Jump to content

Police Interceptors - Channel5


ADT06
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Some people are allowed to interpret the law within their job.

 

If it needs changing that can only come about through parliament.

This is the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage in the UK and of course a significant factor in this was the civic disobedience of stupid and bad law by the various suffrage societies and pressure groups, perhaps most famously the WSPU and the Pankhurst sisters.  We even invented more stupid legislation, the Cat and Mouse Act, to try and bolster the original stupid legislation.

My point being that blanket statements that we should blindly obey the law until such time as the law changes, I believe, is unhealthy.  I am not for a second suggesting that we should disregard all laws, but it is incumbent upon us to challenge what we see as being wrong and to hold our law makers to account.  A philosophical argument of course and not necessarily in the context of the OP on this thread, but I believe that we as a nation are losing our ability to think critically and it worries me greatly, i.e. safe spaces in universities.

10 minutes ago, Mungler said:

The Americans are struggling with this now because they have an entire generation that have been criminalised (either convicted and or incarcerated) under legislation which is entirely binary, and for the most minor non violent drugs related offences. However, these people are not actually "criminals" by reference to what criminologists universally accept to amount to criminal behaviour or being a criminal.

So, in the US they are finding out that you can have people who have broken a law and gone to prison, but who are not actually criminals. The fallout is that these quite normal people with criminal records are struggling to get on with their lives and now cannot make the best of their lives. Further up that path are the people who have had 3 non violent cannabis related arrests and been sentenced to life in prison without parole under their mandatory sentencing regime. Behind all of this, the numbers keep rising and it's shown that the law and sentencing aren't actually much of a deterrent.

Food for thought indeed.

It is huge food for thought and a fascinating debate.  To bring it back to the context of this thread, the American judicial system in respect to mandatory sentencing is a very relevant analogue for those who suggest recreational drug use should mandate a lifetime ban from owning a gun, what they are really volunteering is the lifetime revocation of someones rights or opportunities to use a gun, perhaps even removing their livelihood, for what could be an entirely trivial breach of the law.

As an issue of context, anybody ever given someone else say a couple of painkiller tablets or acid reflux tablets that were originally issued to them on prescription then you're involved in the supply of controlled drugs, best be expecting that lifetime revocation of your cert's.

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

Ye Gods! 

I think that quite regularly whilst visiting PW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

32 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Because (I think - and I'm not a lawyer) the LAW is along the lines that the FEO/Chief Constable must be satisfied that ..........  in other words it specifically puts the 'judgement' on the police.  That is NOT the case with speeding - or breathalysers - which have defined limits set in law.  You have a right of appeal against the FEO/Chief Constable's decision.

You may of course rely on the court upholding how you have interpreted/complied with the law - but it is likely to get expensive  - and do you have sufficient faith in the courts to do this?  Magistrates courts have (my opinion) a tendency to be very supportive of the 'letter of the law', whereas a jury might take a different interpretation.  That is why you can (in some instances) elect for crown court jury trial, but be prepared for a large bill .......

So many comments to respond to in this thread.

The question is, should it be down to interpretation of a police force employee who should or should not have the ability to own and use a gun  We have a very objective criteria for driver licensing, should we not have something similar for gun licensing?

Or a related question to that, given the number of injuries and fatalities caused by irresponsible driving, that massively outstrips any legally held firearm offences, should we not implement background and behavioural checks on those who wish to own and operate a vehicle?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, grrclark said:

So many comments to respond to in this thread.

The question is, should it be down to interpretation of a police force employee who should or should not have the ability to own and use a gun  We have a very objective criteria for driver licensing, should we not have something similar for gun licensing?

Or a related question to that, given the number of injuries and fatalities caused by irresponsible driving, that massively outstrips any legally held firearm offences, should we not implement background and behavioural checks on those who wish to own and operate a vehicle?  

An interesting question, the current system is far from perfect and gains nothing working as it does by interpreting Home Office guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

The question is, should it be down to interpretation of a police force employee who should or should not have the ability to own and use a gun

On the whole I would say YES - as I don't see a viable alternative.

There is a right of appeal against non granting of a certificate, but in fact the majority of the guidelines (e.g. on criminal records) are clear and FEOs do follow them - I think your 'objection' (if that is what it is) may rest more with whether there should be a criminal record for such things as medicinal use of cannabis.  That is not the same question.

 

5 minutes ago, grrclark said:

We have a very objective criteria for driver licensing

Not sure what you mean here?  Eyesight, mental health, disqualification under tot up of points?

 

7 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Or a related question to that, given the number of injuries and fatalities caused by irresponsible driving, that massively outstrips any legally held firearm offences, should we not implement background and behavioural checks on those who wish to own and operate a vehicle?

That would be beyond the bounds of cost/practicality as the number of driving licenses FAR outstrips the number of Firearms/Shotgun licenses/certificates.  I believe there are some checks with medical practitioners where a driving license is returned following disqualification for certain offences (alcohol and mental health issues possibly?). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, grrclark said:

This is the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage in the UK and of course a significant factor in this was the civic disobedience of stupid and bad law by the various suffrage societies and pressure groups, perhaps most famously the WSPU and the Pankhurst sisters.  We even invented more stupid legislation, the Cat and Mouse Act, to try and bolster the original stupid legislation.

My point being that blanket statements that we should blindly obey the law until such time as the law changes, I believe, is unhealthy.  I am not for a second suggesting that we should disregard all laws, but it is incumbent upon us to challenge what we see as being wrong and to hold our law makers to account.  A philosophical argument of course and not necessarily in the context of the OP on this thread, but I believe that we as a nation are losing our ability to think critically and it worries me greatly, i.e. safe spaces in universities.

It is huge food for thought and a fascinating debate.  To bring it back to the context of this thread, the American judicial system in respect to mandatory sentencing is a very relevant analogue for those who suggest recreational drug use should mandate a lifetime ban from owning a gun, what they are really volunteering is the lifetime revocation of someones rights or opportunities to use a gun, perhaps even removing their livelihood, for what could be an entirely trivial breach of the law.

As an issue of context, anybody ever given someone else say a couple of painkiller tablets or acid reflux tablets that were originally issued to them on prescription then you're involved in the supply of controlled drugs, best be expecting that lifetime revocation of your cert's.

I think that quite regularly whilst visiting PW.

 What a scary world we would live in if we weren't allowed to disagree with certain laws or approaches to social issues. 

Fortunately we live in the UK, quite genuinely I believe a fantastic country where you are allowed the freedoms to disagree with government. 

We as the population should hold our law makers to account and push for changes if we believe they are right. We should not be afraid of disagreeing with the government. 

I'm sure many here believe our firearm legislation is overly restrictive, not effective at stopping gun crime and just hinders decent law abiding citizens. 

"The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there’s no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That’s accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that’s what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched."

~ Glenn Greenwald

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

On the whole I would say YES - as I don't see a viable alternative.

There is a right of appeal against non granting of a certificate, but in fact the majority of the guidelines (e.g. on criminal records) are clear and FEOs do follow them - I think your 'objection' (if that is what it is) may rest more with whether there should be a criminal record for such things as medicinal use of cannabis.  That is not the same question.

 

1. Not sure what you mean here?  Eyesight, mental health, disqualification under tot up of points?

 

2. That would be beyond the bounds of cost/practicality as the number of driving licenses FAR outstrips the number of Firearms/Shotgun licenses/certificates.  I believe there are some checks with medical practitioners where a driving license is returned following disqualification for certain offences (alcohol and mental health issues possibly?). 

1.  We undertake a test of competence, both theoretical and practical, by accredited examiners following a period of instruction by accredited instructors.  There are stringent medical conditions that must be met in respect to notifiable conditions, for example epilepsy & diabetes. Would that be a better approach to firearm licensing rather than a non specific and non prescriptive interview and subjective assessment by those with no accreditation or subject matter expertise?

2. The economic cost of road policing, insurance claims, healthcare costs, etc are astronomical in respect to vehicle related injury and property damage.  If we adopted a selective criteria for the issuance of driving licences would this actually be a beneficial approach in terms of overall cost.  Is the right to have a driving license a fundamental one or do we just follow the path of least resistance?

I didn't respond to your first paragraph which was remiss of me.  In the context of this thread we were talking about drug use, whether recreational or medicinal, but that is really too narrow.  The bigger point is that firearm licensing is incredibly subjective and in many cases is motivated by the personal agenda of those in the subjective decision making process, i.e. doctors could opt out of supplying a considered professional opinion of the shooters mental and physical health to own a gun based on their own personal agenda/feelings towards guns.

A police officer carrying out a home interview might deem that someone is unsuitable to own a gun because they have a limited social circle (relative to what measure or criteria) , the police officer is on the look out for loners that might go a bit loco.

If my walls were covered in pictures of guns of all sorts would you reasonalby expect the interviewing officer to consider whether i was a bit of a walt and my motivation should be questioned?  Obviously since i am on some personal Rambo quest.

If a 17 year lad is going for a driving test and his walls are covered in racing cars and the Fast and Furious movies are his all time favourite should we consider his motivation for wanting to own a car? As he is obviously going to be a mad street racer.

 

Edited by grrclark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 What a scary world we would live in if we weren't allowed to disagree with certain laws or approaches to social issues. 

Fortunately we live in the UK, quite genuinely I believe a fantastic country where you are allowed the freedoms to disagree with government. 

We as the population should hold our law makers to account and push for changes if we believe they are right. We should not be afraid of disagreeing with the government. 

I'm sure many here believe our firearm legislation is overly restrictive, not effective at stopping gun crime and just hinders decent law abiding citizens. 

"The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there’s no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That’s accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that’s what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched."

~ Glenn Greenwald

Absolutely, I agree entirely.  

I also worry that we are sleep walking towards an erosion of our hard earned liberties and freedoms through our acquiescence of ever increasing and poor legislation.

I have mentioned it on here before, but a call for legislation is nothing other than a plea to a higher authority to do our thinking for us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, grrclark said:

1.  We undertake a test of competence, both theoretical and practical, by accredited examiners following a period of instruction by accredited instructors.  There are stringent medical conditions that must be met in respect to notifiable conditions, for example epilepsy & diabetes. Would that be a better approach to firearm licensing rather than a non specific and non prescriptive interview and subjective assessment by those with no accreditation or subject matter expertise?

I'm inclined to think that the 'medical' requirements (epilepsy & diabetes etc) are already covered in that you have to declare them on your application (driving and firearm).  On competence, my feeling is that it is not the 'competence' (or lack of it) that is a problem with firearms, but the potential lack of stability or self control (e.g. temper tantrums).  I don't think driving is much better here as the driving test doesn't filter out 'road rage'.   I can sort of see the point in having a safety examination ........ but I don't think most shooting incidents are through poor safety, so not sure this would help much.

 

9 minutes ago, grrclark said:

2. The economic cost of road policing, insurance claims, healthcare costs, etc are astronomical in respect to vehicle related injury and property damage.  If we adopted a selective criteria for the issuance of driving licences would this actually be a beneficial approach in terms of overall cost.  Is the right to have a driving license a fundamental one or do we just follow the path of least resistance?

The problem with a test is like anything else, you can get lucky and pass, but still have limited competence (at things like manoeuvring) - and as in response above, I don't think you would catch the potential road rage offenders.  People prevented from driving seem (if the number of disqualified drivers who seen to get apprehended driving) to drive anyway.  Locally here, a man (in his 50's I would say) was stopped driving last year having driven since he was a teenager - and he had apparently NEVER had a license!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

 

Absolutely it does. No one should ever use cannabis and then handle a firearm. 

Just as no one should drink alcohol and use a firearm, or take strong prescription medicine and use a firearm. 

 

But does that mean that people should never use any of those things when not using a firearm? 

 

Just watched that video! Jesus, and to think there are 2 or more idiots stood in front of him filming. If I saw someone like that I'd either be taking cover or firmly removing it from them if safe to do so. 

Edited by Lloyd90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm inclined to think that the 'medical' requirements (epilepsy & diabetes etc) are already covered in that you have to declare them on your application (driving and firearm).  On competence, my feeling is that it is not the 'competence' (or lack of it) that is a problem with firearms, but the potential lack of stability or self control (e.g. temper tantrums).  I don't think driving is much better here as the driving test doesn't filter out 'road rage'.   I can sort of see the point in having a safety examination ........ but I don't think most shooting incidents are through poor safety, so not sure this would help much.

 

The problem with a test is like anything else, you can get lucky and pass, but still have limited competence (at things like manoeuvring) - and as in response above, I don't think you would catch the potential road rage offenders.  People prevented from driving seem (if the number of disqualified drivers who seen to get apprehended driving) to drive anyway.  Locally here, a man (in his 50's I would say) was stopped driving last year having driven since he was a teenager - and he had apparently NEVER had a license!

So the argument for ever increasing gun license legislation is that it is done on the basis of social responsibility, i.e. we are trying to avoid the wrong types getting a gun as they might do something bad with them, which is entirely reasonable in principle.  There is no real empirical evidence to suggest that this licensing regime is effective or otherwise in this aim of course, it is an argument that is based purely on the perception of risk and a wholly subjective assessment at that.

We are now trying to do something similar with the sale of corrosive liquids to under 18 year olds with a freshly released voluntary code about not selling corrosives liquids/substances to those that are under 18.  1 in 5 crimes committed with the use of corrosive liquids are committed by those under 18, 20% of the problem, yet that is the primary focus.  It is also really easy to put something like that in place, we have established that 18 is a perfectly suitable arbitrary measure of someone's maturity of responsibility to drink alcohol or to vote, so picking that age for other prospective legislation is super easy.  It is of course wholly ineffective as it only addresses a small minority of the problem, but at least we can say we did something.

My point is that in order to try and be seen to be doing the right thing we very often follow an easy path, and who would argue against gun licensing being a sensible thing to do?  It doesn't matter a jot that the current legislation is ineffective, inefficient, discriminatory, subjective, inconsistently applied, or has absolutely no empirical reference of success, but at least we are doing something.

You're dead right, trying to enact some sort of behavioural analysis of a prospective driver would be unworkable and full of uncertainty, yet we willingly subscribe to the same application of process and flawed logic when it comes to gun licensing and seemingly without critical inspection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

So the argument for ever increasing gun license legislation is that it is done on the basis of social responsibility, i.e. we are trying to avoid the wrong types getting a gun as they might do something bad with them, which is entirely reasonable in principle.  There is no real empirical evidence to suggest that this licensing regime is effective or otherwise in this aim of course, it is an argument that is based purely on the perception of risk and a wholly subjective assessment at that.

Yes - though not wholly subjective as there are some circumstances (medical etc.) that are outright prohibitions.  I think you will find that all countries with firearms licensing operate similar systems, with different degrees of rigour and detail.  There may be little 'evidence' in support, but I think common sense dictates that owning firearms with no license requirement would lead to far more criminal usage (the lenient USA rules have an associated high level of gun usage in crime).  I am not advocating 'ever increasing' gun license legislation - just (going back to the original post) supporting what I regard as correct use of present legislation - that being that a license & shotguns have been removed from someone involved in illegal activity.

 

11 minutes ago, grrclark said:

You're dead right, trying to enact some sort of behavioural analysis of a prospective driver would be unworkable and full of uncertainty, yet we willingly subscribe to the same application of process and flawed logic when it comes to gun licensing and seemingly without critical inspection.

Most driving mishaps occur through what is rightly known as "accident" in that it is unintentional.  Some may be through irresponsible behaviour, some from inexperience, some from mechanical/infrastructure failure, some from bad weather - many through one parties mistake causing knock on effects (pile-ups).  Many road accident victims are totally innocent - in that they are 'hit' by the other party and were themselves doing nothing wrong.  Most motor accidents/offences happen to people with no other criminal or police records.

Gun licensing is different.  Accidents and mechanical failures are (fortunately) rare.  Much of the gun crime is carried out by people with existing criminal records, burglary, robbery, violent offences - and like it or not the drug trade (back to where we came in) is also strongly associated with the same criminal activities of burglary, robbery, violent offences.   That is why I think the police were quite right in using the existing laws to remove the license from the person in the original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

Absolutely it does. No one should ever use cannabis and then handle a firearm. 

Just as no one should drink alcohol and use a firearm, or take strong prescription medicine and use a firearm. 

 

But does that mean that people should never use any of those things when not using a firearm? 

 

Just watched that video! Jesus, and to think there are 2 or more idiots stood in front of him filming. If I saw someone like that I'd either be taking cover or firmly removing it from them if safe to do so. 

The video was more an attempt to inject some humour into the debate, but whilst we are here.

I dont actually have a problem with recreational drug use.
People will do it, whether legal or otherwise, the more illegal, often the more 'glamorous' it becomes.
A lot of 'illegal' drugs, were legal once, its only when they become popular, they tend to become illegal, and as the cannabis debate rumbles on, it does seem highly likely that one day soon, it will be legalised here.


The crux though is this, at what point are you safe to handle firearms after participating ?
Alcohol,  possibly the easiest one to quantify - the next day ? when you are measureably sober ?
Those who imbibe excessive amounts ,sometimes complain of 'not being right for days' or 'I woke up drunk'

Cannabis, can be measured in the system for a long time, after indulging, when are you 'right' after taking it?
My brother is a weed smoker, and hes never right !

Cocaine, again has long ranging side effects of paranoia and aggression.
I have know people who heavily used years ago, but havnt touched it since, still exhibit aggressive behaviour, that they didnt before they used it.

What Im trying to say, and I appreciate where Grrr is coming from, its a bit more complicated than 'Im sober/not high now,  so Im ok to shoot'
You could be on perfectly legal pain meds, or even night nurse for that matter, and you really shouldnt be driving, shooting or operating machinery.
Ultimately YOU have to police yourself I suppose, and decide if you are gun safe, but when it comes to being granted or renewed, answering the drink or drug questions 'wrong' may kick in the intemperance clause of the home office guidelines, as once happened to me via an over zealous doctor.
A modicum of common sense is the order of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are very lenient rules around gun ownership in the Czech Republic and they have a realtively low rate of gun crime, how does that stack up.  They are also very lenient in respect to policing recreational drug use.  If our emotionally led "common snese" was correct surely the Czech Republic would be full of tooled up junkies causing shooty mayhem?

I know that you (John) are not advocating increasing legislation around firearm licensing unlike Andrew and the OP who respectively advocate that there should me mandatory mouth swabs and anyone caught growing a cannabis plant should be banned for life.

The tangent towards driver licensing is not about accidents or things going wrong, it is is an issue of criminality and responsibility whilst in control of something that has potentially deadly consequence, gun, car, bus, bin lorry, etc.  What you are effectively suggesting is that within the context of the current law that evidence of criminality, i.e. smoking a spliff (to keep it in the context of this thread) suggests a greater likelihood of someone going a bit mental with a gun, so much so that they should not be granted a license to own or use one.

Does the same argument hold true for those that try to obtain a driving license.  If someone is nicked for being drunk & disorderly in the high street on a Saturday night and he/she/ze has a spliff in their pocket should they be banned from driving as they are more likely to get drunk and drugged up then drive with the attendant dangers of that that we all know about?

On the basis of your argument that evidence of criminality leads to a greater risk of criminal misuse of a gun then we must not give our Saturday night reveller a chance to get a shotgun in hand, lest they go a bit Derek Bird on us, after all they had a doobie in their pocket so they must be potentially murderous nutjobs.  Of course they can bash on with driving a 7.5 ton truck every day through pedestrian rich congested town centres with no consideration of their established murderous nutjob proclivity.

Edited by grrclark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could go on for ever - as you are clearly convinced that cannabis possession should not be criminal - and on that basis should not have an effect on grant of firearms license.

My case is based on the fact that as the law stands right now - IT IS a crime.  On that basis, it must be taken into account when looking at granting/renewing/revoking a firearms license.

I'm not going to enter into whether it should be legal or not as that is an entirely different question, and everyone will have their own views

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

This could go on for ever - as you are clearly convinced that cannabis possession should not be criminal - and on that basis should not have an effect on grant of firearms license.

My case is based on the fact that as the law stands right now - IT IS a crime.  On that basis, it must be taken into account when looking at granting/renewing/revoking a firearms license.

I'm not going to enter into whether it should be legal or not as that is an entirely different question, and everyone will have their own views

My argument isn't actually about cannabis possession or use in particular, although I do believe our legislative policy in respect to recreational drugs desperately needs to be reconsidered.  The "war on drugs" has failed by every measure you could choose to use.

My original question was why do some of the earlier contributors believe that someone smoking a joint or growing a plant presents such a material risk to safe gun ownerhsip that it should disqualify them from having a gun licence, and in the case of at least one contributor disqualified for life.  Sadly they didn't answer, but to your credit you picked up the baton to have the debate.

Your answer is one of criminality, it isn't so much the taking of the drug it is the fact that it breaks the law.  That is absolutely fine, any criminal behaviour is currently considered as part of a grant or renewal and it simply becomes part of that process.  I don't actually have an issue with that at all.  What I do have an issue with is ignorant broad brush sweeping statements, not made by you, without any attempt to support their hypothesis.

I do think that our approach to firearms licensing is hugely flawed, hence highlighting some wonderfully contradictory approaches that we embrace through current legislation using another licensing system as an example, but that is perhaps lost in the context of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well - it has been an interesting and sensible debate, not marred (certainly between us) by hostility, bad language, or the other matters mentioned in the thread "Can we be friendly in 2018?"  Like many debates, there is much on which we agree, but neither of us (or any other contributor) has come up with the 'magic answer' to 'fix' the legislation - probably because there isn't one.

What I do believe is that a law being flawed (as many are) shouldn't mean that those flaws are either corrected or altered by spurious local interpretations (or relaxations).  That route will ultimately give rise to confusion, be open to corruption and lead to the law falling into disrespect.

If the law is wrong, it should be changed through the correct channels (Home Office/Parliament in this case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, the debate thus far has been amazingly varied and surprisingly detailed. Like other posters, I have found some of the opinions unexpected - but I’ve always enjoyed hearing other people’s points of view. There are always two sides to a coin so to speak.

I agree with others also that the current licensing system needs updating for various reasons I won’t go into or I’ll start to waffle!

However I will stick by my opinion (and that’s all it is) that in this case, someone tha actually grows drugs in their own home is way over the line of legality and thus irresponsible under current law. Irresponsibility and guns don’t mix, so licence revoked.

How long this should remain revoked I am again unable to comment on. It is again highly subjective and opinionated - and I suppose under current law at the discretion of the FEO/Chief Officer, which just again means different decisions will be made by different people even in similar cases.

I wonder what the average non-shooter would think of the situation - a drug grower (perhaps even dealer) owning guns. After all, I imagine the majority of the voting population and parliament will likely have no experience of guns, let alone own them, yet they are influencing the legislation that governs it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know. Without spiralling off course I don’t see much chemical distinction between home brewers and someone with a couple of plants in the loft who privately grows his / her own. Save of course that the scientific evidence is that alcohol is more damaging albeit legal and socially acceptable :lol: 

I don’t see how the physical act of growing (as opposed to dealing / supplying) crosses any extra line. As has been mentioned in this debate, you could quite sincerely want to grow your own to ensure you know what your getting and to avoid having to meet dealers in pub car parks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ADT06 said:

...

However I will stick by my opinion (and that’s all it is) that in this case, someone tha actually grows drugs in their own home is way over the line of legality and thus irresponsible under current law. Irresponsibility and guns don’t mix, so licence revoked.

...

I wonder what the average non-shooter would think of the situation - a drug grower (perhaps even dealer) owning guns. After all, I imagine the majority of the voting population and parliament will likely have no experience of guns, let alone own them, yet they are influencing the legislation that governs it. 

I appreciate it is your opinion and i'm not hectoring, but for the sake of balance, is the gun owner who grows cannabis at home to control the quality of the plant, to choose the time of harvest and as such limit the psychoactive qualities of the plant in order to manage the chronic pain of a relative really irresponsible?

To that end is the gun owner who is choosing to avoid mixing with drug dealers and the overtly criminal fraternity in order to secure the drugs, to manage the pain of their relative, actually being very reasonable in their behaviour?

They are pursuing an approach where there is no impact on anybody outside of themselves in growing and using the drug in the manner in which they are.  There is no income going into the criminal supply chain, there is no interaction between the gun owner and established drug dealing criminal networks.

I appreciate that is a very particular scenario and if we were talking about someone growing 50+ plants in order that they could sell it on the argument would be very different.  I think the point is actually what is the intent of the criminality?

If someone is choosing to pursue criminal activity that is exploitative of others, so violence, burglary, theft, drug dealing, pimping, and so on then that establishes a certain picture of their character and I would agree that they should not be granted a licence to a gun.  The gun would potentially give them an even bigger lever with which to exploit others.

However if someone pursues criminal activity that is non exploitative, i.e. excess speed, but not dangerous driving, smoking a spliff at home or growing a cannabis plant for personal use, then what in their character suggests they would use a gun exploitatively and as such be denied a ticket?

As I type that leads me to consider what about people who watch or download pirate movies on Kodi boxes, or similar, that is a crime and it is also exploitative as it is effectively theft, where do they sit on the should they be allowed a gun spectrum?

To stop my rambling any further your last sentence highlights the real issue, which is one of perception and also ignorance, what would someone think of a gun owner who also takes drugs? My god, drugs and guns in the same sentence!!!  Instead of considering the facts critically and making reasoned assessment on a case by case basis it is just a knee jerk catch all reaction.  

Within a community that has seen an ever increasing legislative burden in order to be able to partake in our sport, pastime or even livelihood we are terribly quick to offer non thinking solutions and answers despite the absolute irony of living under the real term effects of other people doing that to us.  It is something that I absolutely struggle to understand.

We even had people advocate on another thread that a grumpy old man who used bad language in a shop is somehow such a risk that he should have his tickets revoked.  Genuine and sincere guidance from PW contributors that a man who believed in himself that he had a poor customer experience and used some bad words to remonstrate is a danger to public safety such that he should not have a gun.

Edited by grrclark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will never legalise cannabis because it keeps thousands of low grade criminals employed in something which, although illegal, is totally invisible to Mr Joe Public.

It doesn't impact on society in the same way as burglary muggings or breaking into cars would. If you take away the drug dealers present source of income what would they be doing as an alternative? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

They will never legalise cannabis because it keeps thousands of low grade criminals employed in something which, although illegal, is totally invisible to Mr Joe Public.

It doesn't impact on society in the same way as burglary muggings or breaking into cars would. If you take away the drug dealers present source of income what would they be doing as an alternative? 

WHAT do you believe the REASON for petty crime is then  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...