Sporting5
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by Sporting5
-
-
20 minutes ago, Gordon R said:
You have mastered the art of posting a lot, but saying nothing. Just let it go.
Are you still rambling on? Thought this had finished ages ago.
-
15 minutes ago, Scully said:
In other words you have no idea. For someone asking for specifics you seem a tad vague.
Home visits for whatever reason are by appointment only, and if spot checks aren’t then what reason do they have to gain access? If my guns were laid about in the house I’d simply suggest they returned when it was convenient. 🤷♂️
None of which would have prevented the shootings in Plymouth.
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
-
6 minutes ago, Fellside said:
Let it go…… deep breaths.
You won’t put it right by having a go at people on PW. Let’s just see how it plays out. It is completely out of our hands now. Perhaps BASC will comment in time, although that wouldn’t be appropriate jest yet.haha quite unnecessary mate, nobody's having a go. Chill.
It certainly would be interesting to see BASC's take on it.
2 minutes ago, Scully said:You suggested randomised spot checks. You, no one else.
So enlighten us, how would these randomised spot checks work, what benefit would they have and how would they have prevented what happened in Plymouth, or indeed prevent it happening anywhere else?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
-
21 minutes ago, Gordon R said:
That is exactly the point. You can evade the question as much as you want. You suggest there should be changes, but nothing you have come up with isn't already in place.
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.
12 minutes ago, Scully said:So how do you think a randomised spot check would go ( this isn’t a Police state yet remember ) and when you’ve sorted that perhaps you could explain how these spot checks would prevent another mass shooting or indeed prevented what happened in Plymouth?
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?
-
3 minutes ago, Scully said:
Constable. ‘Hey Sarge. I’m at Mr such and such’s house to check his guns are locked away, like you said, but his wife says he’s not in. His wife said I’ll have to make an appointment if I want to see him.’
Sarge. ‘Okay. Do that then.’
Constable. ‘But it won’t be a randomised spot check then sarge.’
Sarge. ‘ Oh yeah. ******!’
As for ‘zero tolerance’ regards anger management, I wasn’t even aware it was tolerated at all. Perhaps you could ask your MP when you email him your musings, why it is tolerated. I’m sure he’d like to know too.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.
-
2 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:
He should have never been granted a SGC in the first place!
Were there any red flags before his SGC was granted? If not, it's near impossible for them to tell he wasn't suitable
-
Just now, Fellside said:
There are perfectly robust legal structures in place already - they just haven’t been adhered to. A tragic police failure - even family members appealed for earlier intervention.
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
-
8 minutes ago, Scully said:
Because it will be specifics which the HO, the Police and politicians will be looking at.
It really annoys me when folk jump on the ‘something must be done’ and ‘if it saves one life’ bandwagon, with no aforethought or apparent care of consequences for all. All of it is meaningless waffle which helps no one.
Ministers and bureaucrats will argue that the world will be a ‘little safer’ if firearms weren’t legally available at all. After all, the biggest loss of life involved in UK mass shootings have all been committed by people with legally owned firearms. It’s only logical to apply the next step.
I’m assuming you’ll be emailing your well thought out musings to your local MP in an effort to make the world a little safer?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.
-
1 minute ago, Green hornet said:
now in my opinion if assault or you threaten someone in such a way you shouldn’t really have them back at all.
agreed
-
3 minutes ago, Scully said:
So in other words, you haven’t really thought it through. You’d welcome tighter restrictions than already exist, but have no idea what they should consist of. 🤷♂️
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.
-
1 minute ago, Scully said:
None of that answers my question. What further restrictions would you welcome, and how would they benefit both the general public and law abiding gun owners.
Past legislation has included banning certain firearms under the guise of ‘making the world a little bit safer’.
Explain to us what legislation you think would make it safer.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.
-
40 minutes ago, timps said:
But what specific legislation and/or restrictions would you put forward to combat this?
Employing an army of FEO’s to scroll daily through every social media platform checking names and potential aliases against a central database of every licence holder in the country and reading hours of drivel, “you ok hun” posts and pictures of last night tea just in case?
Or are you suggesting we now as licence holders hand over our internet privacy to the police where everything we do online is monitored?
Looking at someone’s digital footprint after they have done something is easy, my Facebook is locked down to friends only, my presence here is a nickname the police would be unaware of. However, if I was to commit some kind of atrocity someone on my social media friends list would give the media access and as plenty on here know my real name that would also be guaranteed to be passed on as well.
People will always come forward after an event stating they ‘knew’ but strangely they never thought to come forward before to preempt it.
Im not saying the police acted correctly in this case, I genuinely don’t know, I just don’t see how you can legislate to search the digital footprint of every licence holder, and even if they did getting around it to remain anonymous from normal police resources is still easy.
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
-
38 minutes ago, wymberley said:
No, I don't believe that it is. The legislation is in place and is sufficiently robust. Somewhere along the line someone - possibly plural - failed to do what they should have done and all concerned have a let out clause known as 'guidelines'. Further restrictions? The buck passing has already started with one very senior retired officer explaining that it was all due to a lack of resources - ie, they want more dosh now, so how much more will they want to cover these extra restrictions?
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.
36 minutes ago, clangerman said:since the days of the ten bob ticket we have seen nothing but a increase in restrictions and why? because the police keep handing maniacs firearms and will continue to do so until tickets are issued by a agency who can tell fact from fiction
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.
3 minutes ago, Scully said:Ok, so what kind of further restrictions would you welcome? Spell them out, and how they would benefit both the general public and law abiding gun ownership.
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.
-
10 hours ago, phaedra1106 said:
I wish that one of the shooting organisations would stand up for once and say that this was not a result of poor or insufficient licensing/guidance.
Like the previous Horden shootings here in Durham it was a failure of the licensing department to enforce the current guidance correctly.
He should never have had his firearms returned, they were given plenty of evidence of his unsuitability, even his own family told them he was unfit and were ignored.
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.
-
9 hours ago, LeedsZeppelin said:
North Yorkshire police have just issued a statement via social media to make people aware of this issue.
They are asking people to change passwords and be extra vigilante with home security.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:
By you from another comment I've seen, who else has told them? What vulnerability did you advise them of?
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.
-
36 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:
Hackers are always one step ahead of the protectors. It's a reactive job to block new attacks. This is nothing new when it comes to breaches. Yes it will now put them in a very tricky position. But yes they should be making sure details are securely held. But they are not the first and will not be the last company to get caught out.
Hackers weren't 1 step ahead here, Guntrader were 1 step behind. They were already advised, they just didn't listen
-
1 hour ago, ShootingEgg said:
Definitely not a scam, not sure they should be shut down, plenty of higher profile companies have had data breaches. Just this is one regarding firearm owner's. Who knows what the reason for the hack was.
No different to the innocent badge site getting hold of cull details.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Whitester said:
I got this too, didn’t know if it was a scam or not. Even if true and if I read it correctly then it’s just your mobile / email that’s been accessed
It's not, addresses too
-
There's another thread.As I said in there, they need to be shut down.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Changes to gun licensing
in General Shooting Matters
Posted
Thanks for confirming, didn't see that. An oversight and a half then.