Do we need stricter gun laws?

arcobob said:

That is another imposition on GPs which many of them resent, especially as so many of them only work part time and scarcely know the patients who are registered with them. In many respects their knowledge of patients is no better than that possessed by members of the police concerning local matters.. There is a total disconnect when it comes to information sharing and monitoring in both the police and NHS.

Click to expand...

betweenthelines said:

Job done-permission to shoot over land, GP and friends references all OK, no reason for police to refuse my application. So before you know it I, who has never fired a twelve bore, can legally buy a tool designed to kill and go and decimate the local wildlife-and anyone I take a dislike to.

Click to expand...

betweenthelines said:

But the whole thing re shotguns is all a bit "airy fairy" isn't it?

For example, if I wanted a shotgun cert, I could say to a local farmer "Can I shoot a few rabbits in your top fields? I've got a cert." He can't/isn't likely to check so I'm part way there. Next step is to get a couple of my less disreputable (police might contact them) mates to give me a character reference. Last step is to get my GP (who has only even seen me to give me the "jab") to say I'm not a raving headcase.

Job done-permission to shoot over land, GP and friends references all OK, no reason for police to refuse my application. So before you know it I, who has never fired a twelve bore, can legally buy a tool designed to kill and go and decimate the local wildlife-and anyone I take a dislike to.

Click to expand...

Nithsdale Farmer said:

I do tend to agree with you on this.

Without looking up, I believe every instance of a shooting in the UK, since Dunblane, has been by someone with an SGC - not FAC. Despite rifles being much more a devastating weapon, the tighter control appears to work very well. It maybe is time for shotguns to be treated like firearms.


Air rifles are licensed this side of the border which has sadly seen a few junior clubs close, but I think in the long run it was something which should have happened years ago - UK wide (we don't get the regular stories in the local paper of pets or livestock being shot by air rifle any more)

Click to expand...

Pieces_of_Eight said:

As I understand it, each force allocates its own resources to firearms licensing in their own way, some better than others. Each force maintains its own records for its own residents in terms of applications, variations, renewals etc, none of this is national.

I've moved addresses into a different force jurisdiction 4 times, each one was a hassle in terms of paperwork, a bit like waiting for your new GP to get your medical records from your old GP.

It doesn't help that each force interprets HO guidance differently in terms of adequate security arrangements, justifying new calibres, GP reports, treatment of moderators, rifle calibres for non-deer species etc etc.

The cost of establishing a national system, or national department, would be astronomical.

Click to expand...

Pieces_of_Eight said:

GPs are insured up to the hilt these days and could not be sued for the actions of their patients, assuming they were acting in good faith at the time and not paid a back-hander to approve someone who is obviously not safe. In the tragic Plymouth case there has been no suggestion that the GP was in the wrong, for all we know the police may not have consulted the medical records.



Or you could just walk into a shop and buy a chainsaw, then watch a youtube video telling you how to work it and then go on the rampage, without any of the paperwork mentioned above.

Click to expand...

ollie989898 said:

I do not believe the police can access your medical records at all and I certainly would never share patient information with a police officer under any circumstances- no doctor ever would except where information of that nature was demanded by a court and even then I suspect only a select few suitably qualified people would ever access it, certainly not just any police officer from the force in question.

A GP can only look at an individual and say 'ok' or 'no-go' based on the information available. Many people on this forum probably have not seen a GP in years if not decades and being rural folk aren't particularly inclined to visit a surgery or hospital anyway. Thus it is obvious the firearms licensing system is going to be unable to pin much on your doctor in any respect. As I mentioned earlier, you won't really be diagnosing any kind of complex mental health disorder in a 10 minute GP consult even if they are mandatory.

Click to expand...

ollie989898 said:

I do not believe the police can access your medical records at all and I certainly would never share patient information with a police officer under any circumstances- no doctor ever would except where information of that nature was demanded by a court and even then I suspect only a select few suitably qualified people would ever access it, certainly not just any police officer from the force in question.

A GP can only look at an individual and say 'ok' or 'no-go' based on the information available. Many people on this forum probably have not seen a GP in years if not decades and being rural folk aren't particularly inclined to visit a surgery or hospital anyway. Thus it is obvious the firearms licensing system is going to be unable to pin much on your doctor in any respect. As I mentioned earlier, you won't really be diagnosing any kind of complex mental health disorder in a 10 minute GP consult even if they are mandatory.

Click to expand...

arcobob said:

I am diabetic and have been for over twenty years. In that time I have seen my GP twice and spoken to him on the phone once, He works part time and appears at our surgery no more than one day a week. That is the general modus operandi for a GP where I live and, I believe in many other places, is not uncommon. The chance of the average GP being able to identify a dangerous psycho amongst his patients is pretty remote.

Click to expand...

JimAndy said:

if your a diabetic have only seen your Dr twice and chatted once, your massively mismanaging your diabetics, you should be getting your hba1c done at least twice a year (i get it done 4 times) with a chat with the DR to go over the results

Click to expand...

Pasty said:

I would have thought they could ask an opinion but a full investigation would require a search warrant or something similar?

Click to expand...

BrianV said:

Unfortunately all to often there is a knee jerk reaction by politicians when tragedies like this happen, there is no way any amount of new gun laws will ever stop someone who goes over the edge as has been said & as we saw in London this guy could just as easily have killed with knives, a car or any amount of other means, politicians would do far better to concentrate any new legislation on the dark side of the internet & hold those people responsible!

Click to expand...

Hfd Cattle said:

If you want to get a gun ,whatever type , you will manage to get one . Not having a license won't stop you. . If anyone thinks making gun laws tighter will stop this type of thing then they need to get in the real world .
Its not right but its the way it is .

Click to expand...

ollie989898 said:

There is no way I would tell the police so much as a patient's name without the consent of the patient first. If a court required access to someone's medical records for some reason, then the authority holding that information would be required to disclose it of course. I suspect that even then, a specialist or expert, possibly even a police appointed doctor or pathologist would be the person reading through them, not just anyone. A lot of someone's medical records may well be extremely sensitive in nature: their HIV status, for example.

Another example of where patient confidentiality becomes evident is where the police naturally might wish to talk to a person who has been admitted to hospital following a knife fight or similar. In such circumstances, if the patient does not want to talk to the police, then the hospital staff looking after the patient can't say anything to the police.

Click to expand...

Nithsdale Farmer said:

If your car is confiscated by police... it's usually ends up crushed and you get no £££ regardless it's value

If you buy something that was stolen - unknowingly by you - but the police trace it back to you so come for it because it's originally hot... it is confiscated and you do not get your money back.


Why should guns be any different?


At the point of a confiscation the police will hold an item until the incidence is resolved. If it turns out you've done nothing wrong and that's the conclusion the police come to - you get your items back.

If the police decide otherwise, you lose the item(s) and it's your own tough luck.

Click to expand...

MRT said:

Life will be pretty dull if we restrict ourselves to what we need to do.

Click to expand...

Ffermer Bach said:

I was always under the impression that everyone has the right to own a shotgun (unless they have forfeited that right for example by committing a dangerous crime) and that right does not need a reason, just wanting to own one is reason enough. However, a rifle (fire arm certificate), one needs to provide a justification for ownership (target shooting, foxes, deer etc).

Click to expand...

Hfd Cattle said:

I think that you now have to give a reason for wanting a shotgun licence but I'm not over sure .

Click to expand...