Guest stevo Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Blimey ... some of you lot are some of the most pessimistic people ive come across. I dont know why you bother shooting haha . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 Every situation is different. If it was obvious to common sense that it was a violent household then the police would have a duty to act on attendance. The problem is, where does it end? If a spouse rings the FLD and just says their partner/ex-partner "is violent and shouldn't have guns" should their word be taken as gospel and the persons guns are taken off them for however many months/years it takes the police to decide the accusations were groundless? +1. I think it's just another tool in the antigunner's arsenal to have an excuse to get rid of guns from people. Nxt it will be: Interview the missus to see if she is against guns when applying for a license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 By all means, but I don't think private ownership of guns will ultimately survive in this country.....let's enjoy it whilst we can.... If you think like that it won't. I think persoanlly that it will, that it is flourishing and that it will survive no matter how many hoplophobes shout and scream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad93 Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) Did they remove all the knives and golf clubs from the house too? The end is nigh I do not doubt. Having Guns wont make you anymore likely to kill someone, guns don't kill, people do. Edited December 24, 2014 by Brad93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 Have we a BASC reaction to this? Did the police overreact? There must be a good number who are BASC members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longspoon Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 Blimey ... some of you lot are some of the most pessimistic people ive come across. I dont know why you bother shooting haha . A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist....but seriously, the drive has started to end private ownership of guns in this country, it will be throttled by continuing hoops to jump through, knee-jerk reactions and ever tighter controls on ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 not to long ago the police were being blamed for giving the guns back to john lowe who went on to shoot people.and now they are being blasted for taking guns in from people who they suspect are not fully fit to have them.seems to me that whatever the police do they cant win.perhaps in a couple of months when most of these have their guns back we will have a thread praising the police for doing their job correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) not to long ago the police were being blamed for giving the guns back to john lowe who went on to shoot people.and now they are being blasted for taking guns in from people who they suspect are not fully fit to have them.seems to me that whatever the police do they cant win.perhaps in a couple of months when most of these have their guns back we will have a thread praising the police for doing their job correctly. The level of criticism comes, I think, from the inconsistencies surrounding such cases and the cynical manner in which the police apply their actions. They aren't revoking or seizing firearms for fear that someone will be killed, but rather to prevent criticism if someone is. It isn't done in the name of public safety Mick but rather in the name of **** covering; I'm assuming the wife beater is still within the family home, if so the threat hasn't been taken away, just the potential for using the firearms the police gave authority to possess. The police have the responsibility of issuing firearms licenses and for whatever reason resist all measures to have that responsibility removed. They have apparently issued firearms certificates to people whom they now consider too violent to have them, but whom, it would seem have never been convicted of any such crime. It would be interesting to find out how they came across the evidence they now appear to have, to come to the conclusion that person isn't fit to possess, but I doubt we will be privy to that. They got it badly wrong in the Atherton case, despite having numerous occasions and much more than good reason to revoke, and ever since have been desperately backtracking in their attempts to make good. In the Lowe case, amongst the possible reasons that authority has given for returning his guns are human error and 'funding cuts'. Forgive my cynicism MIck, even in this season of goodwill to all men. You're right Mick; can't do right for doing wrong...it's the nature of the beast. Edited December 24, 2014 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 not to long ago the police were being blamed for giving the guns back to john lowe who went on to shoot people.and now they are being blasted for taking guns in from people who they suspect are not fully fit to have them.seems to me that whatever the police do they cant win.perhaps in a couple of months when most of these have their guns back we will have a thread praising the police for doing their job correctly. If they do that I will personally make a thread praising the police. Unfortunately lately when it comes to decision regarding firearms licensing they don't have a good track record. I will praise the Home Office though for not enforcing mandatory electronic data storage for RFDs. There you go mick, I have praised the establishment, who would have thought? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 If they do that I will personally make a thread praising the police. Unfortunately lately when it comes to decision regarding firearms licensing they don't have a good track record. I will praise the Home Office though for not enforcing mandatory electronic data storage for RFDs. There you go mick, I have praised the establishment, who would have thought?[/quote We had a case at Lincoln court a few weeks ago where during a family argument at the dinner table and father threatened to shoot one of the family. One of his children who was obviously frightened called the police as she was frightened by it.they removed his guns and cert the court upheld this and he has a bill for around 7k.he was not charged or convicted of any crime. Would you say the police were just covering their bottom again.Or did they in fact avoid a shooting.?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 People are murdered in some domestic disputes. To me its the person's intent to commit murder that is the problem. In most cases firearms are not used knives blunt instruments etc. So will removing firearms stop these incidents happening, or will people be murdered anyway just that they won't use a firearm. The ones that support the police removing firearms with no evidence or the person never being arrested or charged with an offence, might think differently if the police arrive at their door to remove their firearms. What's next? Kitchen knives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 We had a case at Lincoln court a few weeks ago where during a family argument at the dinner table and father threatened to shoot one of the family. One of his children who was obviously frightened called the police as she was frightened by it. No one would have an issue if firearms were taken of someone that threatened to shoot someone, after an investigation to verify it was genuine. Was the individual arrested for making threats to kill. ? Is that what happened in the cases of firearms being taken of people, they had threatened to shoot someone. ? What would the police do if they had threatened to stab someone. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 No one would have an issue if firearms were taken of someone that threatened to shoot someone, after an investigation to verify it was genuine. Was the individual arrested for making threats to kill. ? Is that what happened in the cases of firearms being taken of people, they had threatened to shoot someone. ? What would the police do if they had threatened to stab someone. ? to be honest if anyone threatened to stab or injure another in any way I would expect any firearms they hold to be seized as a matter of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) the case I quoted the chap did not threaten them with a gun in his hands he just said it in the argument.but it was enough Edited December 24, 2014 by bostonmick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) they will be taken guns away for farting soon. Edited December 24, 2014 by mossy835 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) to be honest if anyone threatened to stab or injure another in any way I would expect any firearms they hold to be seized as a matter of course. What if they didn't have firearms and threatened to stab someone. The problem is as I see it the person with the intent to murder, not what they use to do it. If in all the cases that people that had their firearms removed had made threats to kill, no sensible person would have an issue with that. The problem is the police are making the decision and the person has to accept their decision or risk thousands of pounds challenging it. There were 640 Murders / Homicides in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 2011/12 (10.43 per million population) Of these 640 Murders / Homicides, 44 involved a gun or firearm as the main weapon. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6% of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population). I wonder how many of the firearms were legally owned. Will it cut the number of domestic murders or just the murders using firearms. In most domestic murders the focus is on the killer, if a firearm is used the focus is on the fact that a firearm was used. Edited December 24, 2014 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 What if they didn't have firearms and threatened to stab someone. The problem is as I see it the person with the intent to murder, not what they use to do it. If in all the cases that people that had their firearms removed had made threats to kill, no sensible person would have an issue with that. The problem is the police are making the decision and the person has to accept their decision or risk thousands of pounds challenging it. If they held no firearms then that's fine you can't remove everything that could cause harm but you can the obvious. As I read the BBC report the decisions were taken based on if others expressed a concern for their safety and not just a blanket removal as some are suggesting. I wonder how many of the firearms were legally owned. I feel sure that if the police knew where illegally held guns were being kept they would remove them also.it is not a divine right to own a firearm in this country you have to fulfill certain criteria and one of them is you do not show aggressive or violent tendencies. Or maybe you believe there should be no bars to ownership.If people are concerned about losing their certs and the cost of fighting for their return then perhaps they should squander a few quid on basc membership and take advantage of the insurance.not a high price to pay for something they allegedly feel so passionate about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 24, 2014 Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) Or maybe you believe there should be no bars to ownership. Did you miss the part where I said that no one would have an issue with firearms being removed from someone that made death threats, I will remind you just in case. Quote, Manta. If in all the cases that people that had their firearms removed had made threats to kill, no sensible person would have an issue with that I just wonder is it the police trying to cut the number of domestic murders. Or just those that firearms are used that tend to reflect badly on the police. Or is a PR stunt after their poor handling of other domestic murders. PS A firearm was not used in any of the bellow cases as far as I am aware. Maria Stubbings was murdered by her former partner, Marc Chivers – a man already known to the police for killing a previous girlfriend – in December 2008. In the days leading up to her death, Maria called the police to ask for help, but none came. When the police attended the house, they took Chivers at his word when he told them she had gone on holiday. By the time they carried out a thorough search of the house on 19th December, Maria was already dead. The IPCC found that Essex Police made a catalogue of failures in their response to her. Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son Auden were killed by Rachael’s ex partner Andrew Cairns in June 2010, after Rachael had reported Cairns to the police for stalking and threatening to kill her. Derbyshire Police failed to tell Rachael that she and Auden were at high risk of serious harm or homicide from Cairns. An inquest found that police failures contributed to Rachael and Andrew’s deaths Sabina Akhtar was stabbed to death by her husband in September 2008, two months after she told the police he had assaulted her and threatened to kill her. Malik Mannan had been arrested less than a month before her death for assault, but the CPS released him without charging him. Social services had received three separate referrals relating to Sabina and her two-year-old son – but closed the case without even doing an initial risk assessment. An inquest found that serious failings had been made by Greater Manchester Police, Manchester Social Services and the Crown Prosecution Service which may possibly have contributed to Sabina’s death. Cassie Hasanovic was killed by her estranged husband in front of her two young children as she attempted to flee to a refuge. An inquest into her death found that Kent Police had failed to arrest Hajrudin Hasanovic for breaching his bail conditions, and that the CPS did not take a number of steps to safeguard Cassie’s life, including failing to apply for Hajrudin’s bail to be withdrawn and failing to inform Cassie of the special measures that might have been available to assist her in giving evidence against him. The inquest also found that Sussex Police officers were inadequately trained in domestic violence. Edited December 24, 2014 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.