So should anyone with a criminal record...

[sharbieinbackofthequattro]

..be able to obtain a firearms licence??

NO.

Of course not.Common sense isn't it ??

Can they? In England? How odd and irresponsible

Depends what the crime was, surely? Violent assault, no, a bit of food shoplifting when desperate is different.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine killers, had no criminal record.

They waited till the elder turned 18, then passed the criminal background check and purchased firearms legally.

The Cumbrian gunman had a conviction for theft approx 10 years ago.

Theft is a strange one to clarify , it is with theft with violence then NO but theft from a shop (as in stuck something extra in your bag) then it shouldnt have any affect on it.

cumbrian gunman - was theft from employer

NO

Any criminal record means that you can't be trusted to obey laws. It doesn't matter what the crime was.

While you should only be punished for a crime once you lose all right to be trusted ever again.

I think it depends on the offence and how long it has been. Just because you have made a mistake, shouldn't rule you out.

With something like this, you can have the most upright citizen who will have behaved for years, then something snaps and this happens.

There is nothing you can do to legislate for this.

There is one thing that could help, is that a huge red sticker is placed on his medical file, with the direct number of the chief constable, That way, if there is anything going wrong AND he goes to his doctor, they could flag it up to the police.

But someone who was caught shoplifting in a PND-addled fog, say, aged 25 might have a bona fide reason to want a firearm aged 50 - I don't think there can be a blanket ban. People change - for the better or the worse - you can't legislate for that.

Never trusted again?

Does that mean never trusted again about anything or just with guns?

Should a farmer who got done for driving under the influence be banned from ever keeping a shotgun, no matter how plagued his land is with rabbits?

It is completely irrelevant.
theft is really NOT the same thing as violent crime.
and ten years ago... a long time.
so, no

I can't understand why anyone needs to keep a gun at home (excepting farmers, etc). If you shoot at a gun club why can't they be kept there?

My stepfather shoots and has guns at home. I hate it.

So, no I don't think you should be able to get a firearms licence if you have a criminal record. I used to go out with a polieman who served in the Met. He told me that you can get a gun quite easily, illegally, if you want to so I'm not sure it makes a difference if someone is determined to commit a crime.

Hassled, I'm not sure someone who was caught shoplifting in a PND-addled fog should have been convicted in the first place though I suppose they mostly would be.

lljkk, I'm not proposing a specific law. I'm talking about a principle. I don't know how the laws about guns are worded. If they are intended to bar people who might misuse them then having a record of breaking laws should count as a minus factor.

What's the point in them having rules about how to keep them safe and where you can use them if they are going to someone who doesn't think laws have to be obeyed.

I think it's a mistake to think that the law can be an answer to everything; that the law can protect us from a switch going off in somebody's head.

And if we're talking principles: I don't think that one criminal act means you are untrustworthy forever, I don't think that law-abiding gun enthusiasts should be punished for what Derek Bird did (guns aren't at all my thing either).

But most important principle of all, I think it's too early to talk about what (if anything) should be done as a result of this horrific story. We simply don't know enough background yet, and it takes time to get the analysis right.

Apparently the police would have known about DB's theft, they would have taken that into account in their risk assessment (some analyst was saying all this on the radio today, with examples of when criminal records do ban gun ownership automatically).

I don't think that there is a legitimate reason for any individual - except perhaps a farmer - to have a firearm at all. Sport shooters can keep their guns at the club.

Why would anyone else need one?

How does it work for hunters -- people who go on pheasant shoots, for instance? Who keeps their guns?

My uncle was a "One man and his dog" type hunter; they'd go into the bush and bag rabbits or pheasants (and take them home and eat them). It was country sport to them.

I feel uncomfortable with the idea of banning all countryside recreational hunting with guns , just on the back of nutter events.

DP owns guns and isn't a member of a gun club. He is a BASC/CA etc member but not of a local gun club as he only uses his gun for pest control/rough shooting/deer stalking.

Well dp keeps them at home, in gun safes which need a code to be entered before they will open. Guns in one safe and ammunition in another safe,also coded, in another part of the house.

It's about time we evolved away from thinking that shooting living things is fun.

hadn't the Cumbrian gunman held his gun licence for 20 years though?

Well that's another argument.

I've no problem with it whatsoever and I enjoy eating game meat.