Sporting5

Thanks for confirming, didn't see that. An oversight and a half then.

Are you still rambling on? Thought this had finished ages ago.

At this point your comments aren't really relevant; I do have an idea how spot checks add value, but I'm saying that that's already well covered by the decision to already be doing them (forward your questions and musings to the local police forces or authorities that already do them if you want). This appears to just be hot air at this point, not much point replying to your good self now, appears the points are being missed left, right and centre - you're free to have the last word if you must mate

haha quite unnecessary mate, nobody's having a go. Chill. It certainly would be interesting to see BASC's take on it. Spot checks and home visits are already in place, so it seems there's some consensus they add value without a further explanation from me

So I've apparently 'evaded the question' but in the same breath there are suggestions I've 'come up with'?! How can "increased" spot checks already be in place? By it's very definition 'increase' means more than there currently are. It appears I've over-estimated people's general ability to reason. There's no obligation whatsoever for me to qualify my opinion with a detailed implementation plan. The police force are (evidently) not vigilant enough - I'm suggesting that should they put (the right!) measures in place, I would forego convenience and saved costs to ensure they're being as thorough as possible. You're asking how checking people are adhering to legislation around gun safety would help prevent issues of gun safety? That's what you're trying to press me on?

Ye, this was equally as quippy as the first time you said it. Your script of a hypothetical random spot check is cute, but it's nothing like how it'd go - you know that.

Were there any red flags before his SGC was granted? If not, it's near impossible for them to tell he wasn't suitable

This was my question (a genuine one) - should he (according to policy) have had his gun back after the reasons for which he had them taken off him in the first place? I don't know the answer

OK? Let them? That's what they're paid to do? You're making my point for me here. And yes - I can see you're "annoyed" and getting worked up, relax a little bit and try and read carefully the points I'm making. If you're getting upset at the lack of specifics and "no aforethought" then have a look at the 2 measures I already mentioned. Zero tolerance with incidents resulting in the need for anger management, and randomised spot checks to houses with guns that should be stored in compliance with the laws we're all aware of. Do you have any thoughts on those 2 (be very specific please)? I've given you a couple examples of what you asked for.

agreed

Absolutely. You can portray that how you choose, it's a valid standpoint - I welcome increased vigilance (even if that results in tightened restrictions) but (believe it or not) I haven't devised the new legislation or guidance myself to the Nth degree. Not sure why you're hell-bent on specifics when the premise of my point is a broad one, think you're struggling to get your head around that, but I have provided 2 measures already.

See comment above, you're missing my point. I'll just copy/paste it if it's easier - if police find a feasible way of increasing vigilance (in whatever form that is) that is not going to restrict sensible SGC holders from getting on with things, I support it - even if that results in cost or inconvenience for me Since it seems I'm required to provide specifics here (not quite sure why) - here's another one, random spot checks to properties of those storing guns. What's the harm in that? So there's 2: - If you require anger management, you're not the right guy to be trusted with firearms - Increased (random) spot checks As I say, perhaps harsh and most definitely inconvenient - but nothing I begrudge.

Ye - fair points. My take on it is simply that if police find a feasible way of increasing vigilance (in whatever form that is) that is not going to restrict sensible SGC holders from getting on with things, I support it - even if that results in cost or inconvenience for me. I've not put any thought into specifics, I've been asked twice in this thread, I could try and think of some but that's not really my point. One might be that if you were found to have been involved in an assault and required to have attended anger management - you're allowed nowhere near a gun. Perhaps harsh, but why would we be OK with returning a SGC to somebody who've struggled with that? If this isn't an existing "restriction" - I'd suggest it should be. Is it an existing restriction? (Genuine question, I don't know) Re the idea of interrogating a licensee's entire digital footprint - I'm not sure that's feasible (or sensible) in most cases, but maybe some cases.

I have a roccbox, bit more expensive, but have a look at those too - superb

It can't be that robust if this d1ckhead's content was in the public domain for everyone to see yet he was given his firearms back after being explicitly warned? Re cost - I don't think this should come into it, happy to pay over the odds for the privelege of carrying my SGC if it means the world's even a little bit safer. If the cost is to cover resources of police forces doing their due diligence (which nobody can disagree was not done in this case) then I don't mind. Again I'm not sure if I follow, since this seems like a contradiction. Just to be clear - what I'm saying is that if the police were to act increasingly vigilant around those who hold SGCs, and it was effective (rather than further restrictions for further restrictions sake), how can you argue that that's a bad thing? This case is a textbook example of how further vigilance by the local police force could've possibly helped prevent this altogether. This guy attended an anger management course, explicitly (and very publicly) expressed support for an incel movement with keen interests in mass shootings, and produced social media content that would've been a red flag for anybody with their head screwed on. It was pretty much already spelt out all on it's own.