C
Captain Nemesis
No, not really.
Mass shooting in Plymouth!
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
I've just asked her, she interviews them. She can only recall maybe 2 people having zero trace on FB, more common is they have a profile but are largely inactive.
She just casts her eye over a couple of pages for any obvious indicators, shouty/sweary types for example. Strong family links tend to suggest a stable type of person.
She's no psychologist but you can pick up a vague idea of someone's personality/ethics etc.
C
Captain Nemesis
Id welcome even more thorough, "intrusive" if you like, checks in return for being allowed a Section 5 handgun.
C
Captain Nemesis
I was just curious if alarm bells rang - "Blimey - this guy is very good at hiding what he gets up to. I wonder what that is?" sort of thing.
C
Captain Nemesis
Be happy that you dont have an anti-gun GP who refuses to provide the letter.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,606
- Reaction score
- 550
- Country
C
Captain Nemesis
Not a good reason.
And what would you do with that?
A bit passé?
Desert Eagle or 500 Magnum if you want a monster hand cannon. For when the burglar is hiding behind the fridge.
In your neighbours house.
Dont watch Bond films - is he still using a Walther PPK?Or may be one of them 007 guns ? Good enough for bond than it’s good enough for Transam
Last edited by a moderator:
I've not approached my GP yet as my FAC is not due for renewal until early next year, however it doesn't have to be your own doctor as there are other alternatives ... which makes a mockery of the ruling as only your own GP actually knows you as a patient, not some other doctor who is just signing in return for his/her fee.
C
Captain Nemesis
Presumably he has access to your records?
The Scottish idea seems to start on the basis that nothing can be done about misuse. In some ways it's the simplest way of handling a number of problems. They may have a point.
A pellet catcher, they usually hold a target is just that. It isn't a backstop. A backstop needs to achieve certain things. They can be bought but using one still needs some thought. Better idea IMHO is holders that place the target close to the ground. Many things for shooting at do. People are far more likely to think about misses.
A house is an extremely good backstop. Anyone that shoots at an angle that may go over that is being silly. Same applies in any direction what ever is there. Targets need to be sufficiently well down and any subsequent problems thought about.
Ricochets should not be a problem shooting with the right things in front of the gun. They may be to the shooter as i personally know. i took one to a precision 22lr range and each time I hit the bull the pellet bounced back and hit me on the forehead shooting prone. The gun wasn't powerful enough to use that type of backstop. I used to shoot small bore competitively.
Shooting birds and squirrels etc in an urban environment is also a no no. Rats are out for me as well but say that some animal is on the ground. Just like anyone who uses a FAC gun has to I would need to consider the results of a miss that includes the result of a ricochet. The main problem in this area is that some one might wake up one morning and think I want to shoot something, go out buy a gun and not even learn to use it on a target first.
The main problem really is people who do not consider all of this area or simply don't care or never thought about what they are doing and the possible consequences.
Personally i thinks a certain amount of education would help a lot and needn't even involve shooting a gun. Some RFD's do try to help in this area even if just talking to buyers. Others just want to sell guns.
Anyhow end of on this subject from me. I don't want to get into arguments about it.
Would I get the job if I said I post on here just to wind you up.
Not with my character reference.
it does seem that it shouldn't have happened - not with a gun of any sort anyway. More will be clear when a coroner gets involved and the whole system may be looked at again.
There are comments from FAC holders in respect to GP's. I am not sure what they have done but the simple answer would be make GP's legally responsible for reporting mental health problems with people who have a FAC. This would usually mean needed some form of treatment. They can't really be expected to look at some one and say yes this person is ok with a gun. Many would understandably not want that responsibility. This can crop up when some one want to apply for a FAC or shotgun certificate as a reference may be needed. The police end could also check a persons medical history if they are applying for the first time. It would just need the appliers approval. Docs though don't like their work load increased so would be bound to resist. Just pass a law again.
This doesn't mean that a person can never ever hold one. Shooting psychologists exist.
Something i do know about as I was treated for depression rather a long time ago. No problems now or since and I have never held a FAC anyway. All of my FAC shooting has been supervised one way or another.- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,606
- Reaction score
- 550
- Country
it does seem that it shouldn't have happened - not with a gun of any sort anyway. More will be clear when a coroner gets involved and the whole system may be looked at again.
There are comments from FAC holders in respect to GP's. I am not sure what they have done but the simple answer would be make GP's legally responsible for reporting mental health problems with people who have a FAC. This would usually mean needed some form of treatment. They can't really be expected to look at some one and say yes this person is ok with a gun. Many would understandably not want that responsibility. This can crop up when some one want to apply for a FAC or shotgun certificate as a reference may be needed. The police end could also check a persons medical history if they are applying for the first time. It would just need the appliers approval. Docs though don't like their work load increased so would be bound to resist. Just pass a law again.
This doesn't mean that a person can never ever hold one. Shooting psychologists exist.
It shouldn't be the GP responsibility. The licence is issued by the Police? So they should be resposnsible. If your licence is turned down because of your GP assessment - where do you think this person will turn up next?
C
Captain Nemesis
Not only benefit claimants - even if I lived close enough to a suitable range I couldnt afford to feed, let alone buy, a .50 BMG rifle.
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Brigade77
I have an FAC but I don't have a regular GP & neither do most of you lot, that ship sailed long ago . . . .
The issuing of an FAC is not done willy nilly & neither is it a 'popularity contest'. It is a tick box test that you either pass or fail. It should NOT be down to the opinion of your doctor, your neighbour, your local bobby or even your mum.
If you think that doctors should be held legally responsible for reporting any & all mental illness then you away with the faeries.
The problem of how to stop people killing other people is very complex & there is no simple answer.
The issuing of an FAC is not done willy nilly & neither is it a 'popularity contest'. It is a tick box test that you either pass or fail. It should NOT be down to the opinion of your doctor, your neighbour, your local bobby or even your mum.
If you think that doctors should be held legally responsible for reporting any & all mental illness then you away with the faeries.
The problem of how to stop people killing other people is very complex & there is no simple answer.
