Keyham shootings

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

I don't think it's possible to determine fitness or otherwise to hold a firearms licence based on the supposed mental wellbeing of the individual. There are too many factors to take into consideration as well as the complexity of trying to monitor and administrate such a system.

You'd have to classify first of all what constitutes mentally fit or unfit. Do you prohibit anyone with a lifelong diagnosis from holding a certificate, even if that diagnosis is not one normally associated with suicidal or aggressive behaviours? What about people with a diagnosis who have encountered one solitary short-lived episode 40 years ago and absolutely nothing since? Even with situations such as a one-off period of mild clinical depression that was successfully treated, do you then go down the ethically questionable route of assuming that past behaviour is a guarantee of future behaviour? What about a mother who has never encountered any form of mental ill health besides a period of PND after the birth of a child? Is she a potential danger? 

You can never account for the fact that people who have a long history of robust mental wellbeing can become ill and unstable at the drop of a hat. 

The only way to ensure that 'mentally ill' people don't get their hands on firearms is to prevent firearms getting into public domain in the first place. You can't legislate for someone becoming ill.

It shouldn't just be about mental health.

Maybe I'm wrong but if someone from say a council housing estate in a big city like Plymouth asks if he can have a shotgun I think alarm bells should be ringing.

If people want to shoot targets or animals the guns could be held centrally, not under the stairs.

[101]

4 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It shouldn't just be about mental health.

Maybe I'm wrong but if someone from say a council housing estate in a big city like Plymouth asks if he can have a shotgun I think alarm bells should be ringing.

If people want to shoot targets or animals the guns could be held centrally, not under the stairs.

Yeh club storage would be a good idea, although not sure how practical for the likes of farmers etc. 

But worth remembering that most people who have mental ill health especially depression don't think if going on a murderous rampage.

[Bairnardo]

Yeh club storage would be a good idea, although not sure how practical for the likes of farmers etc. 
But worth remembering that most people who have mental ill health especially depression don't think if going on a murderous rampage.

A farmer might well be the only people with a genuine shout at owning a gun at home.

Literally everyone else who should have a licence (sport shooting is loose use of the "should" but lets face it, thats going nowhere) could have their licenced gun locked up at their club.

Theres no excuse or need for rapid fire shotgun capabilities. Launching an indiscrimate blanket of lead shot at a flock of geese is not an excuse.

[EH75]

Why does anyone need a gun?

Is it time to completely outlaw all firearms except for a very small number of occupations who are allowed to keep specific types of firearms for justifiable reasons? I guess farmers need them so they can shoot vermin maybe but even then is that necessary? How often does a farmer need to use his gun? Is a pump action shotgun required for this or can you do it with something lower powered and more time consuming to reload? Genuine question as I have no idea. Who else would justifiably need to own a gun?

Get rid of gun clubs, target shooting, clay pigeon etc. Bit shite if that's your hobby I guess but at the end of the day if thats what it takes to reduce the risk of stuff like this even further then maybe its time.

[Boo Khaki]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It shouldn't just be about mental health.

Maybe I'm wrong but if someone from say a council housing estate in a big city like Plymouth asks if he can have a shotgun I think alarm bells should be ringing.

If people want to shoot targets or animals the guns could be held centrally, not under the stairs.

Of course. That's just common sense.

I think it's just a bit disingenuous to immediately go down the route of exclaiming 'this guy was obviously a nutter, why didn't they take his gun off him?' when we obviously lack a system that ensures that in practice, and nobody is really pointing out the obvious that such a system would be nigh on impossible to implement.

I mean, yes, obviously there are strictures in place because he did in fact lose his licence for a period, but nobody seems to be stopping to consider that perhaps the reason he got it back is because there was no legitimate basis to deny him it given the way things currently operate.

Nobody in their right mind would deny that in a scenario whereby a known gun owner is openly talking about committing acts of violence, or displaying obviously concerning behaviours, that there should be a way to step in and remove their access to firearms, but to me all this talk about having some sort of system whereby we can determine fitness pre-emptively seems to miss the point. The problem isn't that 'mentally ill people have guns', rather 'people have guns, and some people get mentally ill'.

The horse has already bolted in terms of guns in public hands, so retroactively bringing in fitness tests seems to be a bit pointless when, as you rightly point out, there appears to be far more rudimentary ways in which we can ask the question of whether or not it's reasonable to grant a licence. You are still inevitably going to run into the problem of perfectly legitimately held guns being used to commit crimes when the owner decides that they've had enough of the ex and her current, or falls out with the bank manager etc. Once you have guns in public domain, these incidents are inevitable. I don't think it's really keeping the reality of the UK situation in perspective if we are going to indulge a moral panic over firearms when we have roughly one mass shooting every ten years. That doesn't detract from what it is, we just need to bear that in mind and look at what could be happening going by what goes on elsewhere in the world. Seems to me that despite the horror of what has happened in Plymouth, on the whole the UK's firearm legislation seems to be functioning reasonably effectively.

[welshbairn]

Worked on a small farm near Cruden Bay in my school holidays for a bit, and a guy used to come up from Aberdeen for an afternoon's shooting with the farmer, bringing his own gun. I suppose the rule could be that the shotgun has to stay locked up at the farm but they probably go shooting at different places. It's not the same as a shooting range/gun club.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Worked on a small farm near Cruden Bay in my school holidays for a bit, and a guy used to come up from Aberdeen for an afternoon's shooting with the farmer, bringing his own gun. I suppose the rule could be that the shotgun has to stay locked up at the farm but they probably go shooting at different places. It's not the same as a shooting range/gun club.

I've met a few folk that had guns. I never thought, Aye, you're alright, I don't mind you having fire arms.

Gun licences should be an absolute exception and people holding them routinely monitored. Wandering about parks shooting rabbits isn't a good reason.

[Arthur daley]

1 hour ago, J_Stewart said:

 

 

The Captain has been selected.

 

 

Captain? I would be the manager .

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, Mark Connolly said:

I don't disagree in general, but in this case, he got his licence taken off him, then returned. You'd have thought they might have had a look through his socials during that process...

Maybe they did.

[ICTChris]

I work with a guy who has guns, he takes part in clay pigeon shooting. He has to keep them locked in a secure cupboard in his house that is inspected by the police as part of his license. I’m sure that is one of the legal requirements for all firearm and shotgun licenses.  So either the murderer in this case had all that or he didn’t and the cops didn’t inspect him properly.

My colleague also claims that his burglar alarm is linked to the local police station and if it goes off armed cops are despatched in case his guns are nicked. I’m a little sceptical about that being the case tbh.

[Granny Danger]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

I’m in favour of far tighter controls and checks but necessarily an outright ban.  I say that as someone who has no interest in owning a gun and who supported the changes to the laws following Dunblane.

 

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, 101 said:

Not a surprise, usually wheeled out by utter morons who have heard about video games. Because no video game exists where you can brutally murder a child and countless other some of which in their own home before turning the gun on yourself.

Somewhere, a video games company employee is thinking... "hmmm, it would be a bit of a niche market, but you never know..." 

[Boo Khaki]

They tried it with 'Going Postal', but even back then there was an outcry that it was just too much.

Edit - pretty sure there was also an Indi game in which you played as the Columbine shooters.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Boo Khaki

[coprolite]

A friend at at my work started going to a gun club and had applied for a license for his own before going a wee bit nuts, which culminated in him getting sacked for repeatedly threatening to kill one of the female managers. 

A childhood friend of mine lived on a farm and was walking about with a shotgun when he shot a small brown bird, like a sparrow or something, amd got the largest bit of debris with the second barrel before it hit the floor. 

In my admittedly limited experience of gun owners, wanting a gun should automatically disbar you from having one. 

[Jacksgranda]

21 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I’m in favour of far tighter controls and cheques but necessarily an outright ban.  I say that as someone who has no interest in owning a gun and who supported the changes to the laws following Dunblane.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I’m in favour of far tighter controls and checks but necessarily an outright ban.  I say that as someone who has no interest in owning a gun and who supported the changes to the laws following Dunblane.

That's better

[SANTAN]

You should only be allowed a gun if you're a certified shagger. They could even do a tier list so for example if you wanted a desert eagle you had to have over 150 shags. 300 for a shotgun. 500 for an AR. 

[Marshmallo]

3 hours ago, Shandon Par said:

Saddam Hussein used to like watching Scottish football on Sky. 

Ba'athgate Thistle supporter

[mizfit]

I work with a guy who has guns, he takes part in clay pigeon shooting. He has to keep them locked in a secure cupboard in his house that is inspected by the police as part of his license. I’m sure that is one of the legal requirements for all firearm and shotgun licenses.  So either the murderer in this case had all that or he didn’t and the cops didn’t inspect him properly.
My colleague also claims that his burglar alarm is linked to the local police station and if it goes off armed cops are despatched in case his guns are nicked. I’m a little sceptical about that being the case tbh.

Your second point isn’t something I’m familiar with. Working in insurance claims has seen a few occasions where we’ve dealt with gun claims and it’s never been a requirement as far as I know. Only thing I can think of is if they’re in a high risk theft area but most the time the police will be satisfied with a gun cabinet permanently mounted somewhere in the home.

[Boo Khaki]

Sunnibank FC fan.

Sunnishine on Leith etc.

[Marshmallo]

5 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Ba'athgate Thistle supporter

Imagine downvoting this. It's probably the best post ever on The Forum.