The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

christel wrote:

LeighC wrote:an enlightened public

Something went wrong at some point in the history of this country regarding the attitude towards firearms and I doubt it can be reversed.

Yup, you got it.

My approach is really quite simple. Licence the individual, not the item.

People, including some shooters would baulk at the prospect of the sport once again involving full bore semi automatic (or even full automatic) rifles and pistols again. The massacres of Hungerford and Dunblane wouldn't be far from even a shooters point to have them remain banned. However, the last massacre in this country, in Cumbia, was so carried out with two of the most ubiquitous guns in the UK, a 12 bore double barrelled shotgun and a .22 rimfire bolt action rifle.....

The argument that one type of firearm is more dangerous than the other is moot.

If you can be trusted with a single barrel .410 shotgun, you can be trusted with a 9mm Glock or a .223 AR15. And if you can have one, you could just as safely hold 100.

The individual, appropriately assessed, not the gun.

That's far too sensible Sim

Sim G wrote:My approach is really quite simple. Licence the individual, not the item.

People, including some shooters would baulk at the prospect of the sport once again involving full bore semi automatic (or even full automatic) rifles and pistols again. The massacres of Hungerford and Dunblane wouldn't be far from even a shooters point to have them remain banned. However, the last massacre in this country, in Cumbia, was so carried out with two of the most ubiquitous guns in the UK, a 12 bore double barrelled shotgun and a .22 rimfire bolt action rifle.....

The argument that one type of firearm is more dangerous than the other is moot.

If you can be trusted with a single barrel .410 shotgun, you can be trusted with a 9mm Glock or a .223 AR15. And if you can have one, you could just as safely hold 100.

The individual, appropriately assessed, not the gun.

Happy with that, where do I sign?

Blackstuff wrote:

Sendit wrote:

Sim G wrote:Have you been at the cooking sherry this early in the day?!!

I don't even know where to begin with the flaws in your "proposals".....

I pick up from here that you are not without knowledge and experience in such things so please explain why?

:lol:

Dear me, i'm not looking for a fight, and Sims post might have been blunt but can we please not have a handbag fight this early in the week? :cool2:

7 & 11 are at direct odds with each other for a start, whats the difference between a moderator and a 'silencer' except ones an accurate term and the other comes from Hollywood?

Do you have any reasoning behind the prejudice against multi-shot shotguns 8 & 10? Up until 1988 there was no such thing as a restricted semi-auto or pump action shotgun, they all came with the standard 4+1/5+1 capacity. Then after Hungerford Douglas Turd*, took the opportunity to restrict them onto FAC's because he personally disliked them, not because they were especially dangerous, or one had been used in the Hungerford shootings.

*

Whose looking for a fight? I just put forward a list for discussion, does not make it right just opens a debate. Seems few want to debate towards something sensible that may have legs but would sooner just shoot from the hip, hence the tin hat comment!

Oops! Suppressor would have been a better term, tryping error!

I have absolutely nothing against multi-shot shotguns, my SX3 is my pride and joy! clapclap S1 is status quo, if it could be negotiated out of S1 then great, but don't hold your breath.

Sim G wrote:My approach is really quite simple. Licence the individual, not the item.

People, including some shooters would baulk at the prospect of the sport once again involving full bore semi automatic (or even full automatic) rifles and pistols again. The massacres of Hungerford and Dunblane wouldn't be far from even a shooters point to have them remain banned. However, the last massacre in this country, in Cumbia, was so carried out with two of the most ubiquitous guns in the UK, a 12 bore double barrelled shotgun and a .22 rimfire bolt action rifle.....

The argument that one type of firearm is more dangerous than the other is moot.

If you can be trusted with a single barrel .410 shotgun, you can be trusted with a 9mm Glock or a .223 AR15. And if you can have one, you could just as safely hold 100.

The individual, appropriately assessed, not the gun.

Absolutley agree with every word. Always been my stance, said so many, many times. Police the individual, not the gun.

I could be even more controversial than just post a list to start a debate because the only way to improve things will be a trade off between perceived public safety and shooters freedoms. I would be an advocate for concealed carry in the UK too!, where does that fit?

Sendit wrote: I would be an advocate for concealed carry in the UK too!, where does that fit?

Where would it fit in? Simple, it just would! You would be a licensed firearms owner in order to use your firearms for any lawful purpose. Defending yourself or others and/or property is perfectly lawful.

Just as target shooting, vermin destruction and stalking are lawful.

Shooting road signs and threatening the neighbour over their cat crapping in your hydrangears, is not....

Sim G wrote:

Sendit wrote: threatening the neighbour over their cat crapping in your hydrangears, is not....

Though we might argue that shooting the cat for crappin' in the hydrangae is a legitimate case of pesticide / vermin control...

Being a professional pedant (at long last!) let's take it a point at a time...

Sendit wrote:Proposal for the replacement of existing Firearms Legislation:

1. Establish a National Database and a proper effective Monitoring System to monitor the Applicants/Grantee using one agency to administer licensing. Provide proper funding and resourcing at Public expense to satisfy the Public Safety requirements.

We already have a national database of firearms and their owners.
A new agency set up solely to administer the grant and renewals of certificates, independent of the police but with direct access to a dedicated "firearms liaison team" (or something like that), should be set up.

2. Published detailed specific Home Office guidance on the boundaries, protocols and application of same.

We already have this.

3. The Grant and renewal of SGC and FAC to include a Medical Examination requiring discretionary reporting powers by Doctors. Renewal period to remain at 5 years.

No. Too invasive. The current system where medical records must be made available for inspection by the licensing authority is already invasive enough and gives sufficient detailed information for the authorities to make a judgment from.

4. One application form with three sections. 1, General and Background Information. 2, Application for SGC. 3, Application for FAC. Only complete the relevant parts applicable to your requirements. Retain the requirement for a Referee.

Reasonably sensible, though I understood that two referees were necessary for both. SGCs and FACs should be combined into one system working to the present Section 2 "licence the individual" principle.

5. Mandatory introductory Safety and Awareness Course from accredited providers with fixed pricing. Existing license holders exempt.

In principle I think mandatory training is a Good Thing, but fixed pricing is an absolute no-no. The NRA already has fullbore target shooters over a barrel with the competency card system - no more closed shops, thank you. Let anyone who wants to set up a training agency and become accredited to deliver this mandatory training do so.

I'd say have the licensing agency administer the training syllabus, with the board setting that syllabus comprising reps from all the national discipline governing bodies plus one or two from the licensing authority. "Should" result in a syllabus that takes into account the needs of shooters with a balanced eye towards public safety.

Have the fee for the training course go directly towards funding the licensing agency (but NOT as its sole source of funding: financial barriers to new applicants must be made as low as possible), with a view towards keeping FAC fees down.

6. Existing physical Firearm Security measures are adequate.

On this at least we agree.

7. Automatic Firearms and Silencers classified as Section 5.

There is no such thing as a 'silencer'. Moderators are a necessary tool for sporting shooters, and don't really pose much threat to the public. Indeed, not even my tabloid colleagues particularly care about the things.
Automatic weapons ... as fun as it would be to own a GPMG, I can't really see that taking off.

8. All other Firearms with the exception of Shotguns (Excluding Multi-shot 3+ Shotguns) and Air Guns limited to 12ft/lbs, 6ft/lbs, to be classified as Section 1.

No. License the individual, not the gun - there is no functional difference, in terms of public safety, between a multishot shotgun and a 10/22. Or, indeed, a semi-auto fullbore rifle.
See above for unifying Section 1 and Section 2.

9. Retain the existing law on acquisition and ownership of Air Guns limited to 12ft/lbs, 6ft/lbs.

A good idea.

10. Retain existing classifications for Shotguns (Excluding Multi-shot 3+ Shotguns).

No. See above.

11. Remove licensing restrictions on the acquisition and ownership of all Section 1 Firearms to include moderators but retain the existing notifications system at Purchase or Transfer.

Earlier you say you want to ban "silencers" yet here you want to derestrict moderators. Which is it?

12. Remove existing licensing restrictions and set maximum limit realistic levels for retention of Ammunition by calibre and retain the existing notifications system at Purchase or Transfer.

Eh? Ammo storage should be limited purely by available storage and fire considerations. Even then, the NEQ of small arms ammo is negligible.

13. The illegal and unlicensed ownership and or acquisition of any firearm and ammunition to carry a minimum 5 year, mandatory sentence, no remission.

We already have that. Not properly applied, granted, but it's on the statute book.

14. Use of un-registered or illegal firearms for criminal purposes means mandatory 5 years added automatically to any other sentence, no remission.

See above - usually gets added on concurrently to other sentences.

I guess the medical bit will be contentious but I have no issue with it. I had to have one for Railways and my HGV/PSV license so one more is not big deal. Discretionary on the Doctor if they believe reporting is relevant having discussed it with the Applicant.

Having a heart attack while driving a train of 1,500 people is something you'd want to screen people for. Having a heart attack on the range ... not quite in the same realm, when it comes to preserving the public safety.

Sim G wrote:

Sendit wrote: I would be an advocate for concealed carry in the UK too!, where does that fit?

Where would it fit in? Simple, it just would! You would be a licensed firearms owner in order to use your firearms for any lawful purpose. Defending yourself or others and/or property is perfectly lawful.

Just as target shooting, vermin destruction and stalking are lawful.

Shooting road signs and threatening the neighbour over their cat crapping in your hydrangears, is not....

Sim for PM, not hearing anything I disagree with. Put your name on a ballot paper, I'll put my cross in the box.