Should police land checks be scrapped?

[Zoli 12 guage]

1 hour ago, Smudger687 said:

It is mathematically certain that for as long as people have access to guns, at least one of them will use those guns to kill someone. Even if the probability of a gun owner using those guns to kill someone else was 1 in a million, we'd have more shootings in the UK using legal guns than we currently do. 

If your criteria is "we need to be controlled because we don't want people getting shot" then I'm afraid there is no limit to the amount of control that is needed to meet that criteria - all guns will need to be taken, from everyone, legally held or not. 

Most people don't kill other people because they don't want to, not because they don't have the means to. I'm disappointed that other gun owners still subscribe to the nonsensical rhetoric that the anti-gunners spout. 

what is it with you and your agenda that i, personally want "us" as a group of shooters "to be controlled even more than we are now?

what I do want are the rights of a group,that is in the minority AND not well respected OR understood by 99.9% of the UK population (this is not the U.S where gun ownership is prevalent and "a right" ) to be protected and not eroded by the slackening of rules (that for me anyway have served me well) that could possibly and be likely to result in more unsafe decisions to be made,by novice shooters that will impinge on,bearing in mind that more than likely the next government will be labour and totally anti gun,my hobby making the already "tough" rules even tougher or resulting in a complete ban on firearms in the UK.

what I want is for "us" as a collective is to have our rights un affected and not toughened up by a new law that,if it goes mammaries up can seriously affect firearms ownership in this country and doesn't achieve anything imo as,after a few years from getting your ticket and gaining some experience,you can basically self certify your own permission anyway.

 

6 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

What does you raising all this have to do with the point of this thread, that is the removal of land checks?

Yes it's my fault, I attempted to point out your factually incorrect statements, such as you have to do something illegal before the police will confiscate your firearms. Like the fule I am.

Again, how would land checks help in any of the examples you cite?

see my next post 

[Zoli 12 guage]

33 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

what is it with you and your agenda that i, personally want "us" as a group of shooters "to be controlled even more than we are now?

what I do want are the rights of a group,that is in the minority AND not well respected OR understood by 99.9% of the UK population (this is not the U.S where gun ownership is prevalent and "a right" ) to be protected and not eroded by the slackening of rules (that for me anyway have served me well) that could possibly and be likely to result in more unsafe decisions to be made,by novice shooters that will impinge on,bearing in mind that more than likely the next government will be labour and totally anti gun,my hobby making the already "tough" rules even tougher or resulting in a complete ban on firearms in the UK.

what I want is for "us" as a collective is to have our rights un affected and not toughened up by a new law that,if it goes mammaries up can seriously affect firearms ownership in this country and doesn't achieve anything imo as,after a few years from getting your ticket and gaining some experience,you can basically self certify your own permission anyway.

 

see my next post 

as an aside to this,who that are contributing have either or all of...................................

an open ticket

some kind of shooting/hunting accreditation (such as DSC 1 and/or 2 etc)

club/range safety/RO/instructor etc

 

[Smudger687]

28 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

what is it with you and your agenda that i, personally want "us" as a group of shooters "to be controlled even more than we are now?

what I do want are the rights of a group,that is in the minority AND not well respected OR understood by 99.9% of the UK population (this is not the U.S where gun ownership is prevalent and "a right" ) to be protected and not eroded by the slackening of rules (that for me anyway have served me well) that could possibly and be likely to result in more unsafe decisions to be made,by novice shooters that will impinge on,bearing in mind that more than likely the next government will be labour and totally anti gun,my hobby making the already "tough" rules even tougher or resulting in a complete ban on firearms in the UK.

I don't have an agenda, I made some comments that you took issue with, and I've responded. I do think you've given the game away though; you like the rules because they've benefited you - fair enough, you're alright Jack. At least now we know why you're not in favour of making it easier for others. 

 

[Zoli 12 guage]

20 minutes ago, Smudger687 said:

I don't have an agenda, I made some comments that you took issue with, and I've responded. I do think you've given the game away though; you like the rules because they've benefited you - fair enough, you're alright Jack. At least now we know why you're not in favour of making it easier for others. 

 

I don't have an issue and

it's not a case of "i'm all right jack" it's a case of i'm worried that it will be a case of "i'm not alright jack" along with a shed load more that would be impacted by "stupid and ill  judged shooting decisions" made by novice shooters given carte blanche to make decisions that they're not experienced enough to do.

i've seen enough in my time to be able to comment on this👍

have you 🤔

or are you just another that just can't wait to get an open ticket?

[Wymondley]

26 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

it's not a case of "i'm all right jack" it's a case of i'm worried that it will be a case of "i'm not alright jack" along with a shed load more that would be impacted by "stupid and ill  judged shooting decisions" made by novice shooters given carte blanche to make decisions that they're not experienced enough to do.

So would you be in favour of compulsory  training for all new FAC applicants?

Just because land is cleared for a particular calibre, it isn't going to stop an inexperienced shooter taking a poor shot, training might though.

[udderlyoffroad]

So, in conclusion, you do indeed like pointless procedures like land checks; which once again will do nothing to mitigate any of the circumstances you describe. But you wish to hang onto them because the next government will be labour & muh anti gun

Maybe if you cited an example where land checks actually helped prevent some sort of incident , it would help your case.

I suspect you can’t though, because they don’t. We’re all only one trigger pull away from tragedy, and someone in an office having approved the land as ok for .223 but not .243 has 7/8ths of sweet FA to do with whether you take a safe shot.

Once again, we appear to be the only nation in the world to bother with them - not even Scotland has them & they otherwise have the same system.* Does that not tell you something?
 

*deer legal calibres/seasons notwithstanding 

Edited May 31 by udderlyoffroad

[Zoli 12 guage]

9 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

So, in conclusion, you do indeed like pointless procedures like land checks; which once again will do nothing to mitigate any of the circumstances you describe. But you wish to hang onto them because the next government will be labour & muh anti gun

Maybe if you cited an example where land checks actually helped prevent some sort of incident , it would help your case.

I suspect you can’t though, because they don’t. We’re all only one trigger pull away from tragedy, and someone in an office having approved the land as ok for .223 but not .243 has 7/8ths of sweet FA to do with whether you take a safe shot.

Once again, we appear to be the only nation in the world to bother with them - not even Scotland has them & they otherwise have the same system.* Does that not tell you something?
 

*deer legal calibres/seasons notwithstanding 

like i have said previously,the population of jockland is far less dense than England.

the country is approximately 60% the size of England with a population of about 5.4 million compared to Englands 70 ish million.

the main point i'm making is not whether it's deemed safe for .223 but not a .243 BUT whether it's deemed safe for a .22 air/.22LR or HMR because of land topography/lack of backstops and/or land physical size but some "novice" decides it's safe to let bang with a .308/6.5x55/.270 because now he can and the excrement hits the fan when a dog walker in the wood next door cops one in the ribs.

a bit of an extreme example maybe but that's how accidents happen.

try asking the young farmer who got shot dead earlier this year because he got mistaken for a fox if he's ok with that "accident"

i've seen a shooter put a .308 round over a 15 foot bank/backstop at a shooting range near me because "it was a mistake/accident" and his finger just caught the trigger and he'd not engaged the safety.

these 2 examples were both caused by lack of experience but once that trigger is pulled it's literally game shot.

[London Best]

11 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

as an aside to this,who that are contributing have either or all of...................................

an open ticket

some kind of shooting/hunting accreditation (such as DSC 1 and/or 2 etc)

club/range safety/RO/instructor etc

 

What I would prefer to see is the land checks being carried out by someone who actually knows what he is talking about. In my experience this is very rarely the case today, and never has been.

In answer to the quoted question, I do hold an “open ticket”, since 1992, and have held DSC 1 and DSC2 since 2001. I have no range officer qualifications as I have never been on a target rifle range in my life.

[Zoli 12 guage]

27 minutes ago, London Best said:

What I would prefer to see is the land checks being carried out by someone who actually knows what he is talking about. In my experience this is very rarely the case today, and never has been.

In answer to the quoted question, I do hold an “open ticket”, since 1992, and have held DSC 1 and DSC2 since 2001. I have no range officer qualifications as I have never been on a target rifle range in my life.

but do you agree that land assessment does/should do what it's designed to do,when it is done correctly.

what i mean by that is,as a generalisation,500 acres is much safer to shoot over than 5 acres,

so a CF or RF calibre will (depending on the topography) always be safer to shoot on the larger area of land.

on a smaller area it will nearly always require any shots to be taken from an elevated position unless there are natural adequate embankments to act as backstops.

[London Best]

33 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

but do you agree that land assessment does/should do what it's designed to do,when it is done correctly.

what i mean by that is,as a generalisation,500 acres is much safer to shoot over than 5 acres,

so a CF or RF calibre will (depending on the topography) always be safer to shoot on the larger area of land.

on a smaller area it will nearly always require any shots to be taken from an elevated position unless there are natural adequate embankments to act as backstops.

Even on a larger area it should be backstops, backstops, backstops. Larger areas do not necessarily make them safe. 500 acres is really not a large area with a Centrefire rile. 630 acres is only 1 mile square, so from any point a .22LR is capable of leaving it with a careless shot.

[Zoli 12 guage]

2 hours ago, London Best said:

Even on a larger area it should be backstops, backstops, backstops. Larger areas do not necessarily make them safe. 500 acres is really not a large area with a Centrefire rile. 630 acres is only 1 mile square, so from any point a .22LR is capable of leaving it with a careless shot.

exactly👍

but the point i was eluding to was that "invariably" you will have more chance of getting the bigger area of land passed as suitable assuming backstops etc.

[wymberley]

16 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

as an aside to this,who that are contributing have either or all of...................................

an open ticket

some kind of shooting/hunting accreditation (such as DSC 1 and/or 2 etc)

club/range safety/RO/instructor etc

 

I'm slowing down now and have been for a while, but this is me.

I never did have a closed ticket; it's always been open. Which is the only point directly relating to the topic. But:

I was a BASC HEO, HFO and SSSC, CPSA RSO and a HM's RMs (no I wasn't) qualified conducting officer-clay pigeon ranges.

I only mention this as evidence that I believe that Zoli has a point. The final two qualifications were a requirement - the penultimate one necessary to gain the last - but the others were voluntary and hopefully are an indication that I think that training and qualifications are nothing to be afraid of. In our case it should be voluntary even though it's not directly altogether simply for our benefit. Anyone trying to get recreational shooting totally banned is going to find it difficult. A more effective approach would be to legislate for some form of qualification applicable to a SGC and FAC as appropriate on safety grounds and which would also apply to essential vermin control. This would then put us with the difficult task of having to fight any such action when on the face of it it appears to be eminently sensible.

Our future is in our hands. It's up to us to ensure that it stays that way because no one else is going to do it for us.

[Sweet11-87]

I can see both sides to the argument, and in a perfect world id like to see UK citizens have the freedoms seen in other parts of the world as far as gun and shooting goes. But its not a perfect world and so the decisions and opinions need to be made from where we are not where wed like it be. Lets be honest shooting/shooters arnt as popular or accepted as elsewhere in the world and at any moment 1 incident can trigger big change in law. the incidents in 1987 an 1996 both saw the complete banning of ownership of  center fire semi autos and handguns, and the incident in 2021 seen the attempt to ban pump action shotguns.  when the go to response in the wake of these incidents is complete prohibition i think its in the uk Shooters best interest to want to safe guard what they have.

so yes i guess i maybe do carry an "im alright jack" mentality but when ive passed/cleared all the stringent requirements to gain an open ticket what benefit to me is it to now lower the bar and subsequently open avenues to allow access to others who may not have proven as fit?.  its not a case of i dont want them too its more a case of im concerned i may be negativity effected by the actions of others.

i like others above have said have never had an issue getting anything ive requested when ive provided good reason, qualifications, proof of use and memberships

[Smudger687]

1 minute ago, Sweet11-87 said:

I can see both sides to the argument, and in a perfect world id like to see UK citizens have the freedoms seen in other parts of the world as far as gun and shooting goes. But its not a perfect world and so the decisions and opinions need to be made from where we are not where wed like it be. Lets be honest shooting/shooters arnt as popular or accepted as elsewhere in the world and at any moment 1 incident can trigger big change in law. the incidents in 1987 an 1996 both saw the complete banning of ownership of  center fire semi autos and handguns, and the incident in 2021 seen the attempt to ban pump action shotguns.  when the go to response in the wake of these incidents is complete prohibition i think its in the uk Shooters best interest to want to safe guard what they have.

so yes i guess i maybe do carry an "im alright jack" mentality but when ive passed/cleared all the stringent requirements to gain an open ticket what benefit to me is it to now lower the bar and subsequently open avenues to allow access to others who may not have proven as fit?.  its not a case of i dont want them too its more a case of im concerned i may be negativity effected by the actions of others.

i like others above have said have never had an issue getting anything ive requested when ive provided good reason, qualifications, proof of use and memberships

I'll say this again, because this attitude is understandable and common, but mistaken and ultimately very unhelpful.

For as long as people have access to any object at all, be it cars, knives or guns, at least one of those people will use said object to kill someone else with it over a long enough timescale. It is mathematically certain.

There is no amount of gun control that will ever stop this from happening, save for taking all guns from everyone. In which case they'll just use a different object to do the job and no lives were saved, and we've all lost our guns.

If any one gun owner had a 1 in a million chance of killing someone else with their guns in any one year, anyone with a rational mind would say they are an extremely low risk to public safety, and would have no issue with them owning a gun. 

Yet in a country of around 600k gun owners, each of them having a 1 in a million chance, the odds of at least one person being killed with a legally held gun in any one year is about 45%...or roughly one such shooting every 2.2 years. You CANNOT safeguard what you have, the mathematics don't allow it. The mindset and strategy of appeasement hasn't gotten us anywhere, and won't get us anywhere in future either. People berate the NRA over in the States but they at least know how this game works.

[London Best]

Some posts have compared the U.K.’s strict restrictions to the rest of the World. 
Look at the U.K.’s safety record in shooting sports compared to the rest of the World. 
We in the U.K. are doing something right somewhere, and I for one don’t want every Tom, Rich or Harry having unrestricted access to guns.

[Sweet11-87]

19 minutes ago, Smudger687 said:

I'll say this again, because this attitude is understandable and common, but mistaken and ultimately very unhelpful.

For as long as people have access to any object at all, be it cars, knives or guns, at least one of those people will use said object to kill someone else with it over a long enough timescale. It is mathematically certain.

There is no amount of gun control that will ever stop this from happening, save for taking all guns from everyone. In which case they'll just use a different object to do the job and no lives were saved, and we've all lost our guns.

If any one gun owner had a 1 in a million chance of killing someone else with their guns in any one year, anyone with a rational mind would say they are an extremely low risk to public safety, and would have no issue with them owning a gun. 

Yet in a country of around 600k gun owners, each of them having a 1 in a million chance, the odds of at least one person being killed with a legally held gun in any one year is about 45%...or roughly one such shooting every 2.2 years. You CANNOT safeguard what you have, the mathematics don't allow it. The mindset and strategy of appeasement hasn't gotten us anywhere, and won't get us anywhere in future either. People berate the NRA over in the States but they at least know how this game works.

couldn't agree with you more what you say is sound and makes sense but sadly that's not the tune we dance to, like you say cars and knives kill but the vase majority of people in the uk are pro car and pro knife as they have them, need them and are common place in the day to day lives, guns arnt and so anti gun legislation picks up steam really fast.

honestly id love nothing more than for shooting in the uk to be in a robust enough position for the positives of this decision to fend off the inevitable negatives i really would because like i said in a perfect world im well behind it, but sadly  i feel shooting is in to precarious a position to be making any laws or legislation more lax.

in a nut shell im behind anything that gets more people into shooting to increase our numbers but not at the expense of lowering the bar for safety or risking what we have left

and the maths for me are simply the lower the bar for access the less qualified the people, the less qualified the people the higher the chance error

 

Edited June 1 by Sweet11-87

[Smudger687]

14 minutes ago, London Best said:

Some posts have compared the U.K.’s strict restrictions to the rest of the World. 
Look at the U.K.’s safety record in shooting sports compared to the rest of the World. 
We in the U.K. are doing something right somewhere, and I for one don’t want every Tom, Rich or Harry having unrestricted access to guns.

We have so few shootings because there's so few guns, much like how the rainforests of Brazil have so few car accidents. It's not rocket science. 

We do have a lot of stabbings though, using anything from knives, to machetes, to screwdrivers, even sharpened bicycle spokes. Are you suggesting we should ban those next? 

What gun laws have done is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding types, which is exactly what the government wants. 

[London Best]

I don’t know any relative numbers, but it seems to me that over about the last twenty years the number of quarry shooters toting a Centrefire rifle has increased out of all proportion. For the forty years before that, other than deer stalkers in Scotland, it was unusual to meet many people who had such a thing. (I am not including full bore target shooters in this)

[Zoli 12 guage]

it doesn't matter how many or how few shooters there are in the UK,as far as Joe Public is concerned they would be more welcoming to Jimmy Saville than to any person toting a firearm.

FACT👍

that is why loosening the already stringent rules that we already have would do us no favours at all.

[Smudger687]

13 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

it doesn't matter how many or how few shooters there are in the UK,as far as Joe Public is concerned they would be more welcoming to Jimmy Saville than to any person toting a firearm.

FACT👍

that is why loosening the already stringent rules that we already have would do us no favours at all.

And your grand strategy is to appease these rabid anti-gunners? The same people that believe that nobody should own a gun?

Seems awfully shortsighted to me. 

[Zoli 12 guage]

1 minute ago, Smudger687 said:

And your grand strategy is to appease these rabid anti-gunners? The same people that believe that nobody should own a gun?

Seems awfully shortsighted to me. 

well what would you suggest 🤔

beating them into our way of thinking🙄

you'll never alter their opinion so it's best not give 'em any extra fuel to chuck on their fire.

SO,

to recap, it's best to not loosen the already stringent laws/rules that are in place now,thereby, hopefully not giving them any rope to hang us all.

[oowee]

There is not a problem with legaly owned firearms in uk. Land checks do nothing to improve or maintain that situation. They are simply an unnecessary waste of time. 

[Zoli 12 guage]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

There is not a problem with legaly owned firearms in uk. Land checks do nothing to improve or maintain that situation. They are simply an unnecessary waste of time. 

oh right then👍

let's just let everybody with a RF/CF rifle let bang in their gardens then👍😎

[oowee]

Just now, Zoli 12 guage said:

oh right then👍

let's just let everybody with a RF/CF rifle let bang in their gardens then👍😎

And the good reason would be? 

[Smudger687]

1 minute ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

oh right then👍

let's just let everybody with a RF/CF rifle let bang in their gardens then👍😎

People with shotguns can already do this.

But they don't.

Care to explain why?