another knee jerk reaction to gun ownership

[Catcher 1 639]

yea but i wouldnt be wishing for guns to be handed out willy nilly just to bolster your sport. yes knifes can kill,however you only need to look at the last few gun nuts to see that they wouldnt have had the bottle or the means to kill as many as they did with a blade. stabbing someone is a pretty personal way of killing someone,a cowardly person may think twice about that,also you wouldnt be as quick to try and disarm someone with a gun. yes its tragic and i feel for shooters,but there folk with guns that really not to have them. wont be the last time this will happen thats for sure. maybe shooters should form an action group to adress the issue with the cops.instead of just moaning about being persecuted. people were killed of course its gonna be debated in the lobbies of power and the press. i for one was glad to see a ban on handguns after dunblane.in fact i was shocked that the ordinary joe bloggs on the street could have such easy access to them,when our own cops dont have the authority to carry or keep them.

 

 

S/H When are you going to wake up.It,s not down to gun,s It,s down to people.FFS you can get your hands on a gun theese day,s easy.Catcher.

[Nik_B 3,790]

i think your all missing my point the police were informed 3 years earlier that he was self harmind but made the decision not to revoke his license?? so there was every oppertunity for the police to have revoke them, however he probably would have still done it with another weopon knive, hammer ect, over xmas a lot have people have been stabbed, but their not calling for knives to be debated in parliment?

 

The thing is it appears it was one person making that call and there was no evidence other than hearsay...if I phoned up the police and told them my next door neighbour was going to top himself should they take his guns away? Just my word against him and the police have work within the legislation. This is what they've said so far anyway. If they turned up and he totally denied it and there was no proof he'd tried to harm himself what can they do?

i think your all missing my point the police were informed 3 years earlier that he was self harmind but made the decision not to revoke his license?? so there was every oppertunity for the police to have revoke them, however he probably would have still done it with another weopon knive, hammer ect, over xmas a lot have people have been stabbed, but their not calling for knives to be debated in parliment?

 

The thing is it appears it was one person making that call and there was no evidence other than hearsay...if I phoned up the police and told them my next door neighbour was going to top himself should they take his guns away? Just my word against him and the police have work within the legislation. This is what they've said so far anyway. If they turned up and he totally denied it and there was no proof he'd tried to harm himself what can they do?

trust me police normally revoke on the side of caution and its up to the individual to disprove it, word alone doesnt work he would have needed a letter from his gp to get them back. it looks like someone in the flo fecked up

 

Yep I'm also surprised as people have had guns taken from them for all kinds of wierd things like getting divorced, but I imagine from a legal point they aren't really supposed to? BASC would fight something like that but in this case it seems he should have had them taken away. In a way the police are damned if they do (overreact) and damned if they don't as in this case.

 

The thing do we agree that the police should act on hearsay alone? If we are going to accept this they it will open a door when it will become common place to have guns confiscated and secondly who is going to pay for all the extra monitoring and work from an overstretched department.

 

I read a post somewhere that stated that if his own freinds and family were obviously not so concerned that he had guns and had no idea he was about to flip out then how is anyone else like the police going to know.

 

I guess we'll have to wait for more info to come out about what the police were told about that situation.

[blan89 159]

the solution is obvious,just ban taxi drivers from owning fire arms.

 

or

 

if he wanted to he could of killed a lot more people with a car or van,it's already proven that tightening the availability of them hasn't helped.

[scothunter 12,609]

yea but  i wouldnt be wishing for guns to be handed out willy nilly just to bolster your sport. yes knifes can kill,however you only need to look at the last few gun nuts to see that they wouldnt have had the bottle or the means to kill as many as they did with a blade. stabbing someone is a pretty personal way of killing someone,a cowardly person may think twice about that,also you wouldnt be as quick to try and disarm someone with a gun. yes its tragic and i feel for shooters,but there folk with guns that really not to have them. wont be the last time this will happen thats for sure. maybe shooters should form an action group to adress the issue with the cops.instead of just moaning about being persecuted. people were killed of course its gonna be debated in the lobbies of power and the press. i for one was glad to see a ban on handguns after dunblane.in fact i was shocked that the ordinary joe bloggs on the street could have such easy access to them,when our own cops dont have the authority to carry or keep them.

 

 

S/H When are you going to wake up.It,s not down to gun,s It,s down to people.FFS you can get your hands on a gun theese day,s easy.Catcher.

 

when you start to read a post/thread properly. im not saying illegal guns arent out there.however the past few gun massacres werent carried out by illegaly held guns. but its ok ill say no more other than rip to those who lost thier lifes recently.

[scothunter 12,609]

the solution is obvious,just ban taxi drivers from owning fire arms.

 

or

 

if he wanted to he could of killed a lot more people with a car or van,it's already proven that tightening the availability of them hasn't helped.

 

lol aye ban taxi drivers misreable gits anyway

[paulus 26]

i think your all missing my point the police were informed 3 years earlier that he was self harmind but made the decision not to revoke his license?? so there was every oppertunity for the police to have revoke them, however he probably would have still done it with another weopon knive, hammer ect, over xmas a lot have people have been stabbed, but their not calling for knives to be debated in parliment?

 

The thing is it appears it was one person making that call and there was no evidence other than hearsay...if I phoned up the police and told them my next door neighbour was going to top himself should they take his guns away? Just my word against him and the police have work within the legislation. This is what they've said so far anyway. If they turned up and he totally denied it and there was no proof he'd tried to harm himself what can they do?

i think your all missing my point the police were informed 3 years earlier that he was self harmind but made the decision not to revoke his license?? so there was every oppertunity for the police to have revoke them, however he probably would have still done it with another weopon knive, hammer ect, over xmas a lot have people have been stabbed, but their not calling for knives to be debated in parliment?

 

The thing is it appears it was one person making that call and there was no evidence other than hearsay...if I phoned up the police and told them my next door neighbour was going to top himself should they take his guns away? Just my word against him and the police have work within the legislation. This is what they've said so far anyway. If they turned up and he totally denied it and there was no proof he'd tried to harm himself what can they do?

trust me police normally revoke on the side of caution and its up to the individual to disprove it, word alone doesnt work he would have needed a letter from his gp to get them back. it looks like someone in the flo fecked up

 

Yep I'm also surprised as people have had guns taken from them for all kinds of wierd things like getting divorced, but I imagine from a legal point they aren't really supposed to? BASC would fight something like that but in this case it seems he should have had them taken away. In a way the police are damned if they do (overreact) and damned if they don't as in this case..

 

The thing do we agree that the police should act on hearsay alone? If we are going to accept this they it will open a door when it will become common place to have guns confiscated and secondly who is going to pay for all the extra monitoring and work from an overstretched department.

 

I read a post somewhere that stated that if his own freinds and family were obviously not so concerned that he had guns and had no idea he was about to flip out then how is anyone else like the police going to know.

 

I guess we'll have to wait for more info to come out about what the police were told about that situation.

i know what your saying but it does vary from force to force i know people personally who have had their tickets revoked short term on hearsay. perhaps the answer does lie back with gp`s endorsing certificates again but i bet your bottom dollar they would want an arm and a legg for doing it

[blan89 159]

yea but i wouldnt be wishing for guns to be handed out willy nilly just to bolster your sport. yes knifes can kill,however you only need to look at the last few gun nuts to see that they wouldnt have had the bottle or the means to kill as many as they did with a blade. stabbing someone is a pretty personal way of killing someone,a cowardly person may think twice about that,also you wouldnt be as quick to try and disarm someone with a gun. yes its tragic and i feel for shooters,but there folk with guns that really not to have them. wont be the last time this will happen thats for sure. maybe shooters should form an action group to adress the issue with the cops.instead of just moaning about being persecuted. people were killed of course its gonna be debated in the lobbies of power and the press. i for one was glad to see a ban on handguns after dunblane.in fact i was shocked that the ordinary joe bloggs on the street could have such easy access to them,when our own cops dont have the authority to carry or keep them.

 

 

S/H When are you going to wake up.It,s not down to gun,s It,s down to people.FFS you can get your hands on a gun theese day,s easy.Catcher.

 

when you start to read a post/thread properly. im not saying illegal guns arent out there.however the past few gun massacres werent carried out by illegaly held guns. but its ok ill say no more other than rip to those who lost thier lifes recently.

true but if i wanted to kill someone and didn't care about the consequences (like most of the recent cases I've read about) i'd do it with a knife,sword,machete,axe,bat or anything else close to hand that was heavy and hard.

 

we can't legislate everything.

[Nik_B 3,790]

They did discuss that at the last review but then you've got the GPs who don't want to have the buck passed on to their lap. There is no crystal ball and no way of predicting these events, either they legislate even more and have a blanket ban of anyone with criminal convictions, plus a ban on anyone who's show then slightest hint of getting any kind of depression, then ban a load more people from having them and still I bet it would happen.

 

There were several similar cases to this last year but without guns, several familes murdered by husbands/fathers but with knifes instead...One of which was even a retired police officer of rank! Then you've got the ones that leave the cooker on and gas them or that guy that drove his kids into a river.

 

In the end there are always going to be cases where people kill their families and it is tragic. The tool used isn't really the issue.

[Nik_B 3,790]

This was one the PW forum and it's a pretty good read....THIS IS NOT ME WRITING

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Bloke, on 03 January 2012 - 02:21 PM, said: Having worked in mental health care for most of my working life, one of the biggest problems I have encountered is duplicated exactly in the shooting world. When someone has been detained under a Section of the mental Health Act and that Section comes up for renewal, in order for it to be renewed, the staff must provide EVIDENCE that the person still poses a risk to themselves or society at large, or would pose a risk if allowed back into main-stream society without the restrictions of the Section. The Problem with evidence is that, by nature, it must be 'evident', i.e. obvious to anyone, that something is true. Now - apply this to gun licencing. GPs, Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.often with many years experience, develop a sort of 'sixth sense' that someone is possibly suicidal or dangerous, but without that tricky 'evidence' are stuck. Unless the person has actually made a violent or suicidal attempt, there is no other evidence than the professional 'gut feeling', and that won't hold weight in a court - ask any policeman!

 

If the GP then is asked, "Do you think this person is safe to be granted FAC/SGC?" and they say no, and the applicant appeals, they will be expected to supply 'evidence' for their statement, rightly so, which is why they stuck to their point in the recent enquiry - any diagnosis is only applicable at that point in time and can give only a shaky indication at best as to how an individual will act in the future. This is why the medical profession made a stand against giving direct opinions. Obviously, if an individual has made attempts at self-harm or violence towards others, that IS evidence, but for how long? I know of at least one shooter who has a conviction for assaulting a police officer, but as it was about 30 years ago and he has been a model citizen since, should he be banned?

 

We now come to the most confusing fact. As even specialist medical professionals will not try and become human crystal balls, the onus falls onto the FEO, often an ex or serving Police officer, to try and assess a person's potential mental health for the next 5 years without more than maybe a couple of days experience with the local mental health team in their training! Of course people will slip through the net, no system is ever perfect, but we have degraded into a culture of blame and hysteria, where we must always find a 'whipping boy' to take the rap, rather than accept that in even the best systems, tragedies will occur (But of course, none of that sells papers does it?)Until we can educate the public, without the "all gun owners are animal murdering freaks" bias from the press, nothing will change. All shooters can do is take every opportunity to respond in an accurate calm way, showing that the control we have over our emotions and behaviour is WHY we are considered suitable to be granted licences in the first place.

[paulus 26]

They did discuss that at the last review but then you've got the GPs who don't want to have the buck passed on to their lap. There is no crystal ball and no way of predicting these events, either they legislate even more and have a blanket ban of anyone with criminal convictions, plus a ban on anyone who's show then slightest hint of getting any kind of depression, then ban a load more people from having them and still I bet it would happen.

 

There were several similar cases to this last year but without guns, several familes murdered by husbands/fathers but with knifes instead...One of which was even a retired police officer of rank! Then you've got the ones that leave the cooker on and gas them or that guy that drove his kids into a river.

 

In the end there are always going to be cases where people kill their families and it is tragic. The tool used isn't really the issue.

agree mate its a good job its only a very rare occurance but it does sell papers and raise viewing figures

[paulus 26]

This was one the PW forum and it's a pretty good read....THIS IS NOT ME WRITING

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Bloke, on 03 January 2012 - 02:21 PM, said: Having worked in mental health care for most of my working life, one of the biggest problems I have encountered is duplicated exactly in the shooting world. When someone has been detained under a Section of the mental Health Act and that Section comes up for renewal, in order for it to be renewed, the staff must provide EVIDENCE that the person still poses a risk to themselves or society at large, or would pose a risk if allowed back into main-stream society without the restrictions of the Section. The Problem with evidence is that, by nature, it must be 'evident', i.e. obvious to anyone, that something is true. Now - apply this to gun licencing. GPs, Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.often with many years experience, develop a sort of 'sixth sense' that someone is possibly suicidal or dangerous, but without that tricky 'evidence' are stuck. Unless the person has actually made a violent or suicidal attempt, there is no other evidence than the professional 'gut feeling', and that won't hold weight in a court - ask any policeman!

 

If the GP then is asked, "Do you think this person is safe to be granted FAC/SGC?" and they say no, and the applicant appeals, they will be expected to supply 'evidence' for their statement, rightly so, which is why they stuck to their point in the recent enquiry - any diagnosis is only applicable at that point in time and can give only a shaky indication at best as to how an individual will act in the future. This is why the medical profession made a stand against giving direct opinions. Obviously, if an individual has made attempts at self-harm or violence towards others, that IS evidence, but for how long? I know of at least one shooter who has a conviction for assaulting a police officer, but as it was about 30 years ago and he has been a model citizen since, should he be banned?

 

We now come to the most confusing fact. As even specialist medical professionals will not try and become human crystal balls, the onus falls onto the FEO, often an ex or serving Police officer, to try and assess a person's potential mental health for the next 5 years without more than maybe a couple of days experience with the local mental health team in their training! Of course people will slip through the net, no system is ever perfect, but we have degraded into a culture of blame and hysteria, where we must always find a 'whipping boy' to take the rap, rather than accept that in even the best systems, tragedies will occur (But of course, none of that sells papers does it?)Until we can educate the public, without the "all gun owners are animal murdering freaks" bias from the press, nothing will change. All shooters can do is take every opportunity to respond in an accurate calm way, showing that the control we have over our emotions and behaviour is WHY we are considered suitable to be granted licences in the first place.

no easy answer thats a fact however the current legislation is on the whole correct, but in these days of human rights and other legislation how does anyone legislate against anything? the fact is you carnt,

[PlasticJock 539]

One GP pointed out (quite rightly), that if they were obliged to inform police of mental health issues of a SGC or FAC holder, then most FAC/SGC holders won't bother to go to the doctors for fear of losing their licence(s).

I declared anger management on my app as I didn't want to be caught out, but I sought the help as I recognised I had a problem, as opposed to tw*tting someone then getting a court order.

So should I be banned? Everyone's an individual and personally I think it's wrong to chuck people in the same category.

 

The fact is, an activity must be 'inherently lawful' in the first place in order for it to be regulated/licensed, we have a right to enjoy ourselves provided we don't harm anyone else.

Hopefully the next question parliament will ask will be, ''If we have no control over people hurting others, and firearms legislation has no effect on armed crime, then why do we keep talking sh*te??''

(And keep taking dogsh*t 'advice' from dogsh*t 'advisors')

Edited January 3, 2012 by PlasticJock

[trenchfoot 4,243]

GP's are not qualified to state whether one of their patients is fit to own a shotgun/firearms. They can only state what is relevant upon your medical records. They would also be unwilling to do so, as in cases such as we are discussing, they could be seen to be at fault for stating that person is fit and proper etc. In today's litigious society someone would try and sue their arse off.

 

On a second point, any GP/or GP practice charges an applicant to countersign their licence is actually breaking the law. Financial gain would make that counter-signatory null and void. But many authorities (police and health) turn a blind eye to this. Don't give them a penny

[PlasticJock 539]

GP's are not qualified to state whether one of their patients is fit to own a shotgun/firearms. They can only state what is relevant upon your medical records. They would also be unwilling to do so, as in cases such as we are discussing, they could be seen to be at fault for stating that person is fit and proper etc. In today's litigious society someone would try and sue their arse off.

 

On a second point, any GP/or GP practice charges an applicant to countersign their licence is actually breaking the law. Financial gain would make that counter-signatory null and void. But many authorities (police and health) turn a blind eye to this. Don't give them a penny

 

Well said. GP's aren't subject matter experts on mental health so I guess that proposal falls flat straight away.

[Nik_B 3,790]

yep but dare you mention that you are under alot of stress at work or your kids are driving you mad and that flagged SGC/FAC on you doctors records would have the police confiscating your guns.

 

As you said people would become affraid to talk to their GPs and it would have a negative effect, maybe even cause another tragedy as someone feels like they cant talk to their doctors.

 

GP's wouldn't risk litigation for a minute.