No surprise

So following the dreadful incident in plymouth it must surely come as no surprise to all shooters that even though the failing was of the police in executing the correct action by not returning the certificate and shotgun to the killer.reports from plymouth suggest he had been sent on an anger management course at the reccomendation of police family and neighbours had expressed concerns about his fitness to hold firearms still he was allowed to hold guns.now there is a survey asking the public for views on ways to tighten the rules against law abiding people who are responsible in their ownership.again we will pay the price for authorities shortcomings.

I’m curious as to where you’ve found this information. Online or via the press perhaps?

You may well be right but as there’s an investigation underway I’d rather wait until the evidence has been gathered before blaming the police, government or anyone else.

There is an online survey available , BASC have issued a link and advice .Please fill in the survey and think carefully about your answers !

Once again  the Police are trying to avoid doing their job properly due to (they say ) lack of resources .

We live in a country second only to China with CCTV cameras everywhere, when you go out your being filmed, yes it's not published online but I think most people have just become used to being filmed or having pictures taken and don't even think about it.

All these other cameras watching you, door bell cameras, cameras on houses, and don't even think about the Alexa (other makes available) gadgets, that's even recording you 

Salopian said:

There is an online survey available , BASC have issued a link and advice .Please fill in the survey and think carefully about your answers !

Once again  the Police are trying to avoid doing their job properly due to (they say ) lack of resources .

Click to expand...

Who has asked for the survey as the BASC link takes you to a site called Survey Monkey not a official government site

ColinD said:

Who has asked for the survey as the BASC link takes you to a site called Survey Monkey not a official government site

Click to expand...

Survey Monkey is just a tool... like Google Forms or the platform that ShootClay runs on... Invision Communities.   The survey is branded by the APCC and linked to from their official site https://www.apccs.police.uk/latest-news/have-your-say-on-potential-changes-to-firearms-licensing/

Jan Powell said:

I’m curious as to where you’ve found this information. Online or via the press perhaps?

You may well be right but as there’s an investigation underway I’d rather wait until the evidence has been gathered before blaming the police, government or anyone else.

Click to expand...

It was announced today that officers are to face disaplinary actions over giving his gun back shortly before he killed .also the survey has been startrd by various police and crime commissioners in an effort to gauge how they need to tighten the laws.the same aws that are likely the toughest in the world.also you may have missed it but very soon after the plymouth shooting the home office daid they would be looking at doing a review on licensing.sounds a lot like penalising those of us who are law abiding responsible owners very reminiscent of a mr blair with handguns.

I’d love to know the statistics for CPSA members that have committed gun crime. I suspect it’s very low, as clay shooters tend to be very careful as they really value their certificates. We all know that clay shooters are naturally gun-safe compared to most other shooters due to the discipline practiced at formal shooting grounds. I gather only about 20% of CPSA members take part in CPSA registered shoots, but these folk are very sensible. My point is that perhaps a proven CPSA competition history could even be an aid to the police in terms of renewals. 

I completed the survey but its not very useful in my opinion

Will Hewland said:

I’d love to know the statistics for CPSA members that have committed gun crime. I suspect it’s very low, as clay shooters tend to be very careful as they really value their certificates. We all know that clay shooters are naturally gun-safe compared to most other shooters due to the discipline practiced at formal shooting grounds. I gather only about 20% of CPSA members take part in CPSA registered shoots, but these folk are very sensible. My point is that perhaps a proven CPSA competition history could even be an aid to the police in terms of renewals. 

Click to expand...

Sorry but i dis agree.i am secretary of a small skeet club which i attend every alternate sunday.the sundays in between i attend another club for sport trap and esp.i also shott at a few of the large grounds ie grimsthorpe snd east of england but not registered cpsa shoots.i am disiplined in my shooting i value my certificate extremely highly.i could see some small value in people having to be members of a club and attending regularly not just once or twice a year and the Secretary of such clubs having to confirm to police and if they werefound to be helping a mate by lieing then they should be penalised.bug as for putting the cpsa in anyway a condition of grant or renewal a definite no as the cpsa like basc and the others do nothing for the sport as far as i can see.

Charliedog said:

I completed the survey but its not very useful in my opinion

Click to expand...

I agree its not a helpful or relevant survey really with the questions asked but do feel they will use it to put extra restrictions upon us in the name of public safety.i would say that the shooting community is the least of the publics concern around safety when you take into account the violence commited using other means.firearms would be bottom of a list and legally held even lower. 

bostonmick said:

Sorry but i dis agree.i am secretary of a small skeet club which i attend every alternate sunday.the sundays in between i attend another club for sport trap and esp.i also shott at a few of the large grounds ie grimsthorpe snd east of england but not registered cpsa shoots.i am disiplined in my shooting i value my certificate extremely highly.i could see some small value in people having to be members of a club and attending regularly not just once or twice a year and the Secretary of such clubs having to confirm to police and if they werefound to be helping a mate by lieing then they should be penalised.bug as for putting the cpsa in anyway a condition of grant or renewal a definite no as the cpsa like basc and the others do nothing for the sport as far as i can see.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying that only 5000 CPSA competition shooters should be granted a certificate, I’m merely saying that they do have a more proven / accountable record than some other shooters. So if it helps, that might be a reference for the police to consider and maybe view as a tool to speed their renewal applications up. I’m not saying exclude others, but some individual who lives alone and is a member of nothing is a better focus of deeper attention for the police. 

Will Hewland said:

You misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying that only 5000 CPSA competition shooters should be granted a certificate, I’m merely saying that they do have a more proven / accountable record than some other shooters. So if it helps, that might be a reference for the police to consider and maybe view as a tool to speed their renewal applications up. I’m not saying exclude others, but some individual who lives alone and is a member of nothing is a better focus of deeper attention for the police. 

Click to expand...

Maybe.i do however believe every certificate holder should be compelled to have insurance cover

I think one thing the police may do is tighten up on why they issue a certificate to a individual in the first place

You can get a SGC without really proving why you want one or to have a good reason to hold one, no safety training, no reason to be a member of a club, where you will use it etc, unlike a FAC.

Yes you can say I'm going clay shooting but thats about it, how many people have shotguns but never use them year on year.

ColinD said:

I think one thing the police may do is tighten up on why they issue a certificate to a individual in the first place

You can get a SGC without really proving why you want one or to have a good reason to hold one, no safety training, no reason to be a member of a club, where you will use it etc, unlike a FAC.

Yes you can say I'm going clay shooting but thats about it, how many people have shotguns but never use them year on year.

Click to expand...

This proves a point.where as in this case it seems the police are going to be held to account for their errors that should be the end of it as far as licensing goes but i fear they will still use it as an excuse to place even more burdens on ùs namely some of the most law abiding in the country.

If the system of certificates is flawed, I wouldn’t oppose improvements. But I find the survey thing quite scary, as it would appear to be a great excuse for draconian measures. “It’s just what the people wanted” is the oldest excuse in the book. And who can actually verify what the “public suggestions” are, and who suggested what for which reason? No sir, I’m not a fan. The police part in the separation of powers is to implement the law, not to decide on what the laws should be.   

Luke_(NL) said:

The police part in the separation of powers is to implement the law, not to decide on what the laws should be.   

Click to expand...

Herein lies the problem. The Home Office provides ‘guidance’ to police forces when it comes to firearms licensing implementation. 

Having lived across several force areas as both a shotgun and firearm certificate holder I know first hand that policies differ widely. 

Some joined up thinking wouldn’t go amiss. Most, on both sides of the gun control debate accept this. The risk is in formalising policy the decision makers err towards the restrictive.

bostonmick said:

Maybe.i do however believe every certificate holder should be compelled to have insurance cover

Click to expand...

Don't get the link between this and stopping gun crime, which is what we're discussing here. I personally don't have insurance for mine and don't particularly feel a need to, but I don't see how either having it or not will stop a lone wolf committing such attrocities. If someone is going to do that sort of thing, NOT having insurance won't be any guage of who has a gun and is responsible or not more than having the licence they need before they even buy it, assuming it's all above board in the first place. If it's all hooky and bought off a bloke in an alley for scrupulous reasons, nothing is going to police that other than the police.

Just a pet point if mine El , everyone using a firearm for sporting purposes should have some form of insurance to cover their liability to a 3rd party . Honestly don’t assume that being on a clay pigeon shooting ground covers you for shooting someone or something . 
You could have a negligent discharge tomorrow , shoot someone’s foot off and find out he’s a budding premiership signing , expensive ! kill their  100,000 guinea bull , or rearrange the body work on your mates hatchback .  Obviously we all say it can’t happen to us , but …..  

The relevance to licensing IMHO , is being an insured shooter shows you are exercising diligence , you wouldn’t drive without insurance would you ? 

MartynB said:

Just a pet point if mine El , everyone using a firearm for sporting purposes should have some form of insurance to cover their liability to a 3rd party . Honestly don’t assume that being on a clay pigeon shooting ground covers you for shooting someone or something . 
You could have a negligent discharge tomorrow , shoot someone’s foot off and find out he’s a budding premiership signing , expensive ! kill their  100,000 guinea bull , or rearrange the body work on your mates hatchback .  Obviously we all say it can’t happen to us , but …..  

The relevance to licensing IMHO , is being an insured shooter shows you are exercising diligence , you wouldn’t drive without insurance would you ? 

Click to expand...

Totally agree...   

MartynB said:

Just a pet point if mine El , everyone using a firearm for sporting purposes should have some form of insurance to cover their liability to a 3rd party . Honestly don’t assume that being on a clay pigeon shooting ground covers you for shooting someone or something . 
You could have a negligent discharge tomorrow , shoot someone’s foot off and find out he’s a budding premiership signing , expensive ! kill their  100,000 guinea bull , or rearrange the body work on your mates hatchback .  Obviously we all say it can’t happen to us , but …..  

The relevance to licensing IMHO , is being an insured shooter shows you are exercising diligence , you wouldn’t drive without insurance would you ? 

Click to expand...

Nope, but I would like to think that any sincere, thinking, conscientious clay shooter ONLY loads their gun when it's over the bar and therefore only ever pointing downrange, and adheres to all the rules of decency, etiquette, and common sense regarding gun usage when around the stand, including if there's a misfire, so it's not in the same ballpark as a multi positional vehicle, able to travel at different speeds in different directions, with thousands of parts to go wrong, potentially fatally, and only held on the road at high velocity by about 18 square inches of rubber spread across 4 planes.

I get where you're coming from, but one is waaaaaay more lethal than the other, ironically, considering what the statistically actual more safe item is designed to do! (equivalently, from working in the fire service, my beef is people over a certain age NOT being tested for their driving ability regularly!)

I have never even thought that a club would have their own insurance for people participating there, and I know some grounds insist on it, and that's fine. There's always the never never, but I think this IS a personal choice, IF you're a sensible shooter and not a loon. Otherwise, you're joining the top trumps club of seeing how quickly you can squeeze being a vegan into the conversation to annoy people. When incidents happen, literally every single occasion I'VE heard of, and even that's a crazy low figure, in the single digits in this country, since I started shooting is down to some biff doing something ridiculous or other and not excercising that due diligence you mentioned, but there you go

The key word you mentioned there in negligent, and every time one picks up a firearm, that person should absolutely, 100% be fully prepared to take into account what they have and what they are doing with it.