Another bad press for the shooting community

[joe]

Does this mean surrey will turn into Durham style firearms department ?

[Sim G]

Seems that Surrey Firearms Dept made a serious error of Judgement by returning this geriatrics shotguns:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... itman.html

From linked article:

It will examine why he was ever allowed to own a gun after 1997, when a registered police informant told a special squad in another force that Lowe had asked him to kill his then-partner.

Surrey Police seized weapons from John Lowe in March 2013 after he threatened to kill his step-daughter Stacy Banner. Despite her repeated warnings, the force chose to return the guns to Mr Lowe after officers decided he was fit to own a firearm.

Speaking on the steps outside Guildford Crown Court, Christine Lee's daughter Stacy Banner, 38, criticised Surrey Police for returning weapons to Lowe despite her repeated warnings.

She said: "The shotgun was one of seven that had been returned to him by the police only months before he used it to kill. He held a shotgun licence despite the police being repeatedly warned by me and others about the danger he posed to society, allowing him to kill and kill again.
"The police should never have given an 82-year-old man seven shotguns back. There were hardly any animals there. *So why did he need those guns?*

** Why indeed? I ask this because I was under the impression that an applicant had to establish a bona fide need before being granted a certificate for a shotgun.

I suspect there might be some serious fall out from this for holders of Shotgun certificates along the lines of tightening the criteria for being granted a certificate to possess a Shotgun.



And in the same edition of the paper this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... vicar.html




Jenks

Unfortunately, what is going to be so hard to come to terms with for the surviving daughter/sister is that her family were going to be killed, regardless. The tool really is just circumstantial. Had the police continued in not allowing a SGC, it would have been an off ticket gun, a hammer, a knife or fire. He was going to kill them no matter what.

That said, Surrey Police have committed the mother of all cock ups.....

[nickb834]

Bingo:

"Mrs Banner called for the way gun licensing decisions are made to be changed.

"Licensing cannot be left entirely up to the police," she said.

"There needs to be thorough and regular multi-agency assessments for would-be gun-holders.

"And the cost of a shotgun licence needs to be significantly increased.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29826890

Another cockup that's bordering on conspiracy.

And where would Ms Banner get the notion that the cost of a SGC needs to go up I wonder?

What about the fee going up would have save her family members lives, would the decision made have been different - no I'd wager not.

If the SGC had been revoked I suppose there's an increased cost therafter if there's an appeal - but, since when does Firearms licensing need to be cost neutral - it's about public safety first and foremost is it not, so why should the shooter bear all that cost (not suggesting that we do now, but arguing that we never should bear full cost of firearms licensing).

[Sim G]

FFS Charlie.

I have seen some shoite come from your keyboard before, but honestly, stay out of the sun, stop drinking or start taking your meds...

p***, have you a BETTER explanation, especially when once again it has some rag calling everyones gun ownership into question ? Saying it as it is, the most stupid thing to do - ever!

MAybe could have been phrased better for some but the bottom line is that she was just an idiot and Darwin came along!

I'm taking it you have heard of the psychiological phenomina of the physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival? Known as "Fight or flight"? Surely with the many qualifications and certificates in self defence and defensive gun techniques that you've acquired you're fully aware of the almost involuntary reaction?

Had this girl been a soldier on the field of battle, who, after extracting from the fire fight, out of ammo or even unarmed, then went back into the melee to try and assist his comrades in what ever way, we would call him hero. His corage would be lauded and medals would be called for....

Here we have you use words such as "mentally retarded" and "idiot". She paid the ultimate in trying to protect her mother. Instead of "phrasing better", try thinking. And sometimes, just shut up...

[Mezzer]

FFS Charlie.

I have seen some shoite come from your keyboard before, but honestly, stay out of the sun, stop drinking or start taking your meds...

p***, have you a BETTER explanation, especially when once again it has some rag calling everyones gun ownership into question ? Saying it as it is, the most stupid thing to do - ever!

MAybe could have been phrased better for some but the bottom line is that she was just an idiot and Darwin came along!

I'm taking it you have heard of the psychiological phenomina of the physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival? Known as "Fight or flight"? Surely with the many qualifications and certificates in self defence and defensive gun techniques that you've acquired you're fully aware of the almost involuntary reaction?

Had this girl been a soldier on the field of battle, who, after extracting from the fire fight, out of ammo or even unarmed, then went back into the melee to try and assist his comrades in what ever way, we would call him hero. His corage would be lauded and medals would be called for....

Here we have you use words such as "mentally retarded" and "idiot". She paid the ultimate in trying to protect her mother. Instead of "phrasing better", try thinking. And sometimes, just shut up...

:roll: I feel a moderator intervention coming on if you two don't start showing a bit of courtesy to each other. Sort it out lads eh and give the rest of us a break.

Obviously, mistakes / bad decisions have been made in allowing this maniac to keep any type of firearm and independent reviews have clearly identified this. We may never know just who made that call and why but it really doesn't matter - as long as the situation is rectified.
Naturally, it's too late for the mother and daughter involved and that's a shame. The news article is pretty clear on where they consider the failures to be (which is refreshing for a change), and I don't view it as being bad press for the shooting community.

Mezzer

[Blackstuff]

Does this mean surrey will turn into Durham style firearms department ?

May god have mercy on your souls!

[targetman]

Yet again this sort of tragedy brings out the "blame game"......in this instance the family blame the Police...they say that the police "although not actually pulling the trigger put the gun in his hands"....

The family are understandably distraught, however, blaming the Police is just plainly wrong. It was the man who pulled the trigger, it was the man that held the gun.

The police had established "good cause" to remove his SGC and shotguns at some time in the past, but had concluded that he should be allowed to have them back again, in accordance with Home Office Guidlines.

Personally I don't think that Surrey Police have committed an "almighty cock-up", they have followed the rules and made decisions that may prove to have been incorrect now, but at the time they were right. The Police cannot be expected to foretell the future, they cannot be mind readers.

Sim is right, without access to to his shotguns he could just as easily used a knife or driven them off the nearby A3 at speed to kill them.

I think the Surrey ACC who has placed the blame on his own staff is doing what many senior officers do in this sort of situation....and that is cover their own backsides and look for a scapegoat....bloody poor management on his part, as usual.....

[targetman]

Yet again this sort of tragedy brings out the "blame game"......in this instance the family blame the Police...they say that the police "although not actually pulling the trigger put the gun in his hands"....

The family are understandably distraught, however, blaming the Police is just plainly wrong. It was the man who pulled the trigger, it was the man that held the gun.

The police had established "good cause" to remove his SGC and shotguns at some time in the past, but had concluded that he should be allowed to have them back again, in accordance with Home Office Guidlines.

Personally I don't think that Surrey Police have committed an "almighty cock-up", they have followed the rules and made decisions that may prove to have been incorrect now, but at the time they were right. The Police cannot be expected to foretell the future, they cannot be mind readers.

Sim is right, without access to to his shotguns he could just as easily used a knife or driven them off the nearby A3 at speed to kill them.

I think the Surrey ACC who has placed the blame on his own staff is doing what many senior officers do in this sort of situation....and that is cover their own backsides and look for a scapegoat....bloody poor management on his part, as usual.....

[Jenks]

t/man

Sim is right, without access to to his shotguns he could just as easily used a knife or driven them off the nearby A3 at speed to kill them.

Pure speculation on your part. He didn't choose a knife, or a car he chose to use a shotgun . Had he chosen a knife, one or indeed both women might have survived. in fact the daughter might have been able to over power him he is eighty two.

Jenks

[Blackstuff]

t/man

Sim is right, without access to to his shotguns he could just as easily used a knife or driven them off the nearby A3 at speed to kill them.

Pure speculation on your part. He didn't choose a knife, or a car he chose to use a shotgun . Had he chosen a knife, one or indeed most women might have survived. in fact the daughter might have been able to over power him he is eighty two.

Jenks

In fairness, that is also speculation!

The stabbing scenario has sadly happened this week;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... house.html