Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot
Bebo

Is it just me that thinks this is daft?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21051062

Seems to open up opportunities for people who have gone through acrimonious splits to get at their partners.
Nick

It'll depend on how it's implemented, but I can see some merit.

As another question, what happens when an abused current partner refuses to sign, and the abuser finds out? Or just suspects?
Hairyloon

As a suggestion, it is not without merit:
Quote:
The home secretary said it was "not appropriate" for people with a history of domestic violence to own guns.

Is she wrong?
RichardW

Will this actually reduce crime/killings?

Domestic violence is bad, but when was the last time someone (IE a partner or ex partner) was shot in the UK with a legally held firearm.

When was the last time a domestic abuser killed someone else?

I am not saying that this is not a good step in the right direction but is it a knew jerk reaction when better changes could be made?
Hairyloon

As another question, what happens when an abused current partner refuses to sign, and the abuser finds out? Or just suspects?

Quote:
In Canada, spouses or recent ex-spouses are required to sign gun licence application forms. If they decline, additional checks are carried out on the applicant.

Seems fair enough.
Nick

I didn't mean what's the following process, I meant how does the violent husband take it, and what does he do?
Penny Outskirts

When Steve got his licence, they asked if his ex-wife was mentally stable... he lied Wink
Nick

And his new partner? Wink
Penny Outskirts

And his new partner? Wink


Scarily I was in the room, and they seemed to think it was OK Shocked
Hairyloon

I didn't mean what's the following process, I meant how does the violent husband take it, and what does he do?
Hopefully they make the additional checks and lock him (or her) up.
Bebo

As a suggestion, it is not without merit:
Quote:
The home secretary said it was "not appropriate" for people with a history of domestic violence to own guns.

Is she wrong?

On the face of it that's fair enough. But how do you stop a malicious ex-partner saying that they don't give permission for their ex-partner to own a gun, if that's going to be the requirement?
Treacodactyl

It might be reasonable in theory but in practice I can't see it doing anything apart from making the process even more arduous than it is.

Most, if not all, the headline shootings done with legally held guns in the UK there were sufficient reasons for the police to consider withholding the licence anyway. As has been said is there much, or any, proof that there is a need for more legislation?

Even if there's proof what will probably happen is the worst offenders' spouses probably will not say anything and those from acrimonious splits will.

One thing that never seems to come up is should people who would fail to obtain a SGC or FAC be allowed to buy knives, drive cars etc which have all been used to kill people.
alison

I can see vindictive and manipulative ex wives having a field day with this. vegplot

Why? Incident of gun crime with legally held firearms is very low in the UK.

She's probably correct in her assertion that people with a violent history shouldn't posses a firearms licence but is this currently a problem that need her attention to solve? Local Firearms Officers and Constabularies already have that discretion.

Suspect she's using the US shooting, which has almost no bearing to how the UK handles firearms legislation, as a political tool to boost Tory popularity with a non-vote losing but largely irrelevant policy proposal.
Hairyloon

I can see vindictive and manipulative ex wives having a field day with this.
What is to stop vindictive ex-wives making false claims of abuse in any case?
If I was making the rules, I'd make the first point of "further investigation" an interview with the spouse to look for abuse.
vegplot

I can see vindictive and manipulative ex wives having a field day with this.
What is to stop vindictive ex-wives making false claims of abuse in any case?
If I was making the rules, I'd make the first point of "further investigation" an interview with the spouse to look for abuse.

What worries me is that it could remove the ability of the police to exercise discretion and become a tick box exercise.
alison

I can see vindictive and manipulative ex wives having a field day with this.
What is to stop vindictive ex-wives making false claims of abuse in any case?
If I was making the rules, I'd make the first point of "further investigation" an interview with the spouse to look for abuse.

That is what I was thinking.

Start moving towards divorce
put in a fraudulent claim or two
get divorced
make a fuss with gun application.

I can think of a couple of people who would think that was a right hoot.
Bebo

Suspect she's using the US shooting, which has almost no bearing to how the UK handles firearms legislation, as a political tool to boost Tory popularity with a non-vote losing but largely irrelevant policy proposal.

Not sure about that. I can see the mainly Tory hunting and shooting set not being happy if it might preclude them from owning a shotgun. I'd be annoyed with it, but as I'd turn my shotgun on myself before voting Tory anyway it wouldn't lose them my vote.
lyndsayfink

I actually think this could be really dangerous in the way that effectively it puts some of the responsibility on to spouses but also, being married shouldn't mean an extra 'permission' in required. It's no so different from (women) needing their spouses permission to continue to work and all the other discriminatory practices that married women used to be subjected to.

Rather than a gun issue in particular (as this has been posted in the shooting place) I think it's much broader, married partners should not be required by law to have have a *say* in these things, any more than any other person who might have information about a person (ie if anyone thought that a certain person was dangerous they should be able to voice concerns).

And obviously, this won't stop bad people getting guns as if a partner knows, and they are still with that bad person, asking them to declare about a gun could at best act as a catalyst to get themselves to safety, but a worst add another opportunity for the abusive partner to control with fear and threat. And they'll still end up with a gun. And if anyone gets hurt the scared signatory partner will at least be questioned as to why they signed off and most likely blamed.

If the police need to character check, and a CRB doesn't cut it, then they should probably list publicly everyone who applies for a license and ask for submissions if people are worried, then check all of those fully. Lots of work and intrusive.
john of wessex

The difficulty as far as I can see though is how you 'trace' these things.

What about boyfriends/girlfriends/unmarried partners who dont necessarily leave any kind of record?

The biggest thing is proper action over domestic violence - which means taking action and keeping records
vegplot

Suspect she's using the US shooting, which has almost no bearing to how the UK handles firearms legislation, as a political tool to boost Tory popularity with a non-vote losing but largely irrelevant policy proposal.

Not sure about that. I can see the mainly Tory hunting and shooting set not being happy if it might preclude them from owning a shotgun. I'd be annoyed with it, but as I'd turn my shotgun on myself before voting Tory anyway it wouldn't lose them my vote.

They have the same laws as we do?
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Shooting and Trapping for the Pot
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home