Eater Sundae Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21715622 I always assumed that anyone with a history of violence or erratic behaviour would never have a hope of getting a licence for a shotgun or firearm, yet this man did. A sad result. I hope that the coroner is listened to. Having access to guns is not a right. That's why people need a licence. What's the point of needing a licence and then not actually making a meaningful decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidley Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Hi You have to have a licence in the u.s and look what happens there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane2008 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I also hope the coroner is listened to. Unfortunately, you do have a right to apply for a licence and unless they can find a legitimate reason not to grant it you are entitled to it. Obviously with hindsight he shouldn't have been granted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted March 9, 2013 Author Share Posted March 9, 2013 I also hope the coroner is listened to. ng of Unfortunately, you do have a right to apply for a licence and unless they can find a legitimate reason not to grant it you are entitled to it. Obviously with hindsight he shouldn't have been granted it. I don't think hindsight applies in this case. There appear to have been several reasons, any of which should have prevented the granting of a licence, or its recall. Durham Police have since revoked around 100 other licences, so it clearly isn't so difficult to refuse. On a radio report I heard, it referred to a note attached to a licence application in this case by an officer who wished to refuse the application but felt he couldn't. It looks like a lack of training. I'd never given this any thought before now. I'd just taken it for granted that checks would have been made on anyone who applied, and they would need to be squeaky clean to be given a licence. I'd assumed that any history of violenve, for example, would have reesulted in an automatic refusal. I was surprised that this wasn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malvoleo Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Hi You have to have a licence in the u.s and look what happens there Err... I don't think so. In many States you have to undergo an (immediate) background check for handguns. If that comes back fine, then here is your gun sir... For rifles there is a short waiting period to aquire it but there is no 'licence' as such. The only licence as i understand it is to carry a concealed handgun - a major difference... (For my personal opinion I think our current laws are fine but I think the police should be allocated more funds to adequately police the issue - two or if you are lucky three people per county to judge the many many applications is just stupid - and yes i do know the system... I also question whether if there is a tightening of the rules there will be increased money to enforce them, or will it be done on the cheap... again - cynical... me ... no!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted March 9, 2013 Author Share Posted March 9, 2013 Err... I don't think so. In many States you have to undergo an (immediate) background check for handguns. If that comes back fine, then here is your gun sir... For rifles there is a short waiting period to aquire it but there is no 'licence' as such. The only licence as i understand it is to carry a concealed handgun - a major difference... (For my personal opinion I think our current laws are fine but I think the police should be allocated more funds to adequately police the issue - two or if you are lucky three people per county to judge the many many applications is just stupid - and yes i do know the system... I also question whether if there is a tightening of the rules there will be increased money to enforce them, or will it be done on the cheap... again - cynical... me ... no!) I don't know the licenccing system. One point made by a relative of those killed said that the cost of the licence doesn't even cover the admin costs. So in effect taxpayers in general are subsiding gun owners. Maybe if the licencing cost were to be raised, then the money could be used to pay for proper checks and enforcement. I still find it incredible that anyone with anger iss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tallanddopey Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I don't know the licenccing system. One point made by a relative of those killed said that the cost of the licence doesn't even cover the admin costs. So in effect taxpayers in general are subsiding gun owners. Maybe if the licencing cost were to be raised, then the money could be used to pay for proper checks and enforcement. because if you force people to pay too much then lots of people start to have guns without a license. All you have to do is look at how many people dont pay insurance (a legal requirement to drive on the road) and you can see what would happen if a gun license was several hundred pounds. I personally believe that in cases like the one in the article the man having a gun or not, would not have stopped the crime. If he was so inclined to kill these women he could have done so with or without a gun, ie strangulation or a knife. Whilst guns are a tool that makes killing easy, they are just that, a tool and if someone has murderous tendencies in them they will carry them out none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I don't know the licenccing system. One point made by a relative of those killed said that the cost of the licence doesn't even cover the admin costs. So in effect taxpayers in general are subsiding gun owners. same with appendix A checks, explosive licence, URN applications and more very few things that require a police check pay their own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted March 10, 2013 Author Share Posted March 10, 2013 because if you force people to pay too much then lots of people start to have guns without a license. All you have to do is look at how many people dont pay insurance (a legal requirement to drive on the road) and you can see what would happen if a gun license was several hundred pounds. I personally believe that in cases like the one in the article the man having a gun or not, would not have stopped the crime. If he was so inclined to kill these women he could have done so with or without a gun, ie strangulation or a knife. Whilst guns are a tool that makes killing easy, they are just that, a tool and if someone has murderous tendencies in them they will carry them out none the less. In this case, we'll never know for certain. If he hadn't had access to guns, maybe he would have found another means to do the same. I'm inclined to think it would be less likely. Also, if he were using, say, a knife, then there would be more chance of at least one of the victims escaping. Also, the harder it is to kill, and the longer it takes, then there is more time for the assailant to change his/her mind and come to their senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.