Abusers get gun ban
What, so people with a history of domestic violence, or indeed any violence, could legally own guns before? 😯
People should be prevented from having guns, says unknown.
I used to have an FAC and shot fullbore pistols and self-loading rifles back when they were both legal. Why shouldn’t I be able to enjoy my sport/pastime?Posted 4 years agotimmysSubscriber
What, so people with a history of domestic violence, or indeed any violence, could legally own guns before?
No they couldn’t. It will turn out the guy will have been a mason, that’s the usual explanation when someone with a dodgy history doesn’t lose their SGC/FAC. For the rest of us drink driving, let alone anything involving violence, is enough to lose your licence instantly.Posted 4 years agoScapegoatSubscriber
Any previous offending history means intense scrutiny for an applicant. Any history if violence should preclude the grant by most forces, but there are circumstances where a grant may still be made. This is renewed guidance for firearms departments, not new legislation.Posted 4 years agomaccruiskeenSubscriber
Any history if violence should preclude the grant by most forces
‘History of’ is a bit vague I suppose. If the guideline aren’t specific enough then do you count a conviction as ‘history’, or a report, or buy ‘speaking confidentially to family members’ is a rumour or a gut feeling sufficient as history?
Currently (with the exception of rifles – where you have to provide a valid reason to own one) you don’t need a reason to have a gun so its up to the police to come up with a reason why you shouldn’t have one when issuing a licence, but the reasons why not could be many and various so thats why a lot is down to discretion.
since AFAIK cars are the biggest killer in the UK.
If we’re going to make inanimate objects culpable then white bread is probably a bigger killer – when will that murderous Warburton family be brought to justice. There are more situations where someone can die than being murdered. I know its hard for people to make the distinction but dying in an accident is not the same as being the victim of cold blooded murder.Posted 4 years ago
you don’t need a reason to have a gun
You don’t need a reason to own a shotgun (unless that shotgun is classified as a firearm due to barrel length, magazine capacity, or action).
To own a firearm, you definitely need both a reason, and a proven approved place to shoot that firearm.Posted 4 years ago
Hopefully, we all remember Dunblane, where the killer had already amply demonstrated his unsuitability for firearms ownership. The Police failed to act accordingly, his licence was not revoked, his weapons were not confiscated, 16 children were killed. To my knowledge, no Police staff have been disciplined over the failure to act.Posted 4 years agojohnellisonMember
To own a firearm, you definitely need both a reason, and a proven approved place to shoot that firearm.
It’s not that clear cut – yes you need a reason, but the proven approved place is pretty flexible. If you give “deer stalking” as your reason, it’s entirely feasible that you are not going to limit yourself to one state. A lot of it is down to the issuing authority.Posted 4 years agounknownSubscriber
Tucker – my post was a generalisation but I do believe that guns shouldn’t be available to the vast majority of people. There’s a major difference between a gun and a car – a car can be used as a weapon but is designed to be transport. A knife can be used as a weapon but is also a tool. A gun is designed to be a weapon, nothing else. For the same reason I wouldn’t be happy with people having access to crossbows or hand grenades if that was their chosen “hobby”.
Other people’s views will differ and that’s fine bit it’s a pretty black and white issue for me.Posted 4 years agob rMember
– have you read ‘Dunblane Unburied’?Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Abusers get gun ban’ is closed to new replies.