stuartyboy

Still strikes me as odd that he would spend 3 days out without thinking people would wonder were he was and be concerned. Unless he planned to camp for a few days and had made family/friends aware of that. I’ve got a lot of respect for him in the way he looked after himself but even more respect for the volunteer rescuers who gave up time with their own family to look for him. Could have been easily avoided if he carried a phone or some other form of communication. I think that if you take part in any form of sport that has a reasonable probability of you requiring rescue, there should be an obligation to have insurance to cover the costs associated with rescuing you.

I thought it was peculiar that he had seen the rescuers but hadn’t thought of getting their attention or walking over to them, despite knowing that people would have been wondering where he was.

I heard it was a long barrelled weapon so not the usual choice of firearm for a shooting.

👍🏻

Said this many times before here. If you don’t like the BBC, don’t pay the licence fee. It is very simple and legal to do so. I stopped paying this tax a while back and have no regrets and urge everyone to do so too.

You are correct, it does not stop them. But it makes it more difficult. Look at America where firearms are freely available. 10s of thousands of deaths each year but in the UK it’s only a few dozen annually. Part of the reason for this is that firearms are relatively hard to obtain here and part of that reason is that licensing restricts their ownership to suitable people. I feel like I’m repeating myself now so going to sign off but it’s an interesting and emotive subject that can be argued both ways

It’s worth pointing out that illegally held firearms generally fall into 3 basic categories. Firstly, forgotten heirlooms, war trophys, etc. The kind that grandfather brought back from the war, put in the loft and forgot about. Or shotguns from before 1968. These guns aren’t generally an issue as the ‘owner’ either doesn’t know about them or has no criminal use for them. Secondly, improvised guns. By that I mean converted old spec deacts, Brococks, obsolete calibre, home made, converted CS or blank firers etc etc Lastly, manufactured guns that are stolen or smuggled. But guns that are designed to do what they do from the factory. Manufactured guns are by the far the rarest here. THEY ARE AVAILABLE, but in limited numbers. Improvised guns are the commonest used guns in crime. Now why is that? It’s not because they require modifications or special ammo made for them. Or the fact that modifications are dangerous to the user. It’s because they are all unlicensed and easy to obtain. I appreciate that laws have changed recently in regards to Deacts and Brococks etc but that is fairly recent legislation and all the modified guns are or were until recently, easily bought online/over the counter. Now if we can accept that criminals use modified guns more often (even though they are dangerous and require skills to make them work) as they can get hold of them easier, it doesn’t take a giant leap to understand that if all guns/ammo were unlicensed and/or registered, they would use them instead and the number of criminals using them would increase.

Of course licensing reduces the availability of firearms. That’s the whole point of it. And it’s not perfect but it should reduce availability to only the right applicants with the right reason.

Obviously. So licensing makes it harder for criminals to get guns as they have to get them them illegally. And as I have repeatedly said, they are available but limited in numbers therefore not as easy to get as some think. I’ve got no interest in trying to impress anyone. I merely point out that I have some limited hands on experience of the subject matter. And I don’t see the relevance of you having ‘had a lifetime of experience of both sides of legit’ has with this debate? Were you a bit of a lad, scrumping apples, running with the Yardies?

Considering you are firmly of the opinion that licensing does nothing to prevent the likelihood of criminals accessing firearms, when asked for a solution, you seem to suggest a licensing system that’s very similar to what we have already? Albeit a simplied system. if licensing was such a waste of time and designed to be a burden on the legitimate sporting shooter, surely you would advocate no licensing at all? Or could it be deep down you appreciate that without any form of licensing, more guns would be freely available to everyone with good intent or bad. Now, that is impressive 😂🤣😂

In your opinion, does licensing help to limit the criminal use of firearms by vetting applicants and reducing the availability of firearms. Or not. Note, I say, help to limit. Not eradicate as that’s not possible. Maybe you should spend less time reading books and more experiencing the reality of what’s out there. Like I have for over the last 15 years on the job.

Put it another way. Vehicle drivers are licensed for whatever category of vehicle. This doesn’t mean there’s no accidents or deliberate illegal acts performed by licensed or unlicensed drivers. Sometimes with no repercussions, sometimes with horrific results. However it’s the best system we have for every ones safety and there’s no real alternative in this day and age. To scrap driver licensing would undoubtedly cause carnage.

I don’t see what you quoted from me is untrue. Firearm crime has risen since, say the 1950s. That has nothing to do with licensing but changes in society. And I maintain that due to societal change since that era, licensing is required. Regards to deranged certificate holders being the perpetrators of the worst mass shootings that this country has experienced, I totally agree. As I agree that the next one will unfortunately be carried out by a certificate holder. However, we will never know how many other incidents have been prevented by licensing stopping undesirables from getting guns. So yes, it’s not perfect and there are flaws (which contributed towards Dunblane and Hungerford etc) but it’s bwtter than a free for all Yes, it could happen but it’s less likely due to FAC holders being vetted. The fact is that it’s not happened says we’re doing something right. If you could walk in a shop and buy one without any hindrance it’s statistically far more likely to happen due to the number of people with issues and that kind of desire being able to buy a rifle impulsively That’s my point about availability. There are these types of firearms in circulation but because they are so few in numbers, they generally get reused. If they where available in large numbers, they would be used once then destroyed/thrown in the sea

You make the UK sound like it’s the Wild West. It’s simply not, research how many people are shot each year with illegal firearms. There’s an issue with knife crime, yes, but at the moment gun crime is low for a population of 70 million. Unless you are involved in crime you are statistically far more likely to get hit by lightning

My argument, and apologies for repeating myself, is that licensing reduces the guns available to criminals. It’s not perfect but it acts as a buffer. If there was no licensing, guns could be as common as knifes used in crime. Fact is that criminals can get guns but they are not easily available. If you think otherwise, ask any police you know. Don’t listen to what the papers say. You mention America. How many accidental shootings are there each year compared to lives saved by having the right to bare arms in self defence?

What I should say also is that nowadays society has evolved so licensing is required. Post WW2 there was very little gun crime, despite all the guns available after the war and shotguns being easy to access due to no records of individual guns kept until ‘68. Now society has changed to the way it has unfortunately, licensing is required. As individuals the majority of folk can and should be trusted, but as a society as a whole. No chance

Regarding buying an air rifle in England and bringing it to Scotland. That is very easy however the penalty for an unlicensed air gun in Scotland is potentially 2 years in the jail. If anyone wants to risk that, good luck to them As you know, licensing is not a perfect system but it’s another tool in the box to filter out undesirables. Most idiots who would want to shoot swans, windows, each other etc are the type who would struggle to read the application forms, never mind complete them. And not want the police round their door. Airgun crime won’t be eliminated but it’s already fallen and will continue to do so.

It’s a different scenario and irrelevant to firearms licensing as every single household in this country has dozens of knives. Every single person over the age of , I don’t know 16?, has a use for a knife. Knives are required by the public and are everywhere. They are a necessity. Firearms aren’t to 99% of the population. You could never license knives and I know you know that. It’s infeasible. But put it another way, if guns of all sorts were freely available as knives are. There would be very little knife crime as all the neds would be shooting each other instead of knifing.

The same way as they are currently screened in Scotland. The very involvement of the police with licensing is going to deter the vast majority of undesirable idiots from applying. And if they do apply, likely will fail in their application. But if you’re a half decent person with a reason to acquire, you won’t have any issues. Completely different scenarios and not really relevant for obvious reasons

There is a demand though for illegal firearms. That’s why the same gun is often re used throughout the country, proven by ballistic testing of recovered casings and bullets. And the supply isn’t there, that’s why the same gun is often used. If the demand was met by the supply, every gun would only be used once then disposed of. That generally doesn’t happen as they are hard to come by. And if guns were freely available, every gang member/bank robber/wannabe gangster/weirdo loner would be carrying. N.Ireland was a difficult and unique situation. There was a war going on with both sides funded and supplied by recognised countries ie Libya, amongst others, supplying weapons for the IRA and it’s different splinter groups against the British government. It was a completely different scenario compared to gun crime in this country.

Cannon is spot on with what he says. Illegal guns are available but they are hard to come by and ammunition harder to come by. If there was no licensing, guns would be freely available and gun crime would go through the roof simply due to the fact that guns would be freely available. It’s a no brainier. The media portrays the streets as being awash with illegal firearms but that’s simply not true. They can be got but it’s not easy. Ask any copper. Although I will say in some areas consisting of certain population groups, they can be got easier.

What alternative do we have? Genuine question. Do we carry on with the status quo and accept there will always be a very small risk associated with the public owning guns but overall it’s a far from perfect system that works the vast majority of time? Or do we reduce licensing requirements to allow more freedom for shooting sports but increase the possible risk? Or do we do away with licensing altogether and hope it works out? Or, more likely, heavily restrict private gun ownership?

I appreciate that there are illegal guns in circulation. Exact figure is unknown for obvious reasons but I maintain that it is harder to get them than most folk think. Obviously if you know undesirables or mix with a certain crowd you can access them reasonably easy but for the vast majority of the public and the majority of the criminals out there, it’s difficult to get hold of a functioning firearm that is safe to use. And importantly, hard to get ammunition for it. Not impossible, but difficult. I know this for a fact. Licensing simply helps to keep guns out of the hands of dodgy folk but allow people who need them, to get them. It’s not a perfect system but it works to an extent to keep everyone safe.

This is an age old argument which doesn’t really hold water. Yes there are illegal firearms available in the UK but they’re not as common as folk think and can be got but not easily. That’s why knife crime is such a big issue as knives are freely available though they are arguably a far poorer choice of weapon for the local dealer. The point of licensing is to stop undesirables getting access to guns which it does reasonably well. There are cases of guns being stolen etc but if there was no licensing at all, we would have a much bigger problem with firearm related crime due to the sheer volume of guns out there.

I think the point Cannon is making is that without licensing, there would be far more misuse of firearms. That is to say, if there was no gun control at all, every idiot would have access to a gun and there would be resulting chaos. I think the licensing is about right. If you require a gun for whatever reason, you can generally get a license for it subject to the obvious legal stipulations and that you are a suitable person. Its not a perfect system, I would change a few things about licensing such as license the person to possess whatever rather than having to license each individual firearm on a FAC. I think it’s generally not a bad balance. And it’s a difficult balance to achieve. You have to protect the public (including the shooters themselves) while allowing the use of firearms in where required. With regards to the tragic shootings mentioned, responsibility for that lies squarely with the sicko who carried it out. However, there was plenty of opportunity to remove the guns from the perpetrators beforehand so the licensing system failed drastically there. However, if there was no licensing at all, I don’t doubt that there would be a lot more tragedys.