Jump to content

Sporting5

Members
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sporting5

  1. Thanks for confirming, didn't see that. An oversight and a half then.
  2. Are you still rambling on? Thought this had finished ages ago.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. Were there any red flags before his SGC was granted? If not, it's near impossible for them to tell he wasn't suitable
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. I have a roccbox, bit more expensive, but have a look at those too - superb
  14. 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.
  15. Isn't this a contradiction? Given sufficient licensing and guidance he wouldn't have been given his firearms back!? I welcome further restrictions, within reason. If the police want to be increasingly vigilant with who they give shotgun licenses to, more power to them. If they're the right restrictions, they won't impact those that are suitable to hold them.
  16. Changing passwords won't do a thing, it's a nice idea but people shouldn't really be using the same password for multiple things anyway but the data leak of names and addresses is already out there.
  17. It was a while ago, I don't recall the exact vulnerability, I wouldnt go into specifics anyway in case it got into the wrong hands but I'd spotted something really easily spotted during normal use of their website and reached out to offer help (if it was normal use then its likely to be 1 of a few types of vulnerability). I read on reddit earlier that somebody else did too. Totally ignored. I totally agree with you hackers are one step ahead (typically) but even had they not had been advised of just some general security concern and they just hadn't realised, I think either way they need to be held accountable for this. There couldn't possibly have been any half decent testing on the security. There are a lot of sensible people panicking over this breach.
  18. Hackers weren't 1 step ahead here, Guntrader were 1 step behind. They were already advised, they just didn't listen
  19. They should be doing everything within their power to keep their subject data secure, at the very least be listening to security reports from their own customers. It's negligence, it's the very definition of it.
  20. There's another thread. As I said in there, they need to be shut down.
  21. GunTrader are an embarrassment, I tried to warn them of security vulnerabilities in their platform back in 2019 (I have the messages to prove it). They didn't reply to me and I was explicitly clear that it was not a sales pitch and that I was offering to help for free. I even gave them my number and invited them to call me any time. They need shutting down. It's blatant disregard for security and when you're responsible for collecting a database of gun owners' details the least you can do is pay attention. They say the user details aren't necessarily those with licenses, come on - behave.
  22. I left Catton on Saturday just gone with a bit of a different opinion, to be honest. Was in a group, all shot at least 130 each, didn't see a single no bird. Was busy with corporate, can't disagree with that, and we did have to walk past a couple of stands - but we didn't really find ourselves waiting (at least not any more than we would be elsewhere with 'real' shooters practicing), and it was a nice surprise to see that a few of the stands actually had multiple set-ups on them, so once you were in there we had enough variety to keep us busy. I'd recommend they do this again, it worked well. They dedicate Sundays to comps and (I think) Wednesdays too? So can't ask for more than that since they need to operate as an 'adventure' place to stay in business, I imagine. Re the quads, I don't begrudge a bit of noise, doesn't seem the right sport for that haha Obviously everybody's experience is different, I'm not discrediting yours, I'm just wanting to add a bit of balance since I'm impressed with how they run it.
  23. Looks like a lovely ground. I've been to most grounds but not visited here yet, left a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth last time I spoke to them though over one thing or another so didn't plan on visiting. If it changes hands I will visit happily, issue was with the owners not the ground.
×
×
  • Create New...