Forum menu
@nickc - I don't think anyone's (currently) proposing changing the laws surrounding gun ownership rather the emphasis seems to be on those tasked with implementing the various checks performing more and/or better checks. If I was posting over social media about "how I'd take out <insert name of subsection of society here>" then applied for a gun license stating how level headed and even tempered I was then I'd expect alarm bells to be deafening the officer in charge.
The location of firearm storage does depend on its use surely? Estate/farm work and pest control need the guns to hand but for gun club type shooting it makes more sense for the guns to be kept at the club premises where better security should be available. If there's an inter-club competition then these tend to be planned beforehand so some means of "releasing" the guns for that isn't too hard to implement. In that regard, guns aren't special, other activities do similarly regularly.
people don't need their rowing eights stored at home and regularly attend other regattas.
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?
No, they are an armourer not a bloody mindreader.
If you’re the amorourer
A lover, not a fighter
I think there just has to be an assumption that you're not going to be a mass murderer rather than an assumption that if you want to own a gun you must be some sort of pre-diagnosed deranged nutcase itching to go full Columbine on the receipt of some bad news, best we take that gun off you now in case you do something silly.
The government has to, at some point, treat it's citizens like adults, and we have to accept that you can't mitigate for every tragedy even as we'd like to. The fact is that the overwhelming number of folk that own guns do so without any sort of problem at all. If you're going to make their lives measurably harder on the off-chance that you may or may not prevent some random event at some point in the next decade or so...well, I just think that's probably not a good enough reason.
on the off-chance that you may or may not prevent some random event at some point in the next decade or so
random event = 5 people being gunned down in cold blood. Not a good enough reason to make gun storage slightly more inconvenient?
Probably. Yeah.
If you accept that some people will murder other people by stabbing them with knives and we don't make knife storage inconvenient, and we don't make it illegal to sell an hand axe or assume that everyone who wants to own a baseball bat wants to stove some poor soul's head in, or all the things to make a suicide vest, or a petrol bomb or the keys to a 7.5T...
Making gun ownership slightly more inconvenient probably isn't going to do anything to the mass murder rates. If you accept that role of a govt is to make laws that provide the most good for the most citizens, then the 138000 people that own guns outweigh the 1 a year that will die in a mass shooting because of the current law.
Making gun ownership slightly more inconvenient probably isn’t going to do anything to the mass murder rates.
Agree. Even in this case he could have just grabbed a knife and probably killed the same number of people. Remember he wasn't actually caught but killed himself so he decided when to stop.
Knifes are more difficult, because they have a use in the home, whereas guns don't need to be in the home. Of course, it's convenient, or perhaps even brings enjoyment, to keep your gun at home... but it's not needed there, is it?
I disagree. He decided he was going to kill himself, either by gun or suicide by cop. But being mentally ill, incel, angry, whatever, he decided he'd take a few with him in the meantime.
My opinion for sure but he wouldn't have done that with a knife or a baseball bat. He'd have been tasered or restrained by other means and right now be facing a life locked up. Having a gun facilitated his suicide and also facilitated 5 murders beforehand.
It's not slightly more inconvenient. It's completely impractical.
There is no infrastructure of permanent gun clubs in the UK in the way you lot think there is. The same as it's not all landed gentry, butlers and gun rooms in the big house when it comes to game shooting or deer stalking.
There are some bigger gun clubs with permanent buildings but these are few and far between, particularly outside of the home counties. Turning up to the gun club isn't like turning up to the golf club with a locker room and pro shop. Most of my clay shooting (I used to shoot sporting discipline to a fairly decent / national level) was done on shooting grounds that ran once a week or once a fortnight out of a shipping container in a wood or on a farm.
Greater Manchester pulled 100 random certificates in about 2015. Approx 6 of those should never have been granted or should have been revoked. Across the 11,000 certificate holders in Greater Manchester, that's about 660 people who had access to lawful guns who shouldn't have done. Where they were stored is immaterial - they were unfit to have access to guns period.
If you want tighter controls then focus on the licensing system itself. It's currently chronically underfunded and very often run by folk who haven't the first clue about guns or shooting. It's currently subsidised by the tax payer so lots of scrutiny on funding and isn't effective. Make gun owners pay the true cost of licensing and do a proper job would be much more effective at filtering out the nutters. It would also probably have a secondary effect of cutting down gun ownership for folk who didn't really need a one.
but it’s not needed there, is it?
So what? who are you to dictate to a normal law abiding citizen what he/she can keep in his or her home? If they've jumped through govt hoops and the gun is legal, then whether you think they need it is totally irrelevant.
Having a gun facilitated his suicide and also facilitated 5 murders beforehand.
And those deaths are to be mourned as tragedies, but your alternative is to treat everybody as if they're just about to go on a killing spree, and they're just not to be trusted. That's just not sound, it's collective punishment
who are you to dictate to a normal law abiding citizen what he/she can keep in his or her home?
There are lots of things you can't legally keep at home. The argument that we're going around here is if shotguns should be added to that list, not whether we should be free to keep absolutely anything we want at home... as that will never be the case, nor should it. People have suggested that perhaps an additional level of licence should be available to keep at home, and that could require extra checks, including providing a reason for the home keep. Seems a sensible compromise to me. No default right to keep at home without jumping through a few more hoops, including justifying why the keep at home is required.
not whether we should be free to keep absolutely anything we want at home
No one here is arguing that. If you have a legally held weapon, the assumption should not be that you're just itching to go an use it to go on murder spree. The argument that the "keep them way from homes" guys are are making is that it provides some time to cool off....The problem with that is that 99.9% of the folk that own guns aren't going to ever need that, so effectively you're saying to them;
"we think you (despite meeting our requirements) can't be trusted, because once a decade some-one with ready access to a gun might use it to kill people, so in order to prevent that from happening (we hope, as there's little to no evidence either way) we're just going to assume you're all mass murderers..."
That's an argument against any changes to restrictions at all. And not a great one.
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.