Finch
Well-Known Member
After the tragic events in Plymouth, it is inevitable there will be calls for a tightening up on firearms licensing. Lets be honest, most people (including, most politicians and most of the media) know next to nothing about firearms, or current licensing regulations. We do, because we at the sharp end.
So, without speculating on the Plymouth case before due process has had a chance to do its job, or intruding on the grief of those affected who are still coming to terms with it, what in more general terms, is our collective take on the current state of firearms licensing and regulations and how do we think the law and process could be improved? Knee-jerk legislation is rarely good or useful legislation.
My view is that, broadly the system is well intentioned and for the most part effective. But there are areas of dysfunction. One concerns the assessment of mental health and its impact on gun ownership. To me that area is all very knee-jerk and emotive. For one thing, as I mentioned in the locked thread, I believe the current approach lacks nuance and is too much of a blunt instrument. It discourages otherwise well adjusted and responsible FAC holders from seeking professional help should they become overwhelmed by life's events and succumb to emotional problems. No one is immune to such things, especially in this pressurised society we have created. As someone said on the other thread, an MOT only certifies a vehicle fit and serviceable on the day of issue. It may be valid for a year but it can't guarantee some defect won't develop before expiry which makes the vehicle unsafe. Firearms licensing as it stands seems tailor-made to ensure FAC holders are more likely to bottle up problems and try to tough them out rather than seek help. I've always said, it's not people who seek help for emotional or psychological problems you need to worry about, it's those who don't.
And do we place too much pressure on GPs to assess the mental health of patients they may not have seen for years? Not everyone who is suffering emotional problems is a danger to themselves or anyone else. The vast majority are not. Are GPs always the best people to make that assessment and where they are not, who is and how could it be handled better?
So (a), I think the whole issue of mental health needs to be de-sensationalised and treated more rationally. How could this be done so that it filters more effectively?
And (b), the police and firearms licensing generally need more resources, more expertise and less political interference. It is they who should be telling politicians where improvements can be made, not being left implementing back-of-a-fag-packet initiatives politicians have drawn up in a hurry to keep the media happy.
To do that FA licensing personnel need to be better trained or more knowledgeable about firearms from the start. Too many lack first hand experience. Partly because, as in all arms of government, police personnel tend to be promoted sideways and appointments are filled from within instead of seeking expertise from outside. How could this be changed?
And the system needs to be better resourced. Personally I'd happily pay double the fee for renewals, or more, IF I thought that the money was all going back into firearms licensing and being used to make the system function more efficiently and effectively.
No regulatory system can ever be perfect and it cannot anticipate and prevent all undesirable outcomes. So bearing that in mind, if it was down to us, and if we were consulted (which of course we won't be) how would we improve the system?
So, without speculating on the Plymouth case before due process has had a chance to do its job, or intruding on the grief of those affected who are still coming to terms with it, what in more general terms, is our collective take on the current state of firearms licensing and regulations and how do we think the law and process could be improved? Knee-jerk legislation is rarely good or useful legislation.
My view is that, broadly the system is well intentioned and for the most part effective. But there are areas of dysfunction. One concerns the assessment of mental health and its impact on gun ownership. To me that area is all very knee-jerk and emotive. For one thing, as I mentioned in the locked thread, I believe the current approach lacks nuance and is too much of a blunt instrument. It discourages otherwise well adjusted and responsible FAC holders from seeking professional help should they become overwhelmed by life's events and succumb to emotional problems. No one is immune to such things, especially in this pressurised society we have created. As someone said on the other thread, an MOT only certifies a vehicle fit and serviceable on the day of issue. It may be valid for a year but it can't guarantee some defect won't develop before expiry which makes the vehicle unsafe. Firearms licensing as it stands seems tailor-made to ensure FAC holders are more likely to bottle up problems and try to tough them out rather than seek help. I've always said, it's not people who seek help for emotional or psychological problems you need to worry about, it's those who don't.
And do we place too much pressure on GPs to assess the mental health of patients they may not have seen for years? Not everyone who is suffering emotional problems is a danger to themselves or anyone else. The vast majority are not. Are GPs always the best people to make that assessment and where they are not, who is and how could it be handled better?
So (a), I think the whole issue of mental health needs to be de-sensationalised and treated more rationally. How could this be done so that it filters more effectively?
And (b), the police and firearms licensing generally need more resources, more expertise and less political interference. It is they who should be telling politicians where improvements can be made, not being left implementing back-of-a-fag-packet initiatives politicians have drawn up in a hurry to keep the media happy.
To do that FA licensing personnel need to be better trained or more knowledgeable about firearms from the start. Too many lack first hand experience. Partly because, as in all arms of government, police personnel tend to be promoted sideways and appointments are filled from within instead of seeking expertise from outside. How could this be changed?
And the system needs to be better resourced. Personally I'd happily pay double the fee for renewals, or more, IF I thought that the money was all going back into firearms licensing and being used to make the system function more efficiently and effectively.
No regulatory system can ever be perfect and it cannot anticipate and prevent all undesirable outcomes. So bearing that in mind, if it was down to us, and if we were consulted (which of course we won't be) how would we improve the system?
Last edited:
