Offensive Weapons Bill 2.0

[rbrowning2]

9 hours ago, Zetter said:

The more and more hassle it is for new people to get into the sport the less and less people in say 10 years there will be actually doing it.

Don’t think the police or the government ever care about how difficult or expensive it is to get into the sport, and if it withers and dies over time they will not be crying more likely rejoicing.

 

[clangerman]

how customers earned their money was none of my business but asking them to remove their firearm from under the front seat was awkward licensing is nothing but a attempt to prevent ownership by the law abiding it never worked and never will 

[lloydi73]

14 hours ago, ClemFandango said:

So people still got murdered then?

Wasn't much of a deterrent. 

You'll never get 100% non murders due to the hardcore criminal element of society out there! But it will deter the less hardened criminal and thus reduce the amount of murders! 

[Scully]

21 hours ago, Cannon said:

I honestly don't think there's anything ridiculous about it. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the owners of the thousands of legally owned handguns still in circulation are complying with the conditions outlined on their certificates, particularly the condition relating to the secure storage of the firearms using approved methods. Failure to comply with these conditions can lead to revocation of your certificate. If you have your certificate revoked as a result of not complying with your certificate conditions, you are perceived to be unfit to possess firearms. The conditions are in place for a reason, and have been well thought out. What would things be like if there were no conditions? If everybody and anybody could just walk into a shop and buy a handgun or high powered rifle? Would you trust the general public to be as security concious or vigilant as someone who's certified? If firearms licencing wasn't in place, I don't think you would be arguing against its introduction.

To tie this post in with the theme of the thread, if harsher punishments were in place for those who break the law, and a culture of compliance was firmly established, then maybe licencing could be made a thing of the past. But as things are, all too often the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The current laws allow criminals to act with impunity over and over again. Until that changes, the licencing system should not only remain in place, it should also be extended to airguns. Take Scotland as an example. Since licencing of airguns was introduced, airgun related incidents have dropped by nearly a third of what they were before licencing. Proof that certification does work.

Think about it. All those people who own firearms are going about their business lawfully because that’s the sort of people they are, not because they have certificates. 
I lock mine up because I’m a responsible person who doesn’t want them nicked because I paid good money for them and would hate to be responsible for anyone nicking them and doing someone harm, and not because I have a certificate. I lock my vehicle up for the same reason. 
I have a drawer full of knives too; none of which are licensed, but I have no intention of rushing out and stabbing anyone. 
Not only would I be against licensing, I still am. 
Criminals act with impunity regardless of whether firearms are licensed or not; is airgun abuse really decreased in Scotland, or just reports of airgun abuse? 
With all due respect, you appear to have a rather naive regard of the way things work. 
There are possibly still many thousand of unlicensed airguns in use in Scotland, whose owners are otherwise perfectly law abiding people, but who are now regarded as criminals simply because they haven’t haven’t applied for a certificate. Way to go! 👍
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 

[Cannon]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

Think about it. All those people who own firearms are going about their business lawfully because that’s the sort of people they are, not because they have certificates. 
I lock mine up because I’m a responsible person who doesn’t want them nicked because I paid good money for them and would hate to be responsible for anyone nicking them and doing someone harm, and not because I have a certificate. I lock my vehicle up for the same reason. 
I have a drawer full of knives too; none of which are licensed, but I have no intention of rushing out and stabbing anyone. 
Not only would I be against licensing, I still am. 
Criminals act with impunity regardless of whether firearms are licensed or not; is airgun abuse really decreased in Scotland, or just reports of airgun abuse? 
With all due respect, you appear to have a rather naive regard of the way things work. 
There are possibly still many thousand of unlicensed airguns in use in Scotland, whose owners are otherwise perfectly law abiding people, but who are now regarded as criminals simply because they haven’t haven’t applied for a certificate. Way to go! 👍
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 

With all due respect, I would say that it is you who is naive about how things work. The point I have made a couple of times seems to have gone straight over your head. If licencing didn't exist, every Tom **** and Harry would have access to guns. It is licencing that prevents firearms from falling into the hands of criminals in the first place. It is licencing that makes things difficult for criminals. If firearms were so easy to access, criminals would treat them as single use items so as not to tie particular firearms to multiple crimes. The fact is that licencing has undoubtedly stopped many crimes from being committed with firearms. How many we will never know, but you can be sure of the success of licencing. We all know someone or know of someone who you wouldn't trust with a water pistol. Now imagine that person had access to handguns etc without restriction. You cannot honestly come on these forums and tell me that you would be happy with that. You can give as many examples of failures of licencing as you want, but I'm sure the firearms branches of every police force could provide you with a longer list of people who have been refused licences for good reason.

[ClemFandango]

12 hours ago, lloydi73 said:

You'll never get 100% non murders due to the hardcore criminal element of society out there! But it will deter the less hardened criminal and thus reduce the amount of murders! 

So in the states in america where there is still the death penalty. Murders are only commited by the hardcore criminal element? 

Don't think so. 

Jail isn't enough of a deterrent for murder? 

People do it because they either aren't thinking straight, or they think they can get away with it. 

The punishment is pretty irrelevent. 

[Scully]

13 hours ago, Cannon said:

With all due respect, I would say that it is you who is naive about how things work. The point I have made a couple of times seems to have gone straight over your head. If licencing didn't exist, every Tom **** and Harry would have access to guns. It is licencing that prevents firearms from falling into the hands of criminals in the first place. It is licencing that makes things difficult for criminals. If firearms were so easy to access, criminals would treat them as single use items so as not to tie particular firearms to multiple crimes. The fact is that licencing has undoubtedly stopped many crimes from being committed with firearms. How many we will never know, but you can be sure of the success of licencing. We all know someone or know of someone who you wouldn't trust with a water pistol. Now imagine that person had access to handguns etc without restriction. You cannot honestly come on these forums and tell me that you would be happy with that. You can give as many examples of failures of licencing as you want, but I'm sure the firearms branches of every police force could provide you with a longer list of people who have been refused licences for good reason.

You don’t appear to be getting this at all; if licensing worked then why can’t we have CF handguns back on mainland UK? 
Also, by your logic, all that is needed to stop the stabbings in our major cities and towns is the licensing of knives? 
 

[Cannon]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

You don’t appear to be getting this at all; if licensing worked then why can’t we have CF handguns back on mainland UK? 
Also, by your logic, all that is needed to stop the stabbings in our major cities and towns is the licensing of knives? 
 

Believe me I get it, but lets call a spade a spade here. A handgun poses more of a risk to people than a knife. If a person tried to stab you and missed, the knife wouldn't travel another 100 meters and hit an innocent bystander. As it is, I believe the banning of handguns should not have happened, but that's an entirely different debate. The thing about a knife is you need to be up close to the other person to use it. Firearms and airguns allow you to distance yourself from your target, which decreases the risk of detection and adds a certain element of anonymity to the mix. How many swans, ducks, geese, cats and dogs have been stabbed over the years? Compare this to how many have been shot with airguns. Would these crimes have been committed if the airguns used were licenced? More than likely the answer is no. I appreciate that the licencing of airguns can be an emotive subject, but as responsible shooters I feel it is our duty to protect the future of our sport by reducing the opportunity for idiots to bring it into disrepute.

[Scully]

3 hours ago, Cannon said:

Believe me I get it, but lets call a spade a spade here. A handgun poses more of a risk to people than a knife. If a person tried to stab you and missed, the knife wouldn't travel another 100 meters and hit an innocent bystander. As it is, I believe the banning of handguns should not have happened, but that's an entirely different debate. The thing about a knife is you need to be up close to the other person to use it. Firearms and airguns allow you to distance yourself from your target, which decreases the risk of detection and adds a certain element of anonymity to the mix. How many swans, ducks, geese, cats and dogs have been stabbed over the years? Compare this to how many have been shot with airguns. Would these crimes have been committed if the airguns used were licenced? More than likely the answer is no. I appreciate that the licencing of airguns can be an emotive subject, but as responsible shooters I feel it is our duty to protect the future of our sport by reducing the opportunity for idiots to bring it into disrepute.

You can’t really pick and choose what works as regards licensing; you claimed licensing works. 
If licensing works then it works, regardless of what it is that is licensed.

Its like you’re trying to suggest that without a license we’d all be going around shooting swans and cats, and that’s just ridiculous. It isn’t a license that prevents a person from abusing firearms, it is the person themselves. 

We license cars, wagons and motorbikes, does it prevent their use in crime? No, it doesn’t, and if licensing did then neither Dunblane nor Hungerford would have happened. 
You can license anything you want, including knives and guns, but it won’t prevent their use in crime. 

[stuartyboy]

I think the point Cannon is making is that without licensing, there would be far more misuse of firearms. That is to say, if there was no gun control at all, every idiot would have access to a gun and there would be resulting chaos.

 I think the licensing is about right. If you require a gun for whatever reason, you can generally get a license for it subject to the obvious legal stipulations and that you are a suitable person.

Its not a perfect system, I would change a few things about licensing such as license the person to possess whatever rather than having to license each individual firearm on a FAC.

 I think it’s generally not a bad balance. And it’s a difficult balance to achieve. You have to protect the public (including the shooters themselves) while allowing the use of firearms in where required. 

With regards to the tragic shootings mentioned, responsibility for that lies squarely with the sicko who carried it out. However, there was plenty of opportunity to remove the guns from the perpetrators beforehand so the licensing system failed drastically there. However, if there was no licensing at all, I don’t doubt that there would be a lot more tragedys. 

[clangerman]

i sometimes wonder if people venture outside their cozy little world if mr crack dealer wants a handgun £500 gets him armed facts behind the police figures show them for the joke they are airguns logged as a firearms incident what a load of cobblers that is tickets are just a way to control the law abiding unless mr drug dealer decides to apply for one and that won’t happen 

[stuartyboy]

3 minutes ago, clangerman said:

i sometimes wonder if people venture outside their cozy little world if mr crack dealer wants a handgun £500 gets him armed facts behind the police figures show them for the joke they are airguns logged as a firearms incident what a load of cobblers that is tickets are just a way to control the law abiding unless mr drug dealer decides to apply for one and that won’t happen 

This is an age old argument which doesn’t really hold water. Yes there are illegal firearms available in the UK but they’re not as common as folk think and can be got but not easily. That’s why knife crime is such a big issue as knives are freely available though they are arguably a far poorer choice of weapon for the local dealer.

The point of licensing is to stop undesirables getting access to guns which it does reasonably well. There are cases of guns being stolen etc but if there was no licensing at all, we would have a much bigger problem with firearm related crime due to the sheer volume of guns out there.

[clangerman]

28 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

Yes there are illegal firearms available in the UK but they’re not as common as folk think and can be got but not easily. 

The point of licensing is to stop undesirables getting access to guns which it does reasonably well. 

if it took me more that a day or two to buy a handgun there’s something wrong the country is not awash with drugs for nothing smugglers will bring anything in if the price is right face it if you can snuggle endless people in hiding handguns is a piece of cake as for undesirables they are going to do whatever they like anyway or they would not be breaking the law in the first place 

[bluesj]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

i sometimes wonder if people venture outside their cozy little world if mr crack dealer wants a handgun £500 gets him armed facts behind the police figures show them for the joke they are airguns logged as a firearms incident what a load of cobblers that is tickets are just a way to control the law abiding unless mr drug dealer decides to apply for one and that won’t happen 

I don't know but I  would have thought an illegal handgun would cost more than £500 when a legal costs that or more

[stuartyboy]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

if it took me more that a day or two to buy a handgun there’s something wrong the country is not awash with drugs for nothing smugglers will bring anything in if the price is right face it if you can snuggle endless people in hiding handguns is a piece of cake as for undesirables they are going to do whatever they like anyway or they would not be breaking the law in the first place 

I appreciate that there are illegal guns in circulation. Exact figure is unknown for obvious reasons but I maintain that it is harder to get them than most folk think. Obviously if you know undesirables or mix with a certain crowd you can access them reasonably easy but for the vast majority of the public and the majority of the criminals out there, it’s difficult to get hold of a functioning firearm that is safe to use. And importantly, hard to get ammunition for it. Not impossible, but difficult. I know this for a fact.

Licensing simply helps to keep guns out of the hands of dodgy folk but allow people who need them, to get them. It’s not a perfect system but it works to an extent to keep everyone safe.

[stuartyboy]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

You can license anything you want, including knives and guns, but it won’t prevent their use in crime. 

What alternative do we have? Genuine question.

Do we carry on with the status quo and accept there will always be a very small risk associated with the public owning guns but overall it’s a far from perfect system that works the vast majority of time?

Or do we reduce licensing requirements to allow more freedom for shooting sports but increase the possible risk?

Or do we do away with licensing altogether and hope it works out?

Or, more likely, heavily restrict private gun ownership?

 

[Terry2016]

On 07/08/2020 at 18:33, Scully said:

Think about it. All those people who own firearms are going about their business lawfully because that’s the sort of people they are, not because they have certificates. 
I lock mine up because I’m a responsible person who doesn’t want them nicked because I paid good money for them and would hate to be responsible for anyone nicking them and doing someone harm, and not because I have a certificate. I lock my vehicle up for the same reason. 
I have a drawer full of knives too; none of which are licensed, but I have no intention of rushing out and stabbing anyone. 
Not only would I be against licensing, I still am. 
Criminals act with impunity regardless of whether firearms are licensed or not; is airgun abuse really decreased in Scotland, or just reports of airgun abuse? 
With all due respect, you appear to have a rather naive regard of the way things work. 
There are possibly still many thousand of unlicensed airguns in use in Scotland, whose owners are otherwise perfectly law abiding people, but who are now regarded as criminals simply because they haven’t haven’t applied for a certificate. Way to go! 👍
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 

Agreed 

[Scully]

16 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

What alternative do we have? Genuine question.

Do we carry on with the status quo and accept there will always be a very small risk associated with the public owning guns but overall it’s a far from perfect system that works the vast majority of time?

Or do we reduce licensing requirements to allow more freedom for shooting sports but increase the possible risk?

Or do we do away with licensing altogether and hope it works out?

Or, more likely, heavily restrict private gun ownership?

 

Not sure really,  I’ve often thought it could be done something along the lines of this scenario......bloke or woman walks into a gun shop and says ‘I’d like to buy a shotgun please’. 
RFD says, ‘ certainly, I’ll need to take a photograph of you, you’ll need to send your passport and a utility bill of the same address to the rozzers,  I’ll need a 25% deposit and there’ll be a months waiting list while the rozzers do a background check.’ 
The answer will either be ‘OK, no problem’ or ‘ don’t think I’ll bother then.’

Thats for first time buyers.  Repeat buyers wouldn’t have to wait at all as they’ve already been vetted. 
Once you’ve been vetted you can buy whatever you want as long as it has a sporting purpose.

Totally moot of course as it won’t happen; much bedwetting would ensue, not least because the police would have a month to turn it round. 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Scully

[vmaxphil]

That's not far off what happens now is it?

[Scully]

2 hours ago, vmaxphil said:

That's not far off what happens now is it?

Like I said, it’s only a start, cos let’s face it, it ain’t gonna happen.
Even better would be total removal from the responsibility of the police as they have an agenda, and undoubtedly set out on the basis that no one should have a firearm ( it’s akin to being regarded as guilty until proven innocent, which is totally backwards to the way it actually should be done ) and should be run more alongside the passport process. 
I don’t care if there is a mandatory requirement to learn about firearms and a test akin to the driving test, but like the driving test it should be the 
person who is registered, not the firearms. I doubt it would ensure anything more than the present system does, but it would be a lot more straightforward and quicker. 
You can describe it as more or less what we already have, but there’d be even more bedwetting if I got what I really wanted. 

[lloydi73]

On 07/08/2020 at 22:32, ClemFandango said:

So in the states in america where there is still the death penalty. Murders are only commited by the hardcore criminal element? 

Don't think so. 

Jail isn't enough of a deterrent for murder? 

People do it because they either aren't thinking straight, or they think they can get away with it. 

The punishment is pretty irrelevent. 

Pretty much like your arguments on here!!

 

[Rewulf]

On 07/08/2020 at 18:50, Cannon said:

It is licencing that prevents firearms from falling into the hands of criminals in the first place. It is licencing that makes things difficult for criminals.

How does it ?

Criminals dont apply for licences !
If what youre saying is , a criminal cant walk into a gunshop and buy whatever he/she likes, then neither can a 'non criminal' member of the public.
Im not sure , but I would think very few people would go through the licencing process to acquire a firearm for criminal purposes.

What the criminal will do is look at other alternatives , illicit guns, knives , chemicals.
You say it makes violence easier with a gun ? How many terrorist attacks have there been on UK soil in the last 20 years using firearms ?
Is that because of the licencing system putting them off ?

On 08/08/2020 at 20:01, stuartyboy said:

I appreciate that there are illegal guns in circulation. Exact figure is unknown for obvious reasons but I maintain that it is harder to get them than most folk think. Obviously if you know undesirables or mix with a certain crowd you can access them reasonably easy

Exactly , so , as above, how does licencing stop these types from acquiring firearms.
If you are a normal , law abiding citizen , you wouldnt know where to ask...

 

On 08/08/2020 at 20:12, stuartyboy said:

Or, more likely, heavily restrict private gun ownership?

You mean restrict it even more ?

We have some of the tightest gun controls in the world, you would think we would have virtually no gun crime at all if licencing was so effective in combatting it ?
Banning handguns should technically have ended handgun crime no ? NO it didnt, it rose , and continue to rise , because CRIMINALS dont care about it.

And as gun crime is still a thing , scapegoats have to be found, and those scapegoats are some of the most law abiding people in the land.

[Cannon]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

How does it ?

Criminals dont apply for licences !
If what youre saying is , a criminal cant walk into a gunshop and buy whatever he/she likes, then neither can a 'non criminal' member of the public.
**Im not sure , but I would think very few people would go through the licencing process to acquire a firearm for criminal purposes**

This ^^  The reason why very few people use the licencing system to acquire firearms for criminal purposes is because they know there's a very good chance that the checks done prior to issuing a licence will highlight them as being unfit to possess a firearm. This leaves them with a couple of options. Use a lesser weapon than a firearm to commit their intended crime, or spend a ludicrous amount of money to acquire a firearm on the black market. Even then it's not likely to be an all singing all dancing firearm. There's a good chance it'll be a modified blank firer, a converted Brocock or an antique. Not exactly the safest or 'coolest' options for criminals to use. This is the very reason why licencing works. It's an effective barrier that prevents criminals from easily acquiring firearms, and because the alternatives are either unsafe, antique or not financially viable, the majority of criminals just won't bother trying to get hold of a firearm in the first place.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Cannon

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

Not exactly the safest or 'coolest' options for criminals to use. This is the very reason why licencing works. It's an effective barrier that prevents criminals from easily acquiring firearms

Except it doesnt, there are 14 year old kids carrying guns in some cities , they can indeed be unsafe , or they can hired.
Licencing doesnt stop criminals acquiring guns if they need/want them !

[Cannon]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Except it doesnt, there are 14 year old kids carrying guns in some cities , they can indeed be unsafe , or they can hired.
Licencing doesnt stop criminals acquiring guns if they need/want them !

Licencing does stop criminals from acquiring guns. You really cannot dispute that. You are assuming that every criminal is a hardcore nut job who will stop at nothing to acquire a firearm and will happily pay thousands for a modern pistol. That simply isn't the case. Licencing stops opportunists in their tracks. It also prevents petty criminals from quickly climbing the ranks. The reason we don't have more gun crime is because licencing works. Imagine the criminals who are the lowest in the pecking order were able to freely obtain firearms, and not just the organised more sophisticated criminals. Would you be happy with that? I have asked the question before and I'll ask it again. Could you sleep soundly at night knowing that all firearms were freely available to absolutely everyone?