Forum menu
and if they do then people have guns in their homes with the potential outcomes like last week’s
How can you write that and not expect others to interpret that as the singling out of people who just happen to have a gun at home. You're saying (whether you intend or not) that you suspect all home gun owners to have the potential to be mass murderers.
Everyone has the potential to be a mass murderer given the wrong circumstances.
I'm not singling out gun owners and saying the specific desire to be a gun owner makes them unsuitable to be allowed to have guns at home. I'm saying that no-one should be allowed to (except in very specific circumstances yada yada)
(and yes, why are we allowed knives, or baseball bats which could also be used, but then we'll be on a third lap around that point)
Everyone has the potential to be a mass murderer given the wrong circumstances.
They do yes, but how many people actually become a mass murderer? Not many is it and most of those that do don't use a gun as they are typically more sinister/serial killer category.
But on the rare occasions when they do it's within tolerable levels?
I’m saying that no-one should be allowed to
...because of the implied danger (you believe) that one day one of them will go off the rails, and become a mass murderer. It doesn't matter how you say it, you keep saying the same thing.(intentionally or not)
it’s within tolerable levels?
Yes. 138,000 people own guns, less than 2 people are murdered in mass shootings every year on average. Murder with a gun is 5th on the list of ways to be murdered. Knife murder is dramatically more dangerous, and if you want to prevent unnecessary death, then stopping 12 year olds feeling they need to carry a knife around with them would be a more productive campaign than not allowing guns to be kept at home which wouldn't prevent death in any meaningful way. Stats show that 23 children (under 17) have been murdered with a knife since March 2020.
Direct your intolerance of death in a more productive direction.
because of the implied danger (you believe) that one day one of them will go off the rails, and become a mass murderer.
It's not implied. It happens. Rarely, thankfully, but as last week shows, it happens.
Direct your intolerance of death in a more productive direction.
Because there are worse things then we shouldn't suggest something to prevent bad things?
It’s not implied. It happens
And here you are again, implying that everyone with a gun is a potential murderer, you really do need to stop doing that
then we shouldn’t suggest something to prevent bad things?
There's no evidence to suggest that what you want to do will reduce harm.
And here you are again, implying that everyone with a gun is a potential murderer, you really do need to stop doing that
Why should I stop doing it when it's true. They are. We all have that capability in the wrong moment / under the wrong circumstances. But they've got ready access to guns, which facilitates it.
There’s no evidence to suggest that what you want to do will reduce harm.
There’s no evidence to suggest that what I am proposing will NOT reduce harm. It's a proposal for debate, not shouting down because you don't like it.
There is evidence that having a gun at his home facilitated Jake Davison to murder five people with it though.
Knife murder is dramatically more dangerous
If course that is true, but it is extreme whataboutery. Knives are kind of essential for cooking and as utility tools.
What do you think the gun crime statistics would look like if literally every household had a colt 45 in the kitchen draw?
Good point.
Can we live without knives - not easily, big impact to cookery, various tasks
Can we live without cars - not easily, big impact to many lives
Can we live without guns - 99.8% of people in UK seem to be able to (based on the 138,000 owners) so I am going to say yes, very easily
Because that is just avoiding the issue.
Er, no, it's not. As pointed out there are plenty of abusive and mentally unhealthy people out there. Banning guns from the home without good cause isn't an answer for practical reasons already outlined. What WOULD produce tangible results is giving Firearms Enforcement Officers the resources to do their bl9oody jobs properly rather than loading them, and these armourers with MORE responsibility with presumably the same funding. At the same time improving the general mental health of the nation, seriously tackling domestic violence and employing some joined up thinking (different agencies/departments/services actually speak to each other) would improve outcomes in far more than just gun ownership.
You know full well that the ‘disease’ is never going to be fully treated and there will never be the resources or money to ensure that everyone’s mental health is 100%.
So we should just skip that bit and make sure folk only get stabbed or beaten in future?
However, controlling (or rather not ‘giving out’ guns to anyone that wants one) is a more realistic thing that could be done.
How many times? SHOTGUN LICENCES ARE NOT JUST GIVEN OUT! Yes, they are less stringent than Firearms licences in terms of onus on proving need vs proving no need but they are NOT a free for all. You have said umpteen times you know nothing about firearms so stop repeating something that isn't true.
there is no acceptable level of collateral damage in this.
That's a completely unrealistic stance to take. Short of banning all (and I mean all) weapons that's never going to happen.
That’s a completely unrealistic stance to take. Short of banning all (and I mean all) weapons that’s never going to happen.
Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon, I could probably beat someone to death with a wooden spoon if I was determined.
The only purpose of a gun is to kill stuff with, it has no other use.
The only purpose of a gun is to kill stuff with, it has no other use.
Same for bows, swords and throwing axes.
*awaits BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT! response*
No difference.. Bows maybe if your a davey crocket type living in the yukon... Again nieche cases.
Swords.. Just for Killin.
Axes (not the throwing type) are apparently useful for chopping up fire wood.
How many times? SHOTGUN LICENCES ARE NOT JUST GIVEN OUT! Yes, they are less stringent than Firearms licences in terms of onus on proving need vs proving no need but they are NOT a free for all.
So if I was apply for a shotgun license do you think I would get one?
I would put a lot of money on me getting one and as a, on paper, law abiding and mentally stable person I am not alone - there are literally millions of us.
At the same time improving the general mental health of the nation, seriously tackling domestic violence and employing some joined up thinking (different agencies/departments/services actually speak to each other) would improve outcomes in far more than just gun ownership.
Yes we should do that. We should also improve road safety and all the other whataboutery you seem to excel in.
Maybe start a topic on mental health to go with the road safety topic that I still haven't seen yet and stop with all the whataboutery BS.
What WOULD produce tangible results is giving Firearms Enforcement Officers the resources to do their bl9oody jobs properly rather than loading them, and these armourers with MORE responsibility with presumably the same funding.
Good point but who will be paying for this? As it stands the cost per licence is rather low and the burden is already picked up by the general taxpayer.
Why should I stop doing it when it’s true. They are. We all have that capability in the wrong moment / under the wrong circumstances. But they’ve got ready access to guns, which facilitates it.
That sums up the level of utter garbage being spouted on here quite neatly.
Yes we should do that. We should also improve road safety and all the other whataboutery you seem to excel in.
Maybe start a topic on mental health to go with the road safety topic that I still haven’t seen yet and stop with all the whataboutery BS.
EDIT:
It's not whataboutery. It's tackling the root of the problem rather than the results. I don't know why you have such a hard time agreeing with this, whether I agree with tightening up or not this STILL results in improvements and not just in one narrow area!
It's alright, debate is not aimed for you. You're so myopic to your own opinions there's no hope you'll even consider the thought that others exist. I'm actually quite pro gun ownership but I also think that changes are needed to tighten up further and I hope there are enough that are reasonable enough to see that too.
Just shoving your fingers in your ears and claiming it's all OK because 'only' 2 people a year get shot and that more people die by other means - if all gun owners were like you I'd hope for a total ban.
^ I hope he doesn't have access to a gun with a temper like that
[EDIT now has edited to remove the swearing / abuse directed at another forum user]
@theotherjonv I think you should quietly consider that perhaps you don't know what is happening in my life right now and maybe you should just back off before you say something really hurtful.
I also never abused any forum member. I swore a bit and decided it wasn't conducive to anything and came back with a more reasoned reply.
I am getting extremely frustrated with the fact that people who confess they know nothing about the subject are proposing this and that with NO idea of the impracticalities of what they are proposing then getting bent out of shape when people suggest that tackling the root cause is a better idea.
and you don't know what's happening in mine, or indeed why I am so outraged by the murder of 5 people last weekend and the way people on here are defending it as 'within tolerable limits' and dismissing counter opinions as 'absolute garbage'
So I'm sorry if you're upset by it, but I suspect it's minor compared to Sophie Martyn's family right now.
I also never abused any forum member. I swore a bit and decided it wasn’t conducive to anything and came back with a more reasoned reply.
It's OK. We all have the potential to flip based on external factors. As I said earlier.
Okay I'm going if you're just going to resort to crass digs.
Enjoy your echo chamber, feel free to put whatever words you like in my mouth.
Good point but who will be paying for this? As it stands the cost per licence is rather low and the burden is already picked up by the general taxpayer
They should just raise the cost to reflect the cost for the force. Make the standards clear for the certification. Defer to the side of caution with an appeal process (costs recoverable).
Grew up on a farm in the country and my dad had a gun. Shot things myself and am good at hitting clays.
I still think we should have more restrictive access to guns, not looser controls.
You have to legislate for the mal-adjusted, unfortunately.
So if I was apply for a shotgun license do you think I would get one?
Unless anyone else here actually knows you then it's purely speculation - but if this is true:
as a, on paper, law abiding and mentally stable person
and you've no previous convictions, no medical condition that would make a GP show cause for concern, and you can find someone who had genuinely known you (police forces have guidance on who and how well) that is also of good character, to provide a reference, and you can show you have suitable secure storage then there is a good chance that you would be granted a shotgun license in due course. Whilst the wording legislation is different between showing a reason for owning a FA v's a SG - they CAN still refuse if they don't believe you have a legitimate reason for owning a SG. [Note you will need to provide home addresses for last 5 yrs, GPs details for last 10 yrs, you'll have to disclose convictions - including road traffic matters like speeding, and even police warnings from 20+ yrs ago and you'll not only have to disclose mental health conditions but various physical conditions like MS or Epilepsy]. However, IF you meet ALL the criteria and both your GP and referee say the right things when asked, then I'd expect that eventually (2-3 months for a shotgun cert when things run smoothly, precovid) you would be granted a shotgun license. Is there some reason that you shouldn't? An argument that hypothetically you might go crazy immediately after the grant is probably only valid if there is evidence that this is something that happens - from what I have read the vast majority (possibly all UK?) mass shooters had clear signs beforehand that they were unsuitable to hold firearms or shotguns. I think there are probably arguments for making it easier for doctors, referees, family members to alert the police to concerns about suitability after grant (there is a slight anomaly that family members cannot be referees - but surely should be able to be whatever the opposite of a referee is and say - "are you joking, he's Mr Angry on a bike forum after a few drinks, imagine if he got really pissed off for some reason").
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't hold a shotgun certificate or firearm certificate. I have fired air rifles and shotguns under supervision. I don't have brads' enthusiasm for it - although I could see (esp with air rifle) that it involved skill and the competitive element was fun. I have no desire to keep a firearm or shotgun at home but can clearly see that stopping people from doing so introduces other potential vulnerabilities, or encourages people to bend the rules. I doubt it would often achieve the stated aim of avoiding attrocities.
There is a legitimate question about who would you trust with a shotgun that you wouldn't trust with a rifle - I can't think of anyone and therefore can't see why a shotgun certificate is easier (but still not trivial) to obtain? Those seeking change have far more prospect of success pushing for that than a ban on home storage; in fact it might even be supported by all the FAC holders who probably wonder why they are considered so much riskier.
Whilst of course it's not mutually exclusive to fix the cause and the symptom it's niave to think that governments wouldn't take the easy knee jerk option, to be seen to do something. The worst possible outcome is they do something to appease the media (like ban home storage) which either has no impact, or worse a negative impact. In terms of impact: addressing the risks from Incels, tackling internet misogyny, and generally holding angry aggressive people to account would have greater impact than any licensing change - not just by reducing once-in-a-decade atrocities but by having in-roads to the domestic issues that happen every weekend and never make the front pages.
However, if people want to get irate - they could ask why the government closed a consultation on licensing guidance 2 years ago but has still to draw any conclusions on a way forward. Especially since the proposed guidance would have placed a requirement on police to keep licenses under continuous review.
However, IF you meet ALL the criteria and both your GP and referee say the right things when asked, then I’d expect that eventually (2-3 months for a shotgun cert when things run smoothly, precovid) you would be granted a shotgun license
Yep, and that is a very likely outcome. I see absolutely no reason why I would not be granted one. The difficult part appears to be getting GP approval, not because of any issues with me but because GPs don't want to be approving the requests. Presumably because they don't feel they are in a position to approve gun ownership for a patient, which is understandable.
It’s not whataboutery. It’s tackling the root of the problem rather than the results. I don’t know why you have such a hard time agreeing with this, whether I agree with tightening up or not this STILL results in improvements and not just in one narrow area!
Where have I said I don't agree with improving mental health, improving road safety and all the other whataboutery you have come up with.
The thread is about gun licensing (it is even in the title!) and not about mental health or road safety or knife controls or baseball bat controls or etc,. etc,.
Poly,
Thanks for the detailed response. I have been reading up on it and that matches what I have read, along with the GP aspect that was brought in and is a stumbling block that gun associations try to assist with.
I know how governments work and the likely response although saying and doing are different things and I would guess a lot of Tory MPs are on the shooty side so even if a proposal came out this week so the government can show their concern it would probably never actually be implemented.
Don't worry if your GP won't provide you a reference, or you're worried they might say something that might compromise your application. BASC has a list of GP members who will supply one for you. Simples!
https://basc.org.uk/providing-a-solution-on-medical-firearm-verification/
We have identified individual BASC members who are doctors and willing to provide verification to medical declarations. If a member experiences a problem obtaining medical verification or their GP demands an exorbitant fee, they can contact the BASC firearms team. Following this, details of GPs willing to assist will be provided to the member. This is an important membership benefit that is not available to anyone who is not a member!
A lot of people are under the impression that they must supply a medical report to demonstrate their suitability to have firearms. That is not the case; the only requirement is for a GP to look at the patient’s medical records and verify that the declaration on the form is true. Doctors are not being asked about suitability; that is a matter for the chief police officer alone.
Yes, I found something similar hence my comment around gun associations assisting. Must be a list of gun happy GPs I suppose.
Gunhappy GP,s ffs
This is exactly why this discussion is becoming worthless.
It’s a list of GP,s who will do a report, not a list of ones that will turn a blind eye to reasons not to grant a cert.
But hey, that doesn’t fit your narrative I suppose.
It really doesn't concern you at all?
It’s a list of GP,s who will do a report, not a list of ones that will turn a blind eye to reasons not to grant a cert.
Why would a GP put themselves forward to approve any person (a person they have never even seen) who wants a license? Why would they be interested in doing that specifically, could it be they are interested in guns themselves?
This is exactly why this discussion is becoming worthless.
Maybe don't offer your worthless comments and it may help a bit?
And silly bickering aside, I am still interested in what the original reason was for Davison having a license and why that reason was so strong that it was felt necessary to give back the license even after needing to attend anger management as a pre requisite.
I am still interested in what the original reason was for Davison having a license
Membership of a shooting club with somewhere to shoot would be enough currently I believe. Or written permission to shoot on land.
Why would a GP put themselves forward to approve any person
GPs don't "approve" anything, they are just required to compare a patient record with an application and agree (or disagree) with it's factuality. Approval is down to the cops
Why would a GP put themselves forward to approve any person (a person they have never even seen)
Do you have a specific GP or like many others are you simply a member of a practice and get whoever is available on the day? What sort of relationship do you think you have with your GP that they could assess you any better than anyone else with patient record access?
Where have I said I don’t agree with improving mental health, improving road safety and all the other whataboutery you have come up with.
Nowhere but you have amply demonstrated that reading and comprehension aren't your strong points throughout this thread. Read my posts again, properly.
Maybe don’t offer your worthless comments and it may help a bit?
So you only welcome comments from the equally clueless and misinformed? Seems about right.
I am getting extremely frustrated with the fact that people who confess they know nothing about the subject are proposing this and that with NO idea of the impracticalities of what they are proposing then getting bent out of shape when people suggest that tackling the root cause is a better idea.
Story of my life at work tbh and quite frankly modern life across the world (see Brexit, vaccines etc and all the armchair 'experts').
Membership of a shooting club with somewhere to shoot would be enough currently
Shotgun licence doesnt even need that. You can have it simply to have one (in theory I guess so you can pass the ancestral shotgun collection to the next gen). Firearm licence needs a bit more effort but shotgun is more along the lines of permitted unless good reason not to.
Nowhere but you have amply demonstrated that reading and comprehension aren’t your strong points throughout this thread. Read my posts again, properly.
More insults I see, along with those you edited out. Oh dear.
Membership of a shooting club with somewhere to shoot would be enough currently I believe. Or written permission to shoot on land.
Or some other reason, the reasons are not prescribed. That's the point though, what was the reason in this case and why was that reason so compelling that license was given back?
What sort of relationship do you think you have with your GP that they could assess you any better than anyone else with patient record access?
None, but isn't it odd that GP's would actually actively provide their services for this when most don't want to touch it. Do you not think that would be because they are interested in guns/own guns etc,. and want others to have guns?