What’s Up With Firearms Licensing In Scotland!?

I caught the BBC documentary on Dunblane last weekend and it raised a few issues I was previously unawere of. 

The first being I'd always assumed that the petition to ban handguns was led by the bereaved paerents but no, the documentary showed it was set uo by three women unconnected to the tragedy except by living in Dunblane, of a type we would now dub 'Karens', who took it upon themselves to run the petition which eventually was succesful in banning handgun despite the official Cullen inquiry not suggesting such a step was necessary. 

The second thing was that there was no mention of the perpetrator 'at the request of the interviwees' and so the programme was rather incomplete. of course, no mention of the perpetrator meant no mention of the culpability of those authorities you were begging for help from!

Then in the week, this story caught my eye:

A gamekeeper who trapped a rare bird of prey in a cage before beating it to death was caught out by a covert surveillance operation.Russell Mason, 49, lured the protected goshawk into a baited trap before battering it several times with a cosh to cause its agonising death.

Mason was previously placed on the sex offenders register after being spotted carrying out a solo sex act in his car by a resident of a sheltered housing complex.

To be a gamekeeper requires that one hold a shotgun license doesn't it?  What are the police doing that they are handing a registered sex offender a firearms licence? Didn't they learn that lesson 30 years ago? 

.

More Pointless Grandstanding From The Coroner Service...

The hearing, at Surrey Coroner’s Court, was told the chartered accountant had consulted an online GP and, between 2019 and 2021, was prescribed a ‘significant amount’ of anti-anxiety drug propranolol without the knowledge of his family doctor.

Senior Coroner Richard Travers also heard that, in 2016 Mr Pattison had alleged to police that his wife had assaulted him. However, no consideration was given as to whether this was evidence of domestic or coercive controlling behaviour towards her, nor was the incident brought to the attention of the Licensing Officer when Mr Pattison applied for his shotgun certificate to be renewed.

He complains of assault, and the assumption the police should take is that he's at fault of something else? Do we need a 'I Believe Him' movement?

Mr Travers has now issued two prevention of future deaths notices to Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and to Graham Wareham, chief executive of Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, saying there is ‘a risk other deaths will continue to exist in the future unless action is taken.’

Pretty specific cirumstances, though. They only apply to licensed shotgun holders.  

The coroner identified three concerns.

Oh, go on then... 

Firstly that ‘an applicant for a shotgun certificate was able to obtain medication from an on-line doctor without the knowledge of their GP,’ meaning a licensing authority ‘might’ grant a shotgun certificate to an applicant who has a relevant previous medical history about which they were unaware.

What do you suggest, Dickie boy, a full audit of someone's online history before granting a license? A bit unnessessarily intrusive, don't you think? 

Secondly, by consulting an on-line doctor, ‘it is possible for an applicant for a shotgun certificate to avoid the current safeguards relating to full disclosure of their previous and current medical history, and thirdly, Mr Travers said, ‘consideration should be given as to how a licensing authority can obtain full and accurate disclosure of an applicant’s history of coercive controlling behaviour towards others.’

Oh, and the police to conduct themselves so as to treat alleged victims as alleged perpetrators, but only if they are dealing with a man. Well, can't see that opening a can of worms.  

So What, Chris..?

A meeting of the North Wales Police and Crime Panel heard the area had 37,684 firearms and shotguns linked to just 12,354 licences. It means one person could have "a small arsenal" warned Flintshire councillor Chris Bithell.

They can still only fire one at a time, possibly two if they are really good...

Andy Dunbobbin added police were currently bound by the law, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

As they should be. The law is sensible and allows people who properly hold a licence to have more than one item, and that's as it should be. Why not?

"A certificate can cover one weapon. [But] there's no maximum or minimum," said Mr Bithell, who is Flintshire's cabinet member for public health.

"I think that should cause some alarm," he said, "because although the owners of these guns... may well be bona fide people, farmers and so on, who use them very legitimately.

"The danger is break-ins and then these weapons get into the wrong hands."

"I think it should be raised nationally," he added. "I think it should be one certificate per weapon really so we can keep some sort of grip on this.

"You are talking about 37,000 plus weapons in the north Wales area, and that's a matter of some concern."

I can't really say I'm concerned. And not just because I don't - thankfully - live in Wales.

You Have A Strange Definition Of 'As Little As Possible'...

Ministers have been strongly criticised ... for rejecting calls from bereaved families, senior police officers and a coroner to put extra controls on shotguns in response to the Plymouth mass shooting.

By whom..?

...by anti-gun campaigners...

Oh. Of course.  

The campaign group the Gun Control Network said: “The government response would be shocking if it wasn’t so predictable. They have shown once again that they will always prioritise the interests of shooters over public safety. They have sent a message of business as usual to shooters and done as little as possible to upset them.”

Is that true? Reader, what do you think?

Philp announced that the government will provide £500,000 in funding to support the development and rollout of a national training package produced by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

“In due course, this training will become mandatory for police firearms licensing teams,” he said.

He also launched a consultation on a series of possible new measures, including giving police the right to undertake searches and seize shotguns without a warrant, shortening the firearms certificate renewal period from five years, and tightening the rules around referees for licence applications.

None of that is 'as little as possible', is it? 

"We Must Do Something!"

Ms Ambler told the BBC: "If Rob hadn't had access to such a deadly weapon, there's a chance that Kelly, Ava and Lexi could still be here.

"This could have been prevented if gun licensing guidance was tougher."

It's not already tough enough? And deranged men and women haven't managed the same result with ordinary household items?

Kelly’s family want to see people who lie on their applications banned from re-applying, as well as licences to be reviewed more frequently.

Which wouldn't have done a single thing to prevent this murder, because it only came to light after he'd done it. And where are the police going to find the time?

They also want closer working between GPs and police forces and for people with recurring periods of depression to be barred from getting a licence.

That'll be good, since the GPs are just sitting there twiddling their thumbs, waiting for something to do... 

You Want To Know Why Law Abiding Americans Won't Give Up Their Guns?

Here's the reason:

Yes, it's the old 'when seconds count, the police are minutes away'. 

And when they do get there, they still do nothing for a while, because what counts to them far more than saving innocent lives is procedure. Did they follow it? That's what counts. 

No doubt this chap knows that all too well, and knows that if he doesn't act, it'll be too late:

And that's why people like the barber won't give up their guns. 

Not at anyone's behest, and certainly not at the behest of a President who spends his time in the company of armed men ready to protect him with their lives without hesitation. 

And What Sentence Will The Grandfather Get?

Talbot-Lummis drove to the scene before shooting the victim with his grandfather's Beretta.

Diana Ellis QC, mitigating, added that Talbot-Lummis had 'expressed his regret and remorse' about the shooting.

The judge - for once - didn't buy it.

Judge Martyn Levett said: 'The intention to kill wasn’t formed on the spur of the moment. This was all pre-planned and pre-meditated.

'You had this obsessive interest in all kinds of firearms and had become entrenched in watching computer games online.'

'I don’t accept there was bullying of the scale or the degree suggested.

'The court heard Talbot-Lummis also had a 'haul' of lawfully held BB guns in his bedroom.

Judge Levett said: 'If you wanted to scare (the victim) you could have used one of your own authentic looking guns.'

Instead he was able to access his grandfather's shotgun. How? When it should have been securely locked away? 

Passing sentence, Judge Levett said he had the 'protection of the public in mind' as he imposed an extended sentence of 24 years in prison and five years on licence.

He added: 'That sentence will affect you until you’re 45 years old.'

I expect to see that reduced on appeal, as they often are. And it would be nice to think the grandfather has lost his shotgun licence. An aspiring journalist might seek to see if that happened... 

Should Have Gone To Specsavers....

On February 4, a dog veered from the footpath through Dunstable Downs Golf Club and was accidentally shot by a licensed firearms user hunting foxes.

Well, it's understandable, some popular breeds of dogs these days do look quite fox-like, especially in the dark so...

Oh, wait.

German Shepherd Bruno needed an operation to remove pellets from his face but has since recovered.

They must have some humoungous foxes in Dunstable! Or this guy's an idiot who should not have a gun licence.

Which is odd for professional vermin control folk.

Club manager Mr Mutton added: “The club did not employ anyone to shoot on the course, we’ve allowed the licenced firearms user to come and shoot vermin.”

Ah. So not a professional, more like an overly-enthusiastic amateur. That way disaster lies.

A Beds Police spokesman said: “We are investigating reports that a dog was shot and injured while in the grounds of the Dunstable Downs golf course on Saturday 4 February.

Investigations are on-going and anyone with information is asked to contact police on 101 quoting reference JD/5233/2017.”

What 'investigation'? You should have all the details you need!

"Back Off, Copper! I've Got An 18thC Duelling Pistol & I Ain't Afraid To Use It!"

"We've got Heckler & Kochs, mate. Make our day...!

NABIS also maintains surveillance on multiple “routes” used to acquire weaponry. One is the rise in the use of so-called “antique” pistols and revolvers, some of them dating back as far as the First World War and even the American Civil War, by criminals who are finding their paths to new weapons smuggled into Britain narrowed.

Oh, really? That's a big threat, is it?

...whether antique or not, many of these weapons are in the same working order as the day they were made.

Martin Parker, head of forensics at NABIS, said: “The technology in these weapons has not changed for a century or more. An antique weapon can still be lethal but it is classified as a collector’s piece with no formal requirement for it to be registered.

“The problem occurs when criminals find they can’t get new weapons from outside of the country. It would be fair to say we have seen an emerging increase in the use of these antique guns.”

Gosh, I wonder what would 'solve' that? Let me think...

One urgent priority is work by NABIS and ACPO with the Home Office to revisit the regulations surrounding “antique” guns to ensure viable handguns are prohibited or more tightly controlled.

Thought so...

Police: Tough On Gun Crime....

...unless it's, y'know, them doing it:

Three men who were arrested in Doncaster following the incident in Murton have been released without further action, said North Yorkshire Police.

A force spokesman said: “There was not enough evidence to pursue a prosecution. The case has been closed pending any further information coming to light.”

 Hmmm...

A police chief subsequently sought to reassure local residents they were not put at risk at any time, and also responded to a complaint by one villager that the crime was not initially publicised by North Yorkshire Police.

 Well, well, well....

Supt Lisa Winward, York Safer Neighbourhood Commander, said: “We are satisfied that this was an isolated incident which did not pose a threat to the wider community.”

It's OK, Lisa, love. We know just what you mean by that...

Keep Calm And Carry On!

Bailey Childers thinks that’s a ludicrous concept:

One of the strangest things about living in Washington DC yesterday was how normal the day felt to many of us not living or working near the Navy Yard. The metro service remained no more interrupted than we expect from the metro, restaurants still had a bustling Monday evening dinner service. And on a day when shootings began at 8:20am just two blocks away from the baseball stadium, the Washington Nationals waited until 3:27pm to announce on Twitter that their evening game would be postponed.

What did you expect? People wailing and rending their garments in the street? Would that have been better..?

It begs the question, do we run the risk of becoming a nation that too readily accepts yet another mass shooting as just a part of life?

You mean, like this one?

A witness, Julian Harris, told the Chicago Sun-Times that men fired at him from a grey sedan before turning toward Cornell Square Park and firing at people in the area. He said his three-year-old nephew was wounded in the cheek.

"They hit the light pole next to me but I ducked down and ran into the house," he said.

"They've been coming round here looking for people to shoot every night, just (insert here) stuff. It's what they do."

Hmm, I see what you mean, Bailey. Maybe you want to turn your attention elsewhere? Maybe ask your colleagues why this too isn’t on national news 24/7, with rolling updates at the bottom of the screen?

It seems that the question we each need to ask ourselves is: which side am I on? Do we stand with victims' families and try to honor their loved ones by passing legislation in an effort to prevent future killings, as many Newtown families begged Congress to do?

Ah. Of course. Bailey’s not concerned about the Chicago shootings. Why would she be? They won’t advance her agenda one little bit.

Her agenda being, as Jeff Goldstein points out, 'ghoulishly barnacling herself to the corpses of the dead' in order to advance her gun-grabbing desire:

Or we remain more concerned about having "my guns"? Do we stand up and demand that members of Congress quit caving to a special interest group that does not represent the majority of the American public? And if Congress does cave again, have the courage to hit the pavement and throw them out of office when their time comes?

Well, you see, Bailey, that ‘throwing them out of office’ trick can work both ways, can’t it?

*Tsk* There’s No Queensbury Rules Any More…

A one-year-old boy was shot dead in his pushchair as he was out with his parents early today. The child, 16-month-old Antiq Hennis, was hit by a bullet to the head after a gunman unleashed a volley of shots on a Brooklyn street.

New York, of course, has one of the toughest gun control schemes in the States. Works well, eh?

Detectives were investigating claims that the boy’s father Anthony was the intended target and he escaped the attack by fleeing.

Witnesses said he returned to the scene at the corner of Bristol Street and Livonia Avenue in Brownsville minutes later to find his child lying in a pool of blood.

What an absolute prince of a man! Truly, prime breeding stock there.

Local lawyer Tony Herbert, referring to police claims that the father of the boy was the intended target, said the gunman should give himself up as he was being hunted down by every policeman in New York.

"Whether this was a beef over something in the past, what should've been done is that individual who was targeted should've been given a pass because he had his child with him” he added.

Ah. I suppose the notion that maybe people shouldn’t shoot each other over a ‘beef’ might seem a little too quaint?

The Things People Say…

George Monbiot on the ethical dilemma of buying a smartphone:

There are dozens of issues… But I will concentrate on just one: are the components soaked in the blood of people from the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo?

Well, I’d hope not! These things are vulnerable enough to getting wet, just with water. Soak ‘em in blood and I think you’d need more than a bag of rice to get them up and running again…

 '30 stone mum' on her dieting dilemma:

She says: 'Sean’s advised me about nutrition and exercise, but I don’t have as much willpower as him. I’m sensitive about my weight so he doesn’t push me.'

He couldn’t! He’d need a bulldozer!

Petrol station supervisor, on the helplessness of the unarmed man:

He added: 'People think that this side of the counter is easy but it is not, it can be frightening. We couldn't go out and help, you can't catch someone who is carrying a knife. How can someone help in this situation without getting hurt themselves?'

I think we'd have to turn to the States for the answer. Or we could continue to wait for the police, who are minutes away when every second counts...

I'm So Glad England Has Strict Gun Laws!

A sex offender armed himself with a shotgun and drove more than 30 miles to shoot out the windows of a terrified family.

Two days earlier, Adrian Thorsby, 49, had been granted bail prior to being sentenced for a sex attack on a girl.

Bail! FFS! They hand that out for pretty much anything these days, don't they?

Prosecutor David Hall told Hull Crown Court: "It seems that rumour and gossip and reports of the case spread around Hull.

"There were reports of him being a paedophile. He was unhappy about this."

You know how not to be reported as a paedophile, Mr Thorsby? Well, to start with, you could not be convicted of a sex attack on a 6-year-old child...

Still, armed with this new knowledge, the justice system will, I'm sure, deal with him appropriately.

Thorsby was jailed for four and a half years for possessing a shotgun with intent to cause fear of violence.

Oh. Maybe not.

Fake It 'Til You Make It, Obama?

I had a fund-raising quiz night to do last night, so while I was awarding myself a congratulatory Glenmorangie and browsing the web much later than I'd usually be up, I took this screenie on my iPad:

He's supposedly 'shooting skeet'. If he really could do that with a rifle, maybe we've misjudged him?

But no, it is of course a shotgun. And even better, the Beeb (and probably others) picked it up and ran with it, uncritically. Journalism, eh?

Angry Exile Tweeted it and I'd have missed that too if not for being up late.

Essex Hunter points out that, as always, Obama is faking it big time.

A Lie Can Be Half Way Around The World...

...before the truth has got its boots on. Even more so, in the digital age. Yesterday afternoon, this story started flooding the social media:

Red meat to the hoplophobes and the people who are determined to advance their gun control agenda (which isn't going to stop at 'assault rifles', is it? Or apply to anyone other than the law abiding citizen, either...) no matter whose corpses they have to stand on to do it, it was quickly picked up by the British press:

And prompted the usual OUTRAGE!! from the left. It provoked a Twitter debate from those who - like Fox Mulder - wanted to believe:

And it turned out to be not a visitor from another world, but just swamp gas after all:

The problem is, that wasn't what happened.

The Daily Caller posted a full video (included here) of the hearing, and the true context of the incident (at the 15 minute mark of the video) is shown. Heslin was not speaking of his son, but rather about the idea of passing restrictive gun laws. He then asks the panel moderating the discussion if they have a good reason why certain guns shouldn't be outlawed. He waits for a response, but no one speaks. He then asks the same question of the audience several times, insisting if anyone in the room has a reason, to speak up.

After several moments of silence, and more insistence from Heslin, several people do respond, mentioning the Second Amendment.

As the video shows, the respondents did not mock or heckle, and responded as respectfully as possible given the emotional situation. The moderator then asks for the audience not to speak up, or the room will be cleared.

But should anyone be surprised at this? Really?

I'm not.

And even if they print retractions in the wake of the revelation (and most won't, despite the fact that those with comment sections are getting hammered in them) does anyone think they'll learn from this?

I don't. Nor does anyone with an ounce of common sense.

They have an agenda and they are going to push it, no matter what.

A New Stephen King Book Is Out....

...and for once, I won't be buying it:

Stephen King has entranced millions with tales of dread but his latest volume will read like a horror only to the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates. The best-selling author made an unexpected charge into the national debate on gun violence on Friday with a passionate, angry essay pleading for reform.

For you little people, that it. Not for himself.

King, who owns three handguns...

And fondly imagines that once they've banned 'assault weapons' (whatever they are) they won't start looking at his handguns, no doubt.

...aimed the expletive-peppered polemic at fellow gun-owners, calling on them to support a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the wake of the December shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school which left 20 children and six adults dead.

Do it fort the chiiiiillllldrrrreeeeeeennnnn! Stevie wants you to!

"Autos and semi-autos are weapons of mass destruction. When lunatics want to make war on the unarmed and unprepared, these are the weapons they use," King wrote.

When they aren't using bombs. Or knives. Or cars. A smarter person might just conclude the problem lies with the people wielding the tools, not the tools themselves...

I mean, it certainly isn't books!

King recalls that the fictional schoolboy killer in his 1977 novel Rage, which was published under a pen name, Richard Bachman, resonated with several boys who subsequently rampaged at their own schools. One, Barry Loukaitis, shot dead a teacher and two students in Moses Lake, Washington in 1996, then quoted a line from the novel: "This sure beats algebra, doesn't it?"

King said he did not apologise for writing Rage – "no, sir, no ma'am" – because it told the truth about high-school alienation and spoke to troubled adolescents who "were already broken". However, he said, he ordered his publisher to withdraw the book because it had proved dangerous. He was not obliged to do so by law – it was protected by the first amendment – but it was the right thing to do. Gun advocates should do the same, he argued.

Hey, maybe we should ban books?

Stick to what you know about, chum. Politics ain't for you.

The Only Time You’ll See A Favourable Attitude To US ‘Stand Your Ground’ Gun Laws In CiF…

Sadhbh Walshe on the awful US justice system that criminalises women that murder their husbands and boyfriends:

A few years ago, a young woman named Natasha shot and killed her boyfriend in the apartment they were sharing.

Note that ‘sharing’. It’ll be important later.

He had trapped her in the bedroom and was about to launch into another of what had become weekly "beatdowns", where he would hit her with a closed fist. Prior to the killing, the beatings had become more severe and more frequent, as were the threats that he was going to kill her. None of this seemed to count for much at her trial.

Well, no.

Because no doubt the jury were asking themselves the question that the DV campaigners would love to see them forbidden to ask…

She was given a 15-year sentence and is now in prison, along with countless other battered women (pdf) who found little protection from the criminal justice system when they needed it, but who felt the full force of its prosecutorial might when they took steps to protect themselves.

Except, if she’d fled the home, gone to a motel, shot and killed him when he followed her there, she probably wouldn’t be facing charges, would she?

Every state in America has a self-defense law that allows an individual to use deadly force in situations where a threat to his or her well-being is imminent. If an intruder enters your home with a loaded gun, thereby posing an imminent threat to your life, you're allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself.

Well, yes. It doesn’t work that way if you yourself voluntarily entered that home for good reason. It’d be a recipe for murder.

God knows, as Hogday points out, it's difficult enough to write laws that allow for self-defence while precluding the possibility of deliberate murder masquerading as such. Are you really suggesting more tinkering?

When the intruder with the loaded gun (metaphorical or otherwise) is your intimate partner and living in the house with you, the imminence law frequently fails to apply – mostly because of the perception that the abused woman could have, or at least should have, found a more palatable way of ending the violent relationship.

Well, yes. They should. Who the hell could suggest otherwise?

Only in the pages of the ‘Guardian’, defender of every criminal going and sympathiser of terrorists, could you expect gun-law ‘justice’ to be cheered on, simply because it’s an abused woman wielding the weapon…

Like many abused women, Natasha had made several attempts to escape the relationship, only to be brought back [by the boyfriend] to face harsher beatings and more death threats.

‘Brought back’ how? Physically? That’s kidnap.

The presumption is that a woman who is in a violent relationship, and whose life has been threatened, should simply walk away. In theory, it sounds like a piece of cake: just leave when he's asleep, or at work, or whatever.

Reality is a lot more complicated.

Well, not really. Your own example did it several times! She just couldn’t seem to make it stick.

Much like my mother’s claims that it’s ‘impossible to give up smoking’ which usually draws the retort ‘It can’t be that impossible, you’ve done it so many times!’.

Michael Dowd, a New York attorney dubbed the "black widow lawyer" for having successfully defended a number of women who killed their abusive partners, likens a battered woman's predicament to a hostage situation.

Really? That’s rather an insult to real hostages, isn’t it? Some of them might be guilty of naivety and carelessness, but none of them chose their fate, or refused to come with the rescuers when they turned up…

Dowd most recently defended a woman called Barbara Sheehan, who shot her abusive husband with his gun. Sheehan's case perfectly illustrates the hostage situation. Her husband, who had subjected her to savage beatings during their 20-year marriage, was a police officer, so the option of turning to the police for help was not available to her.

Did she try..? We aren’t told.

Sheehan was acquitted of the murder but sentenced to five years in prison for unlawful possession of a firearm (the same firearm her husband had so often threatened to kill her and their children with). In a more just society, she would have been compensated for the 20 years of abuse she suffered at the hands of a husband whose job it was to uphold and enforce the law.

And just who should ‘compensate’ her? The police, who may have never been informed, and could hardly have therefore been responsible? The state, who, well, ditto?

Is there to be no personal responsibility from these women, at all? Are we to treat them as children, incapable of making decisions? I thought the women’s movement was against that sort of thing…

But, like Natasha's case, and so many other women's, Sheehan's story illustrates that even now, in 2012, our criminal justice system is much better-equipped, and much more likely, to prosecute and punish abused women than it is to protect them.

No, love. It’s much more likely to prosecute and punish murderers. Male AND female.

And that’s what your example is – a murderer.

A Thorny One For The Gun Control People?

Trevor Cracknell, 48, had been invited round for a cup of tea by his neighbour in their block of apartments...

And no, he didn't bring a cup of sugar!

...when he fired the weapon at a bedroom wall.

The weapon? Do we have another dangerous licensed gun owner here?

Well, no. Not quite.

Here's one I made earlier...

Yes, that's exactly what it looks like...

DC Deby Webster said: "Cracknell had made a firearm out of pieces of old wood and metal. Worryingly, he had tried a gun out in a rural public area using a piece of string to pull the trigger from a distance. It failed to discharge so he assumed it didn’t work.

"However, he successfully discharged it in a neighbour’s bedroom."

There are no words....

"This type of sentence should act as a deterrent to those who even think of trying to make their own weapons."

Sound advice.

Hobby Horses

A clue to the usefulness of the Mark Duggan shooting is how quickly it's disappeared from the front page of the 'Guardian', the Beeb, the 'Indy' and other papers.

Probably because it's clearly not going to be useful for the 'Police shoot innocent black people!' crowd, given that - despite the relatives and bystanders queueing up to tell their tales of how he was a good bloke really, never in any trouble, rescued kittens from tree in his spare time etc - his FaceBook pictures told a somewhat different tale.

That's not stopped some people from using his untimely (but likely to prove perfectly justified) death as a reason to get what they want:

Inspector Gadget supports the immediate routine arming of all UK police officers.

Really?

So, specially-trained and equipped firearms team conducts successful operation = every bobby on the beat should carry a Glock?

No, sorry. Not convincing. Not even to your own colleagues.