Proposed Licensing change

[JonathanL]

Ah yes lets go back to them good old days no control any lunatic could have whatever they wanted.well the changes in gun laws were only Brought about by the attitude and actions of some in society the worse the generations the tighter the control in my days of youth hardly any control needed.now well speaks for itself really.

Just how old are you? The last time there was 'hardly any control' over firearms was pre 1920 when there was really only control over pistols.

 

J.

[Dekers]

 

you have said yourself that armed crime is up on years ago so how would fewer controls bring this back to the figures of say the sixties.however if you wish to continue this thread it may be best to start a new topic and not take over the op first question.

 

Very simply, because between 98-99% (depending on whose figures you believe) of gun crime is committed by illegally held guns, only 1-2% of gun crime is committed my licenced gun holders, so, making it harder and harder for us addresses a tiny fraction of the problem.

 

Would it not be better to concentrate more effort on the 98-99%.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Dekers

[JonathanL]

 

The form does indeed only specify calibre, but while some forces will accept "30cal" (which is a lot more sensible and what the form actually asks for) a lot of forces (mine included) want the specific chambering so I would have to put 7.62x51/.308Win or 7.62x39, 5.56/.223Rem, .300WSM etc. or they simply won't accept it.

 

Strangely though, when I applied for my 300aac Blackout they couldn't find it on the database so we had a couple of suggestions off them like 300WSM? 300Whisper?, I asked them to just put .30cal but they wouldn't, eventually they ended up putting "300 calibre" which seemed rather silly as I can now go and buy a 300WSM or 300Rem UltraMag both of which are much more powerful rounds!.

It's borne out of the issue someone has already alluided to - a compulsive need to control for no reason other control is always good and more control over less and less important matters is even better.

 

J.

[bostonmick]

Just how old are you? The last time there was 'hardly any control' over firearms was pre 1920 when there was really only control over pistols.

 

J.

 

good morning j.i am old enough to remember when people had respect for the elderly the police and doctors etc when there were no such things as these no go areas after dark,when the younger ones would check and see if the older people were ok and needed anything when you left doors unlocked and in many cases the key in the door.when people would not consider it fair game to beat someone to a pulp for the two or three pounds in their purse.when stabbings were not a common occurrence.when firemen and ambulance drivers hospital staff never needed security staff to protect them from the people they were trying to help in short when society was a much better place.i am not in no way putting this down to firearms and the control of it although with the current trends of the we must be seen to be at least in some way trying to do the best we can.of course every law abiding citizen of this country should be entitled to hold a firearm to pursue their lawful purpose and by the same token those who choose not to can and should be given a level of protection as well.that is how old I am j now as I said in a previous comment I feel this would be best served on a topic of its own and not take over someone else's.

[bostonmick]

 

Very simply, because between 98-99% (depending on whose figures you believe) of gun crime is committed by illegally held guns, only 1-2% of gun crime is committed my licenced gun holders, so, making it harder and harder for us addresses a tiny fraction of the problem.

 

Would it not be better to concentrate more effort on the 98-99%.

I agree with you on the one hand we should have controls to show that the public are being safeguarded as far as we can and that law abiding people are not prevented from legal ownership.no argumement there.

 

we should come down harder on the criminal who uses any kind of violence when plying his trade stop giving these tiny prison terms a case in a paper just over a year ago in Essex a man was stopped in his car for a routine check and a handgun was found in the car no permit for it he was given 6 years he was out in just over two.yes I know the person so not hearsay. the charge should not have been possession should have been intent as to carry one means you are prepared to use one.so while there are failings they are possibly on both sides.but let us as the shooting public be seen to be cleaner than clean.

[Scully]

 

you have said yourself that armed crime is up on years ago so how would fewer controls bring this back to the figures of say the sixties.however if you wish to continue this thread it may be best to start a new topic and not take over the op first question.

You're making the assumption that armed crime increases with fewer controls in place;history shows this not to be the case. Like I said, it's all there if you care to look.

You respond with inaccurate off the cuff remarks and statements to other posters, but when those remarks are picked up you respond by suggesting we start another thread! Ok, if you want to start another thread about the 'good old days' as they pertain to the right of law abiding people to own firearms, including if you like, the days when the carrying of blades for self defence was much more common than it is now, and stabbings were much less frequent incidentally, then feel free.

We can blame many things for the perceived breakdown in modern society since the 'good old days', but the availability of firearms isn't one of them.

[JonathanL]

I agree with you on the one hand we should have controls to show that the public are being safeguarded as far as we can and that law abiding people are not prevented from legal ownership.no argumement there.

 

we should come down harder on the criminal who uses any kind of violence when plying his trade stop giving these tiny prison terms a case in a paper just over a year ago in Essex a man was stopped in his car for a routine check and a handgun was found in the car no permit for it he was given 6 years he was out in just over two.yes I know the person so not hearsay. the charge should not have been possession should have been intent as to carry one means you are prepared to use one.so while there are failings they are possibly on both sides.but let us as the shooting public be seen to be cleaner than clean.

 

The problem is proving that he intended to use it for causing unlawful injury. Simple possession is a much easier allegation to prove. In the scheme of things he'd probably have got the same sort of sentence anyway.

 

J.

[HDAV]

 

good morning j.i am old enough to remember when people had respect for the elderly the police and doctors etc when there were no such things as these no go areas after dark,

 

I'm sorry but that simply isn't true across the whole country. Perhaps for you where you live/lived but there have been no go areas for many sections of society for many years.........

 

I think you need to remove the rose tinted specs and look at the facts.

 

Have additional controls introduced since 1988 actually reduced crime? Saved lives? 25 years of extra restrictions.

 

 

Have a look here....https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ons.gov.uk%2Fons%2Frel%2Fcrime-stats%2Fcrime-statistics%2Ffocus-on-violent-crime%2Frft-appendix-tables.xls&ei=kKOoUoPmKMGWhQfYmoCACQ&usg=AFQjCNEbh_2RubqFOhdKDdpo9ghiaukAyQ&bvm=bv.57799294,d.ZG4

 

 

 

AS no one will actually bother to look at the facts I'll post some highlights.

 

 

 

Table 3.01: Offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used by type of principal weapon, 2002/03 to 2011/12

 

Principal weapon 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05¹ 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

% change 2010/11 to 2011/12

 

 

All firearms excluding air weapons 10,248 10,338 11,069 11,088 9,645 9,865 8,199 8,082 7,040 6,001 -15 Air weapons 13,822 13,756 11,824 10,438 8,836 7,478 6,041 4,931 4,295 3,554 -17 All firearms 24,070 24,094 22,893 21,526 18,481 17,343 14,240 13,013 11,335 9,555 -16

 

So from 24,070 in 02/03 to 9,555 in 11/12 thats a massive fall in offences where firearms where the principal weapon!

Edited December 11, 2013 by HDAV

[bostonmick]

 

I'm sorry but that simply isn't true across the whole country. Perhaps for you where you live/lived but there have been no go areas for many sections of society for many years.........

 

I think you need to remove the rose tinted specs and look at the facts.

 

Have additional controls introduced since 1988 actually reduced crime? Saved lives? 25 years of extra restrictions.

 

 

Have a look here....https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ons.gov.uk%2Fons%2Frel%2Fcrime-stats%2Fcrime-statistics%2Ffocus-on-violent-crime%2Frft-appendix-tables.xls&ei=kKOoUoPmKMGWhQfYmoCACQ&usg=AFQjCNEbh_2RubqFOhdKDdpo9ghiaukAyQ&bvm=bv.57799294,d.ZG4

 

 

 

AS no one will actually bother to look at the facts I'll post some highlights.

 

 

So from 24,070 in 02/03 to 9,555 in 11/12 thats a massive fall in offences where firearms where the principal weapon!

 

 

I so wish I knew how to pluck small parts of a post and quote it however I came into computers very late and they are a bit of a mystery still.but as you seemed to want to centre on the no go I would ask that you maybe spend an evening in lewisham south London where 400 violent crimes a month are recorded and before you cry not all firearms I know that.the 17 worst area's in the country are all in London with the exception of Glasgow which has double the murder rate of the uk.I made a simple statement that for the past fifty years there has been controls on shotguns which ok was a little bit out as it is 45 years.yes I would much rather just pop into the post office and pick up a cert but that is not going to happen.firearms are lumped in with the overall violent crime figures as they are capable of being used for this purpose you cannot expect the public to separate them out of the figures as you chose to do because they are ilinformed about guns. in general.the concept of guns being sporting tools is not understood by the majority of people in this country and while that exists there will always be problems.

[JonathanL]

 

 

I so wish I knew how to pluck small parts of a post and quote it however I came into computers very late and they are a bit of a mystery still.but as you seemed to want to centre on the no go I would ask that you maybe spend an evening in lewisham south London where 400 violent crimes a month are recorded and before you cry not all firearms I know that.the 17 worst area's in the country are all in London with the exception of Glasgow which has double the murder rate of the uk.I made a simple statement that for the past fifty years there has been controls on shotguns which ok was a little bit out as it is 45 years.yes I would much rather just pop into the post office and pick up a cert but that is not going to happen.firearms are lumped in with the overall violent crime figures as they are capable of being used for this purpose you cannot expect the public to separate them out of the figures as you chose to do because they are ilinformed about guns. in general.the concept of guns being sporting tools is not understood by the majority of people in this country and while that exists there will always be problems.

 

You do realise that your diatribe here entirely misses the point of the post to which you responded, do you not?

 

J.

[bostonmick]

 

You do realise that your diatribe here entirely misses the point of the post to which you responded, do you not?

 

J.

I think if you read the fist few lines it was in answer to hdav saying there were not any no go areas anymor.well perhaps you would care to spend a little leisure time in south London as well to prove his point.the rest was just in regard to the overall crime figures and not just the cherry picked ones.

 

 

You are very quick on ccommenting on these threads do you monitor them all day or are you just stalking my posts and the lads at the lodge with me would like to know what does diatribe mean.simple country folk you see

Edited December 12, 2013 by bostonmick

[JonathanL]

I think if you read the fist few lines it was in answer to hdav saying there were not any no go areas anymor.well perhaps you would care to spend a little leisure time in south London as well to prove his point.the rest was just in regard to the overall crime figures and not just the cherry picked ones.

 

 

You are very quick on ccommenting on these threads do you monitor them all day or are you just stalking my posts and the lads at the lodge with me would like to know what does diatribe mean.simple country folk you see

 

That isn't what he said at all. He was responding to your initial comment in post 29 about there not being any 'no-go' areas in your youth yet there are now. He was pointing out that that was rubbish and that there have always been places like that. Your comment in response to that totally missed his point.

 

On the final point - google it.

 

J.

Edited December 12, 2013 by JonathanL

[spandit]

Not for the first time, I think I'm going to have to stop following a thread I started as it's descending into an argument about gun crime, which wasn't the intention

[Scully]

Not for the first time, I think I'm going to have to stop following a thread I started as it's descending into an argument about gun crime, which wasn't the intention

My apologies...my thoughts on your proposals are that to do away with SGC in favour of FAC would render ALL firearms as S1, and therefore a 'good reason' requirement would be applicable. This would mean all of us would need to give 'good reason' for each and every firearm we own, or wish to own, including shotguns, and variations or slots for each shotgun we wanted to purchase. At present all we need to buy any S2 shotgun we want is a SGC. This would cease. I'm all in favour of the reverse of course.

Another preference would be for applicants to be able to buy ANY rifle/calibre as deemed suitable for their specific quarry species once issued with FAC, and the 1 for 1 requirement to be dealt with by RFD.

[CharlieT]

Not for the first time, I think I'm going to have to stop following a thread I started as it's descending into an argument about gun crime, which wasn't the intention

 

What did you expect when you are proposing a much more stringent licensing regime.

Surely the amount of gun crime is the biggest factor when discussing licensing needs, after all we are constantly told that licensing is all done in the public interest.

 

As I said, what did you expect.

[HDAV]

 

That isn't what he said at all. He was responding to your initial comment in post 29 about there not being any 'no-go' areas in your youth yet there are now. He was pointing out that that was rubbish and that there have always been places like that. Your comment in response to that totally missed his point.

 

On the final point - google it.

 

J.

Indeed jonathon has read and understood my post that for you (my guess, Caucasian heterosexual male) there may not have been any no go areas but there were no go areas for black, indian, chinese, (anything but white) Irish, homosexual, catholic/Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, female and many other groups of society these no go areas included pubs, restaurants, golf clubs and streets....

 

So to say there were not any no go areas in your youth is total rubbish, you just weren't the one being excluded... Very different thing altogether...

 

Back on topic scrapping section 2 while a pita for some (normally only when trying to buy carts with FAC) is a very very small price to pay...

 

I wish we had a more sensible approach but I think it will never happen as the decision makers are clueless and public either petrified or couldn't care less....