Please enlighten me on the need of these "allowed reasons" that couldn't be replaced by a professional, tightly controlled and vetted, service.Yes, they are the allowed reasons for civilians having one. I could go out and kill more people in my car quicker than my shotgun. Ban cars just in case.
There is a case for making checks more often than every five years when you apply for a new cert, but iirc there now needs to be a doctors mental health assessment before the issue of a licence. Not that someone couldn't go off the rails just afterwards of course.Now bear with me here, I want this post to be specifically about the UK and not the US as the rules around gun control are obviously vastly different, and it also makes a lot of assumptions about the accused.
Sadly, my snap reaction to this is probably a failing of mental health services, UK gun control is pretty darn strict already (I know a family member who wants to get into clay Pidgeon shooting and it's a long drawn out process.), so my first assumption is that still men's mental health is not taken seriously enough and this guy has reached a point (for whatever reason) where he has though this was a reasonable thing to do.
Part of me thinks that if people want to take part in a hobby that requires a firearm, then they should be allowed to, given the correct regular checks are done.
Part of me thinks that guns are such instant killing machines that no person (let alone civilian) should ever be trusted with one.
Part of my thinks that these three people probably would have died anyway, whether a gun was involved or not. If my assumption that the guy had got to a point where this was an option, it could have been done with a knife or his bare hands anyway. It's this point I wanted to make the first sentence caveat about, as I see a lot of Americans making this argument but their gun control laws are absolutely baffling weak.
All I see is a load of wannabe Americans. I want to own a gun, so as my right as a civilian, I can.
Bore off.
Give me a legitimate excuse for owning one or a use case where it is needed in this country.
Still waiting.
Good luck convincing an FAO, I suspect they wouldn't let you have one.All I see is a load of wannabe Americans. I want to own a gun, so as my right as a civilian, I can.
Bore off.
Exactly this, if you want to own a fire arm, you should be more than willing to get some kind of assessment every 12 months and undergo a simple check of address etc. at the absolutely minimum.There is a case for making checks more often than every five years when you apply for a new cert, but iirc there now needs to be a doctors mental health assessment before the issue of a licence. Not that someone couldn't go off the rails just afterwards of course.
Mate I don't want one.Good luck convincing an FAO, I suspect they wouldn't let you have one.
Well there is a quite obvious reason for needing one (and it's not for fun), I'm sure I don't need to spell it out unless you really are that stupid or just looking for an argument.
Yes I could use a 'professional' as you term it (also a civilian I would have thought) but by the time they arrived it would be to late in a lot of situations.
What's with the vagueness? Struggling?Well there is a quite obvious reason for needing one (and it's not for fun), I'm sure I don't need to spell it out unless you really are that stupid or just looking for an argument.
Yes I could use a 'professional' as you term it (also a civilian I would have thought) but by the time they arrived it would be to late in a lot of situations.
Spell it out for us as otherwise it could be anything.Well there is a quite obvious reason for needing one (and it's not for fun), I'm sure I don't need to spell it out unless you really are that stupid or just looking for an argument.
Yes I could use a 'professional' as you term it (also a civilian I would have thought) but by the time they arrived it would be to late in a lot of situations.
So it's basically just for fun then?