Changes to gun licensing

[Fellside]

3 minutes ago, wymberley said:

A little humour should not detract from your post which was spot on.

👍

[wymberley]

Now for something really funny; SJS, Serco and G4S have been asked to tender.

[Scully]

25 minutes ago, Sporting5 said:

At this point your comments aren't really relevant; I do have an idea how spot checks add value, but I'm saying that that's already well covered by the decision to already be doing them (forward your questions and musings to the local police forces or authorities that already do them if you want).

This appears to just be hot air at this point, not much point replying to your good self now, appears the points are being missed left, right and centre - you're free to have the last word if you must mate 

Ok, thanks. 
My comments are entirely valid. You’ve raised some suggestions which clearly haven’t been thought through. If you had any idea how randomised spot checks ( or any other ideas you may have on making the world a safer place regarding firearms ownership ) would work in relationship to preventing another shooting, you’d have explained it. 
The criteria for making legal firearms ownership as safe as is practically possible, already exists. 
The reasons this individual slipped through the system is yet to be established, but from what is currently known it would appear existing  legislation wasn’t at fault. 

 

[Lord v]

1 hour ago, Rob85 said:

Regarding the banded system you talk about. In northern ireland we have a banded system for rifles, basically small,medium and large quarry rifles... or rabbit,fox,deer really. If you own a .243 you can do a one on one off variation to get a .308 if you so desire. Is that what you were thinking?

Funny though when talking about the destructive power/capabilities of rifles the banded system classes a .22lr in the same class as a .17hmr and .22wmr.

I really think you could be staring down the road of the NI style system where they are all classed as firearms and no shotgun certs. For the whole of NI everything is run centrally from the main branch, the only thing local areas have is the FEO who does the local work like cabinet checks.

Basically yes, but without the variation process. ie, on grant you state what you want it for say one of the following: 

1) Control of small ground game inc. pests

2) Control of medium/large ground game inc. pests

3) Control of Avian species inc. pests

4) Sporting range shooting short - medium

5) Sporting range shooting - long range 

6) Sporting shooting (other) 

7) Historical collection

Each category comes with the required evidence to support and a set of 'accepted' calibres. obviously as a shotgun can cover some of these as well as cf and rf rifles then we would be looking at the removal of a S1/S2 which would mean a large change. But realistically if the reason you give is the control of small ground game, are you any less trust worthy with a .22rf than a 12 bore? The predominant risk to the public is mental health, not one of competency. 

Within the 'accepted calibres' you can buy, trade, sell whatever you want without applying for a variation. You still notify the police of any of this. Meaning if they have concerns someone is amassing a large number of firearms or have concerns over security they will know and be able to address this. 

If you want something outside of the accepted calibres for your reason then you have apply for a variation and supply supporting evidence of why you need that.    

 

All hypothetical anyway and nothing like what will happen!

Edited August 17, 2021 by Lord v

[Fellside]

39 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Now for something really funny; SJS, Serco and G4S have been asked to tender.

Krikey….?!

[old'un]

53 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Now for something really funny; SJS, Serco and G4S have been asked to tender.

“Funny” in that your post is a joke?

[Dave-G]

58 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Now for something really funny; SJS, Serco and G4S have been asked to tender.

You forgot that joke outfit - the SIA

Edited August 17, 2021 by Dave-G

[wymberley]

8 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

You forgot that joke outfit - the SIA

Is it a role of the Security Industry Authority?

[Dave-G]

10 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Is it a role of the Security Industry Authority?

Not yet lol - but these are an org that thinks a roaming patrolman/security guard checking for breaches into unattended property need to know how to ask someone to leave a pub and administer first aid are two of the silly parts of their 'have to pass training course'

Edited August 17, 2021 by Dave-G

[Gordon R]

Quote

So I've apparently 'evaded the question' but in the same breath there are suggestions I've 'come up with'?

You have mastered the art of posting a lot, but saying nothing. Just let it go.

[Old farrier]

59 minutes ago, Lord v said:

Basically yes, but without the variation process. ie, on grant you state what you want it for say one of the following: 

1) Control of small ground game inc. pests

2) Control of medium/large ground game inc. pests

3) Control of Avian species inc. pests

4) Sporting range shooting short - medium

5) Sporting range shooting - long range 

6) Sporting shooting (other) 

7) Historical collection

Each category comes with the required evidence to support and a set of 'accepted' calibres. obviously as a shotgun can cover some of these as well as cf and rf rifles then we would be looking at the removal of a S1/S2 which would mean a large change. But realistically if the reason you give is the control of small ground game, are you any less trust worthy with a .22rf than a 12 bore? The predominant risk to the public is mental health, not one of competency. 

Within the 'accepted calibres' you can buy, trade, sell whatever you want without applying for a variation. You still notify the police of any of this. Meaning if they have concerns someone is amassing a large number of firearms or have concerns over security they will know and be able to address this. 

If you want something outside of the accepted calibres for your reason then you have apply for a variation and supply supporting evidence of why you need that.    

 

All hypothetical anyway and nothing like what will happen!

What’s a large number?

is someone more dangerous with one gun or with 2…..3…or 4 

your list above dosent include clay shooting or any of the tactical shooting and I’m assuming that if I did all the disciplines I would be considered to have the right amount not amassing a large amount 

the current regulations for shotgun and firearms licenses arnt perfect and loose some things in local interpretation of the rules however there will always be some one slip through the net 

personally feel there is no need for anymore changes in legally held gun ownership the variation requirement gives the flo the opportunity to reassess you if you requested to change your firearm which I think is a good thing 

[Lord v]

16 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

What’s a large number?

is someone more dangerous with one gun or with 2…..3…or 4 

your list above dosent include clay shooting or any of the tactical shooting and I’m assuming that if I did all the disciplines I would be considered to have the right amount not amassing a large amount 

the current regulations for shotgun and firearms licenses arnt perfect and loose some things in local interpretation of the rules however there will always be some one slip through the net 

personally feel there is no need for anymore changes in legally held gun ownership the variation requirement gives the flo the opportunity to reassess you if you requested to change your firearm which I think is a good thing 

I believe the current guidance starts asking for enhanced security around the 10 mark. That wouldn't be a wholly unreasonable starting point. You are correct that someone isn't necessarily more dangerous with more guns, but as my proposals would remove S1/S2 and allow essentially unrestricted trade some sort of check balance would not seem unreasonable. 

They would be in under 6) of Sporting - other as these would largely be shotguns, albeit of varying capacity. (Clay, PSG etc) I wouldn't create a huge number of categories for each sport as administering it gets tricky. You may need one other category of (Other - user specified) to cover the odd esoteric things not covered elsewhere, or handguns for protection (NI only). 

And yes if you had all 7 categories then you would expect at least least 7 firearms. But if you had one category and 20 firearms someone asking a question or popping around for a chat may not be a bad thing. Its all a question of scale. 

I agree - practically I don't think there is much that needs to change but I thought I would indulge my imagination as to what my overhaul of the system would look like. 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Lord v

[Sporting5]

20 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

You have mastered the art of posting a lot, but saying nothing. Just let it go.

Are you still rambling on? Thought this had finished ages ago.

[Newbie to this]

3 hours ago, Sporting5 said:

 Were there any red flags before his SGC was granted? If not, it's near impossible for them to tell he wasn't suitable

 

[Sporting5]

Just now, Newbie to this said:

 

Thanks for confirming, didn't see that. An oversight and a half then.

[Old farrier]

9 minutes ago, Lord v said:

I believe the current guidance starts asking for enhanced security around the 10 mark. That wouldn't be a wholly unreasonable starting point. You are correct that someone isn't necessarily more dangerous with more guns, but as my proposals would remove S1/S2 and allow essentially unrestricted trade some sort of check balance would not seem unreasonable. 

They would be in under 6) of Sporting - other as these would largely be shotguns, albeit of varying capacity. (Clay, PSG etc) I wouldn't create a huge number of categories for each sport as administering it gets tricky. 

And yes if you had all 7 categories then you would expect at least least 7 firearms. But if you had one category and 20 firearms someone asking a question or popping around for a chat may not be a bad thing. Its all a question of scale. 

I agree - practically I don't think there is much that needs to change but I thought I would indulge my imagination as to what my overhaul of the system would look like. 

 

 

 

But we have this already the show good reason on the firearms application for the guns your requesting and you would be lucky to get two for each category 

 

appreciate your indulging your imagination but realistically there’s more thought needed 

[old'un]

48 minutes ago, Lord v said:

I believe the current guidance starts asking for enhanced security around the 10 mark. That wouldn't be a wholly unreasonable starting point. You are correct that someone isn't necessarily more dangerous with more guns, but as my proposals would remove S1/S2 and allow essentially unrestricted trade some sort of check balance would not seem unreasonable. 

They would be in under 6) of Sporting - other as these would largely be shotguns, albeit of varying capacity. (Clay, PSG etc) I wouldn't create a huge number of categories for each sport as administering it gets tricky. You may need one other category of (Other - user specified) to cover the odd esoteric things not covered elsewhere, or handguns for protection (NI only). 

And yes if you had all 7 categories then you would expect at least least 7 firearms. But if you had one category and 20 firearms someone asking a question or popping around for a chat may not be a bad thing. Its all a question of scale. 

I agree - practically I don't think there is much that needs to change but I thought I would indulge my imagination as to what my overhaul of the system would look like. 

 

 

 

One easy step the government could take is to ban all guns from public ownership, doubt it would worry them or the public.

[CharlieT]

1 minute ago, old'un said:

One easy step the government could take is to ban all guns from public ownership, doubt it would worry them or the public.

Splendid idea. After all, banning handguns certainly put a stop to their use in drive by shooting.

[old'un]

6 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

Splendid idea. After all, banning handguns certainly put a stop to their use in drive by shooting.

its not an idea I agree with and doubt it will happen but, if tomorrow the government announced it was banning all public ownership of guns I doubt there is much we could do to stop it, plus I think they would get the backing from a high percentage of the general public.

[CharlieT]

1 minute ago, old'un said:

its not an idea I agree with and doubt it will happen but, if tomorrow the government announced it was banning all public ownership of guns I doubt there is much we could do to stop it, plus I think they would get the backing from a high percentage of the general public.

As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree entirely.

[Gordon R]

There might be an outcry from the many thousands of people put out of work

[Lord v]

48 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

But we have this already the show good reason on the firearms application for the guns your requesting and you would be lucky to get two for each category 

 

appreciate your indulging your imagination but realistically there’s more thought needed 

Yes, but as my massively hypothetical system that I have come up with during my tea break replaces the entire current system there will be replication of some existing elements as what we have is not complete garbage.

But It’s ok I will be publishing my full white paper in a couple of months time. So I’m sure the government will be knocking on my door to ask my advice any day now.

[ditchman]

G4S..........dosnt or did Teresa Mays have some connection with them..

SERCO......dosnt  Nicolas Soames and some one else in Parliament have some conection with this company ?

[old'un]

15 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

There might be an outcry from the many thousands of people put out of work

Doubt it would worry the government, it didn't when they banned hand guns or when thousands were made jobless with the closer of big industries.

Plus the gun trade and shooting related businesses have lost thousands of jobs over the years and no one bated an eyelid, just look at what's left of the Birmingham gun trade.

[Old farrier]

33 minutes ago, Lord v said:

Yes, but as my massively hypothetical system that I have come up with during my tea break replaces the entire current system there will be replication of some existing elements as what we have is not complete garbage.

But It’s ok I will be publishing my full white paper in a couple of months time. So I’m sure the government will be knocking on my door to ask my advice any day now.

I look forward to reading it 😊👍