Gun control

[Pixxie7]

Following the awful killing last night I am struggling to find why apart from a very few professions anyone in this country needs a gun license.

Fair enough AICM

I get that.

But I can still be perplexed at how this man had a gun in the first place, and had it returned to him after an incident with it.
I'm sure you're on board with that, because I think it gives sensible people with a gun licence a bad name

In light of what's happened I very much hope that the processes are reviewed and made tighter.

I would expect that when my certificate is next reviewed the police will check my social media accounts.

@Roussette

Just tell me... why did this man need a gun licence?

Answer me that and I'll go away

@Roussette I’m always reminded of this scene from the sitcom The Thin Blue Line (which I’ll caveat by saying it’s a joke and I’m sure it doesn’t apply to all gun owners, before anyone jumps on me).

The specific bit I mean is from 00:56-1:16

How he got the gun back is a matter of real concern.

Yep!

Love it!

Responding only to the points on gun control, not the awful tragedy, I think generally we have a good balance on gun control in this country. Pretty strict gun controls but not a total ban (which would be unworkable). I have a firearms licence. I have to regularly recertify. I have to grant permission for the police to access my health records. My firearms have to be kept in a safe. The ammo has to be kept in a separate safe. The police have the right to check that they are kept in accordance with the licence. One came and hung off our gun safe with his entire body weight to make sure it was secure. My certification was signed off by the instructor who taught my gun safety course, who was a former Met Firearms Instructor. Something obviously went wrong in this case. The system and the flawed application of the system in one case need to be separated.

@Roussette

"If it hadn’t have been with a gun he’d have made sure he found another way to do it

Like how?

You can't manage to go from street to street in 7 minutes killing 6 people with a knife. Unlikely."

The Westminster Bridge terrorist murdered 5 people and injured many more in under 2 minutes. He had a car and a knife. No guns.

Stopping the hundreds of thousands of safe and law abiding people who currently own shotguns from doing so, won't fix the problem of murderous extremists.

Gun ownership is permitted in the UK and part of it includes stringent checks - which, sadly, didn't happen in this case. The checking system does seem to vary from force to force, as someone mentioned upthread.
I would hope that, in future, checks of social media are included, so that people like that one are deselected.
In my county, I know of a friend who has been refused a shotgun licence at the police check stage, as he has a history of depression. Another friend, who is a JP, refused to sign a shotgun certificate for another close friend, on similar grounds.
No one who shoots wants to be around unstable or unsafe people with guns.

I would bet that many of the people talking about how dreadful it is to kill animals eat meat themselves, in which case they have nothing to say to me. Perhaps they haven't seen what goes on in (a lot of) the meat industry, nor considered things like the amount of pest control needed to keep our food clean and safe.
It is very easy to feel like this, when it is all done at a distance, and your relationship with killing animals for food is limited to buying something in plastic at Waitrose.

I'm not even going to get into a discussion about why a person needs a gun. We are responsible gun owners who follow the very strict gun laws in the UK to the letter, and anticipate with weariness yet more knee jerk legislation as a sop to ill informed public opinion.

I disagree OP, it's like saying we shouldn't use knives because a small minority of people use them to stab people nonsense ! A knife serves a valid purpose, because the odd person finds joy is blowing apart some clay in the sky isn’t a valid enough reason to have such dangerous killing machines available to the public. Equally cars get people from a to b, any accidents are an unfortunate by product, guns- their aim is to destroy!

@AICM

Onlyfools

Every single statement you've made is wrong.

Firstly, clearly some people can't enjoy alcohol without becoming alcoholics, violent or both. These do.people more harm in total the people with legally held firearms.

I shoot a lot. All I have ever decimated in 15 years is pieces of paper.

Of course alcohol does more damage, its more accessible. You clearly agree that our gun laws have protected lives, so why not ban altogether and save even more lives!

Also this might shock many, but responsible people can break down; having a gun license doesn’t mean you will always be responsible.

The people who are at fault here are the local police firearms department and his GP, he should never have got his licence back if there was any doubts about his mental state.
My dh has a Shotgun license, a firearms license and is a Registered firearms dealer all of which he had to jump through hoops to get and has to reapply for every 5 years.
He deals regularly with the police firearms dept through his job who will often call on the qt to ask if he knows someone who is applying for a licence. I know the licensing is very strict in this part of the country and more people get refused than you would think.
In my opinion the police force needs to be investigated.

Stopping the hundreds of thousands of safe and law abiding people who currently own shotguns from doing so, won't fix the problem of murderous extremists

I don't doubt you're right, but I'm sure you would agree with extra checks for anyone who owns a gun for pleasure or for any purpose.

Yes he was a murderous extremist. I agree. However, I would like to know how or why he had a gun licence in the first place, and secondly, how it was returned to him after an 'incident'.

As I said, this incident sadly gives responsible gun owners a bad name.

It's beyond me how a 22 year old can have a gun licence to be honest.

My husband and daughter do it as a hobby and for sport.

Why did the deliverance banjo come into my head when reading this?!

How do you transport guns when going to competitions, farms etc? You have to keep them in a locked cabinet at home , but what happens when you are taking them somewhere?

@Roussette

I apologise for telling you to 'stfu' I was getting a little too involved with the discussion.

Mumsnet gave me a little telling off... lol

@ineedaholidaynow

How do you transport guns when going to competitions, farms etc? You have to keep them in a locked cabinet at home , but what happens when you are taking them somewhere?

I keep mine in the boot in a lockable case. I drive a saloon so impossible to see from the window

@xoJellyBean

No worries!

If you have a licence you can transport it but its your responsibility to keep it safe. You can buy cabinets for cars but most people will carry them in a gunslip.

My db has a gun locked in a gun cabinet with all the proper documentation etc. He uses it to shoot clay pigeons. No people/animals harmed and I guess it’s fun. The problem is that the perpetrator’s father informed the police that he shouldn’t have a gun and he still had it.

Why shouldn't a 23 year old have a gun licence?

Why should a 23yo (thought he was 22) have a gun license?

I've read that there's 1.3million active gun licenses in this country. That seems extreme. Yes to rural communities, but 1.3million?

Did he belong to a gun club?

@ineedaholidaynow

Did he belong to a gun club?

If his shotgun was a Section 1 shotgun, more than likely he would have needed to be, or needed to be involved in something to justify it, like partaking in practical shooting competitions.

If the shotgun he used was a Section 2 shotgun, he wouldn't have needed to be.

Section 2 shotguns for anyone wondering are standard double barrelled shotguns, either side by side or under/over, and semi automatic and pump action shotguns with a capacity of no more than 3 shells in total. Section 2 shotguns are granted on a SGC (Shotgun Certificate), pretty much any person in the country is allowed to get an SGC and shotguns and you do not need a specified reason for wanting them, at that point it's up to the police to prove a good reason why you shouldn't have them. You can also buy as many section 2 shotguns as you want once you have a SGC there is no restriction on numbers, only limiting factor is having the correct amount of space to store them safely and securely.

In contrast, a FAC (Firearms Certificate) covers pretty much everything else you can legally own, Section 1. This includes semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a capacity greater than 3 shells. The granting of an FAC is different to the SGC in that, you need to demonstrate good reasons to the police why you are asking for each firearm you've listed on you application; e.g. target, pest control, practical shooting, etc. You are also restricted on how much ammunition you can hold at any stated calibre, and if you're found to have more than your allowance you risk losing your firearms. Standard bird/buck shotgun ammunition is not restricted and anyone with an SGC/FAC can buy as many shells as they want. If you don't have membership to a club, or registered training and memberships under your name, you won't (or rightfully shouldn't) get granted an FAC.

It's uncertain at the moment, whether he used a Section 2 shotgun, or a Section 1 shotgun. But Section 2 shotguns are obviously easier to get than Section 1 variants.

Only Fools

But if you agree that alcohol does more damage, which you do, then banning alcohol, makes far more sense that banning guns?

After all, nobody needs alcohol and thousands of battered and dead women would have been better off if it have never have been discovered. Would you agree?