Government Consultation - Shotgun Licensing

[johnnytheboy]

@Broch What reason shouldnt your neighbours have them?

 

[Broch]

Well, one guy is known to be abusive to his family and has anger issues. In one minor road issue (single track roads here) he was threatening and raging at the third party for no reason; he often drives whilst inebriated in a truck that is not MOT'd or taxed.

Another one, walking back from a local shoot took the path through our garden with his gun closed. When I asked him to open the breech whilst walking through my property he pointed the gun at me declaring it was OK because it wasn't loaded. Six months later he was sectioned.

Chatting to the Firearms Officer at last renewal he told me that at least 25% of the farms he visits have the guns in the back of a truck, leaning against the wall, or, if they are locked away and he asks to see them the farmer's wife will go and get the keys hanging in the kitchen.

As far as I am concerned, everyone should be assessed to determine a) they understand gun safety, b) they are of sound mind, and c) they have good reason to own a gun or firearm.

 

[Damascus]

I for one hope the government take note of the MP’s and leave as it currently is, the restrictions on firearms has one aim and one aim only to reduce the numbers. I have both section 1 and 2, coming binding them together for me would not be an issue, those who have just a section 2, the thin edge of the wedge to cutting the numbers down. Why haven’t knives, hammers and chainsaws been licensed, they kill for more than firearms.

 

[Broch]

Mmm... whereas you are right that there are 100 times as many homicides using a bladed weapon compared to the use of firearms, there has only been one recorded death inflicted by using a chainsaw and two using a hammer, in the last 10 years - certainly not "far more than firearms".

Anyway, I don't think homicides are the issue, I think the right to own a deadly projectile weapon only comes with the responsibility to demonstrate safe use, a need to own one, and being healthy enough to own and use one without danger to oneself and others. If one fits those criteria I cannot understand why any gun owner would not be happy to go through the loops.

If it reduces the number of unnecessary guns that's fine - those people of sound mind and with a use can still have them - no problem.

 

[johnnytheboy]

@johnnytheboy, I'm not going to argue with you - but I do not consider myself wrong (more polite response would have been "I do not agree"). I have both and I know how much easier it is to get a shotgun ticket. I also know that a number of my neighbours really shouldn't have them; I encourage a more robust assessment of need and suitability.

Sorry if you think I was being impolite, I’m being pragmatic, the only difference now with SGC and FAC is the FAC needs two references, the police are imposing all the rest, you simply can’t now apply for SGC off the back of you are entitled to one! Doesn’t work like that! You need to prove the use for it, no different to a FAC application.

I agree that there should be training before you can own any shotgun or firearm, it should be mandatory! It shouldn’t be up to the shooting community to police it!

I am slightly worried if you genuinely know people who shouldn’t have guns and have done nothing?

 

[Chris]

Sorry if you think I was being impolite, I’m being pragmatic, the only difference now with SGC and FAC is the FAC needs two references, the police are imposing all the rest, you simply can’t now apply for SGC off the back of you are entitled to one! Doesn’t work like that! You need to prove the use for it, no different to a FAC application.

I agree that there should be training before you can own any shotgun or firearm, it should be mandatory! It shouldn’t be up to the shooting community to police it!

I am slightly worried if you genuinely know people who shouldn’t have guns and have done nothing?

I think you’re making some rather strong assumptions about Broch (with whom I disagree on this matter), it’s worth assuming that you don’t have the full picture rather than assuming him being irresponsible. I think most of us here would assume the opposite is likely true.

 

[slowworm]

Chatting to the Firearms Officer at last renewal he told me that at least 25% of the farms he visits have the guns in the back of a truck, leaning against the wall, or, if they are locked away and he asks to see them the farmer's wife will go and get the keys hanging in the kitchen.

What you've listed should result in an investigation and possibly certificates removed. I know down here some farmers with a gun not locked up have lost their SGCs. This should currently happen for both FACs and SGCs, if it's not done where you are then it's likely it'll not be done if they are merged.

@johnnytheboy you now need two refs for SGCs. I agree with your point though, they are almost merging in some forces. I gather keeping shotgun carts under lock and key is going to happen soon. But then is there any reason not to merge them?

Personally I'd worry about the workload of the forces and would someone with a SGC get a FAC without sufficient checks? I doubt the recent debate will stop the government doing what it wants.

If they are merged it doesn't mean all guns would be treated the same and have same restrictions. .22LRs are not treated and do not have the same restrictions as a .22 CF, not in my experience.

Edit to add, having to have permission to acquire a shotgun or having to put in variations would be a pain and seem unnecessary. The FAC process could also be updated in that regard as well.

 

[johnnytheboy]

I think you’re making some rather strong assumptions about Broch (with whom I disagree on this matter), it’s worth assuming that you don’t have the full picture rather than assuming him being irresponsible. I think most of us here would assume the opposite is likely true.

I asked a question as opposed to make an assumption!

@slowworm i think the wording on the shotgun certificate in relation to cartridge storage changed to that effect? I’m sure it changed on my last certificate from previous ones.

 

[rarms]

Sorry if you think I was being impolite, I’m being pragmatic, the only difference now with SGC and FAC is the FAC needs two references, the police are imposing all the rest, you simply can’t now apply for SGC off the back of you are entitled to one! Doesn’t work like that! You need to prove the use for it, no different to a FAC application.

Your initial post suggested firearms ownership would increase, and that the shotguns being put on sec. 1 would be a good thing for gun owners. That is what Broch and I suggested was incorrect.

The problem with any mandatory training is that this then becomes a gravy train for the bodies that provide the training. DSC for example, or Safe Shooter Cards at Bisley.

Far better would be mentoring by another firearms user.

 

[johnnytheboy]

Your initial post suggested firearms ownership would increase, and that the shotguns being put on sec. 1 would be a good thing for gun owners. That is what Broch and I suggested was incorrect.

The problem with any mandatory training is that this then becomes a gravy train for the bodies that provide the training. DSC for example, or Safe Shooter Cards at Bisley.

Far better would be mentoring by another firearms user.

It would, if you have the same hassle for a SGC as a FAC why wouldn’t you apply for everything! Including rim and centre fire!

Yea I agree about the gravy train, most folk about here are being told DSC is mandatory for FAC now! Personally I enjoyed the DSC but you’re right that it could become something it shouldn’t be. However I still do believe some sort of training should be mandatory as it is in Denmark etc but not at the expense of the shooter!

 

[rarms]

It would, if you have the same hassle for a SGC as a FAC why wouldn’t you apply for everything! Including rim and centre fire!

Yea I agree about the gravy train, most folk about here are being told DSC is mandatory for FAC now! Personally I enjoyed the DSC but you’re right that it could become something it shouldn’t be. However I still do believe some sort of training should be mandatory as it is in Denmark etc but not at the expense of the shooter!

People wouldn't apply for everything because you would need to justify a reason, a use and a venue for each gun you applied for. If for target use, you would then need to apply for club membership, and log use of each gun three times per year. You could no longer just buy a shottie because you liked it. If you have a hereditary or sentimental shotgun, you would have to justify the ownership of it. It would be a load of hassle and people wouldn't bother. Ok for someone who owns their own land, but otherwise a pain in the bum.

DSC for me involved sitting at a table while a 'trainer', and a BASC chap told us all the answers to 100 multiple choice questions over and over until we knew the answers. Then gave us a test paper with 30 of those questions on. Then had us shoot a target at three distances out to 100m. It is solely about ticking a box and making money. There is now I have read a DSC 3, presumably enough people have done DSC 1 and 2 that it is no longer profitable so a further one is needed.