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

It's my opinion based on life experience. When there's something bothering someone I know, I can tell, if there's a change in character it stands out like a sore thumb IMO.

You can talk to someone and know if something is bothering them. And even if you knew something was bothering them that means nothing about their suitability to own firearms. Things bother people all the time , the dog died, someone annoyed them in work , etc. People that have harmed themselves and others because of depression etc. Have fooled friends families and professionals that they are fine. Maybe they should see you for a diagnosis.

ordnance wrote:What were the tell tale signs that Dr Harold Shipman was one of this countries biggest mass killers. ?

You're getting two completely different groups of killers mixed up a fact that the shooting organisations should also pay attention to.
Shipman didn't snap, he was calculating and methodical and financially motivated to a degree. He had nothing to do with firearms and suggesting he's anything like Bird etc really doesn't do shooting any favours.
Most shootings by licenced firearms holders are the direct result of some major life event and there have been signs, reports to police and other factors that have been ignored by the authorities time and again.
At the first sign of trouble FAC holders should be expected to be investigated more thoroughly than the common man. This could only work in our favor in the long run, weeding out those who could, eventually, put an end to our sport and worse, affect the lives of innocent people.

Sim G wrote:Is a handgun more dangerous than my O/U clay gun?

Due to concealability; yes.

#Dontshootthemessenger

Some people are particularly astute at detecting lies and if a story doesn't add up, after all that's what the police do every time they stop someone. Perhaps their family weren't very observant, who knows.

ordnance wrote:You can talk to someone and know if something is bothering them. And even if you knew something was bothering them that means nothing about their suitability to own firearms. Things bother people all the time , the dog died, someone annoyed them in work , etc. People that have harmed themselves and others because of depression etc. Have fooled friends families and professionals that they are fine. Maybe they should see you for a diagnosis.

Given my recent experience with West Yorks Police, it's the process now (if it wasn't already?) that my GP was notified that I am now a certificate holder, so there's an opportunity for the police to intervene should I have an issue and my GP is concerned.

The bit that is still missing is how we catch the Hamilton's and Ryans and Birds, who may not have been anywhere near a GP - perhaps if we shooters weren't made to feel like social lepers, and more people were aware of our sport they may feel more empowered to report anything that causes concern (balanced against those anti's out to abuse the process).

I wonder if in the case of those three tragedies they were members of clubs, perhaps we club shooters should be more vigilant?

One thing is for sure, it's an emotive subject - balancing the wishes of shooters against perceived public safety, and I just can't see any of our privelages reinstated until we can figure out some method by which we can license the person and not the firearm, and therafter some method to ensure continued safety of the individual.

You're getting two completely different groups of killers mixed up a fact that the shooting organisations should also pay attention to.
Shipman didn't snap, he was calculating and methodical and financially motivated to a degree. He had nothing to do with firearms and suggesting he's anything like Bird etc really doesn't do shooting any favours.

He was a mass killer, people are killed all the time sometimes it hardly gets news time . If its a firearms is used then the anti gun people are shouting for firearms controls. If you are killed with a knife or by a ( doctor ) or in any other way you are just as dead. Some on this forum seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet as the anti gun lobby.

nickb834 wrote:Given my recent experience with West Yorks Police, it's the process now (if it wasn't already?) that my GP was notified that I am now a certificate holder, so there's an opportunity for the police to intervene should I have an issue and my GP is concerned.

The bit that is still missing is how we catch the Hamilton's and Ryans and Birds, who may not have been anywhere near a GP - perhaps if we shooters weren't made to feel like social lepers, and more people were aware of our sport they may feel more empowered to report anything that causes concern (balanced against those anti's out to abuse the process).

I wonder if in the case of those three tragedies they were members of clubs, perhaps we club shooters should be more vigilant?

One thing is for sure, it's an emotive subject - balancing the wishes of shooters against perceived public safety, and I just can't see any of our privileges reinstated until we can figure out some method by which we can license the person and not the firearm, and thereafter some method to ensure continued safety of the individual.

Dear oh dear, how little we shooters seem to know of the pertinent facts of our sorry history of gun control.

Both Bird and Hamilton were known to the police as unstable and fact in Hamilton;s case the licensing officer had recommended that should no be granted a certificate and this had been backed up by the secretary of at least one club he had been a member of but for some reason the Chief Constable overruled the licensing officers recommendations. Durham did not follow up on Birds domestics, if these licensing authorities had done their jobs properly then these two atrocities at least would not have involved legally held firearms.

Hamilton came from a different era when things were a bit laxer and I doubt today if he would have been granted a certificate by a responsible licensing authority.

Like many systems of government it only works if applied however when it isn't applied then the fault is put onto us and used as a stick to beat us with rather than doing what they should be doing and that those responsible for implementing the system do so properly.

Nothing more need be done but the licensing authorities need to do their job. More legislation just hides the real weaknesses in the system its inconsistent application.

I urge all new shooters to take the time to find out the history of British shooting legislation so at least we as shooter do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

dromia wrote:

nickb834 wrote:Given my recent experience with West Yorks Police, it's the process now (if it wasn't already?) that my GP was notified that I am now a certificate holder, so there's an opportunity for the police to intervene should I have an issue and my GP is concerned.

The bit that is still missing is how we catch the Hamilton's and Ryans and Birds, who may not have been anywhere near a GP - perhaps if we shooters weren't made to feel like social lepers, and more people were aware of our sport they may feel more empowered to report anything that causes concern (balanced against those anti's out to abuse the process).

I wonder if in the case of those three tragedies they were members of clubs, perhaps we club shooters should be more vigilant?

One thing is for sure, it's an emotive subject - balancing the wishes of shooters against perceived public safety, and I just can't see any of our privileges reinstated until we can figure out some method by which we can license the person and not the firearm, and thereafter some method to ensure continued safety of the individual.

Dear oh dear, how little we shooters seem to know of the pertinent facts of our sorry history of gun control.

Both Bird and Hamilton were known to the police as unstable and fact in Hamilton;s case the licensing officer had recommended that should no be granted a certificate and this had been backed up by the secretary of at least one club he had been a member of but for some reason the Chief Constable overruled the licensing officers recommendations. Durham did not follow up on Birds domestics, if these licensing authorities had done their jobs properly then these two atrocities at least would not have involved legally held firearms.

Hamilton came from a different era when things were a bit laxer and I doubt today if he would have been granted a certificate by a responsible licensing authority.

Like many systems of government it only works if applied however when it isn't applied then the fault is put onto us and used as a stick to beat us with rather than doing what they should be doing and that those responsible for implementing the system do so properly.

Nothing more need be done but the licensing authorities need to do their job. More legislation just hides the real weaknesses in the system its inconsistent application.

I urge all new shooters to take the time to find out the history of British shooting legislation so at least we as shooter do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

As it happens I'm well aware of the police failings re those cases but the point I was trying to make and have clearly failed at - was, what happens when the police aren't aware, and the person concerned hasn't been to see anyone - how do we prevent issue there?

You are of course entirely correct re police failings in those case, but again I don't know what we as shooters can do to hold them to account - any thoughts?

HALODIN wrote:It's my opinion based on life experience. When there's something bothering someone I know, I can tell, if there's a change in character it stands out like a sore thumb IMO.

And it's my experience of locking up bad people for 23 years, that you cannot predict, nor intervene with certain people who will never ever display behaviour out of the ordinary, before going on to commit the most heinous of crimes!

I didn't realise you were a policeman. OK then that certainly adds credibility to your point of view. I'm off to re-read about the 3 UK shootings, given this thread, it takes on a new context.

Sim G wrote:And it's my experience of locking up bad people for 23 years, that you cannot predict, nor intervene with certain people who will never ever display behaviour out of the ordinary, before going on to commit the most heinous of crimes!