|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 14 Aug 00:22
As details emerge of the tragedy enacted by the odious Jake Davison we can only hope that lessons are learned.
The fact that this rancid individual was allowed to legally own firearms is mind boggling, especially when you discover that his guns were removed from his possession only last year only to be returned to him.
The red flags were all being waved that this guy was dangerous. I appreciate that the authorities can`t be on top of everything but nobody listening to his online vile ramblings could have thought that this guy should be allowed to possess a shotgun.
Ultimately though he and he alone are to blame for his actions. He`ll be remembered with zero sympathy and maximum disgust for being, among other wretched things, a child murderer.
Post Edited (Sat 14 Aug 00:23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Sat 14 Aug 00:57
Agree.Who the hell needs a pump action shotgun.Where the hell did he get hold of that? Somebody, cocked this up big time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 14 Aug 08:29
Totally agree Towk .. returning his firearm when there was still concerns ??
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 14 Aug 09:39
Why does anyone in the UK have weapons like that if not for hunting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 14 Aug 10:44
"Agree.Who the hell needs a pump action shotgun.Where the hell did he get hold of that? Somebody, cocked this up big time."
Would need to get clarity on exactly what kind of firearm he had in this tragic scenario.
Pump action can be misleading, no shotgun can hold more than three cartridges, two is the more common.
That aside, somebody in the police has searching questions to answer.
Post Edited (Sat 14 Aug 11:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 14 Aug 11:06
Folk who apply for gun licences should have to actively make the case for having one - it shouldn't be on the police to find the reason for them not having it.
Folk should provide medical assessments, psychological reports etc - have to jump through a load of hoops to prove that they are not only suitable candidates but that they have good reason for needing a licence.
Essentially getting a gun licence shouldn't be easier than getting a driving license.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
Post Edited (Sat 14 Aug 11:07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 14 Aug 11:30
I can't think of any reason why anybody would need to both own and have custody of a firearm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 14 Aug 14:50
I think possibly farmers would have a legitimate reason to own a shotgun. Not a crane operator in Plymouth though.
What is also unsettling about this case is the whole toxic `incel` sub culture that seems to be capturing so many, especially young, men in a downward spiral of self pity and hatred towards women.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 14 Aug 15:11
Farmers and gamekeepers have a need to hold shotguns, they are not the problem.
Likewise clay pigeon club members.
However, as said, a crane operator ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Grant
Date: Sat 14 Aug 15:15
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sat 14 Aug 14:50
.
What is also unsettling about this case is the whole toxic `incel` sub culture that seems to be capturing so many, especially young, men in a downward spiral of self pity and hatred towards women.
Aye, agreed.
The whole story just knocked me for six really, hearing that a 3 year old got caught up in it... I can't imagine the pain and grief the mum is going through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 14 Aug 15:45
So farmers, clay pidgeon folk (and target shooters) could use stock guns or keep them at the approved establishments and not take them home with them
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 14 Aug 16:28
Quote:
veteraneastender, Sat 14 Aug 10:44
Pump action can be misleading, no shotgun can hold more than three cartridges, two is the more common.
There is a plug that limits them to 3 but this can easily be removed and the maximum capacity is then increased to 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 14 Aug 16:49
I thought these were illegal to sell in the UK ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Sat 14 Aug 18:22
That's a good question. Why the hell does a 22 year old crane driver ,have a gun in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 14 Aug 19:44
Quote:
veteraneastender, Sat 14 Aug 16:49
I thought these were illegal to sell in the UK ?
They are illegal but you can remove the plug yourself which is also illegal.
It's illegal to murder folk with a shotgun but he still did that.
Was just making the point 3 is not the maximum as you stated. No malice intended just wanted to point out that 8 is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 14 Aug 20:12
No offence even remotely crossed my mind, far less taken.
I was assuming that any pump action shotgun acquired legally in the UK could not be physically altered to hold more than 3 cartridges.
If they can, that opens up a hellish scenario, God forbid.
Of course if it was an illegal model that explains how it could be DIY converted.
However, he held a shotgun licence before it was revoked, then re-instated, so it`s not unreasonable to assume his firearm was legal ?
Lots of questions to be clarified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 16 Aug 10:33
Incredibly I have read six hundred thousand people in the UK legally own a firearm.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Highway_Star
Date: Mon 16 Aug 16:04
And a lot more than that illegally own firearms. Last estimate I read was in the order of 4 million illegally held firearms in the UK.
The onus is on the licencee to show `good reason`, not on the Police to find reasons for refusal, typical good reasons are target shooting or pest control. Self-defence or being a homicidal maniac are not good reasons and would result in instant refusal, and likely becoming a `prohibited person`.
Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer said: "officers feared invading his privacy if they looked at his social media"
Yet in the guidance for chief officers of Police, it specifically states that officers should use information from open source social media.
Granted there is not a shred of guidance on where and what to look for with social media, but they were required to do so nonetheless.
Utterly tragic, but sadly totally preventable.
The individual in the video below used a VAN to kill 10 people, DOUBLE the amount in Plymouth.He appears to have been radicalised in a similar way to the Plymouth shooter.
https://youtu.be/kGFWovUuWak
It has to be said clearly, these people clearly are not quite right, they have obvious medical and mental health conditions which distorts their worldview and ability to interact with people, and in my opinion they are retreating into an online fantasy world, where their bitterness manifests and they become radicalised. Their behaviour is unacceptable, their attitude towards women totally disgraceful and pathetic. The problem is with these individuals alone yet they blame everyone else for their problems. They are total losers.
The focus should be on profiling these individuals and getting them the appropriate mental health treatment they need before they get to a situation where they decide to murder innocent people by ANY method.
The screening process for potential gun owners in the UK is very robust when followed properly. We do not need further laws, it needlessly focuses resources on the wrong people. If organisations and individuals are serious about public safety then they will look at flagging potentially dangerous individuals not pushing agendas.
This is not about guns, its about saving lives, I would rather innocent people were not killed by unhinged individuals with guns, vans, knives or any other inanimate object that is misused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 16 Aug 18:43
"Last estimate I read was in the order of 4 million illegally held firearms in the UK."
Although it was an alarmingly high number, I don`t think that was the estimate ........I`d be interested in your source. I`d be wary of the tabloid press for such data. It may also include air powered weapons, which although dangerous, are not the principal concern.
"The onus is on the licencee to show `good reason`, not on the Police to find reasons for refusal, typical good reasons are target shooting or pest control."
The show good reason aspect was not my experience when I applied for a shotgun licence - I read up on a gun lobby site and they were adamant that the applicant need not have to justify himself to the police, and this did not constitute grounds for refusal.
That said, I have never understood why a genuine applicant would wish to withhold such information. or why the police did not have the absolute right to obtain it. I had nothing to hide and explained it was for clay pigeon ranges.
Although I was never able to verify it, I`m sure my GP was asked for a confidential opinion on my mental fitness to be granted a shotgun certificate.
That good reason clause might well be different for handguns and rifles etc. - but that is a different type of licence, MUCH more difficult to obtain.
Post Edited (Mon 16 Aug 18:46)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 17 Aug 03:04
Why is it "mental health" when radicalised white people go on a rampage but "terrorism" when it's radicalised brown people?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 17 Aug 08:28
It’s just the selective use of language by the political class. If the killer in Plymouth had run amok while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ or ‘White Lives Matter’ then he would be classed as a terrorist. Since he didn’t then he can be ignored and characterised as a deranged individual. The fact that the victims would have been equally terrorised had he shouted some slogan or none at all is of little concern to a political class who wish to confine the term ‘terrorism’ to any violent action which threatens their system.
The verb ‘radicalisation’ is fairly new and has a Newspeak element in so far as the adjective ‘radical’ still has a positive connotation. Every election sees politicians promising ‘radical change’ which rarely ever comes to pass as we are fobbed off with a few superficial nudges to the status quo. However the word ‘radicalisation’ is now synonymous with the Cold War term ‘brainwashing’ and is claimed to produce violent extremists and militants. For my own part, like many I suspect, I have been radicalised a few times in my life: hearing my first Bob Dylan LP, watching the way Brazil played football in 1970, reading Guy Debord’s ‘The Society of the Spectacle.` But once again the politicians want to dampen down alternative narratives and control the terms of reference.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 17 Aug 21:08
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-44053828
Reading that article it is certainly hard to argue against it, in some ways, being an act of terrorism. What is being said and discussed online by these men is quite terrifying.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
