Paid and no service

[Freddypip]

My reply was in relation to the original posts and the suggestion that an armed uprising was on the cards.

I disagree that the Police interview process is the same for S.1 or S.2 applications. The legislation determines that firearms are catagorised in S.1 & S.2 and I'm sure the police recognise the distinction. S.1 firearms are, in themselves, a greater risk than S.2 firearms hence the different catagories. The volume of guns and rounds may have little relevance to the risk posed - its is the type (calibre, rounds, semi-auto etc) that matters. A quick review of the high profile events currently dictating gun control points towards certain types & calibres adopted for general use by the military (or Police themselves) as requiring tighter control than smoothbore shotguns which, with at most three shots & slow reload time, are rarely used in such events. These are the points that set government thinking over what falls in S.1 or S.2, whether we agree with them or not.

I would much prefer if those using S.1 firearms for sport were also not affected by the assumption that the government is in fear of a paramilitary uprising or for that matter any misuse of the firearms they hold. I do believe that those in possesion of a firearm (S.1 or S.2) for a recognised purpose such as the CPSA or a approved club show they are less of risk to the public. It shows they have a purpose for owning the gun and have learned safety in the guns use & storage etc which those without may lack. This is not a hard & fast rule however, but it is indicative.

As sad as it sounds I don't think the public care at all about suicides by gun whatever the gun type. I don't think the public care enough about suicide at all however it occurs and whoever it affects. Up until the 1961 Act suicide was criminal offence and in my mind that sigma has not left us and we continue to look at those who have committed suicide as having failed & been selfish when it is often that others have not helped them.

I remain of the view that this is a clay shooting forum and that concerns over S.1 legislation & application etc should have as little connection to S.2 shotguns and their use in clay shooting disiplines as possible. I accept however that I have no interest in a S.1 license and thus would happliy accept greater control over their issue.

Finally I know plenty of people with S.1 certificates.

 

[FESkent]

I accept however that I have no interest in a S.1 license and thus would happliy accept greater control over their issue.

Of course you would because it would not impact on you, but possibly those that only own only s1 firearms would happily accept greater control over S2 firearms and their use. Be careful what you wish for.

United we should be regardless of the discipline we actually shoot, as the history of firearms ownership in this country has shown divided we fall. 

 

[ChrisOR]

“Strange that certain professions never stopped at all with home visits during the pandemic.”

Very true, lots of trades have continued working within people’s houses during the pandemic but then I bet most were self employed, no work no money, unlike the FEO.

Added to that, plumbers don’t return to a central base filled with hundreds of other plumbers and staff. If a city’s population of plumbers get infected, we all have to put up with dripping taps and cold water.......if a police force is laid low with a virus, things might take a turn for the worse.

Cuthbert’s SGC is not really a priority.

 

[Westward]

I accept however that I have no interest in a S.1 license and thus would happliy accept greater control over their issue.

That, in a sense, is where there's a problem with the entire licencing system because it sets too much emphasis on the type of firearm rather than the type of owner. For example, what makes a 5 shot semi inherently more dangerous than a 3 shot and by what logic are they subject to different licencing?

Licencing is just another control mechanism to limit access to firearms on the widely promulgated but mistaken belief that guns, by their very existence, are dangerous and that some guns are more dangerous than others.

Reality check: People who commit suicide will do so and are not more likely to do so because they have access to guns any more than licencing has any effect on reducing gun crime. If anyone in the process of advising the government on this subject had any actual experience, or was capable of rational thought, rather than a multi tiered licence system, they'd build in qualification tests like a smaller version of the driving test. It's ludicrous that someone can obtain an S2 licence without ever having picked up a shotgun. And it does happen...  I knew someone a few years ago who was exactly that.

 

[Les53]

That, in a sense, is where there's a problem with the entire licencing system because it sets too much emphasis on the type of firearm rather than the type of owner. For example, what makes a 5 shot semi inherently more dangerous than a 3 shot and by what logic are they subject to different licencing?

Licencing is just another control mechanism to limit access to firearms on the widely promulgated but mistaken belief that guns, by their very existence, are dangerous and that some guns are more dangerous than others.

Reality check: People who commit suicide will do so and are not more likely to do so because they have access to guns any more than licencing has any effect on reducing gun crime. If anyone in the process of advising the government on this subject had any actual experience, or was capable of rational thought, rather than a multi tiered licence system, they'd build in qualification tests like a smaller version of the driving test. It's ludicrous that someone can obtain an S2 licence without ever having picked up a shotgun. And it does happen...  I knew someone a few years ago who was exactly that.

I agree with all that! The current system needs attention in many ways! 

 

[FESkent]

Added to that, plumbers don’t return to a central base filled with hundreds of other plumbers and staff. If a city’s population of plumbers get infected, we all have to put up with dripping taps and cold water.......if a police force is laid low with a virus, things might take a turn for the worse.

Cuthbert’s SGC is not really a priority.

very unlikely as it looks like the FEOs were working from home. Far more risk of the police force being laid low by the officers being out in the community policing those ignoring the lockdown or not social distancing, of which that’s has been plenty of examples hence the number of fines issued.

they'd build in qualification tests like a smaller version of the driving test. It's ludicrous that someone can obtain an S2 licence without ever having picked up a shotgun.

Again be careful what you wish for, look at the mess that is GP medical reports.  

The more hurdles and the higher the cost, then less will take up the sport, if it ain’t broken don’t fix it.

Whilst the FEO cannot refuse to grant a S2 certificate (due to lack of experience) they can postpone issuing it until they are confident the applicant is a fit and proper person to own firearms and that can include they are safe to handle the firearm such that they present no risk to the general public or themselves.
In Kent they have required such applicants to attend a safety/training course at a Clay Pigeon Ground.

 

[TRINITY]

Added to that, plumbers don’t return to a central base filled with hundreds of other plumbers and staff. If a city’s population of plumbers get infected, we all have to put up with dripping taps and cold water.......if a police force is laid low with a virus, things might take a turn for the worse.

Cuthbert’s SGC is not really a priority.

I cant speak for all firearms departments nationwide, but the ones I am aware of seem to have the vast majority of their staff who are 'civves' .Quite a few employ retired police officers. The assumption that firearms department staff could be used to bolster front line policing is a non starter

 

[ChrisOR]

I cant speak for all firearms departments nationwide, but the ones I am aware of seem to have the vast majority of their staff who are 'civves' .Quite a few employ retired police officers. The assumption that firearms department staff could be used to bolster front line policing is a non starter

But they do tend to share a building.

 

[ColinD]

But they do tend to share a building.

And your point being

 

[bostonmick]

In order to expedite SGC applications and renewals by increasing staff numbers etc, would people be happy to pay an increased cost as compared to the annual membership of BASC and/or the CPSA, the five yearly SGC fees seem minimal and that is what allows us to legally possess the very things we need to partake in shooting.  Whilst it isn’t great you can understand that other matters take priority. 

I would have no problem with paying more. But only if the money went to employing enough people to do the job in a timely manner unlike the way most things go with money for one thing being channelled into other areas.maybe double the cost but have a guarantee of say eight weeks turnaround.

 

[woody]

I sometimes think that as a software developer, and knowing our local FAO fairly well, that the process is crying out for some updated technology.  A system that joins everything up for a start would be nice.  But its such a small niche market there is no money to be made in building that system.

 

[Les53]

I sometimes think that as a software developer, and knowing our local FAO fairly well, that the process is crying out for some updated technology.  A system that joins everything up for a start would be nice.  But its such a small niche market there is no money to be made in building that system.

I reckon an up to date system is what’s needed without a doubt. Ok yes it’s a fairly small market as you rightly say and I would guess most shooters would willingly pay more for a faster and more efficient system. 
Let’s face it, the government has so much info on every one of us these days. So surely an efficient joined up system must be possible. But went it comes to no money in it? Well it is supposed to come under the heading of a public service, as opposed to a profit making scheme. Just my opinion of course. 

 

[woody]

I meant no money in it for a software development company.  There are about 40 police forces in England and Wales.  Thats not many customers of your product.

 

[Les53]

I meant no money in it for a software development company.  There are about 40 police forces in England and Wales.  Thats not many customers of your product.

Oh I see I’m with you now! Surely there should be some way of doing it though? Let’s face the government have thrown money at plenty of other things! One day they will have to do it somehow! 

 

[woody]

yep - throw some money at it.  An outsourced consultancy, and a platform like SalesForce which is a cloud based CRM and they could have the solution live in 6 months. 

 

[Les53]

When you think about some aspects of our system it beggars belief. 
When you apply, the form asks about convictions, even motoring convictions. Come on, they are the police, they must already know!!! 
A lot of the info requested on the application form must already be known to them, or it can be found easily. 
I know a local copper very well and last year we were talking about guns and licensing. He admitted that I probably knew more about the subject than he did. He also admitted that he believed the system should be removed from the police and a totally new body set up to oversee and administer firearms licensing. The police would only become involved if an offence had been committed. Now that to me actually makes sense! 

 

[balltrap]

When you think about some aspects of our system it beggars belief. 
When you apply, the form asks about convictions, even motoring convictions. Come on, they are the police, they must already know!!! 
A lot of the info requested on the application form must already be known to them, or it can be found easily. 
I know a local copper very well and last year we were talking about guns and licensing. He admitted that I probably knew more about the subject than he did. He also admitted that he believed the system should be removed from the police and a totally new body set up to oversee and administer firearms licensing. The police would only become involved if an offence had been committed. Now that to me actually makes sense! 

Les the police use the info to check against there records, the PNC has known to be wrong and out of date at times !

 

[Les53]

Les the police use the info to check against there records, the PNC has known to be wrong and out of date at times !

Ah, never knew that

 

[ChrisOR]

And your point being

It’s not glaring ?

Plumbers have been allowed to enter people’s houses during lockdown, FAOs have not. Should a plumber have picked up the virus while fixing a tap, he goes home. The FAO goes back to a central base, typically within a police station, which tends to be occupied by police officers.

If the infected plumber passes it on to his family and is off work, people’s taps will drip. If the FAO picks up the virus and returns to a police station, filled with police officers, then those officers become infected and have to stay off work, it becomes a bit more serious for society.

Hope that helps clear the ambiguity of my point.

 

[MartynB]

When you think about some aspects of our system it beggars belief. 
When you apply, the form asks about convictions, even motoring convictions. Come on, they are the police, they must already know!!! 
 

If someone doesn’t take the trouble to disclose any past convictions or medical problems , then you would question if they are suitable to hold a certificate  . So to that end I assume the requirement for us to declare in writing  , is a check on our character , even if the police already have the information on tap .