Shooting incident in Plymouth

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, hodge911 said:

Your correct mate there was no body supporting our side in the slightest .... 

Makes you think why the heck do we pay our fee's to our "so called helping organisation's " there has been No sight or sound of them .

The presenter on TV who interviewed the Northumbria police woman brought up royal moat who shot and killed 1 and wounded 2 with a shotgun but he never mentioned the FACT that his gun was not held legally ..

More bias reporting !!!!!!!

I am not convinced that the immediate aftermath when 'anti' public opinion is running high is the right time to start pitching in.  Lets face it - something went badly wrong with tragic and catastrophic results.

I suspect that the organisations are biding their time - pending the outcomes of a (hopefully) level headed enquiry.  Once we know the details of what is being proposed, and what it is to achieve - and how it is expected to achieve it - then measured, thoughtful and weighty responses can be made.  A knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk initial response might niot be the best move.

[HantsRob]

Sometimes you need the ****storm to settle before people are willing to listen.

I will put on my rose tinted glasses and say that I hope those discussions start once the understandably strong emotions have settled down, where all parties can have a fair say. 

If you research into some of the records in parliament on things on gun law, you may be surprised how many people are pro-gun. 

I wouldn't mind doing tougher applications such as FAC, although the hassle of asking permission to change guns etc would be quite the inconvenience. That said, I have far worse issues in my world, and would do what it takes. It would also stop impulse buying because something is pretty 

[Rob85]

Anyone hear the woman from Cumbria on talking about it this morning? Basically saying they made recommendations after the Cumbria shootings and the government said they were not needed, so its all the governments fault then? Political point scoring at its finest

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, Lord v said:

Home Office preparing new guidance to be issued with advice to check applicants social media. Apparently this was suggested in the 2019 review but nothing was actually drafted or enacted. 

 

 Hastily drafted guidance can't possibly go badly. 

 

Plymouth shootings: Police asked to review gun licence process - BBC News

This looks to be now involve social media checks, to be fair, I'm surprised that something like this isn't already done, social media is one thing that is looked at in most investigations now. The worry is that someone with nothing to hide gets pulled up over an image that to many will mean nothing but to someone will be something they may not agree with, meaning the licence is rejected. Also why have referees ifthey in the Plymouth case clearly Miss represented the shooter in saying he was okay to have a licence! And if one said they didn't agree was that taken into account. 

His guns were taken from him due to an allegation, if found to be a false one then the police didn't do wrong by handing the guns back. But it sounds more like he should never of been granted in the first instance, but if referees said okay, gp said okay or refused to do the letter due to not getting paid ( that's the big one ) and it was a case of I want one for clay pigeon, that's enough to say yes here is the license

Edited August 16, 2021 by ShootingEgg
Auto correct and fat thumbs

[old'un]

18 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I am not convinced that the immediate aftermath when 'anti' public opinion is running high is the right time to start pitching in.  Lets face it - something went badly wrong with tragic and catastrophic results.

I suspect that the organisations are biding their time - pending the outcomes of a (hopefully) level headed enquiry.  Once we know the details of what is being proposed, and what it is to achieve - and how it is expected to achieve it - then measured, thoughtful and weighty responses can be made.  A knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk initial response might niot be the best move.

So we let the media feed the public with an unbalanced view, no, now is the time to offer a balanced view point, not after the horse as bolted.

Those who shout the loudest before a decision is made tend to influence the outcome.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, old'un said:

So we let the media feed the public with an unbalanced view, no, now is the time to offer a balanced view point, not after the horse as bolted.

Those who shout the loudest before a decision is made tend to influence the outcome.

We will have to agree to differ on that. 

Those who shout loudest often get ignored by those who listen thoughtfully and carefully.  The media will always feed the public a biased account to match what the want to here; it boosts viewing figures/sells papers.

Shouting loudly may work when the wind is blowing in your favour, but at present, the wind isn't in our favour - and letting the immediate jerk reactions pass seems to me quite wise.

[old'un]

22 minutes ago, HantsRob said:

Sometimes you need the sh*tstorm to settle before people are willing to listen.

I will put on my rose tinted glasses and say that I hope those discussions start once the understandably strong emotions have settled down, where all parties can have a fair say. 

If you research into some of the records in parliament on things on gun law, you may be surprised how many people are pro-gun. 

I wouldn't mind doing tougher applications such as FAC, although the hassle of asking permission to change guns etc would be quite the inconvenience. That said, I have far worse issues in my world, and would do what it takes. It would also stop impulse buying because something is pretty 

I for one would not like FAC rules applied to shotguns, what would that achieve?

[ShootingEgg]

I think that first and foremost, the family and friends of those who have been taken far too soon in this world need to be allowed to grieve, having things splashed all over the front pages and in the media about licencing in my mind is insensitive to the people who right this minute need to grieve and process what has happened, and how their lives have been changed for ever.

Changing the way licences are handed out will change nothing unfortunately, people who have in the past done this have gained a licence and have been perfectly normal people who for one reason or another have for unknown reasons turned on other people. This time it has come out that the individual had problems and some very strong and wrong views on life.  That may well be at the fault of the police for not doing more checks, it maybe that the pay for GP letter failed because the time elapsed and the police then assume no letter saying don't so no reason not too. There are so many if bits maybes when it comes to how the license came to be in possession, changing how they are granted won't stop this kind of thing happening.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, steve s×s said:

Yeh that was Rowhule moat another nut job probably on dope 🤪

I think he was referring to Atherton, who held shotguns legally and had them returned to him by Durham police after they were seized. 
 

[old'un]

32 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

I think that first and foremost, the family and friends of those who have been taken far too soon in this world need to be allowed to grieve, having things splashed all over the front pages and in the media about licencing in my mind is insensitive to the people who right this minute need to grieve and process what has happened, and how their lives have been changed for ever.

Changing the way licences are handed out will change nothing unfortunately, people who have in the past done this have gained a licence and have been perfectly normal people who for one reason or another have for unknown reasons turned on other people. This time it has come out that the individual had problems and some very strong and wrong views on life.  That may well be at the fault of the police for not doing more checks, it maybe that the pay for GP letter failed because the time elapsed and the police then assume no letter saying don't so no reason not too. There are so many if bits maybes when it comes to how the license came to be in possession, changing how they are granted won't stop this kind of thing happening.

it goes without saying that the events of the last few days are unbelievably sad for all involved but unfortunately the media and those who wish to see guns removed from public ownership do not play by the rules.

[Lord v]

57 minutes ago, GHE said:

Government departments (and others) have software that will show them everything they want to see, including all deleted content. If it helps to identify people who cause danger to others without causing more problems to the rest of us, then bring it on.

I am sure they do - I am also very sure that they have more important people to subject to that level of scrutiny.

31 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I am not convinced that the immediate aftermath when 'anti' public opinion is running high is the right time to start pitching in.  Lets face it - something went badly wrong with tragic and catastrophic results.

I suspect that the organisations are biding their time - pending the outcomes of a (hopefully) level headed enquiry.  Once we know the details of what is being proposed, and what it is to achieve - and how it is expected to achieve it - then measured, thoughtful and weighty responses can be made.  A knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk initial response might niot be the best move.

Agreed - At this stage its difficult to separate the soundbites that reflect what politicians feel they 'should' say and what they actually think should happen. 

43 minutes ago, old'un said:

I have been watching the news this morning and the only people who are being interviewed are for the most saying the application process for shotguns needs to be tightened, watching the interview with the former Northumbria chief constable Sue Sim, she made it perfectly clear where she stands, she would like shotguns moved to FAC and the application process made a lot harder with fewer guns in the hands of the public.

The annoying part of all this was, there was not one person interviewed that was pro gun ownership, if there was, I did not see/hear them.

Where are our orgs? We need some balance in these interviews.

 

6 minutes ago, old'un said:

I for one would not like FAC rules applied to shotguns, what would that achieve?

What does FAC actually change? Not much that would have prevented this. 

Additional referee, good reason (how would that be administered? Clay grounds aren't run like ranges so how would you prove membership?), extra restrictions on purchase and loaning/using. 

None of which answer this issue. 

[discobob]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

I am not convinced that the immediate aftermath when 'anti' public opinion is running high is the right time to start pitching in.  Lets face it - something went badly wrong with tragic and catastrophic results.

I suspect that the organisations are biding their time - pending the outcomes of a (hopefully) level headed enquiry.  Once we know the details of what is being proposed, and what it is to achieve - and how it is expected to achieve it - then measured, thoughtful and weighty responses can be made.  A knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk initial response might niot be the best move.

Trouble is that by that point all you are doing is shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted and is well over the horizon

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

We will have to agree to differ on that. 

Those who shout loudest often get ignored by those who listen thoughtfully and carefully.  The media will always feed the public a biased account to match what the want to here; it boosts viewing figures/sells papers.

Shouting loudly may work when the wind is blowing in your favour, but at present, the wind isn't in our favour - and letting the immediate jerk reactions pass seems to me quite wise.

The Orgs don't need to be shouting to be making their point though....

 

And I would just like to say that my thoughts go out to all those people and families that have been affected by what has happened in Plymouth and can only say that this incident is not indicative of our community at all, being as these things are, an exception to the norm, however this will not be of any solace to them at this time.

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, discobob said:

Trouble is that by that point all you are doing is shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted and is well over the horizon

In this sad instance - the horse bolted when the incident happened.  It is inevitable that there will be an 'anti gun' reaction to the tragic events.  We all have the reaction that this perpetrator should never have had a gun.  But now when feelings are running high and people are looking for 'reasons and people/things to blame' if I can put it that way is not the time to be loudly supporting the safety and good record overall of firearms ownership.  Just my view.

[discobob]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

In this sad instance - the horse bolted when the incident happened.  It is inevitable that there will be an 'anti gun' reaction to the tragic events.  We all have the reaction that this perpetrator should never have had a gun.  But now when feelings are running high and people are looking for 'reasons and people/things to blame' if I can put it that way is not the time to be loudly supporting the safety and good record overall of firearms ownership.  Just my view.

I see your viewpoint and it is a valid one - but not saying anything at all makes the community look guilty en-mass - that is my viewpoint - who is right - nobody knows!

But what has happened is wrong, and that is a viewpoint which I believe everyone on this forum is fully behind

[JohnfromUK]

15 minutes ago, discobob said:

but not saying anything at all makes the community look guilty en-mass

I can understand that completely and I to some extent feel the same - but what to say at this point?

• Criticise the way in which the police have handled this - and you will be seen as guilty of deflecting blame
• Defend firearms ownership - and you will be reminded people are dead because of it
• Point out that these things are inevitable - and actually the UK has a good record - and you will be told that any death/incident is a bad record
• Point out lots of firearms are and have been since they were invented held 100% safely - and you will be told that if there were no guns - there would be no shootings.

These are the sort of reactions that can and would arise from the anti firearms people - who at this point in time have the public's ear - which is why a measure of restraint in what is said and when it is said is the sensitive approach at this point

[hodge911]

3 hours ago, old'un said:

So we let the media feed the public with an unbalanced view, no, now is the time to offer a balanced view point, not after the horse as bolted.

Those who shout the loudest before a decision is made tend to influence the outcome.

Agree with that mate.... 

Since this attrocius incident happened the media has broadcast a one sided bias view and took every opertunity to hammer home the fact that the gunman held a licence.

And this morning the TV presenter brought up the roal moat shootings to the ex Northumbria police official but never once did either point out the truth that his firearm was an illegally held one and he DID NOT hold a licence.....

 

[Scully]

15 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

How the hell can you consider that being the right way for the police to manage a person's right to hold a firearms licence?  If a licence holder has got into any kind of violence-related trouble with the police such as this bloke had, it should be ticket gone for good, end of story.  That's why the UK has experienced only a handful of tragic incidents in living memory involving licenced firearms holders.

That's also why we all regularly comment on certain situations to the effect of "it's not worth losing my ticket over".

What message does it send out when a firearms licence holder commits acts of violence and subsequently overtly displays mental instability, but is then given back his right to own guns??!!! 

The system works, when implemented properly... and when not implemented properly you get the results: Plymouth 2021.  This is 100% a problem with the relevant licencing force and 0% a problem with the shooting community.  but you can bet your last button we'll get shafted once again.

I really do hope that BASC et al are working double time to counter the inevitable media backlash against legitimate gun owners.  But I bet we'll get the same feeble service we're now used to receiving from those who "represent" us.  I genuinely hope to eat humble pie on that last statement.

Our shooting orgs will no doubt respond in time, and indeed BASC are monitoring this thread. 

[mossy835]

6 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

How many will just delete their social media accounts?

 

 

this

im not on any of that rubbish.so nothing to hide.

[Vince Green]

6 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

We will have to agree to differ on that. 

Those who shout loudest often get ignored by those who listen thoughtfully and carefully.  The media will always feed the public a biased account to match what the want to here; it boosts viewing figures/sells papers.

Shouting loudly may work when the wind is blowing in your favour, but at present, the wind isn't in our favour - and letting the immediate jerk reactions pass seems to me quite wise.

This

After Dunblane people tried to present a balanced argument about shooting as a sport to the media and they were edited and selectively mis quoted to look like a bunch of morons

It did a lot more harm than good

[PJ M]

Jake Davison’s mind set was to kill people and to kill them indiscriminately. If he had been denied access to a gun he would have used another implement such as a knife, hammer, axe or even a car.

But I have no doubt that that anti- gun lobby will use Plymouth, as they did Hungerford, as an excuse for even tighter gun controls. And fuelled by the media you can be sure that the politicians will act if they think it will gain them popularity.  But it will not be fair, just or right.  

It could be argued that the home office’s amendment to the firearms regulations last year, requiring an applicant to provide a form to be signed off by their GP, highlighting any mental issues, including anxiety and mild depression, may well turn out to have been a contributing factor in the Plymouth killings. This amendment actively discourages those who shoot from going to see their doctors to seek help for mental illness, for fear of losing their licences. But you can be sure the authorities will play that one down.

You cannot legislate against insanity. Davison is dead. That, tragic though the incident was, should be the end of the matter, but of course it won’t.

 

PJM

[discobob]

3 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

This

After Dunblane people tried to present a balanced argument about shooting as a sport to the media and they were edited and selectively mis quoted to look like a bunch of morons

It did a lot more harm than good

I wasn't part of the 'community' back then so I didn't see it - in fact I was serving in the Military at the time - but for the life of me I can't remember what the thoughts were in that community

[udderlyoffroad]

In the wake of this atrocity, I find it truly astonishing that people on here are already voluntarily suggesting yet more restrictions in the hope that will somehow placate the anti-gun movement, viz. SGC to FAC process, or giving up pump-actions.  Why?  I genuinely struggle to comprehend their thought process.  What, precisely, do they hope to achieve by this?

In any case, It is far too soon to draw any conclusions. 

My pet theory is that somewhere between the massive disincentive for shooters to seek help for mental health issues, and the NHS' transformation into the National Covid Service, opportunities were missed to interdict this individual.  But it is just that, a theory, and possibly my own confirmation bias as I see 'facts' emerging.  But when you have the perpetrator's family saying the begged the NHS for help and were told to shove off....

Anyway.  I know this will not be popular, but I also feel not just for the victim's families, but also for the officer who returned his firearms.  What hell on earth he must be currently enduring.

37 minutes ago, mossy835 said:

 

 

this

im not on any of that rubbish.so nothing to hide.

You are either being deliberately or genuinely naive.  PW is social media.

The 'nothing to hide' argument is  total fallacy that has been debunked so many times, I'm surprised people still open themselves up for criticism by invoking it.

[old'un]

27 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

This

After Dunblane people tried to present a balanced argument about shooting as a sport to the media and they were edited and selectively mis quoted to look like a bunch of morons

It did a lot more harm than good

if what you say is true we might as-well hand our guns over now as any defence in the future will be stifled out by edited interviews and we dont want to look like a bunch of morons defending our gun ownerships do we.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

14 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

In the wake of this atrocity, I find it truly astonishing that people on here are already voluntarily suggesting yet more restrictions in the hope that will somehow placate the anti-gun movement, viz. SGC to FAC process, or giving up pump-actions.  Why?  I genuinely struggle to comprehend their thought process.  What, precisely, do they hope to achieve by this?

Exactly.

[Bobba]

Reported in The Telegraph today is that Davison, who had autism, ADHD, and depression, went to Mount Tamar School, a special needs school for children who cannot be dealt with in mainstream education. Jonathan Williams, one of his teachers there, said that “he would have had an education health care (EHC) plan, which should have seen him monitored by the authorities until the age of 25. Someone simply didn’t do their homework on the firearms certificate issue, he warned. The so-called multi-agency approach to safeguarding appears to have failed.”

In such circumstances it does seem to raise a question on the quality of background checks in his SGC grant procedures in the first instance. Perhaps it was one of those cases where the police received no reply to their GP referral so issued the SGC by default. Only time will tell, if at all.