Wrong door shootings.

[Nessie]

Referees? Do you mean trained and accredited psychologists, or a couple of fine local fellas that you think are ok?

Long term friends.

Ok, that can weed out obvious career criminals. It could also be Scarlet Lettering someone who started out rough and has since cleaned their act up.

{ETA: or DQ someone with a paranoid neighbor who needlessly called the police frequently}



Sure, if you know what you are looking for, beyond a subjective gut impression.



Well, it surely is prohibitive of a lot of possibly entirely harmless people getting a license. As far as accuracy goes, I don't see any actual credible psychological evaluation in there anywhere. It's better than nothing, sure, agreed. I'd like to see someone involved that actually knows something about mental health evaluation beyond their feelings, though.

The system works.

There have been 4 mass shootings by people with firearms certificates (plus, one by someone who stole a gun) in the UK in the past 36 years.

There are presently 539,212 people who have a firearm and/or a shotgun certificate in England and Wales, which means over the past 36 years, millions of people in the UK have had them, which means a 99.999% chance the licence assessment correctly identified the holder to be suitable and not at risk of going mad and shooting people.

Turns out that a couple of friends to referee and vouch for you, plus a cop who visits and does some checks and makes an assessment of your suitability, is a very successful way of identifying who is suitable to have a gun.

 

[Nessie]

Surprisingly many people will answer that sort of question honestly. In psychiatric assessments one asks about intentions to harm, oneself or others. It is surprising how often people will tell you the truth. So include that sort of question.

Have you ever thought about ending your life? Have you made plans to do so?


Have you thought about harming or hurting other people? Have you made plans to do so?

I think that one of the reasons why the UK system is so accurate and successful, is because people unsuitable to have a gun don't even bother trying to apply for a licence. As soon as they make initial enquiry, they see what is required and maybe, as they try and find a referee and cannot, they just give up.

They have to give permission for the police to contact their GP and are asked questions about their mental health and get a warning that if they lie, they will be prosecuted. That alone is a huge deterrent.

 

[Darat]

There is a one huge difference Nessie between us and the USA and that is the reason someone may want a firearm. In the UK "self defence" is not a valid reason. That straightaway sets us on a different pathway to the USA where the culture is that you need a weapon for self-defence. I am sure that if we allowed self-defence as a valid reason for having a firearm in the UK we would start to see more misuse of guns.


(And just to pre-empt any pedantic nit-picking - yes there are very limited circumstances which in the UK you are allowed to have a gun for self-defence but these are very carefully handled, very low number of exceptions.)

 

[Nessie]

Howzabout wrong car door?

Young woman being dropped of by her car pool gets in the wrong car by mistake. Apologizes, gets out, gets back in her own car. Then the guy shoots. Gets her and three other people in the car.

Man arrested after 2 Woodlands Elite cheerleaders were shot outside HEB near Austin, police say

It is like the man who shot dead another in the cinema over popcorn. There are too many Americans with guns, who really, really want to use them, and will use any old excuse to shoot.

The only conclusion is that the USA has a lot of homicidal maniacs in plain sight. How can a country get that way?

Millions of Europeans have firearms and do not exhibit those homicidal tendencies.

 

[Nessie]

There is a one huge difference Nessie between us and the USA and that is the reason someone may want a firearm. In the UK "self defence" is not a valid reason. That straightaway sets us on a different pathway to the USA where the culture is that you need a weapon for self-defence. I am sure that if we allowed self-defence as a valid reason for having a firearm in the UK we would start to see more misuse of guns.


(And just to pre-empt any pedantic nit-picking - yes there are very limited circumstances which in the UK you are allowed to have a gun for self-defence but these are very carefully handled, very low number of exceptions.)

That nit pick is important. In the UK you have to have a very good reason to have grounds for a gun for self-defence and another person assesses those grounds. In the USA, a person self assesses, with few checks.

If everyone in the USA had to go through the UK's licensing system to get a gun, then the US's death rates would be much, much lower. Indeed, if the Texan CCW weapon permit checks became universal, the rates would plummet.

 

[jeremyp]

Long term friends.



The system works.

There have been 4 mass shootings by people with firearms certificates (plus, one by someone who stole a gun) in the UK in the past 36 years.

There are presently 539,212 people who have a firearm and/or a shotgun certificate in England and Wales, which means over the past 36 years, millions of people in the UK have had them, which means a 99.999% chance the licence assessment correctly identified the holder to be suitable and not at risk of going mad and shooting people.

Turns out that a couple of friends to referee and vouch for you, plus a cop who visits and does some checks and makes an assessment of your suitability, is a very successful way of identifying who is suitable to have a gun.

I was half way through writing a reply talking about why you weren't completely correct because of false positives. Then I looked up the stats to provide evidence to support my point...

...it turned out that last year only 2% of new applications for firearms and 3% of applications for shotguns were turned down. That's a pretty impressive success rate even if all of the 2-3% were false positives.

 

[catsmate]

...as a reasonable person I find hiding from view much more suspicious than not doing so!

One wonders how bullet-resistant the walls were........

 

[catsmate]

The two referees who vouch for a person character are strong indicators of suitability. Plus a lack of previous convictions, plus systems checks to see if there have even been any calls to a person's address, if there is any intelligence recorded about them, or any concerns over welfare from the vulnerable person's database. The home visit and just speaking to the applicant also helps.

Add all that together and it is a system that is very accurate.

Did you require a medical reference?

 

[Nessie]

I was half way through writing a reply talking about why you weren't completely correct because of false positives. Then I looked up the stats to provide evidence to support my point...

...it turned out that last year only 2% of new applications for firearms and 3% of applications for shotguns were turned down. That's a pretty impressive success rate even if all of the 2-3% were false positives.

That is why I made the point before, that I suspect many people, on reading what is needed to get a firearm, don't even bother, as they know they will be turned down. In all the years I did licences, hundreds of them, I rejected only one applicant.

I suspect that is a major cause of the success of the system. It is very clear, only good people need apply, don't bother otherwise. That instantly and cheaply weeds out the vast majority of unsuitable people.

 

[Nessie]

Did you require a medical reference?

No. Applicants agree to allow the police to contact their GP and get full access to their medical records, but most of the time, the police don't need to, unless someone discloses a relevant medical condition, or it is suspected they are hiding such. Referees are very good at giving up information like that, as they are reminded that if the applicant goes mad, they will be the first person the police visit, to find out why that was not disclosed.

I had a referee contact me over concerns about his friend and his drinking after he lost his wife. His friend had his gun seized and licence revoked after we got in touch with his GP and found out about an undeclared condition.

This is the application form for Scotland;

https://www.scotland.police.uk/spa-media/if1plqpd/firearms-form-201-final.pdf?view=Standard

"11. Details of your GP or GP practice..."
"12. Details of all previous GP practices during the past 10 years...Are there any periods in the past 10 years when you have not been registered with a UK GP or have consulted medical practitioners other than at your GP practice?"

Signed agreement -

"Duty of confidentiality I will arrange for a suitably qualified GMC-registered doctor* to provide factual information to the police about any relevant medical conditions related to my suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun. I understand that the doctor may share my medical records with the police to enable them to make a fully informed decision on my application, or on my continued suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun while the certificate remains valid, and I consent to this sharing of my medical records for confidentiality purposes. I understand that I am expected to inform
the police if I am diagnosed with, or treated for, a medical condition listed in note 5 while the certificate remains valid"

Requirements -

"Medical information
4. You must disclose any relevant physical or mental health conditions that you have been diagnosed with or treated for in the past as this may affect your ability to safely possess and use a firearm or shotgun. Relevant medical conditions which must be disclosed are listed in note 5.
Sections 27 and 28 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) specify that in order to issue a firearm or shotgun certificate the chief officer of police must be satisfied that an applicant can be permitted to possess a gun ‘without danger to the public safety or the peace’. Medical fitness
is one of the factors police must consider when assessing a person’s suitability.
NOTES
Please read these BEFORE completing the form

5. Relevant medical conditions which must be disclosed are:
• Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma, including post-
traumatic stress disorder
• Suicidal thoughts or self harm or harm to others
• Depression or anxiety
• Dementia
• Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness
• A personality disorder
• A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s or Huntington’s
diseases, or epilepsy
• Alcohol or drug abuse
• Any other mental or physical condition, or combination of conditions, which you think may be relevant.
If in doubt, consult your doctor or contact the police firearms licensing department.
6. It is your responsibility to arrange for your GP or another suitably qualified GMC-registered
doctor* (including where a doctor is providing this service for a private company) to provide medical information to the police concerning your suitability to possess a firearm and/or shotgun. Please use the doctor's letter and medical information proforma which is part of this
document, detach and pass to the doctor for completion. You are expected to meet the cost if a fee is charged for this. When the medical information is being provided to the police by a doctor from a private company, the doctor must receive the applicant's medical information direct from the GP practice and not via the applicant.
7. With regards to data protection, it should be noted that the medical information will be processed on a public interest basis for the legitimate policing purpose of assessing the suitability of someone to be granted a firearm or shotgun certificate.
8. Medical practitioners have separately requested that an applicant's consent is provided in order
for medical practitioners to be satisfied that they have discharged their obligations under their duty of confidentiality in relation to their patients. The application form requests the applicant's consent for the release of the information for that reason.
9. Where the doctor indicates that there are relevant medical issues and police require further medical information to consider the application, you should obtain a report about these medical issues. You are expected to meet the cost of a fee if it is charged. Following this, if police require an additional
report to be provided they will meet the cost of the fee charged.
10. The police will ask your GP to place an encoded reminder on your patient record to indicate that you have been issued with a firearm or shotgun certificate. The GP is asked to notify the police if, following issue of the certificate, you are diagnosed with or treated for a relevant medical condition (listed in note 5), or if the GP has other concerns about your possession of a certificate
that might affect your safe possession of firearms. Following contact from your GP there may be a need for a medical report to be obtained to assist with assessment of your continued suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun certificate. The police will pay if a medical report is required.
11. Following the issue of a firearm or shotgun certificate please note that the declaration you have signed consenting to information sharing between your doctor and police applies during the application process and during the validity of any firearm or shotgun certificate, which may be up to five years.
12. You are expected to inform the police if, following issue of the certificate, you are diagnosed with or treated for a relevant medical condition while the certificate remains valid.
13. You should inform the police if you change your GP practice and provide contact details for the new practice.
14. You are asked to provide details of GP practices over the past 10 years and whether you have consulted medical practitioners other than at your GP practice so that all relevant information is available to police to assist with their assessment of suitability to possess a firearm certificate.
Military personnel who are posted abroad and have a service GP may still be regarded as resident in the UK for the purposes of the application."

Who is going to agree to that if there is any doubt?

 

[Hercules56]

It is like the man who shot dead another in the cinema over popcorn. There are too many Americans with guns, who really, really want to use them, and will use any old excuse to shoot.

The only conclusion is that the USA has a lot of homicidal maniacs in plain sight. How can a country get that way?

Millions of Europeans have firearms and do not exhibit those homicidal tendencies.

That is my fear. There are millions of guns in people's homes in Europe and yet they have much lower homicide rates. I fear it's because America is totally full of sociopaths. I think our extreme prevalence of socioeconomic inequality and lack of mental health Care is a much bigger problem than people are willing to admit. They just want to blame the guns but it's a lot more complicated than that.

 

[Thermal]

Long term friends.



The system works.

There have been 4 mass shootings by people with firearms certificates (plus, one by someone who stole a gun) in the UK in the past 36 years.

There are presently 539,212 people who have a firearm and/or a shotgun certificate in England and Wales, which means over the past 36 years, millions of people in the UK have had them, which means a 99.999% chance the licence assessment correctly identified the holder to be suitable and not at risk of going mad and shooting people.

Turns out that a couple of friends to referee and vouch for you, plus a cop who visits and does some checks and makes an assessment of your suitability, is a very successful way of identifying who is suitable to have a gun.

I guess we are just looking at it differently. As noted by jeremyp, virtually all "licenses" are granted, making it more of a final rubber stamp. If you were denying half of applications, that would indicate the "licensing" stage had some agency.

To my eye, licensing means to demonstrate functional competency, like a driver's license. You have to take a test to show that you know what you are doing with the equipment. This has nothing to do with whether you use this equipment for good or bad. Your use of "licensing" is what we in the States would call a registration.

What makes the difference in the UK, as Darat noted, is that guns have essentially been denied across the board. You have to demonstrate that you are a legitimate exception to the ban to get a "license". The broad public ban is what is doing all the legwork, not the rubber stamping for what is basically a farmer's exemption (and sport marksman clubs, etc)

Again, what I'm arguing is that your "licensing"/provisional exemption is not what is weeding out the bad apples. The terms of the ban are weeding them.

ETA: in my US State of New Jersey, you can technically acquire a permit to concealed carry. In practice, all permits are rejected. Like literally almost 100%. I recall reading somewhere that less than a dozen are approved annually in a state of 7 million, and those were approved when it was proven that the person's life was in demonstrable imminent danger.

 

[Thermal]

That is my fear. There are millions of guns in people's homes in Europe and yet they have much lower homicide rates. I fear it's because America is totally full of sociopaths. I think our extreme prevalence of socioeconomic inequality and lack of mental health Care is a much bigger problem than people are willing to admit. They just want to blame the guns but it's a lot more complicated than that.

I think Vixen noted something similar upthread. Lots of gun ownership in her country, but they don't have these problems. I think there really is something to that line of thinking.

 

[Nessie]

That is my fear. There are millions of guns in people's homes in Europe and yet they have much lower homicide rates. I fear it's because America is totally full of sociopaths. I think our extreme prevalence of socioeconomic inequality and lack of mental health Care is a much bigger problem than people are willing to admit. They just want to blame the guns but it's a lot more complicated than that.

I suspect Europe is also full of sociopaths, but because they find it hard to get a gun, they can't shoot people.

 

[Thermal]

Surprisingly it didn't get into today's paper, but it was on the radio. The man was apparently a local contractor who claims he was scared when cars came up the driveway, and though they (if more than one) were turning around, he shot at them anyway. Not, it seems a random crazy guy. That's what's so unnerving. Neighbors said he was a very normal, nice sort of guy...living off the road in a little backwater town where everyone gets lost all the time, and where 99 percent of the population of the world would flee to for safety if they could, but paranoid is paranoid, castle castle bang bang.

The stupidity of the world is metastasizing.

Hearing that an apparently normal contractor inexplicably gets scared when someone comes up his driveway, especially in an area where people get lost and use driveways for turnarounds, sets of a very particular red flag for me: the guy had reason to think someone in particular was coming after him, the nature of which he doesn't want to share with the police or public, possibly due to self incrimination concerns. You know, like "my dealer was after my ass because I was so far behind on him".

 

[Nessie]

I guess we are just looking at it differently. As noted by jeremyp, virtually all "licenses" are granted, making it more of a final rubber stamp. If you were denying half of applications, that would indicate the "licensing" stage had some agency.

The reason why most licences are granted, it because those unsuitable to get a licence either don't bother to apply, or they drop out at the start of the process, so they do not have a refusal to their name.

It is like trying to qualify to be a 100m Olympic runner. The qualifying time is under 11 seconds, so people not capable of that will know not to bother. Some borderline people will give it a go and some will succeed and a few will fail. The rest know they can do it, and so there is a high degree of success.

To my eye, licensing means to demonstrate functional competency, like a driver's license. You have to take a test to show that you know what you are doing with the equipment. This has nothing to do with whether you use this equipment for good or bad. Your use of "licensing" is what we in the States would call a registration.

What makes the difference in the UK, as Darat noted, is that guns have essentially been denied across the board.

There are around 3/4 of a million licence holders in the UK at any one time and the default position is to grant if the person meets the criteria. That is not essentially an across the board denial.

You have to demonstrate that you are a legitimate exception to the ban to get a "license". The broad public ban is what is doing all the legwork, not the rubber stamping for what is basically a farmer's exemption (and sport marksman clubs, etc)

Again, what I'm arguing is that your "licensing"/provisional exemption is not what is weeding out the bad apples. The terms of the ban are weeding them.

I have argued that as well. People have a very good idea if they can get a licence before they apply, by just reading the terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions, all the checks, is what weeds out the unsuitable people.

 

[catsmate]

No. Applicants agree to allow the police to contact their GP and get full access to their medical records, but most of the time, the police don't need to, unless someone discloses a relevant medical condition, or it is suspected they are hiding such. Referees are very good at giving up information like that, as they are reminded that if the applicant goes mad, they will be the first person the police visit, to find out why that was not disclosed.

I had a referee contact me over concerns about his friend and his drinking after he lost his wife. His friend had his gun seized and licence revoked after we got in touch with his GP and found out about an undeclared condition.

This is the application form for Scotland;

https://www.scotland.police.uk/spa-media/if1plqpd/firearms-form-201-final.pdf?view=Standard

"11. Details of your GP or GP practice..."
"12. Details of all previous GP practices during the past 10 years...Are there any periods in the past 10 years when you have not been registered with a UK GP or have consulted medical practitioners other than at your GP practice?"

Signed agreement -

"Duty of confidentiality I will arrange for a suitably qualified GMC-registered doctor* to provide factual information to the police about any relevant medical conditions related to my suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun. I understand that the doctor may share my medical records with the police to enable them to make a fully informed decision on my application, or on my continued suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun while the certificate remains valid, and I consent to this sharing of my medical records for confidentiality purposes. I understand that I am expected to inform
the police if I am diagnosed with, or treated for, a medical condition listed in note 5 while the certificate remains valid"

Requirements -

"Medical information
4. You must disclose any relevant physical or mental health conditions that you have been diagnosed with or treated for in the past as this may affect your ability to safely possess and use a firearm or shotgun. Relevant medical conditions which must be disclosed are listed in note 5.
Sections 27 and 28 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) specify that in order to issue a firearm or shotgun certificate the chief officer of police must be satisfied that an applicant can be permitted to possess a gun ‘without danger to the public safety or the peace’. Medical fitness
is one of the factors police must consider when assessing a person’s suitability.
NOTES
Please read these BEFORE completing the form

5. Relevant medical conditions which must be disclosed are:
• Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma, including post-
traumatic stress disorder
• Suicidal thoughts or self harm or harm to others
• Depression or anxiety
• Dementia
• Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness
• A personality disorder
• A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s or Huntington’s
diseases, or epilepsy
• Alcohol or drug abuse
• Any other mental or physical condition, or combination of conditions, which you think may be relevant.
If in doubt, consult your doctor or contact the police firearms licensing department.
6. It is your responsibility to arrange for your GP or another suitably qualified GMC-registered
doctor* (including where a doctor is providing this service for a private company) to provide medical information to the police concerning your suitability to possess a firearm and/or shotgun. Please use the doctor's letter and medical information proforma which is part of this
document, detach and pass to the doctor for completion. You are expected to meet the cost if a fee is charged for this. When the medical information is being provided to the police by a doctor from a private company, the doctor must receive the applicant's medical information direct from the GP practice and not via the applicant.
7. With regards to data protection, it should be noted that the medical information will be processed on a public interest basis for the legitimate policing purpose of assessing the suitability of someone to be granted a firearm or shotgun certificate.
8. Medical practitioners have separately requested that an applicant's consent is provided in order
for medical practitioners to be satisfied that they have discharged their obligations under their duty of confidentiality in relation to their patients. The application form requests the applicant's consent for the release of the information for that reason.
9. Where the doctor indicates that there are relevant medical issues and police require further medical information to consider the application, you should obtain a report about these medical issues. You are expected to meet the cost of a fee if it is charged. Following this, if police require an additional
report to be provided they will meet the cost of the fee charged.
10. The police will ask your GP to place an encoded reminder on your patient record to indicate that you have been issued with a firearm or shotgun certificate. The GP is asked to notify the police if, following issue of the certificate, you are diagnosed with or treated for a relevant medical condition (listed in note 5), or if the GP has other concerns about your possession of a certificate
that might affect your safe possession of firearms. Following contact from your GP there may be a need for a medical report to be obtained to assist with assessment of your continued suitability to possess a firearm or shotgun certificate. The police will pay if a medical report is required.
11. Following the issue of a firearm or shotgun certificate please note that the declaration you have signed consenting to information sharing between your doctor and police applies during the application process and during the validity of any firearm or shotgun certificate, which may be up to five years.
12. You are expected to inform the police if, following issue of the certificate, you are diagnosed with or treated for a relevant medical condition while the certificate remains valid.
13. You should inform the police if you change your GP practice and provide contact details for the new practice.
14. You are asked to provide details of GP practices over the past 10 years and whether you have consulted medical practitioners other than at your GP practice so that all relevant information is available to police to assist with their assessment of suitability to possess a firearm certificate.
Military personnel who are posted abroad and have a service GP may still be regarded as resident in the UK for the purposes of the application."

Who is going to agree to that if there is any doubt?

That's pretty similar to here.

 

[jimbob]

I guess we are just looking at it differently. As noted by jeremyp, virtually all "licenses" are granted, making it more of a final rubber stamp. If you were denying half of applications, that would indicate the "licensing" stage had some agency. To my eye, licensing means to demonstrate functional competency, like a driver's license. You have to take a test to show that you know what you are doing with the equipment. This has nothing to do with whether you use this equipment for good or bad. Your use of "licensing" is what we in the States would call a registration.

What makes the difference in the UK, as Darat noted, is that guns have essentially been denied across the board. You have to demonstrate that you are a legitimate exception to the ban to get a "license". The broad public ban is what is doing all the legwork, not the rubber stamping for what is basically a farmer's exemption (and sport marksman clubs, etc)

Again, what I'm arguing is that your "licensing"/provisional exemption is not what is weeding out the bad apples. The terms of the ban are weeding them.

ETA: in my US State of New Jersey, you can technically acquire a permit to concealed carry. In practice, all permits are rejected. Like literally almost 100%. I recall reading somewhere that less than a dozen are approved annually in a state of 7 million, and those were approved when it was proven that the person's life was in demonstrable imminent danger.

Nah,

It's not a rubber stamp in any meaningful use of the term.

It has good compliance because it's known to be rigorous.

 

[Thermal]

The reason why most licences are granted, it because those unsuitable to get a licence either don't bother to apply, or they drop out at the start of the process, so they do not have a refusal to their name.

It is like trying to qualify to be a 100m Olympic runner. The qualifying time is under 11 seconds, so people not capable of that will know not to bother. Some borderline people will give it a go and some will succeed and a few will fail. The rest know they can do it, and so there is a high degree of success.



There are around 3/4 of a million licence holders in the UK at any one time and the default position is to grant if the person meets the criteria. That is not essentially an across the board denial.

The 11 second qualifying time is a great analogy. The ban shuts the door to the majority, leaving only a few that qualify (show an acceptable reason for ownership, in this case). For instance, if you lived in a city and were not part of any marksman club, what would be an acceptable reason to grant a licence?

I have argued that as well. People have a very good idea if they can get a licence before they apply, by just reading the terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions, all the checks, is what weeds out the unsuitable people.

Well, we'd need a dramatic overhaul in thinking on this side of the pond to entertain such a broad denial. What we have in NJ approaches what you have, in terms of no carry and owner registration, complete with fingerprinting and one permit per handgun, etc, and I think it works well. Needs to be yet stricter, but as it is, the NRA considers Jersey to be "a gun owner's Hell".

 

[Hercules56]

I suspect Europe is also full of sociopaths, but because they find it hard to get a gun, they can't shoot people.

You cant commit a massacre with a machete?