Another bad press for the shooting community

[Sim G]

Jenks, you miss my point, which is to say that the weapon is moot, this murderers intentions go back a long way. He wanted his wife and step daughter dead. From what has been published, that is clear.

Focusing on the weapon takes away from any investigation into how Surrey police dealt with all of this, issues that clearly need resolving and not attached to licensing. Likewise, focusing on the weapon lets the murderer distance himself from the act.

A man murdered his wife and step daughter. He'd harboured that intention for some time. What he used has no bearing on those facts.

[Jenks]

Jenks, you miss my point, which is to say that the weapon is moot, this murderers intentions go back a long way. He wanted his wife and step daughter dead. From what has been published, that is clear.

Focusing on the weapon takes away from any investigation into how Surrey police dealt with all of this, issues that clearly need resolving and not attached to licensing. Likewise, focusing on the weapon lets the murderer distance himself from the act.

A man murdered his wife and step daughter. He'd harboured that intention for some time. What he used has no bearing on those facts.

SimG…

I have said in a previous post what I thought about the chances of surviving an attack with a shotgun or a knife, no point in going there again. However as a shotgun was his choice and the ramifications of his actions regarding his choice of weapon, could impinge upon all of us who hold firearms, it is right that we look at licensing policy and whom should be considered suitable person to be granted a FAC/shotgun certificate. And also the conditions for revoking said certificate/ confiscation. It may well be proved that the Surrey firearms Dept acted perfectly properly in reissuing his certificate and returning his shotguns. However If that is the case, then perhaps the criteria regarding suitability initially for ownership, and then as time passes for continued ownership requires looking at again, it clearly failed in this instance. Perhaps Surrey misinterpreted the home office guide lines on suitability etc. I draw your attention the article about the canon from Manchester Cathederal I linked to.

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


He had has his firearms confiscated because he was deemed confrontational and lost his appeal to get them back. I wonder did he threaten to Kill anyone, like John Lowe was alleged to have done? As you say:

A man murdered his wife and step daughter. He'd harboured that intention for some time.

Remember the daughter of the youngest victim has said she had warned the police on several occasions of her concerns along those lines

And A police informant told officers that killer Lowe had approached him in 1997 asking for help to kill his then-partner.

I suspect that could be judged as being potentially more serious than being deemed 'confrontational.'

It seems to me that possibly the Home office guidelines are open to Misinterpretation. Or that at least that constabularys Firearm departments intemperate them differently. Anyway I dare say it will all come out in the wash. Assuming of course that it is not a ‘whitewash’.







Jenks

[joe]

The animal got 25 years to life !

[joe]

Will this lead to a change in h/o guidance ? the real danger is now any alligation however fruitless and no charges brought the plod will have the power to take the guns away for life this is totally unjust and if this were to happen in any other area of law eg cars there would be an outrage with threats of going to the eu court this will be a field day for the anti's and ex girlfriends who know they only have to make any unsubstantiated alligation and the fac holders guns get taken away regardless
No doubt the sheeple would support this
Be nice if the shooting organisations commented and also the Surrey firearms as well for those that live in Surrey