Compulsory lessons before granting SGC ?

[Vince Green]

There is a point of law here irrespective of what you may think is good or sensible. That is that the police don't have the right to ask. Its outside their terms of reference. This sort of thing just gradually creeps into being law because over a period of time it becomes accepted practice and we let them do it.

[fortune82]

Good idea for what? What would it achieve? Think this through lads!

 

UK already has one of the highest shotgun safety records in the world. What other benefits do you believe would come of going down this route? I think it's daft.

 

Ive been through this before. I find it amazing in this country that you can apply for a shotgun certificate, buy one and cartridges and go off shooting with absoloutly no prior experience. 99% of guns are safe and fine however 1% are down right dangerous through ignorance.

 

I went clay shooting with a bloke a few years ago who had had a SGC for several years. First thing he did was fire 1 barrel at a clay and then turn around to point the second at my head. Some basic training would have solved this, yet he has several guns and is a danger.

 

I know someone in Scotland who told me a tussock of grass is a good backstop for a .243!!!

 

Lots of other countries have training and testing, I think why not.

 

There are regularly people on here asking questions re guns and cartridges who clearly have no idea but all the gear.

 

At the end of the day a gun is designed to kill and to think we are born with an inbuilt safety and awareness instinct is false.

[peter-peter]

its a load of ****. apply for the sgc and if they refuse ask why.

it is your right.

in this country you can take out a sgc at 6 years old. (but cannot buy or use a shotgun without been accompanied.)

without prior training.

I coach shotgun. and would advise anyone who has a problem getting a cert, if they have a nice clean record to take the local fad to task.

saying this a lesson with a local club will help.

[peter-peter]

There is a point of law here irrespective of what you may think is good or sensible. That is that the police don't have the right to ask. Its outside their terms of reference. This sort of thing just gradually creeps into being law because over a period of time it becomes accepted practice and we let them do it.

I totally agree with this. I coach clay shooters and tell them to apply for a cert, if they wish to shoot, if they have a clean record the fad have no reason to refuse them.

I have no doubt that some clubs and coaches will advise them otherwise for their own financial benifit.

my message is apply for your right to shoot.

[paulos]

I don't see any problem in the Police asking for somebody to have a few lessons or visits to a clay ground to get some experience under their belt. I wouldn't agree with formal, compulsary testing but given some of the total planks that I have seen with SGC's it seems frightening that they can get them seemingly "on the nod". There have been a few lads joining my local club to get some experience before being granted a certificate and I can't see any downside to this at all. We all bang on about how "guns aren't dangerous" and how it's the "nut behind the butt" afterall.

[the running man]

IMO it will just lead to even more hoops to jump through. And where would it stop? Will you have a license like a car license whereby you will have categories for what quarry you can and can't shoot?

 

Clays?

Birds?

Tree based vermin

Ground based vermin with floppy ears and big feet

Ground based vermin with bushy tails and sharp teeth

 

Will I need a category so I can go in a hide with someone, or so I can walk along with my gun around the edge of a field?

 

Whilst I think it is a good idea that everyone should know about safety, I fear it will just lead to further restrictions on ownership and use of sporting weapons.

yes you've a good point,it must be limited,but deer stalkers have to go through theese hoops (for good reason) and this has done wonders to stop people who dont fit the bill,ds1 is quite strict on things,again for good reason. so if people really want to shoot,they wont mind doing a spot of training first.i just hope they come up with something for vermin shooters,guy with semi auto .22 bunny shooting. this also can be nothing but good for all of the shooting spectrum.

Edited July 3, 2010 by the running man

[Jim McArthur]

Since when has the law said that you need to have training to have a shotgun? As far as I am aware, you are still entitled to own one as long as you meet the health, legal and security criteria?

 

That's always been my understanding also: that owning a shotgun was the right of a British subject, and that the SCG was designed only to weed out those who were unfit on the basis of such matters as a criminal record.

 

Now, the police are saying that you need to show "good reason" to own one?

 

So, what makes this different from a Section 1 Firearms Certificate?

 

Jim

[Jim McArthur]

There is a point of law here irrespective of what you may think is good or sensible. That is that the police don't have the right to ask. Its outside their terms of reference. This sort of thing just gradually creeps into being law because over a period of time it becomes accepted practice and we let them do it.

 

Spot-on response, Vince.

 

Jim

[mossy835]

There is a point of law here irrespective of what you may think is good or sensible. That is that the police don't have the right to ask. Its outside their terms of reference. This sort of thing just gradually creeps into being law because over a period of time it becomes accepted practice and we let them do it.

 

 

and thats the bottom line,we let them do it.

[Vince Green]

I go back far enough that I can remember when you didn't need a licence to own a shotgun. Then, I think it was 1968 they introduced licences but it was only like a bus ticket and there were no security conditions and no serial numbers. Now we have SGCs with photos on, serial numbers, FEOs coming round to inspect your cabinets and now it seems they are starting to impose conditions like having to be a member of a club and checking up on permissions which they are not required (or allowed) to do.

 

Apart from wearing down a lot of perfectly law abiding owners into giving up what good has it achieved? Was there a problem before? not as far as I could see? Is it any safer now?

 

And the most important point of all has it reduced crime?

Edited July 4, 2010 by Vince Green

[mossy835]

i remember your renewal form came though the door, and all you had to do is answer yes or no, send it back the same day and 3 weeks later the new one came end of.

[Piebob]

I go back far enough that I can remember when you didn't need a licence to own a shotgun. Then, I think it was 1968 they introduced licences but it was only like a bus ticket and there were no security conditions and no serial numbers. Now we have SGCs with photos on, serial numbers, FEOs coming round to inspect your cabinets and now it seems they are starting to impose conditions like having to be a member of a club and checking up on permissions which they are not required (or allowed) to do.

 

Apart from wearing down a lot of perfectly law abiding owners into giving up what good has it achieved? Was there a problem before? not as far as I could see? Is it any safer now?

 

And the most important point of all has it reduced crime?

 

Exactly. If you look at the bigger picture, nothing has been achieved other than to reduce the overall number of shotguns held.

[CharlieT]

yes you've a good point,it must be limited,but deer stalkers have to go through theese hoops (for good reason) and this has done wonders to stop people who dont fit the bill,ds1 is quite strict on things,again for good reason. so if people really want to shoot,they wont mind doing a spot of training first.i just hope they come up with something for vermin shooters,guy with semi auto .22 bunny shooting. this also can be nothing but good for all of the shooting spectrum.

 

 

I'm sorry but I can never see the logic in posts like this.

 

What is so special about deer that stalkers should jump through hoops.

What sort of people don't fit the bill.

Why do you say the DSC1 is strict. It's not strict, all you have to do is revise and retain the info.

Why does the chap with a semi .22 need training to shoot a few rabbits.

 

Training, ah yes, it's to make us all safe and to try and rid the countryside of all the dead and wounded that litter it as a result of all this dangerous shooting that goes on.

 

I really do think that some license holders perceive themselves as some type of elite being and wish to see license grant made even more difficult for new entrants thus elevating themselves to an even higher plain.

 

As has been pointed out there are plenty of suppliers of training for those who feel they need it, and there are plenty of us who mentor newcomers to set them on the right road. Why fix what ain't broke.

[Jim McArthur]

Exactly. If you look at the bigger picture, nothing has been achieved other than to reduce the overall number of shotguns held.

 

And that's the whole point of what the controllers want to do.

 

Every time you impose yet-another requirement, whether it be a license, a tax, registration, a cabinet, a waiting period or whatever, you reduce the number of guns and gunners out there: making the eventual total ban / confiscation that much easier, since there are ever-fewer people to oppose it.

 

Every gunner who is chanting "that's a good idea!" is pounding another nail into the coffin of sport shooting.

 

Jim

Edited July 4, 2010 by Jim McArthur

[the running man]

I'm sorry but I can never see the logic in posts like this.

 

What is so special about deer that stalkers should jump through hoops.

What sort of people don't fit the bill.

Why do you say the DSC1 is strict. It's not strict, all you have to do is revise and retain the info.

Why does the chap with a semi .22 need training to shoot a few rabbits.

 

Training, ah yes, it's to make us all safe and to try and rid the countryside of all the dead and wounded that litter it as a result of all this dangerous shooting that goes on.

 

I really do think that some license holders perceive themselves as some type of elite being and wish to see license grant made even more difficult for new entrants thus elevating themselves to an even higher plain.

 

As has been pointed out there are plenty of suppliers of training for those who feel they need it, and there are plenty of us who mentor newcomers to set them on the right road. Why fix what ain't broke.

well charlie,I did say any training should be limited,in answer. on my dsc 1 there was 3 ****** that had some land,wen we were on the range they shot the ground in front of them (all of em) so they were all bined,and it was there third time,now in my opinion they did not fit the bill and I'm glad they were not passed.as for dsc, yes strict is prob the wrong word. Now I do believe that people who have been doing it for ages or who have a mentor need not do any course,but the newbie let loose with a semi auto .22 with no previous or without mentor is a recipe for trouble, its just my personal opinion...if people want to pack it in because they can't spare an hour at a range,well they can't be that into it. As for there being no requirement in law for such training,well that's true but how long do u think it will be till it changes. It may well be a nail in our coffins but it will be a game we have to play,just like deer stalkers have too play. Again this is just my opinions and we are well away from public debate yet....take care.

[njc110381]

I don't think it's a bad idea. A total novice could be a danger to themselves and others and one to one tuition soon gives a good idea of basic gun handling. There's no need for an expensive course, any experienced shot could give a basic lesson in exchange for a cup of coffee and that's how I started. I think I shot about ten rounds of Skeet before I got my SGC, and watched many more.

[Vince Green]

I am not against training, or any form of safety. God knows in all my years of attending and running clay shoots and pistol clubs I have seen more plonkers than most of you. Thats why I am very mixed in my opinions about the whole subject. but the simple fact, and I do stress the word simple is that the police have no right to impose conditions like this.

 

IMO plonkers can do the courses and will still be plonkers, nothing will change. The clubs for the most part are more than able to weed out undesirables. They are run by responsible people who know how to deal with undesirables and for the most part do a very good job. The simple answer is to tell them they are not welcome and don't come back. in my experience this is enough. The clubs can regulate themselves so let them get on with it.

 

Back in the days before the pistol ban I saw some people that were down right weird but they always got the shove and our club was squeaky clean. Secretaries kept up communication between each other and we kept the Feos in the loop as well.

 

We dont need this form of regulation, we are better at doing it ourselves if we are allowed to get on with it.

[the running man]

I am not against training, or any form of safety. God knows in all my years of attending and running clay shoots and pistol clubs I have seen more plonkers than most of you. Thats why I am very mixed in my opinions about the whole subject. but the simple fact, and I do stress the word simple is that the police have no right to impose conditions like this.

 

IMO plonkers can do the courses and will still be plonkers, nothing will change. The clubs for the most part are more than able to weed out undesirables. They are run by responsible people who know how to deal with undesirables and for the most part do a very good job. The simple answer is to tell them they are not welcome and don't come back. in my experience this is enough. The clubs can regulate themselves so let them get on with it.

 

Back in the days before the pistol ban I saw some people that were down right weird but they always got the shove and our club was squeaky clean. Secretaries kept up communication between each other and we kept the Feos in the loop as well.

 

We dont need this form of regulation, we are better at doing it ourselves if we are allowed to get on with it.

good post vince,club enviroment is an enviroment where you can watch out for people who pose problems. ive told a few not to come back,as a committee member at one of my clubs. and yes after training is given,plonkers can stillbe plonkers,but at least no one can say they wernt shown the way,and itl keep plod happy! thats if anything happens at all!!

[Ozzy Fudd]

I really do think that some license holders perceive themselves as some type of elite being and wish to see license grant made even more difficult for new entrants thus elevating themselves to an even higher plain.

 

to prove this you just have to look at the amount of online health and safety and firearms licencing officers we have cropping up on this site and jumping down peoples throats every time someone asks a question, never mind the amount of people who were horrified at the thought of an armed police force as the police would never be as safe with guns as us shooters :lol:

[wymberley]

I go back far enough that I can remember when you didn't need a licence to own a shotgun. Then, I think it was 1968 they introduced licences but it was only like a bus ticket and there were no security conditions and no serial numbers. Now we have SGCs with photos on, serial numbers, FEOs coming round to inspect your cabinets and now it seems they are starting to impose conditions like having to be a member of a club and checking up on permissions which they are not required (or allowed) to do.

 

Apart from wearing down a lot of perfectly law abiding owners into giving up what good has it achieved? Was there a problem before? not as far as I could see? Is it any safer now?

 

And the most important point of all has it reduced crime?

Flippin' 'eck, Vince, how old are you? I've just checked the date/time group on my first licence (Called, funnily enough, a 'Gun Licence' in those days): 9.26am 23 Aug 1958, cost 10s. Close, mate, I remember because I was in Aden and Father sent the paper-work out for me to fill in - 1967 the revised white plasticated paper ones came in.

[CharlieT]

Flippin' 'eck, Vince, how old are you? I've just checked the date/time group on my first licence (Called, funnily enough, a 'Gun Licence' in those days): 9.26am 23 Aug 1958, cost 10s. Close, mate, I remember because I was in Aden and Father sent the paper-work out for me to fill in - 1967 the revised white plasticated paper ones came in.

 

 

And if you remember, when you renewed the old white one it came back with the corner cut off.

 

The majority of the boys in our village had a gun and I don't remember many of us ever buying a license from the post office, same with a dog license. Interestingly our village copper never ever asked to see any ones license. I used to strap my trusty old single 12 bore to the cross bar on my bike and take it with me to school for a spot of rabbiting on the way home, no one ever blinked an eye.

 

Happy days.

[wymberley]

And if you remember, when you renewed the old white one it came back with the corner cut off.

 

The majority of the boys in our village had a gun and I don't remember many of us ever buying a license from the post office, same with a dog license. Interestingly our village copper never ever asked to see any ones license. I used to strap my trusty old single 12 bore to the cross bar on my bike and take it with me to school for a spot of rabbiting on the way home, no one ever blinked an eye.

 

Happy days.

Yep, carry mine open (no slip) past the village post office and bank and stand it in the corner of the local hotel public bar on the way back while I downed a swift half. As you say, happy days!