like many it may need a little modernising.
and ask the armourer for his ‘sporting equipment’ to be released to him, would this have prevented the deaths of 6 innocent people?
Might have done, might not have done. If you're the amorourer who gave him the weapons to carry out a mass shooting could you now be held culpable to some degree? If not legally then morally?
Pretty well every system has holes in it, it’s events like this that expose them. Invariably if you design a system then you are blind to its flaws, it’s why you have third party testing for example. And that’s perhaps a flaw in itself, many of these systems and practices tend not to have been stress tested prior to release.
I don't know what lines of work others are in, but in mine we accept that there are flaws and that mistakes get made. So we layer in extra.
We work with high powered lasers for example. We train users, interlock the rooms to prevent access to others, all users have to wear PPE when in the labs, and the lasers are confined on the optical tables by surrounds that prevent the beam escaping the confines of the table. Chance of one failing is low, chance of all four.......
Yes licensing failed, should not be the point at which we shrug and say that enough was done.
I get that preventing unnecessary death is the goal here, but the facts around shooting don't really make for a convincing argument to change the current situation. Gun licensing is already restrictive (individual errors notwithstanding) the likelihood of being a victim of mass shooting in this country is as close to nil as makes no difference. When people are actually murdering each other they pick; knives, blunt instruments, strangulation, and good ole fashioned battering before a gun.
Changing gun laws on the off chance that they might (but there's no evidence either way) prevent some death every decade or so but at the same time, centralize weaponry in fewer places, and make perfectly legitimate users lives more difficult seems on the face it; bad law making
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.
Nothing to stop him going to get the gun from its “safe place” and take away for whatever legitimate reasons are permitted
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 or putting anti-jump nets along the "popular" suicide bridge an adjacent bridge is unguarded.
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.