Multiple shooting

[Chris-NZ]

Our TV news announced the multiple deaths/ apparent suicide in the UK. Condolences to any affected by this.

I just hope there are no Dunblane-type consequences for you licensed firearm owners. They haven't yet finished the fiasco over here in New Zealand after the Christchurch massacre.

[geek]

I read yesterday that a shotgun was mentioned and today it was stated on Sky News that it was "a legally held firearm". 

Seems to be another loner who shouldn't have been able to hold an FAC/SGC, but we shall see.

 

 

[phaedra1106uk]

Unfortunately it's a repeat of the Atherton shootings up here in Horden a few years ago.

License holder with known problems, has firearm removed by police then returned just a few weeks before the shootings.

 

[Big Al]

An allegation was made against him that was investigated, no charges were made and he was deemed fit to have his shotgun returned, unfortunately he clearly wasnt fit and we now have this mess and such tragic consequences. 

 

Looking at his social media history he does look a troubled individual and if the police were aware of that they maybe wouldnt have given him the gun back? The problem is, what level of private scrutiny do we want or expect the police to go to to deem we are suitable to possess our firearms? Do we really want them poking into every sore of our lives, if they did they would revoke a lot of licences that really shouldn't be revoked.

 

Sadly five people are dead and two others injured, thats never a good thing but we need to put this into context.

 

I always say to people look at the number of people killed every year because the aggressor was pissed, I know someone who punched a lad in a bar queue when he was a young man and pissed, the lad fell down from the blow and died - are we going to ban alcohol?

 

How many dickheads kill people when they are driving and texting - again are we going to ban cars or mobiles?

 

I know I dont have to convince you guys but this is what I say to those who think legally held firearms are bad for the country. There are even years when zero unlawful killings happen with legally held firearms and suicides don't count because the gun holder could have just as easily stepped off a high building or hit the tablets.

 

My heart goes out to the victims and their families, especially some poor mother I dont know who no longer has her child and her husband. 😢

 

[Shuggy]

It seems that the backlash against licence holders has already started. Apparently licence applicants will now be subjected to enhanced ‘social media checks’ during the application process.

[One on top of two]

It’s nothing new , they have been doing it from day one .

[Re-Pete]

Well they evidently didn't do it on this occasion.........

Pete

[One on top of two]

There’s a bit more to it than that , for one Incel is not on a watch list , maybe a different story now though ,

the police have been banging on for years about telling shooters NOT to post pics of there guns or shooting adventures on Facebook or other social media. 
there’s been countless campaigns all over the country by forces regarding this. 
the police have been revoking licences on content they have been posting for a long time . 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-38703555 

https://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-former/press-release/2017/02/07/think-before-you-tweet-basc-urges/

https://www.yellowad.co.uk/conditions-added-to-chingford-pub-licence-after-gun-post-on-facebook/

and the police can and have revoked licences through association on social media .  Ie your friends list . They don’t like you having known criminals listed in your friends list . 
in Lincolnshire they are very hot on this  , they even have a name for it “ revocations by association “ 

they trawl through all of the shooting sites .We even have police on here .
 

[Popsbengo]

This is the first draft proposal of the revised Guidance to Police,  it's what some of us may have commented on during the consultation process a couple of years ago.

I believe this is what the news stories are referring to:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818022/Draft_firearms_statutory_guidance_-_16_July.pdf

[One on top of two]

1 minute ago, Popsbengo said:

This is the first draft proposal of the revised Guidance to Police,  it's what some of us may have commented on during the consultation process a couple of years ago.

I believe this is what the news stories are referring to:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818022/Draft_firearms_statutory_guidance_-_16_July.pdf

👍

[Re-Pete]

Having read it, if it is applied as indicated, fine, I can't see any reason to be concerned.

As for trawling facebook and twitter for clues, a brilliant idea......if you have the resources to do it.

Pete

[Shuggy]

As always, the media and politicians are looking for quick fixes. It seems to me that all the talk about treating ‘incels’ as a terrorist group, or conducting enhanced social media checks is distracting everyone from the core issue that it is probably quite difficult to spot someone heading for a catastrophic and murderous mental breakdown.

Mental health issues are incredibly common and have much less of a stigma than they used to. It worries me that people engaging positively with treatment to help them get better might be victimised for doing so when their certificates are up for renewal. 

[One on top of two]

We also need to keep in mind that current policy also works and seems to work well . 
hamliton , bird and now this chap ALL had there licences revoked when alarm bells  started to ring  and all firearms where removed in line with guidelines , but all managed to get them back again and then they committed there respective crimes ,  the failing  seems to be in the giving back bit , maybe this is the area in which the police need to be looking .

just saying .. 

[gazzarM1]

That they would be so thorough assessing the suitability of some policemen and politicians..

Just saying

[Popsbengo]

1 hour ago, Re-Pete said:

Having read it, if it is applied as indicated, fine, I can't see any reason to be concerned.

As for trawling facebook and twitter for clues, a brilliant idea......if you have the resources to do it.

Pete

Yes, that occurred to me - resources already strained, hardly likely to get additional help.

Quite how the FEO will check through one's social media is not clear..

[terryh]

....as to resources, if they tidied up and removed some of the stupidity in the current system them there would be more time for checking.

Things like swapping an suppressor for another (no serials numbers etc. on some mods) or even exchanging one rifle for another of the same calibre (or similar category) do not need forms filling and FAC's returned, cleared and sent back again - it achieves nothing except waste time and man hours.

A lot of companies check social media during the employment process for new staff so there must be basic methods or technologies to do this.

[Popsbengo]

55 minutes ago, terryh said:

....as to resources, if they tidied up and removed some of the stupidity in the current system them there would be more time for checking......

....A lot of companies check social media during the employment process for new staff so there must be basic methods or technologies to do this.

Just been chatting to a friend that's an ex data security geek at a very large company;  GDPR ensures that without your permission or a legal warrant, a search would be limited to what you have put in the public domain,  'most people' (I'm assuming) don't set their security levels on Farsebook/Twotter and don't go in and delete past content that they may not wish to explain when taken out of context.  I guess foolish people making dubious comments will have to explain themselves - maybe a self-sorting group ?

[Chanonry]

4 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

Yes, that occurred to me - resources already strained, hardly likely to get additional help.

Quite how the FEO will check through one's social media is not clear..

Sounds to me its an opportunity for a wee program

[Big Al]

Access to the content of FB account is set to 'Friends Only' as Im sure it is for many people, I imagine that will make it impossible for FLO's to check your FB content unless he is on your friends list? 

[Big Al]

On 8/16/2021 at 1:16 PM, Shuggy said:

the core issue that it is probably quite difficult to spot someone heading for a catastrophic and murderous mental breakdown.

Mental health issues are incredibly common and have much less of a stigma than they used to. It worries me that people engaging positively with treatment to help them get better might be victimised for doing so when their certificates are up for renewal. 

100% and when someone reaches that tragic state there are plenty of weapons available to them in the kitchen or in the garage.

As with everything though constabularies interpret the rules differently, some with common sense and at at times it seems others with no sense.

I spoke to a lad a while back who was paid a visit because his GP informed the police he was being treat for depression. Basically his marriage had broken up and as a result he was also facing financial difficulties and also a huge restriction on the time he could see his children. He needed to work longer hours to cope and it was all getting too much for him. The doctor had signed him off work for a month I think and prescribed anti-depressants.

When the police said they were considering taking away his guns he put up an objection and explained that he loved pigeon and vermin shooting and could never do as much of it as he wanted due to work and family pressures. His plan during the month off work was to shoot more, he said it always made him happy to be in the countryside with his guns and that losing them would further add to his mental decline. Apparently the FLO bought into that reasoned objection and allowed him to retain them even though some might have cynically suggested he would use them to kill his wife, family and himself.

One month later after having some quality time to himself he went back to work three days a week and the police were informed, a month or so later he went back to work full time and about six months later he came off the anti-depressants and the doctor agreed he was no longer depressed. All this time he held on to his shotguns and rifles.

His record was clean in every respect up to that bout of depression and it was good to see some compassion and common sense being applied.

Depression doesn't make most people into a raging lunatics with a blood lust, yet its one of the quickest ways to lose your entitlements. 🙁

 

[furrybean]

I completely agree Al and well said

We dont want to be in a position where shooters feel they cannot get help with any mental health issues for fear of loosing their guns and access to the hobby that aids mental welbeing.

[Popsbengo]

I agree with Big Al's sentiment entirely but I also feel for the poor FEO who's damned if he does or damned if he doesn't make a decision based on a layman's understanding without access to qualified support.  In making that decision, human nature says to be risk adverse as it's potentially career threatening to the FEO et-al to get it wrong (as in this case).  What would I do in the same situation?  Spoil someone's enjoyment of a sport or risk my career and livelihood?

[ds1]

Is it known if the person had a shotgun cert or FAC? As I understand it (used to be). A FAC one has to show good reason but a shotgun certificate the police must show good reason against granting one?

Reading the guidelines, certain things seem objective- criminal records, medical treatments.  However the bit about checking social media begs the question by who?…..criminal psychologist? or outside agency? or algorithm? It seems a legal minefield of free speech and privacy of access which would probably end up in multiple court cases. Example - here identify is under ‘username’. It could be one user name has multiple people writing on it or that a persons views on whatever do a complete 180 every 2 days. 

[Popsbengo]

7 minutes ago, ds1 said:

Is it known if the person had a shotgun cert or FAC? As I understand it (used to be). A FAC one has to show good reason but a shotgun certificate the police must show good reason against granting one?

Reading the guidelines, certain things seem objective- criminal records, medical treatments.  However the bit about checking social media begs the question by who?…..criminal psychologist? or outside agency? or algorithm? It seems a legal minefield of free speech and privacy of access which would probably end up in multiple court cases. Example - here identify is under ‘username’. It could be one user name has multiple people writing on it or that a persons views on whatever do a complete 180 every 2 days. 

In general your understanding of FAC/SGC is still correct. I think it's really about specific reasons vs. general reasons.  However the applicant must still convince the FEO he/she's a fit person to be granted either.

Regarding social media, large businesses use specialist agencies to trawl through posts when recruiting but I doubt there's any more than a layman's opinion behind the review.  Apart from anything else it must be incredibly tedious, I expect the first thing to look for is what groups the applicant has subscribed to and what pictures they post and 'like'.  Text would be a real drag to review without key word searching.  And then there are those that don't make their posts public.  There's no way to force access short of a court order and no one's suggesting that be used for FAC applications.

At the end of the day the FEO will form an opinion from a multitude of factors and grant/refuse on that basis.  The new rules call for the FEO to be able to provide reasons/evidence for why they refuse (or grant) however I think there aren't many court cases challenging decisions now and I doubt they will increase so as we'd notice.

[Shuggy]

Al, I was pleased to read that story, which shows that some Forces do apply compassion and common sense. A key point for me is that if people have reached out for help and are trying to improve their health, then Forces shouldn’t immediately treat them as a threat to themselves or the public.

It’s a sad fact though that some tragic cases do slip through all of the checks and balances that are there. These incidents seem to happen in the UK about every decade; and the types of firearm controls in place seem to make little difference to their occurrence. The key question is whether society finds that to be acceptable level or not.