Offensive Weapons Bill 2.0

[stuartyboy]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

CRIMINALS DONT APPLY for licenses, they don’t need to!

Obviously. So licensing makes it harder for criminals to get guns as they have to get them them illegally. 

And as I have repeatedly said, they are available but limited in numbers therefore not as easy to get as some think. 

2 hours ago, Scully said:

It’ll take more than fifteen years ‘ on the job’ to impress me I’m afraid, I’ve had a lifetime of experience of both sides of legit’. 

I’ve got no interest in trying to impress anyone. I merely point out that I have some limited hands on experience of the subject matter. And I don’t see the relevance of you having ‘had a lifetime of experience of both sides of legit’ has with this debate? Were you a bit of a lad, scrumping apples, running with the Yardies? 

Edited August 18, 2020 by stuartyboy

[stuartyboy]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Neither does licensing reduce the availability of firearms, only that which are available for sporting purposes through legal means. 

Of course licensing reduces the availability of firearms. That’s the whole point of it. And it’s not perfect but it should reduce availability to only the right applicants with the right reason.

 

[Scully]

I’ll try again. Licensing doesn’t apply to criminals because which criminal in their right mind would leave a paper trail by applying for a firearm they intended to use in crime!? Nor does licensing reduce the availability of firearms; availability for the legit’ shooter depends entirely on what legislation allows; there are no such restraints for those acting outside the law, again, as history proves. 

Lack of will dictates the illegal use of firearms, not the lack of a license, and like I said, criminals don’t do shooting frenzies, it’s not good for business, best leave those to the licensed shooter, again, as history proves. 
No, like you, I was never involved with the Yardies, but I was on the UK’s top ten most wanted list of knock an’ nashers! Proper ‘ard me! 🙂

Licensing only affects the law abiding, and that cannot be denied, as it has been proved countless times, and is proved on a daily basis by numerous license holders of anything which requires a license. A ban after a licensed shooter goes nuts simply means that as a result those particular firearms become unavailable for the licensed shooter, but not for those who don’t need licenses, as was the case after Dunblane.  

I think we’re done here; we’re just going round and round in circles. 

[Cannon]

Licencing reduces the availability and accessibility of firearms to criminals. It's as simple as that. Your offer of an alternative system that basically mirrors our current licencing system tells me that you understand my side of the argument, but for some reason you are unwilling to accept it despite the clear logic and justification behind it. Can you explain to me the reasons why you believe we need an alternative to the licencing system? Why do you feel that it is necessary to vet people before allowing them to purchase firearms?

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

Licencing reduces the availability and accessibility of firearms to criminals. It's as simple as that. Your offer of an alternative system that basically mirrors our current licencing system tells me that you understand my side of the argument, but for some reason you are unwilling to accept it despite the clear logic and justification behind it. Can you explain to me the reasons why you believe we need an alternative to the licencing system? Why do you feel that it is necessary to vet people before allowing them to purchase firearms?

No it doesn’t, and for all the reasons I’ve given. It’s as simple as that. 
You stated that what was needed to reduce airgun crime, was licensing, I disagreed. It has been shown time after time that the licensing of firearms does little to reduce crime. Even the banning of certain firearms has been shown not to work; if the will is there then the matter of a license is moot. 
Licensing ONLY has an effect on the law abiding; these are all facts which no one can deny. 
I’m not against vetting, but our current system just isn’t cutting it; the fact that each time it is shown to be flawed in some way and an amateurish attempt is made to add yet another sticking plaster over an already seeping wound, simply serves to prove this.
The entire system needs an overhaul. 
The Police are actively engaged in creating a policy of an ever more restrictive licensing regime as they believe it really is the way to prevent mass shootings, and who knows, they may be right. They already know it will have no effect on armed crime whatsoever. 

 

[Cannon]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

No it doesn’t, and for all the reasons I’ve given. It’s as simple as that. 
You stated that what was needed to reduce airgun crime, was licensing, I disagreed. It has been shown time after time that the licensing of firearms does little to reduce crime. Even the banning of certain firearms has been shown not to work; if the will is there then the matter of a license is moot. 
Licensing ONLY has an effect on the law abiding; these are all facts which no one can deny. 
I’m not against vetting, but our current system just isn’t cutting it; the fact that each time it is shown to be flawed in some way and an amateurish attempt is made to add yet another sticking plaster over an already seeping wound, simply serves to prove this.
The entire system needs an overhaul. 
The Police are actively engaged in creating a policy of an ever more restrictive licensing regime as they believe it really is the way to prevent mass shootings, and who knows, they may be right. They already know it will have no effect on armed crime whatsoever. 

 

What parts of the current system would you say need overhauled? Do you think the current level of vetting is enough or too lax? I don't know about the depth of vetting that goes on across the water, but over here it isn't just the police that are involved. The security services have an input too. A licence is issued to a person if the relevant authorities are satisfied so far is as reasonably practicable that the person in question poses no risk to the safety of the public or to themselves. Many people have been refused licences because they are quite simply of unsound mind. Therefore the licencing system has done exactly what it was designed to do. Not every person of unsound mind applies for a licence because they have criminal intent. Many wouldn't even know they were committing an offence because they haven't got the sense to realise what they're doing is wrong. The licencing system is at present the most effective method of keeping firearms and airguns out of the hands of these people. Without licencing the amount of crimes and incidents involving firearms and airguns would be a lot higher. What part of that statement isn't clear? The same people are unlikely to be hardened criminals who will spend thousands on an illegal firearm. They just want a firearm or airgun for the sake of it. Not really good reason is it?

Edited August 18, 2020 by Cannon

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

The security services have an input too. A licence is issued to a person if the relevant authorities are satisfied so far is as reasonably practicable that the person in question poses no risk to the safety of the public or to themselves.

Theres a glaring issue right there.
As I said previously , it surprises me , being where you live, that you think licencing could stop say, a perfectly law abiding citizen being intimidated into  becoming , for example , an ammo factory, or a forced 'loaner' of a long range rifle ?
That being said. it could just as easily happen over here, dodgy RFDs re activating full auto weapons by the hundred, its happened, where are those guns ??

Just because the news isnt full of gun battles everyday, doesnt mean those weapons arent out there, it just means the crims dont have the guts to use them MOST of the time.

Think of any recent shooting , the ones that actually get printed about, do they give details of type of weapon used ?
Rarely.
Then consider how licencing could have prevented that crime.

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Theres a glaring issue right there.
As I said previously , it surprises me , being where you live, that you think licencing could stop say, a perfectly law abiding citizen being intimidated into  becoming , for example , an ammo factory, or a forced 'loaner' of a long range rifle ?
That being said. it could just as easily happen over here, dodgy RFDs re activating full auto weapons by the hundred, its happened, where are those guns ??

Just because the news isnt full of gun battles everyday, doesnt mean those weapons arent out there, it just means the crims dont have the guts to use them MOST of the time.

Think of any recent shooting , the ones that actually get printed about, do they give details of type of weapon used ?
Rarely.
Then consider how licencing could have prevented that crime.

It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the increased carnage three hoodlums with shotguns and access to unrestricted amounts of ammo could cause compared to three hoodlums with knives. Youngsters eager to prove themselves to their peers would revel in unrestricted access to firearms and ammunition

 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the increased carnage three hoodlums with shotguns and access to unrestricted amounts of ammo could cause

Who is talking about unrestricted access ?
There isnt a country in the (civilised) world that has that.
That isnt the argument at all.

Does licencing limit gun crime, or stop acquisition/use of illegal firearms by those criminals who wish to ?
Of course it doesnt.

Ill go back to a previous challenge, why have there been no terrorist attacks using guns ?
Please dont say its because they cant get hold of them !

[Cannon]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Theres a glaring issue right there.
As I said previously , it surprises me , being where you live, that you think licencing could stop say, a perfectly law abiding citizen being intimidated into  becoming , for example , an ammo factory, or a forced 'loaner' of a long range rifle ?

 

I'm not sure of your level of understanding regarding the North of Ireland. If you have drawn conclusions based on bbc reports, there's a very good probability that the information presented to you was biased and incorrect. Licencing allows a perfectly law abiding citizen to obtain firearms for many legitimate purposes. If criminals want to interfere in any way it's a matter for the police, just like any crime. If the supply of illegal firearms is as bad as you seem to be making out,, why are you suggesting that criminals may target licence holders? Is it perhaps because of the lack of availability of illegal firearms in the first place? Hmmmm.....

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the increased carnage three hoodlums with shotguns and access to unrestricted amounts of ammo could cause compared to three hoodlums with knives. Youngsters eager to prove themselves to their peers would revel in unrestricted access to firearms and ammunition

 

Oh come on! Think it through please! What is to be gained by ‘hoodlums’ creating carnage with ‘unrestricted access’ to either shotguns or ammunition? Where would this unrestricted access come from....unless they were terrorists of course? 
Again, where does this ‘unrestricted access ‘ or ‘free for all’ occur within the western world? Unless you’re a criminal of course! 
It is emotive codswallop such as that which prevents any meaningful dialogue aimed at improving matters. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Scully

[Scully]

4 hours ago, Cannon said:

What parts of the current system would you say need overhauled? Do you think the current level of vetting is enough or too lax? I don't know about the depth of vetting that goes on across the water, but over here it isn't just the police that are involved. The security services have an input too. A licence is issued to a person if the relevant authorities are satisfied so far is as reasonably practicable that the person in question poses no risk to the safety of the public or to themselves. Many people have been refused licences because they are quite simply of unsound mind. Therefore the licencing system has done exactly what it was designed to do. Not every person of unsound mind applies for a licence because they have criminal intent. Many wouldn't even know they were committing an offence because they haven't got the sense to realise what they're doing is wrong. The licencing system is at present the most effective method of keeping firearms and airguns out of the hands of these people. Without licencing the amount of crimes and incidents involving firearms and airguns would be a lot higher. What part of that statement isn't clear? The same people are unlikely to be hardened criminals who will spend thousands on an illegal firearm. They just want a firearm or airgun for the sake of it. Not really good reason is it?

Sounds very much like mainland UK....it doesn’t really work that well here either, but until we come up with something better ( it’s not gonna happen because there isn’t the will ) it’s all we have. 
You surely aren’t trying to claim that illegally held firearms are rare in your neck of the woods? 
The licensing process matters not a jot to those who want to remain below the radar, and especially when it comes to the misuse of airguns, not least because of the numbers already in circulation. 
Judging by the claims of some, you would think all those thousands of unlicensed airguns in circulation would be causing havoc and catastrophe on a daily basis, but they’re not. 
 

[stuartyboy]

It’s worth pointing out that illegally held firearms generally fall into 3 basic categories.

Firstly, forgotten heirlooms, war trophys, etc. The kind that grandfather brought back from the war, put in the loft and forgot about. Or shotguns from before 1968. These guns aren’t generally an issue as the ‘owner’ either doesn’t know about them or has no criminal use for them. 

Secondly, improvised guns. By that I mean converted old spec deacts, Brococks, obsolete calibre, home made, converted CS or blank firers etc etc

Lastly, manufactured guns that are stolen or smuggled. But guns that are designed to do what they do from the factory.

Manufactured guns are by the far the rarest here. THEY ARE AVAILABLE, but in limited numbers. Improvised guns are the commonest used guns in crime. Now why is that? It’s not because they require modifications or special ammo made for them. Or the fact that modifications are dangerous to the user. It’s because they are all unlicensed and easy to obtain. I appreciate that laws have changed recently in regards to Deacts and Brococks etc but that is fairly recent legislation and all the modified guns are or were until recently, easily bought online/over the counter.

Now if we can accept that criminals use modified guns more often (even though they are dangerous and require skills to make them work) as they can get hold of them easier, it doesn’t take a giant leap to understand that if all guns/ammo were unlicensed and/or registered, they would use them instead and the number of criminals using them would increase.

 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

why are you suggesting that criminals may target licence holders? Is it perhaps because of the lack of availability of illegal firearms in the first place? Hmmmm

You keep moving the goalposts here, does licencing stop criminals from obtaining guns? 

The answer is obviously no. 

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

Now if we can accept that criminals use modified guns more often (even though they are dangerous and require skills to make them work) as they can get hold of them easier, it doesn’t take a giant leap to understand that if all guns/ammo were unlicensed and/or registered, they would use them instead and the number of criminals using them would increase

No we can't accept that at all. 

Literally no one knows what's out there, when a crowd or someone's house gets sprayed with automatic fire in a drive by, is that a modified gun? The police have recovered modern handguns and SMGs in quantity, just the same as antiques and old converted Brococks. 

What they don't use is the type of guns that are licenced. Yet to defeat 'gun crime' they are talking about tightening up the licencing system! 

Can you not see the fallacy? 

[stuartyboy]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You keep moving the goalposts here, does licencing stop criminals from obtaining guns? 

The answer is obviously no. 

You are correct, it does not stop them. But it makes it more difficult. 

Look at America where firearms are freely available. 10s of thousands of deaths each year but in the UK it’s only a few dozen annually. Part of the reason for this is that firearms are relatively hard to obtain here and part of that reason is that licensing restricts their ownership to suitable people.

 I feel like I’m repeating myself now so going to sign off but it’s an interesting and emotive subject that can be argued both ways 

[Cannon]

Regardless of my opinion, it's very unlikely that airgun licencing will come into effect any time soon in England or Wales. It would more than double the workload of the licencing departments, and would be extremely challenging to implement and manage effectively. I still believe that the points I made in favour of licencing are good and valid, but the reality is that it would be quicker and easier to implement a complete ban (something I would be strongly against) rather than introduce licencing. The complexities of airgun licencing would make things difficult for a lot of people, particularly those who use or sell airguns, and for those who are involved in licencing or law enforcement. It would be an administrative nightmare for at least a couple of years, making the easy option of a ban more likely (in the event that a situation or incident brought the discussion to parliament). Though just because something is difficult to do doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That being said, the fines and punishments currently in place for crimes relating to the misuse of airguns are pretty substantial. Perhaps better enforcement would help to deter future airgun crime? Airguns are misused on a daily basis, but in a lot of cases the misuse goes unreported or doesn't fit the criteria needed for an official record to be kept. The newspapers tend to fill in the gaps, though not always impartially. It would take substantial changes in the quantity, frequency and nature of airgun crime for me to change my opinion.

[Cannon]

22 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You keep moving the goalposts here, does licencing stop criminals from obtaining guns? 

The answer is obviously no. 

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. You are merely trying to twist things to suit your agenda.

[Rewulf]

42 minutes ago, Cannon said:

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. You are merely trying to twist things to suit your agenda.

What agenda? 🤣

[Cannon]

27 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What agenda? 🤣

There's a reason why you entered into this debate, meaning you have an agenda. Your agenda seems to be to challenge anyone who speaks in support of the licencing system. You may have good reasons for forming the opinions that you hold, as others may have good reasons for forming their opinions.  It"s always good to get a good understanding of other peoples' opinions. It enables you to form solid counter arguments if you know the logic used by someone to come to a conclusion. Stating that I was moving the goal posts tells me that you didn't or don't want to understand where I was coming from with regards my side of the argument. If you re-read what I have already posted with an open mind you may come to a better understanding.

Just to add, we are not enemies. I've no doubt that if we met face to face we would get on quite well. You seem a sensible enough chap. An internet forum is not always the most appropriate platform for a debate. It can be hard to convey emotions or expressions. The best we can do is remain amicable.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Cannon

[Rewulf]

43 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Just to add, we are not enemies

Of course we're not! 

You believe the licencing system works well, in licencing firearms to legitimate users, on this point I have no issues whatsoever. 

It's when you say that licencing keeps guns out of the hands of criminals I disagree, and have put forward the basis of why I have that opinion. 

Further measures to tighten up licencing will not restrict access to guns used by criminals, all it will do is limit access for those individuals who already jump through hoops to legally possess. 

A good example of this is the recent attempts to remove. 50 cal and lever release /Mars guns from legal ownership, because they are too DANGEROUS!.... To who? 

They've never been used in a crime? 

[Konor]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

Oh come on! Think it through please! What is to be gained by ‘hoodlums’ creating carnage with ‘unrestricted access’ to either shotguns or ammunition? Where would this unrestricted access come from....unless they were terrorists of course? 
Again, where does this ‘unrestricted access ‘ or ‘free for all’ occur within the western world? Unless you’re a criminal of course! 
It is emotive codswallop such as that which prevents any meaningful dialogue aimed at improving matters. 

Purchase of smooth bore long arms in many states in the USA is unrestricted in law and in practice.

New Hampshire for possession and acquiring handguns. I'm thinking of the New Hampshire carry laws.

Private sales of handguns in America where in practic no background checks are carried out. 

What is to be gained by hoodlums creating carnage in London with knives?

If shotguns were as freely available here as they are in America eg Detroit Chicago LA gangs we would have as many kids here suffering PTSD as they do there.

I wouldn't be pyepared to have licencing laws relaxed so that Walter Mittys could have easier access to firearms. I'm thinking of the characters I regularly bumped into while pistol shooting decades ago. The majority  harmless fantasist but to ease laws so that people can feel a bit more secure by possessing firearms is not something I'm up for. 

Check out the shortage of 9mm and. 223 ammunition in America, on the American doublegun forum, in response to the riots. Its not a situation I'd like to see over here. 

Just my personal opinion. 

 

Scully could you define improving matters as I don't think freer access to Joe Public for firearms for self defense for example is an improvement

[Scully]

On 19/08/2020 at 00:20, Konor said:

Purchase of smooth bore long arms in many states in the USA is unrestricted in law and in practice.

New Hampshire for possession and acquiring handguns. I'm thinking of the New Hampshire carry laws.

Private sales of handguns in America where in practic no background checks are carried out. 

What is to be gained by hoodlums creating carnage in London with knives?

If shotguns were as freely available here as they are in America eg Detroit Chicago LA gangs we would have as many kids here suffering PTSD as they do there.

I wouldn't be pyepared to have licencing laws relaxed so that Walter Mittys could have easier access to firearms. I'm thinking of the characters I regularly bumped into while pistol shooting decades ago. The majority  harmless fantasist but to ease laws so that people can feel a bit more secure by possessing firearms is not something I'm up for. 

Check out the shortage of 9mm and. 223 ammunition in America, on the American doublegun forum, in response to the riots. Its not a situation I'd like to see over here. 

Just my personal opinion. 

 

Scully could you define improving matters as I don't think freer access to Joe Public for firearms for self defense for example is an improvement

So I’m assuming ( based on the logic of those, including you,  who claim licensing works ) that shootings in those states which you mention above, and with the firearms you mention relevant to those states above , is rife with mass shootings and killings on a daily basis with a body count to match that of a war zone? 
Criminals have no problems in getting hold of firearms in Detroit, Chicago or LA, but I seriously doubt they are being bought from legit’ outlets, and the claims you make regarding the outcome if the same were available here is simply emotive conjecture; you don’t really have a clue.

There was a time in the 1990’s if I recall correctly, when Washington state had some of the tightest firearms laws in the USA, but illegally held firearms and gangland shootings were such a problem it led one chief of Police to tell citizens that he could no longer guarantee their safety if they ventured into certain parts of the city, and the US military sent all its trainee surgeons to Washington state hospitals so they could gain experience in treating gunshot wounds. 
It isn’t for you to judge who the Walt’s are either, as they obviously satisfied the same criteria as set out by LICENSING, that you and I were both vetted by. 

[Konor]

6 hours ago, Scully said:

So I’m assuming ( based on the logic of those, including you,  who claim licensing works ) that shootings in those states which you mention above, and with the firearms you mention relevant to those states above , is rife with mass shootings and killings on a daily basis with a body count to match that of a war zone? 
Criminals have no problems in getting hold of firearms in Detroit, Chicago or LA, but I seriously doubt they are being bought from legit’ outlets, and the claims you make regarding the outcome if the same were available here is simply emotive conjecture; you don’t really have a clue.

There was a time in the 1990’s if I recall correctly, when Washington state had some of the tightest firearms laws in the USA, but illegally held firearms and gangland shootings were such a problem it led one chief of Police to tell citizens that he could no longer guarantee their safety if they ventured into certain parts of the city, and the US military sent all its trainee surgeons to Washington state hospitals so they could gain experience in treating gunshot wounds. 
It isn’t for you to judge who the Walt’s are either, as they obviously satisfied the same criteria as set out by LICENSING, that you and I were both vetted by. 

You asked where unrestricted access to firearms occurs within the western world and I replied. The American firearms manufacturers depend on that unrestricted access to maintain sales. Smith and Wesson share prices have risen in line with the recent demand for weapons and ammunition in America . As the availability of certain classes of guns decreases in gun shops due to demand you wonder if America will ever reach saturation point as the market for firearms continues to be strong.

Twelve years ago when I first visited Boston to meet up with friends of my wife none of them owned a handgun. Knowing my interest in firearms they told me about friends or relatives that shot and in some cases they expressed a wariness in possessing a firearm. Twelve years later they all without exception own handguns and concealed carry permits so there doesn’t seem to be much restriction to possession of handguns in Boston. If you wish to possess a handgun for personal protection then provided you are not a felon and are willing to complete a short course then you are entitled to carry a handgun when and as you please. In practice then there is very little restriction to handgun ownership in Boston for personal protection and Massachusetts is not one of the most liberal states in America regarding gun ownership.

My American born cousins have lived and worked in various East Coast states and have always owned and carried handguns at present they both live in Florida both own handguns shotguns and rifles neither of them clay shoot or hunt. Both would consider themselves just security conscious and in a country where armed home intrusion is not uncommon they are probably not considered paranoid.

Possession of firearms for personal protection is so widespread in America and misuse of firearms so common that licensing would now make very little difference ,a sizeable proportion of American residents would simply not comply with registering their firearms for fear of having them confiscated at a later date.
Fortunately the UK by virtue of strict licensing is not awash with weapons so we do not have the scale of problems that America suffers.
Any support to relax licensing laws because professional criminals can already readily source firearms misses the point completely and creates the possibility that if we were to abolish our licensing laws that in years to come we would be dealing with the same problems America has now.

If as you say the free availability of weapons in Washington state apparently led to army surgeons being employed there in order to learn how to cope with the numerous gunshot wounds then that is a situation I would not like to see occur here in Scotland and seems to contradict your earlier opinion that mass shootings and drive by shootings are an uncommon event where firearms are freely available legally or not.

Just because some insecure vocal Walter Mitty feels he should have the right to possess a firearm for personal protection isn’t just cause to endanger future generations with the problems that for example the residents of Washington endured due to the free availability of firearms.

I would appreciate as a licence holder being able to switch rifle calibres without having to go through a variation process. I’d like to be able to own a Winchester model twelve 5 shot on my shotgun certificate and there are probably a host of other small changes that could be made to make things easier for certificate holders with no risk attached but I think licensing of shotguns and firearms should be retained and not relaxed simply because criminals can access firearms anyway.

I am sure the  many Walter Mitty individuals I chanced to meet during my time pistol shooting were able to convince the FEO that their overriding reason for possession was simply target shooting. A short conversation with these characters normally showed up their obsession with military and police related firearms work despite never having served in either the armed forces or with the police.

The characters involved in the Full Metal Jacket Club off the M25 who were in the news in January this year are an example of the people who would welcome a relaxation of our licensing system I don’t count myself as that kind of shooter I would hate to see that section of the shooting community thrive as a result of licensing relaxation .They would soon bring our sport into disrepute.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Konor
Addition

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Nicely put Konor.