Downing Street E Petition changes to gun laws

[fruitloop]

the thing is you make somting compusery and the prices sky rocket just becuse you have to have it .look at car insurance!!

you make it compulsery to have traning dont make you a better or safer shooter it just shows that you can wright or talk a load of drivle about what you shud do.

this reminds me when i was doing my aprentiship there was me i was good at the practical ans know how to conduct my self in a workshop and there was another lad who was usless and very unsafe

but becuse he knew how to blag what he was supost to do on paper he pased the module.i was usles in the academic and strugled with the wrighting

[JustJon]

Not only is the petition poorly worded I also believe its dangerous and supports an antis view over the shooters views at this time.

 

I don't believe that should be publicly available as a shooters comments - it will or could be very well used against us. Look st it this way - 'shooter admits he's incompetent to own a gun, and his mates are too'

 

Nice red top style headline without any twisting of the message to be fair?

[denniswebb]

Our shooting bodies want to get this standardised as a requirement but the police don't reconise them as part of the system, You think the police and the Home Office would be all for the shooting bodies being involved as a prerequsite to obtaining a gun licence, it appears almost by design. Whatever your views things have to change, our shooting bodies have to get more involved in this process, they are the ones that have there fingers on the pulse of the sport.

[dougall]

Part of me thinks that there is some logic.But having read the petition I cannot see it doing anything positive for shooting,indeed such a petition would be of greater appeal to those opposed to shooting than pro as it simply puts up more barriers to entry.

[e2000e2000e]

I fail to see the problem that this is going to solved! You say there should be some testing for competence etc. but the number of accidents with legal held guns is low, so I don't understand what this training is ment to do! I was trainned in safe gun handling by my dad, many are trained by a friend or someone at the clay ground, this system actually seems to be working ok, when my FEO came round he spoke to me about gun safety etc. Most shooters have insurance and are members of an orginastion that represents their views. There are sound arguements for the seperation of FAC and SGC to my mind, although I could be swayed towards a simplification to combine the 2 ( it does seem an annomily that an FAC holder also needs a SGC), but I don't feel we need to make any compromise to limited the number of guns to five, as legal gun owners we need to normalise gun ownership, I make sure all my friends know I shoot, hope my neighboors see be putting a slipped gun in my car, hope people see me out in the fields helping farmers protect their livlihoods, let people know that normal people have guns and it is a normal thing to do. If we talk about limiting the amount of guns some one owns it makes it seem that there is something inherently dangourous about gun ownership. I except there are certain people who need to be excluded from gun ownership and I'm happy for a system to restrict those individuals from gun ownership, but we need to remember thats what the licensing system is primarily there to do. Now if we could find a way of ensuring thats all the licensing system did I'm sure we would all sign that, but it is easir said than done!

[rimfire4969]

Not for me.

[wymberley]

I fail to see the problem that this is going to solved! You say there should be some testing for competence etc. but the number of accidents with legal held guns is low, so I don't understand what this training is ment to do! I was trainned in safe gun handling by my dad, many are trained by a friend or someone at the clay ground, this system actually seems to be working ok, when my FEO came round he spoke to me about gun safety etc. Most shooters have insurance and are members of an orginastion that represents their views. There are sound arguements for the seperation of FAC and SGC to my mind, although I could be swayed towards a simplification to combine the 2 ( it does seem an annomily that an FAC holder also needs a SGC), but I don't feel we need to make any compromise to limited the number of guns to five, as legal gun owners we need to normalise gun ownership, I make sure all my friends know I shoot, hope my neighboors see be putting a slipped gun in my car, hope people see me out in the fields helping farmers protect their livlihoods, let people know that normal people have guns and it is a normal thing to do. If we talk about limiting the amount of guns some one owns it makes it seem that there is something inherently dangourous about gun ownership. I except there are certain people who need to be excluded from gun ownership and I'm happy for a system to restrict those individuals from gun ownership, but we need to remember thats what the licensing system is primarily there to do. Now if we could find a way of ensuring thats all the licensing system did I'm sure we would all sign that, but it is easir said than done!

 

First of all, it goes without saying that it is not possible to cater for someone who suddenly loses all reason with no prior indication that something was amiss.

 

Secondly, I'm not advocating the following but just answering what may be achieved if there was some form of training and am already on record of saying that something undertaken voluntarily would keep the compulsary at bay.

 

It is said that it is not enough to be safe, it is also necessary to be seen to be safe. No one as far as I know has ever contradicted that. Yet, when that reasoning is transferred to competence, all hell is let loose. The problem is it is not ourselves that need to be shown that we are all perfectly competent and safe ( after all, I've only ever been shot once - on a fox drive in Norfolk [the first incident of the day was potentially far more dangerous and I still can't believe that nobody was killed] at which point the three of us legged it thinking that we should have done so earlier) but the public at large. What would be the harm in sitting down and taking the BASC Proficiency Award tick test (about an hour) and having passed that, follow it up with the practical assessment (half an hour). The cost would be minimal; the reward nothing than perhaps evidence to show the public that we really are safe to be let out into the green.

 

Just out of interest, the assessment detailed is/was recognised by FACE to meet many of the European standards which Are compulsary in many countries.

 

Finally, I'll just draw your attention back to the second sentence. I, personally, see no need to undergo such examination.

[Scully]

I agree;I see no need to undergo such examination either.

[denniswebb]

Some of you may get Pull magazine this month, 'It Will never happen to me' the legal expert has been running an article on the problems with licence applications and refusals.....I will quote a few from that , a young man gets refused his application on the grounds that a remote associate has a criminal record , licence refused.....A shooter of 40 year unblemished record had his guns siezed because he was burglered, the thieves could not break open the safe, they were siezed by the police because the thieves knew the location of the gun safe and would re-visit with better tooling.

Do not be complacent , if these are what has come to the attention and you have to say the CPSA represent around 25 % of the clayshooters in this country, how many do not bother , it must be worse for BASC , This may not be the right format to go forward for consultation but we need to investigate the best way forward, The police treat us like a bunch of cowboys and some remarks on these forums only reinforce that view. We have to draw up a common policy that is used as the blueprint for this sport, we have to stand together and not fragment into self interested splinter groups.

 

I am away in Wales for the next week representing England in the Home Internationals, be in touch when i get back.

 

Dennis Webb

[Scully]

Sorry Dennis,but the examples you've given are examples of inconsistent Police procedure,and nothing to do with the training of beginners,nor licensing,which your petition is concerned with.Police have to respond to situations as they best see fit,but I don't see how either of these two examples would be prevented if your petition were implemented.

The case of the bloke who has had his firearms seized because he was burgled has good grounds for appeal,and the person who was refused on grounds of 'remotely' knowing a person with a criminal record also has grounds for appeal.I have a criminal record;I know of two other SGC holders who have criminal records;two of my closest mates were both convicted of ABH;I worked,until very recently with a bloke who served time for burglary(he wasn't very good,as he admits,and some of his tales are hilarious!)his brother,whom I know,albeit remotely,served time for murder,and there's a lad in the village I know very well who did time for manslaughter.All this from a population of around 2k! Apart from the convicted murderer,who lives in Lancaster.

Despite this,good luck in Wales.

[denniswebb]

Yippeeeeeeee we have 2 votes now.

 

Dennis

[Matty7247]

I have just arrived into the sport, and have been granted my FAC also, i have held my SGC for 2 years. I am Ex forces, and spent 6 years in. I find it a hard enough sport to enter as it is, my son wish's to become a shooter, and i feel that adding more pressure to an already diifcult entry, will put off the younger generation. I got into Shooting with a friend, who has shot for years, who as you could say, acted as a mentor. Im not saying that should be the way forward, but i found it helpful.

 

If you start adding More paper work, and tests, i can assure you people simply wont bother. The shooting community is picked on enough, without shooters attempting to make life harder for us. I

[wymberley]

Dennis,

 

Unfortunately, your petition is doomed to failure for two reasons.

 

Firstly, it has to be considered as a whole and as such it fails to take into account that UK shooters are largely a non-conformist crowd. A solitary 'fowler, pigeon shooter or roughshooter is not going to inform BASC every time that he shoots a mallard, pigeon or rabbit. Your proposal is aimed purely at a relatively small slack handful of competition target shooters whose competition scores and 'attendances' are recorded. For the vast majority, gun usage will be impossible to define. Consequently, I believe you should have stopped short of your remarks about renewal/police time. Once you have proven your worth, as it were, then that should be sufficient.

 

The second reason is not a criticism. If you accept that the above has some merit, then the portion of what you have said which remains will fail purely and simply because it is ahead of its time and collectively we will have done absolutely nothing to prevent its occurance when its time does arrive.

[denniswebb]

I am surprised at matty's view being ex forces, the freedom that we enjoy today to wander almost at will will end, unless this sport gets to grip with this now. The day will come when all guns will have to be kept in shooting ground armies, yes you will be allowed to check out your gun to shoot another ground or event, but your time with it will be limited and the gun will have to be returned when you have finished. Game shooters will be treated differently but only slightly, method statements and notification will be the norm, the wearing of camo gear will be kept strictly for the hunting scene.....There has to be some order now and that means we get our act together, join our relevant governing bodies, there is no choice. you will see a marked reduction of gun licence renewals over the next few years, we all know that process cannot be reversed....The police do not want guns of any discription where the general public has access.......Just look at the Hillsbourgh situation, the police will go to any dishonest lengths to hide facts and prevent the truth showing them as incompedant, no one will lose pensions or be reprimanded, its not seen as good for their image.......This sport needs to manage its own affairs, the public need to know that we are safe and those taking part are responsible adults and fit , as shown by recent events, the police are not capable enough.

 

Dennis

[Breastman]

Creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist much?? This proposal is only applicable to a minority of shooters who do not shoot at clubs and who haven't had mentors to aquire their guns to shoot over land. Those who shoot at clubs, either rifle or shotgun, will have had at least some level of training from the existing members, and it would seem most people who apply for pest shooting now have to be mentored.

 

I'd also like to say there's no such thing as a 'gun licence' its a firearm or shotgun certificate there is a difference. The number of certificates can and does fluctuate, in both directions, and the number of firearms on ticket is the highest its ever been since 1995. A document about FAC/SGC numbers has just been released;

 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/police-research/hosb1012/

 

The only element i can agree with you on is that there should be a single national shooting body, other than that, no thanks. If mandatory testing like you suggest was introduced i'd want something in return i.e. the 1988 and 1997 firearms act scrapping.

[Matty7247]

I cant see any Government attempting to stop civillains wearing 'Camo' gear, Its a piece of clothing? I think giving people the idea of being more strict, will lead to governing bodies attempting daft ideas. I personally dont belive that the police force has a problem with the public owning firearms, at the end of the day, statistics will show that most crimes commited with firearms, are by firearms that have been bought black market? Its pretty rare that legal licence holders commit crimes with their weapons.

 

What makes the sport so appealing is, there is choice, i know fiends that have shotguns, but only shoot clays? Because there is choice.

[Gordon R]

I don't accept that the Police are against shooters either. I have never found that in well over 30 years of clay shooting.

 

As for Hillsborough - not the finest hour for South Yorkshire Police, but it was 23 years ago. It shows what a few Police personnel were like then, not now and will not further your cause by one iota.

[wymberley]

 

It shows what a few Police personnel were like then, not now and will not further your cause by one iota.

 

Surely you don't think that the "few" whether they be police, armed forces, civil servants or politicians are ever going to change: To think so is naivety in the extreme.

[gemini52]

I think shooting insurance should be compusory,you cant drive a car with out it,so way should you be allowed to use a firearm,more so with claims culture society we live in.

[Blunderbuss]

I think shooting insurance should be compusory,you cant drive a car with out it,so way should you be allowed to use a firearm,more so with claims culture society we live in.

 

I sort of agree with you, in that I think it's a good idea to have insurance, just like I think it's a good idea to belong to BASC, CPSA, NGO etc, but I don't think it should be compulsory. Shooting is already regulated beyond belief and far more here than anywhere else on the planet, I don't think we need even more expense and hoops to jump through to put off potential new shooters. I'm not not sure the motor insurance analogy is a great one. I would hazard a guess that most car drivers will make a claim on their insurance at least once in their driving careers. I don't know anyone at all who has ever claimed on their shooting insurance, do you? Shooting accidents are incredibly rare compared to motor accidents.

[poontang]

I sort of agree with you, in that I think it's a good idea to have insurance, just like I think it's a good idea to belong to BASC, CPSA, NGO etc, but I don't think it should be compulsory. Shooting is already regulated beyond belief and far more here than anywhere else on the planet, I don't think we need even more expense and hoops to jump through to put off potential new shooters.

 

Not sure I agree with that Bb.

 

Like most sports/hobbies the initial costs of getting started are quite high.

 

Even with a budget gun, a cabinet, the cost of a SGC/FAC, safety equipment, clothing and so on you're probably looking at about a £400 - £500 budget.

 

BASC's insurance cover costs about £12. Although it's not available separately it shows the sort of cost when bought on a large scale basis.

 

Personally I don't think it's a lot extra for the new shooter to find, and shouldn't really be a barrier.

 

I wouldn't knowingly shoot with an uninsured shooter, and if I was a landowner I certainly wouldn't have one shoot over my land.

[mossy835]

i shoot over 18 farms, had them for many years, and not one farmer has ever asked me if i have got insurence,

[denniswebb]

There are probably only about 20% of shooters in our national organisations, there are also far more insurance claims than you think, the CPSA has had to change its insurance policy to exclude certain cover because it started getting out of hand. I don't know for certain but if i was a farmer and let out the shooting on it, and that shooter was uninsured and accidently shot someone on a footpath or a beater, i would think that the person injured would bring in the farmer in a third party action as it was his laxed duty of care in not ensuring that the shooters was competant and fully insured, it happens in my industry so i am pretty sure it would happen on say a syndicate......Part of the risk assessment is that compliance with H&S would have to be observed, it may mean that every participant whether a beater or shooter complies with all safety standards, including maybe the wearing of glasses. All you's old shooters that think this sport can be done without belonging to a national organisation in the future are living in cloud cookoo land . The changes to shotgun licences that came in some years ago went through unchallenged.....The next round of changes in gun laws will also go through unaposed. we need strong powerful national bodies that are part of the consulative process, fully intergrated into the licencing process.....vote for the E petition what have you really got to loose, even if it got enough votes, at least we will be able to voice our concerns through popular support....We cannot rely on Tory support, remember it was John Major that done the most damage to this sport.

 

Dennis

[Blunderbuss]

Not sure I agree with that Bb.

 

Like most sports/hobbies the initial costs of getting started are quite high.

 

Even with a budget gun, a cabinet, the cost of a SGC/FAC, safety equipment, clothing and so on you're probably looking at about a £400 - £500 budget.

 

BASC's insurance cover costs about £12. Although it's not available separately it shows the sort of cost when bought on a large scale basis.

 

Personally I don't think it's a lot extra for the new shooter to find, and shouldn't really be a barrier.

 

I wouldn't knowingly shoot with an uninsured shooter, and if I was a landowner I certainly wouldn't have one shoot over my land.

 

I know, shooting insurance in itself isn't expensive and of course it's the responsible thing to do and I would never shoot without it. It's just that many (not all agreed) who advocate it being mandatory, also advocate mandatory membership of organisations, mandatory shooting tests, formal mentorship etc. Ever more and more control, bureaucracy, legislation and expense. We are already smothered by a regulatory burden here that the rest of the world finds baffling in a free western democracy. When you look at each of these in isolation, it's just about possible to make an argument for them. But incrementally, along with all the other legal hoops we have to jump through, they are a barrier to new shooters. I've met loads of people who who have shown an interest in me shooting but after finding what's involved can't be bothered with the hassle and look for a less regulated pastime.

 

The only thing that will keep shooting alive in this country, is large numbers of people doing it and a constant feed in from youngsters taking it up. The fewer of us there are, the less relevant we are in the public eye and the easier it is for ignorant city dwelling MPs to legislate us out of existence, safe in the knowledge that there will be too few of us to be heard. The more voluntary controls we accept, the more people will say 'I can't be *****', the smaller we become and the sooner that will happen :(. Sadly I think some shooters would like the sport to be MORE exclusive and get rid of what they see as the riff raff. There seems to be a mindset (in some) that that by cosying up to the authorities and showing how responsible we are by flagellating ourselves with more voluntary controls we will be left alone. I think this is incredibly naive and damaging. This flawed, illogical and badly worded e-petition is a classic example of that mindset.

 

At a time when our enemies are lining up to ban lead shot, stop youngsters shooting, demonise shooting publications like pornography or even (in the case of the 'Rt Hon' Chris Williamson) ban shooting entirely - do we really need shooters themselves pouring on the pressure? In the big scheme of things I suppose insurance is no big deal, but we have to be very, very careful in voluntarily clamouring for ever more controls on what we do.

 

The OP asks what we have got to loose (sic) by supporting this e-petition? In the unlikely event that it mustered enough support to be seriously considered, I think it would be a torpedo in the side of recreational shooting. I would rather eat my own feet than put my name to it and any shooter that does is hastening the demise of their sport :(

[Breastman]

The only thing that will keep shooting alive in this country, is large numbers of people doing it and a constant feed in from youngsters taking it up. The fewer of us there are, the less relevant we are in the public eye and the easier it is for ignorant city dwelling MPs to legislate us out of existence, safe in the knowledge that there will be too few of us to be heard. The more voluntary controls we accept, the more people will say 'I can't be *****', the smaller we become and the sooner that will happen :(. Sadly I think some shooters would like the sport to be MORE exclusive and get rid of what they see as the riff raff. There seems to be a mindset (in some) that that by cosying up to the authorities and showing how responsible we are by flagellating ourselves with more voluntary controls we will be left alone. I think this is incredibly naive and damaging. This flawed, illogical and badly worded e-petition is a classic example of that mindset.

:thumbs: