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

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/me ... ullarticle

Its worth reading the readers comments on this article

pretty good comments that will be ignored by thjos ewho make these rules.

As usual one silly post;

Anonymous | Medical student02 Apr 2016 1:23pm

Seems self-evident that anybody who wants to own a gun should be prevented from doing so

Someone should remind him how many patients are killed by doctors..just ask Dr Shipman!!

Could April 1rst have something to do with this "banter"?............

Pete

Chuck wrote:pretty good comments that will be ignored by thjos ewho make these rules.

As usual one silly post;

Anonymous | Medical student02 Apr 2016 1:23pm

Seems self-evident that anybody who wants to own a gun should be prevented from doing so

Someone should remind him how many patients are killed by doctors..just ask Dr Shipman!!

Interesting point.

2.8 doctors per 1000 people in the UK

(63,489,234 people in UK / 1000) * 2.8 = 177769.8552 doctors in the UK.

How many doctors have killed people in the last 10 years vs how many Legal Gun Owners...

153,603 Firearms Certs + 582,494 Shotgun Certificates vs 177,770 doctors.

Y'know, if they wanna throw stones...

Chuck wrote:pretty good comments that will be ignored by thjos ewho make these rules.

As usual one silly post;

Anonymous | Medical student02 Apr 2016 1:23pm

Seems self-evident that anybody who wants to own a gun should be prevented from doing so

Someone should remind him how many patients are killed by doctors..just ask Dr Shipman!!

This comment has been reported to one of their moderators with the following reason

This is in my opinion an immature and childish comment, the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible and law abiding and due to the vetting process of owning firearms generally upstanding members of society, who always have in the back of their minds that the slightest brush with the law could mean the revocation and removal of their sporting equipment which they have invested a lot of hard earned cash into.

This post rather amused me:

Anonymous | GP Partner01 Apr 2016 9:29pm

Not an NHS service therefore up front with the sausages or foxtrot oscar.

On the other hand the next one was depressing:

Anonymous01 Apr 2016 9:33pm

You really could not make this sort of stuff up could you!

I would suggest colour coding the alerts - an earthy brown for the farmers, green for the pheasant potters and a more urgent red spot for the gun-nuts.

Interestingly, the pheasant potters are the only ones who ever consult - the farmers are too busy and consult the vet - the gun-nuts are usually sad loners (but probably best not to tell them this, on the rare occasions that they do turn up!)

This thread should be read in conjunction with this one, I have considered merging them but fear they would loose whatever sense they might contain.

http://www.full-bore.co.uk/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=20

Whist I can agree that the document/guidance seems reasonable on the face of it at the end of the day it is down to the interpretation and application of individuals.

I have very little faith in the integrity of todays "professionals", generalisation I know and apologies to those GPs that will do the right thing however I suspect that they will not be the majority.

Firearms licensing are applying a risk assessment approach now to managing renewals and variations which means that they are totally risk averse and the slightest cause for doubt will end in refusal without further investigation as to the proportionality of any perceived risk.

I also doubt the enthusiasm of our "representatives" to champion the cause, they seem to be fine on the odd one off member issue but have seen them walk away from members with multiple claims around the same issue. Remember they have signed up to this on our behalf.

Firearms licensing want to reduce the number of certificate holders and the number of firearms held, there are many GPs who see no reason for public ownership of firearms, this combined with national organisations who use our membership fees on anal lubricant so they can get regularly shafted on our behalf cannot bode well for shooters and gun owners.

pe4king wrote:

Chuck wrote:pretty good comments that will be ignored by thjos ewho make these rules.

As usual one silly post;

Anonymous | Medical student02 Apr 2016 1:23pm

Seems self-evident that anybody who wants to own a gun should be prevented from doing so

Someone should remind him how many patients are killed by doctors..just ask Dr Shipman!!

This comment has been reported to one of their moderators with the following reason

This is in my opinion an immature and childish comment, the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible and law abiding and due to the vetting process of owning firearms generally upstanding members of society, who always have in the back of their minds that the slightest brush with the law could mean the revocation and removal of their sporting equipment which they have invested a lot of hard earned cash into.

I hope you get a better response than I did when I requested it be removed. This was what I got back;

"Thank you for getting in touch. We have looked into this comment, but as it is an opinion, rather than anything offensive or defamatory, it does not contravene our rules for commenting on Pulse."

Sounds like they need to review their own policing rules....

one respondant (paul cundy) on that aritcle said he was part of talks between gps and the homeoffice and that current system isnt working ?? i would like hear about past cases where is was true
at the end he states he is a fac/sgc holder

Reported the following post to the moderators:
"I would suggest colour coding the alerts - an earthy brown for the farmers, green for the pheasant potters and a more urgent red spot for the gun-nuts.
Interestingly, the pheasant potters are the only ones who ever consult - the farmers are too busy and consult the vet - the gun-nuts are usually sad loners (but probably best not to tell them this, on the rare occasions that they do turn up!)"

My 'complaint' about the post:
"As a target shooter and FAC holder I find it condescending, insulting and downright inaccurate to be classed as 'usually a sad loner.'
I would also suggest this comment could be libelous to all legal shooters who neither ‘pheasant potters’ nor 'farmers'."

Lets see what happens....