restrictions being quietly slipped in?

[Scully]

Joining a club/game shoot is a good start as it shows intent to take up the sport- But you don't like that idea because 'it proves nothing' This is how most people get into shooting; the introduction by a friend or a have a go day, or a corporate do/stag night. I never said I don't like the idea, but while it is a valid reason for wanting to own a SGC, the fact remains it doesn't prove anything. Don't forget that Hamilton, Ryan and Bird all had valid reasons to own their firearms too.

 

What about mandatory gun safety courses before you are granted one? Doesn't an interested person get shown how to use a gun at their club, by a friend or coach, or in the case of game shooting be shown by a friend? or is this another waste of time and proves nothing? Firearms safety is never a waste of time, but whether it's mandatory or not, will it have the effect you claim it will?

Most people who want an SGC do so because there friends also shoot and its a progression to join them - They in my view/opinion (which has no validity) have a reason to want to apply. Exactly, and wont they inform their FEO of this when asked 'why do you want a shotgun'? I don't know of anyone who has ever responded to their FEO in the example given in your little 'scenario'.

Its people with no background at all in shooting who 'just want a licence on the spur of the moment' There are vast swathes of people out there happily shooting away who prior to talking up clay shooting had no background at all in shooting. Where is the problem in that? It is a perfectly legal activity; not everyone who shoots comes from a shooting background.

What makes them want one and why. Wont their FEO ask them that at interview time?

That i fear is the biggest problem to solve. I have no idea what this means, nor what fear you refer to. Perhaps we should only allow those people who satisfy your selection process, what ever that is, rather than relying on current firearms legislation?

[Scully]

LOL, the issue is police introducing queries about the intended use of a shotgun - not laws about atrocities.Yes, it is, but you're the one who mentioned those who frequented 'certain temples'; who were you referring to?

 

No I don't propose a two tier system. The system can only possibly have equal rights for all so I feel we will have to bend a bit to allow police to refuse a certificate unless at least some sort of indication is shown that it will be used for sporting or vermin purposes.What you are suggesting already exists; the chief officer of police has every right to refuse if he feels the applicant hasn't met all criteria to be granted; refusing to state to your FEO why you want a SGC would be one of those reasons.

 

As it stands at the moment (We 'want' we get right?) What rights of refusal do the police have if a british woman in a burka applied for a shotgun licence?There you go again. Your comments are truly astounding. Are you suggesting she meets the FEO at her front door in a burkha, and poses for her 4 license pic's with her face covered? You would be hilarious if you weren't so insulting.

What would you say if said woman then passes it to her husband who goes mental with it? Shouldn't the police have required some justification? Bear with me here - what would be said about that after the incident?

 

Daft? surely, but take it to the extreme because our enemies might just decide to excercise their human rights to abuse our EU determined human rights laws. Unless the police can find a reason to refuse I think they HAVE to grant the licence.

Daft doesn't do it justice! I really can't take the rest of your post seriously. If you can't see the flaws in what you are suggesting then you're seriously blinkered.

So my suggestion is to bend a little and allow police to initiate some sort of query about who qualifies for a ticket if they need to - and apply it to everyone.Are you suggesting the FEO asks no questions at interview? I really don't know what to say; I find your manner insulting and your naivety staggering.

[Guest Mick.j]

 

Joining a club/game shoot is a good start as it shows intent to take up the sport- But you don't like that idea because 'it proves nothing' This is how most people get into shooting; the introduction by a friend or a have a go day, or a corporate do/stag night. I never said I don't like the idea, but while it is a valid reason for wanting to own a SGC, the fact remains it doesn't prove anything. Don't forget that Hamilton, Ryan and Bird all had valid reasons to own their firearms too.

 

What about mandatory gun safety courses before you are granted one? Doesn't an interested person get shown how to use a gun at their club, by a friend or coach, or in the case of game shooting be shown by a friend? or is this another waste of time and proves nothing? Firearms safety is never a waste of time, but whether it's mandatory or not, will it have the effect you claim it will?

Most people who want an SGC do so because there friends also shoot and its a progression to join them - They in my view/opinion (which has no validity) have a reason to want to apply. Exactly, and wont they inform their FEO of this when asked 'why do you want a shotgun'? I don't know of anyone who has ever responded to their FEO in the example given in your little 'scenario'.

Its people with no background at all in shooting who 'just want a licence on the spur of the moment' There are vast swathes of people out there happily shooting away who prior to talking up clay shooting had no background at all in shooting. Where is the problem in that? It is a perfectly legal activity; not everyone who shoots comes from a shooting background.

What makes them want one and why. Wont their FEO ask them that at interview time?

That i fear is the biggest problem to solve. I have no idea what this means, nor what fear you refer to. Perhaps we should only allow those people who satisfy your selection process, what ever that is, rather than relying on current firearms legislation?

 

Christ you are the most contradictory and argumentative person i have ever had the privilege to never meet. Everything anyone writes you oppose, find alterior motives for or cannot understand its meaning properly.

You seem to take great joy in answering peoples posts sentence by sentence with your own take on any given line. Which then takes the Whole post out of context. These are peoples comments and views, NOT yours.

Maybe writing one on your own would be a start eh!

I mentioned a course on 'gun safety' YOU wrote - Firearms safety is never a waste of time, but wether its mandatory or not, will it have the effect you claim it will.

Do you not understand a post/sentence? This was a suggestion, i NEVER CLAIMED it would do anything, yet another misinterpretation from you.

This is the same with mostly everything i have posted on this thread

As it stands now you can be granted a licence, walk into a gun shop, buy a gun without any safety knowledge whatsoever. Totally unacceptable in my view - but then my views are not valid are they.

Perhaps you should read and understand a WHOLE post before commenting as it would save a lot of time and bother.

OR do you do it just to try to belittle people??

I do look forward to your reply.

[kdubya]

I am intrigued by the OP.

 

If people are being told this ask them to get in touch with me without delay.

 

And for the record, much though I love this forum, please do not use it as a prime contact source to me or BASC, please contact us directly if there is an issue.

 

David

I Don't suppose the new lad (case 2 in my opening post) would know about BASC so it would be difficult for him to contact an organisation he is not a member of to complain!

 

I have seen the letter so I know its not a watered down rumor and It was from the Durham force perhaps a letter from BASC to Durham informing them that you are aware of restrictions such as "must join a club" and that after 3 months a letter from the ground owner to confirm you are fit and proper re safety and competency is required before a revisit of the FLO? is in order.

 

KW

[David BASC]

He does not have to be a member to contact me or BASC, so please pass my email address to him david.ilsley@basc.org.uk

 

I would like to see the letter please so we can respond accordingly to Durham, it can be scanned and sent by email or posted:

 

David Ilsley

BASC

Marford Mill

Rossett

Wrexham

LL12 0HL

[walshie]

If this sort of condition became a legal requirement, then fair enough, but until that day comes it is nothing more than FEOs/FETs making it up as they go along.

[deadeye18]

this kind of thing seems like the thin end of the wedge to me and not a very usefull wedge at that.despite all the bickering theres some good comments on here.i like the thought of safety training for those new to the sport but yet again its another hurdle to put people off which isnt good.maybe something along the lines of the flo having a very basic gun safety sheet/handout and go over it with them for 20 mins or whatever at the interview might help,they could even have a dummy gun to use Just to get people started on the right track and advise them to seek further training in their own time when they get their first gun.just an idea.

Edited February 2, 2015 by deadeye18

[Guest cookoff013]

whilst training is a brilliant idea, the catch is.....

it costs money.

 

not only that, what happens when the trainer has less experience than the "learner?"

being as it might be an administration role, ie to tick the boxes....

 

or have to sit infront of a powerpoint presentation....

[Guest Mick.j]

this kind of thing seems like the thin end of the wedge to me and not a very usefull wedge at that.despite all the bickering theres some good comments on here.i like the thought of safety training for those new to the sport but yet again its another hurdle to put people off which isnt good.maybe something along the lines of the flo having a very basic gun safety sheet/handout and go over it with them for 20 mins or whatever at the interview might help,they could even have a dummy gun to use Just to get people started on the right track and advise them to seek further training in their own time when they get their first gun.just an idea.

I would like to add that if 'a safety course' may put people off, then there are not that interested in the first place.

Its a lot more expensive to gain a driving licence - but thousands do it each year.

Just my 2p worth

Edited February 2, 2015 by Mick.j

[Imperfection]

.i like the thought of safety training for those new to the sport but yet again its another hurdle to put people off which isnt good.

 

Spin it around the other way. At the moment,no one is obliged to have a safety course before being issued a SGC while with driving you are required to have two tests (theory & practical) and there are numerous accidents & deaths.

 

Food for thought.

[Bazooka Joe]

but until that day comes it is nothing more than FEOs/FETs making it up as they go along.

 

 

Durham do this all the time, the longer they get away with it the more it gets wrote in stone......conversations with the FLO get very interesting at times..

[bostonmick]

 

Spin it around the other way. At the moment,no one is obliged to have a safety course before being issued a SGC while with driving you are required to have two tests (theory & practical) and there are numerous accidents & deaths.

 

Food for thought.

But there are around 25 million vehicles on the road so up against the say 500k firearms holders you can't compare. Edited February 2, 2015 by bostonmick

[Dave-G]

 

LOL, the issue is police introducing queries about the intended use of a shotgun - not laws about atrocities.Yes, it is, but you're the one who mentioned those who frequented 'certain temples'; who were you referring to?

 

No I don't propose a two tier system. The system can only possibly have equal rights for all so I feel we will have to bend a bit to allow police to refuse a certificate unless at least some sort of indication is shown that it will be used for sporting or vermin purposes.What you are suggesting already exists; the chief officer of police has every right to refuse if he feels the applicant hasn't met all criteria to be granted; refusing to state to your FEO why you want a SGC would be one of those reasons. Lady in the burka says she wants to go clay shooting - but never gets round to doing it.

 

As it stands at the moment (We 'want' we get right?) What rights of refusal do the police have if a british woman in a burka applied for a shotgun licence?There you go again. Your comments are truly astounding. Are you suggesting she meets the FEO at her front door in a burkha, and poses for her 4 license pic's with her face covered? I'm using the burka example because I can't think of the PC acceptable words to say what I mean and I don't want the thread closing because of something I blurt out. You would be hilarious if you weren't so insulting.

What would you say if said woman then passes it to her husband who goes mental with it? Shouldn't the police have required some justification? Bear with me here - what would be said about that after the incident?

 

Daft? surely, but take it to the extreme because our enemies might just decide to excercise their human rights to abuse our EU determined human rights laws. Unless the police can find a reason to refuse I think they HAVE to grant the licence.

Daft doesn't do it justice! I really can't take the rest of your post seriously. If you can't see the flaws in what you are suggesting then you're seriously blinkered.

So my suggestion is to bend a little and allow police to initiate some sort of query about who qualifies for a ticket if they need to - and apply it to everyone.Are you suggesting the FEO asks no questions at interview? I really don't know what to say; I find your manner insulting and your naivety staggering.

 

I'd rather be blinkered than see the police denied the means of protecting just one person from a wrongun ghetting a ticket, see what I did there? I'm leaving a lot unsaid because I don't have the word power to say what I'm thinking in a way that is acceptable on here.

 

Being as you are so easily offended I'll stand down from my 'daft but what if' scenarios because they are just that - but if a legally held gun is used in the way I suggest it could be at some future date I presume you'll find that insulting, naive and staggering too lol. In your world the police are not allowed to use their discretion if its not in the guidelines - but we didnt have such open borders and returning IS things potentially kicking off when the guidelines were drawn up. As for the FEO chat - we are at least in agreement that the applicant does not currently have to show a good reason to acquire a shotgun.

 

I think I'm allowed to think that should change - and that laws needs putting in place before the worst case scenario occurs rather than after. I'm of that inclination while bearing in mind how long it took our home secretary to be allowed to chuck some people out of our country.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Dave-G

[Imperfection]

But there are around 25 million vehicles on the road so up against the say 500k firearms holders you can't compare.

 

Yes you can. Im not comparing the two accident statistics,but simply that amount gun incidents are very low.

[bostonmick]

 

Yes you can. Im not comparing the two accident statistics,but simply that amount gun incidents are very low.

Perhaps that's the case for training and refresher courses in firearms. Already low incident rate could become nil incident rate.I would like to see some forms of official training for holding a firearm. More so rifles.

[Imperfection]

Perhaps that's the case for training and refresher courses in firearms. Already low incident rate could become nil incident rate.I would like to see some forms of official training for holding a firearm. More so rifles.

 

The point im making is that to drive on the road you have to satisfy an examiner you are safe to do so while for shooting you do not-yet gun accidents are still very low despite this. Gun accidents will never be zero because its human nature to make mistakes.

 

You say about official training,but how about those who have been lifelong shooters and have become complacent?

[welsh1]

Perhaps that's the case for training and refresher courses in firearms. Already low incident rate could become nil incident rate.I would like to see some forms of official training for holding a firearm. More so rifles.

And how do you consider what level of training people need,some on here have had an FAC for lets say 10 years,are they more competent than myself who has held an FAC for only 6 years?

[scotslad]

There are so many varibles, 2 folk with tickets same time 1's guns never come out the cabinet while the others is out lots, sometimes as has been mentioned it is the more experiencd 1's are the ones that need watched as they are complacent. Some keepers/keepers days u see more dodgy shooting than any other day off the season

 

There is no magic wand and the problem with tickets is it is so easy to go throu the motions to tick the boxes, but the biggest thing when u get out in the field is there is NO text book scenerios so u have to think for every shot and always be thinking about ur handling/muzzle awareness etc. I dunno how u actually can teach that?

 

But i'd say more and more folk are getting into shooting at an older age that have not been brouught up with guns and been shown the right ways, and even folk who come to game shooting from clays have different ideas on safety. Things that are perfectly safe on a clay ground may not be so safe on a game shoot.

 

Possibly the time has come for some sort of safety training but that will not really solve the problem either, really up to all shooters if they witness insafe handling to have a quiet polite word with them as if they are never told they will never learn

[David BASC]

Having looked after shooting related insurance claims for almost 20 years I can see no correlation between the absence of training and shooting accidents.

 

The level of accident is tiny, looking just at BASC members which in my view are a good cross section of shooters in the UK, we see about 1 claim a week on average over the past 20 years.

 

Those who have accidents have typically been shooting for over 10 years ,I can only recall one accident involving someone who had only just taken up shooting.

 

Most accidents are property damage, as a result of not realizing where the quarry you have just shot will fall, what you quarry is ( eg mistaking a sheep for a fox when night shooting) or not realizing where your shot will go if you miss your target (eg no safe backstop)

 

Failing to secure wheat in pheasant feeders resulting in farm stock or horses gorging on the wheat causes several claims every year.

 

Accidents resulting in injury to another person are even more scare, around 10% of the total, and those resulting in death or significant long term disability such as loss of eyes or limbs making up around 1% of the total

 

With such a low incident level, compared to the millions of shots taken every year, it would be all but impossible to justify compulsory training could make any impact on the level of accident.

 

David

[bostonmick]

some people have been doing various jobs for forty or more years yet health and safety demands that they now get tested and regular refresher training,you cant drive a tractor these days without having to have training labourers on sites also so why should people who roam the countryside with firearms have none.even if you have been in the game for a massive ten years.personaly I have only been shooting for around 45 years.also what is there to complain about you go out on a range for a day or two every few years doing what you like to do and it helps ensure the future of our sport.if you are of the opinion that you cannot be taught anything about safety with guns then you are probably the one who should not have them.

Edited February 2, 2015 by bostonmick

[Scully]

Christ you are the most contradictory and argumentative person i have ever had the privilege to never meet.

Everything anyone writes you oppose, find alterior motives for or cannot understand its meaning properly.

You seem to take great joy in answering peoples posts sentence by sentence with your own take on any given line. Which then takes the Whole post out of context. These are peoples comments and views, NOT yours.

Maybe writing one on your own would be a start eh!

I mentioned a course on 'gun safety' YOU wrote - Firearms safety is never a waste of time, but wether its mandatory or not, will it have the effect you claim it will.

Do you not understand a post/sentence? This was a suggestion, i NEVER CLAIMED it would do anything, yet another misinterpretation from you.

This is the same with mostly everything i have posted on this thread

As it stands now you can be granted a licence, walk into a gun shop, buy a gun without any safety knowledge whatsoever. Totally unacceptable in my view - but then my views are not valid are they.

Perhaps you should read and understand a WHOLE post before commenting as it would save a lot of time and bother.

OR do you do it just to try to belittle people? ?

I do look forward to your reply.

Despite claiming otherwise Mick, I have read all your posts and understand them perfectly.

If you post a sentence then I'm assuming I'm allowed to respond to that sentence, but if you're finding that takes the entire post out of context ; which it doesn't, it's just a means to reply to that particular comment in any given sentence, we'll do it your way. I'll answer your post in its entirety.

In your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled, you claim applicants should have a good or valid reason to want a SGC, and you claim as a result that it will go some way towards filtering out undesirables, but wont, or can't, tell any of us how or why this will work. I have given you examples of why it wont and why it hasn't in the past, but you insist it's just your opinion. If someone has an opinion then it's fairly normal to assume that that opinion is based upon some reasoned thought, but yours doesn't seem to be; and when questioned as to why you think it's a good idea, you claim it's merely an opinion. I find that very odd. Someone suggesting further legislation for no other reason that it's their opinion? Don't we have enough ill thought out firearms legislation without shooters suggesting we take on board more of it? If there is a need for further legislation then it should first be proved there is a need and is for the benefit of the shooters and the general public at large, and not just based on 'opinion'.

You claim above, that your suggestion regarding mandatory 'gun safety' is just that, a suggestion, and I have asked why you have suggested it and what benefit will mandatory training bring to shooting. If, as you state above, you have never claimed mandatory gun safety would achieve anything- 'I never claimed it would do anything', then I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you would suggest it. Why have you?

You claim it is totally unacceptable to be granted a SGC, walk into a gun shop, and buy a gun without any safety knowledge whatsoever, which is a valid point and entirely feasible, but what do you propose we do? Has their been a problem or incidents in the past found to be caused by an applicants lack of safety knowledge? In my experience as I've already stated, most newbies have been shown the basics by another shooter, but you appeared to resent that suggestion.

This thread is about the lack of a need to show 'good reason' for a SGC, a point which despite not being required by law, never occurs. Every single SGC owner out there has given a valid reason for having a SGC at some point in their application process. I know of no one who when asked by their FEO replied, 'because it's my right and I want one'.

I am passionate about my shooting and wont tolerate any unwarranted interference from anyone. I may have to put up with it eventually, when it becomes legislation, but until that point, and when people suggest totally unwarranted rules or conditions or legislation for no benefit to anyone but to place further obstacles in an applicants path, for no other reason than they think 'something should be done', it raises my hackles, and I see it as my job to make their agendas as difficult as possible to achieve. I don't care who it is.

If you want to suggest we take on board mandatory safety training and have to show 'good reason' for SGC (as per section1) then that's fair enough, but for crying out loud at least have a reason for the suggestion other than you feel something has to be done, and tell me what it will achieve and what benefit it will have to shooters and or the general public. If there is none then why on earth suggest it?

[drut]

" some people have been doing various jobs for forty or more years yet health and safety demands that they now get tested and regular refresher training,"

 

Jobs for the boys & "nanny state" come to mind.

[belly47]

some people have been doing various jobs for forty or more years yet health and safety demands that they now get tested and regular refresher training,you cant drive a tractor these days without having to have training labourers on sites also so why should people who roam the countryside with firearms have none.even if you have been in the game for a massive ten years.personaly I have only been shooting for around 45 years.also what is there to complain about you go out on a range for a day or two every few years doing what you like to do and it helps ensure the future of our sport.if you are of the opinion that you cannot be taught anything about safety with guns then you are probably the one who should not have them.

yes that is true, but in those respective industries there are, I would assume, more injuries/accidents. most work based training courses are to help employers pass the buck when anything occurs, and to keep their insurances down. blame culture if you will.

 

I attended a course on hand held disc cutters (stihl saws) and the guy running the course said if you can change the blade on the disc cutter then you pass the course, I have only ever made one cut of a paving slab whilst on that course, and I left with a 5 year card to say im safe with it.

 

appreciate that's your opinion but as David from BASC pointed out, the stats regarding shooting do not lead us to the point where compulsory training is needed.

 

agree with your point that it would not hurt anyone to know more with regards safety and firearms, but I believe this should be voluntary.

[bostonmick]

" some people have been doing various jobs for forty or more years yet health and safety demands that they now get tested and regular refresher training,"

 

Jobs for the boys & "nanny state" come to mind.

call it what you may but its here and here to stay.in reality not taking the training/tests can mean you lose your living.some people seem to be of the opinion that owning/using a firearm should be exempt from any kind of regulation.perhaps you would be happier if the guy who wired your home or the guy who fitted your gas boilers had no training after all what could possibly go wrong.

[Scully]

I'd rather be blinkered than see the police denied the means of protecting just one person from a wrongun ghetting a ticket, see what I did there? I'm leaving a lot unsaid because I don't have the word power to say what I'm thinking in a way that is acceptable on here.

 

Being as you are so easily offended I'll stand down from my 'daft but what if' scenarios because they are just that - but if a legally held gun is used in the way I suggest it could be at some future date I presume you'll find that insulting, naive and staggering too lol. In your world the police are not allowed to use their discretion if its not in the guidelines - but we didnt have such open borders and returning IS things potentially kicking off when the guidelines were drawn up. As for the FEO chat - we are at least in agreement that the applicant does not currently have to show a good reason to acquire a shotgun.

 

I think I'm allowed to think that should change - and that laws needs putting in place before the worst case scenario occurs rather than after. I'm of that inclination while bearing in mind how long it took our home secretary to be allowed to chuck some people out of our country.

So having to give 'good reason' will protect 'one person from a wrongun getting a ticket' will it? You're only one step away from the 'if it saves one life' mentality now. Didn't Hamilton, Ryan and Bird all have to provide 'good reason' ?

Why do you find it necessary to leave a lot unsaid? You claim you don't want a two tier system but are inferring those of a certain faith should come in for greater scrutiny; shouldn't we all undergo the full scrutiny as allowed by legislation, no matter what faith?

I am very easily offended by those who wish to impose greater restrictions on law abiding firearms owners for no other reason than they think 'something should be done', and even more so when it is suggested those of a certain race or religion should be further legislated against. So the lady in the burkha says she wants to go clay shooting, but doesn't get round to it. Then what? There are hundreds of guns sitting in peoples cabinets which never get used, whether good reason or not was needed to possess them. What point are you trying to make? What if she gives the shotgun to her husband? Is he a terrorist? How will six months probation of a gun club prevent her from doing this? I don't have a Burkha, but what if I give my shotgun to my son, or a mate, or my missus?

The police are allowed to use their discretion, and do it often, sometimes with tragic results.

You constantly obliquely refer to terrorist activity as a reason for having to show 'good reason', but so far haven't offered one practical or realistic method by which having to give 'good reason' for SGC will prevent terrorist activity.

As has been said before, when IRA terrorist activity was at its highest and civilians and soldiers alike were being blown to pieces on the streets of England, not once was it suggested the civilian ownership of legally held firearms should be tightened as a result. We had semi automatic rifles and handguns back then.