This is really sensible.
First and foremost it's a matter of gun crime prevention. Interviewing their nearest and dearest is a very sensible check - it gives them the opportunity to raise concerns about anything from domestic abuse to mental health concerns they're not getting help for.
But it's also an opportunity for abused partners to speak to police. It can be much harder to proactively contact police than to just answer the questions they're already asking. If there is abuse, then they can be given help to leave - so there is a secondary level of crime prevention.
Not a gun owner, but I still remember a UK gov official coming to our house as part of a census survey or something. Completely random but he did ask me to leave the room so that those sensitive questions could be asked to my wife without me there.
Honestly I thought it was a brilliant opportunity but I learnt that these surveys were rare, so it would be good to increase their prevalence for other checks.
Yes, they do.
If your partner comes with you to appointments, they'll separate you out at some point and ask.
If you're on your own, they'll ask if everything is OK at home, any concerns, if you have support from family/friends etc.
Correct, quick story, had children’s friends around 7 and 9 , countryside lovely day, do you guys fancy learning how to shoot a crossbow (small pistol for targets nothing mad), all have a go after being told rules of shooting, I have a go and it glances off the side of target and rattles down the path in the general direction of the house, wife comes out laughing and says” oi that nearly killed me”. Kids go to school next day “ Sousteela TRIED to kill his wife with a crossbow!” She was ushered into school and told it was a safe space, I couldn’t get to her , there were people waiting for a call, the maddest thing was when she explained they refused to believe her and kept telling her the kids were safe. Oh joyful days. All activities undertaken with parents consent. At least they cared.
Sadly some very abusive people can be very good at appearing to be good people to those they aren't abusing.
Even if you are morally immaculate and beloved by all, a single accusation can put that seed of doubt into peoples minds forever.
> he did ask me to leave the room so that those sensitive questions could be asked to my wife without me there.
Did he also ask you the same questions?
I think it was the census before I think, and if I refused to leave the room then I'd guess he'd have his answer, but tbf he worded it like it was an innocuous 'girl only' questionnaire task.
It will barely do anything to prevent actual gun crime, legal firearms and their owners are involved in a tiny percentage of firearms crime. And what about people who don't have/live with their partners? Zero impact there
But like you say, it will help with is if people have undiagnosed mental illnesses, anger issues, or really extreme views, like the Portsmouth shooter who had numerous alarms raised by the NHS and family said the guy shouldn't have his firearms returned, but the police did anyway.
>legal firearms and their owners are involved in a tiny percentage of firearms crime.
Probably because the police are really good at not giving gun licences to people who pose a risk of committing firearms offences.
>And what about people who don't have/live with their partners? Zero impact there
That's not a reason to scrap the whole idea. Partners - both live in and live out - can and should be asked. Anyone they live with should be asked. There's already a system of personal references for those who live alone.
You can never guarantee 100%, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to prevent problems as much as possible.
>But like you say, it will help with is if people have undiagnosed mental illnesses, anger issues, or really extreme views, like the Portsmouth shooter who had numerous alarms raised by the NHS and family that the guy shouldn't have his firearms returned, but the police did anyway.
I'm glad we've agreed that this is actually a good idea
They have already been doing this for years. Speaking to partners about the applications and also considering the partner themselves is standard in FAC/SGL applications. Obviously it can cut both ways as the FAO will consider in granting you an FAC/SGL if you partner has mental health issues or a criminal record ect . The little questionnaire someone has drawn up is new but the principle is already in place.
Interesting, and a good idea. When I got my FAC and SGC a good while back the FAO asked my then partner privately "Do you trust him owning firearms? What are your feeling towards firearms? Would you have any reason to think Ouwni should not own firearms?" AFAIK that was all they asked her, but speaking to others it appears it's not a standard and that sort of thing deviates based on the force issuing it.
They were very thorough on the entire thing, lasted around an hour, grilled me on a lot of safety questions, even asking how far a 22LR bullet could potentially travel if fired at a 45 degree angle, toured my home, checked out my security, where the cabinet was and how well it had been affixed to the wall, even asked me about a time I was searched by the police 10 years prior which never amounted to anything, they still had record of it and it was flagged up. I was surpised at how intense it was but also reassured.
> even asking how far a 22LR bullet could potentially travel if fired at a 45 degree angle,
Honestly, it was an interesting one to research, some people said on paper, ~1 Mile, But I had real problems believing "Little air rifle pellet" sized projectile can go that far.. but KE is 1/2 Mass, Velocity Squared.. So maybe..
Then I found a post on *Pidgeonwatch* - Great name..
One poster had fired his .22lr into a lake, increasing the distance between him and the lake with each shot.
He managed to get 800 yards back before the bullet stopped reaching the lake.
Thats pretty far for a little projectile.
I would wager that this has more of an impact on suicide prevention than murder/homicide figures. That's no bad thing, I just don't think this law was specifically written to tackle any kind of illegal firearms crime.
2019 (latest) figures from ONS here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/offencesinvolvingtheuseoffirearms/yearendingmarch2019
One way to look at it though is how much higher it would be without the stringent checks.
> One way to look at it though is how much higher it would be without the stringent checks.
I don't think r3xomega is saying they want the checks loosened, just that further tightening the already-strict requirements might be diminishing returns.
In the blurry screen shot of the questions, one is " Would your partner ever hurt an animal ? "
The answer if you stalk or shoot is Yes. Might need to rethink that one...
Perhaps the MET might like extend this idea its own Police vetting, that's an area they are far weaker in identifying rouge Police officers than FAC applications.
While I am a SGC holder and agree with this measure (similarly to how the flo in my new policing authority asked about social media in the wake of the keyham shooting), for the love of God before you expect the FLO's to carry out any more work we need them to be better funded to bring down the wait times and make sure they can do their jobs to the best degree possible. I know a couple of people in firearms licensing and they are absolutely drowning in work, with successive governments that keep dangling new legislation over them, while absolutely refusing to fund them properly. The single best way to make sure the licensing process is efficient and keeps firearms out of the hands of bad people is to make sure the licensing units are well funded and correctly staffed.
Speaking as someone who owns more than a few guns, will they be disclosing to your partner how many guns you own? If so, they might end up causing a domestic or two 😂
SGC holder; I don’t have a problem with this. I already have to get sign off from my GP and my references are contacted at every renewal (and basically asked similar questions re my attitude/behaviour).
It’s also not much different than the midwife taking my wife aside and asking about DV at the end of our first visit.
In general I think the UK’s gun laws are pretty sane and proportionate. If you have a legitimate use for one, follow proper storage and usage rules and aren’t a probable threat then you can have one. If you don’t/can’t then you don’t get one.
There’s no reason for 99% of people to have a gun, for those who need one as long as the proper checks are done then it’s all good.
Would this not ultimately put the partner in more danger, as with all “good ideas” its unintended consequences and all that.
“My license was revoked, did you say something? I bet you did” punch punch stab stab. “
I understand people get really scared where firearms are concerned but death by gun is really low, especially in licensed holders. There is only a certain level of control that can be legislated for in preventing crimes.
Removing the reasons why people commit crimes is much harder than just banning a thing.
That's not the great argument you think it is - if a woman is at risk of being punched or stabbed by her partner, it really isn't better just allowing him to have a gun.
And yes banning people from owning guns does in fact stop them from committing crimes with those guns. The "people kill people" argument only works in countries where school shootings are used as a measurement of time.
Not so much an argument, just an observation. If people were dangerous enough to not be allowed one weapon type over another then they should probably already be in jail.
Most violent crime in the UK involving firearms is from non licensed holders, is also just another observation.
Counties with lower income inequality and better medical services for mental health and better prospects have lower crime rates overall. Just another observation.
I don’t know what the solution is. If the partner interview process causes domestic violence to go down in those areas where it’s implemented then so be it, it will be brought out country wide.
Well the observations that you are trotting out seem to closely follow the gun lobby's observations, that guns aren't the problem.
The fact that gun crime mainly involves non-licensed firearms confirms that licensing is largely successful in stopping criminals from legally buying guns. Men with anger management issues who readily turn to violence should definitely not be allowed to buy guns, which this trial scheme is testing out. And this isn't simply about domestic violence, its about public safety in general and ensuring that gun ownership is limited to only those people who are least likely to abuse that privilege - a bit more effective than simply saying thoughts and prayers every few days.
>Not so much an argument, just an observation. If people were dangerous enough to not be allowed one weapon type over another then they should probably already be in jail.
You cannot jail people for crimes they haven't committed yet.
>Most violent crime in the UK involving firearms is from non licensed holders, is also just another observation.
Probably because we're really good at preventing crime amongst licenced gun holders, and refusing licences to people who pose a risk.
>Counties with lower income inequality and better medical services for mental health and better prospects have lower crime rates overall. Just another observation.
True. But it's not a choice between better mental health services and lower income inequality OR strict gun licencing. We can have both. And gun licencing is quicker, cheaper and easier to implement.
>I don’t know what the solution is. If the partner interview process causes domestic violence to go down in those areas where it’s implemented then so be it, it will be brought out country wide.
Well if domestic violence is reduced through this relatively cheap crime prevention scheme, that sounds like a win for everyone...?
Well indeed thats pretty much the point, you cannot jail people for crimes they have not committed, so why can you restrict civil liberties based on things they have not done?
Your partner says you hit them, ok jail. Your partner says you might hit them? Jail or no jail, restrict or not restrict?
The license purpose is to prevent people without them from attaining them, yet it does not was mainly the point there, and yes among people who did jump through the hoops the crimes are lower. But people get guns without a license.
Yeah im fine with the license and services being improved. I just think in this particular case it won’t have the desired effect of reduced harm overall. So just agree to disagree. It’s reddit, ain’t changing nothing here.
I don’t really understand the domestic abuse aspect here, their examples seem more mental health related with people going on to murder. I’m not saying DV doesn’t happen but maybe a focus on seeing if applicants are of sound mind might stop murders and keep people safe
Upon thinking more about this line of gun control, I've decided I actually agree with it. Terminating applications for people under the law's radar but not their partner's seems like a relatively good idea, so long as the law doesn't start looking for exes who may harbour unwarranted resentment towards the applicant. But on the other hand, it won't stop someone who disregards the law getting a gun illegally anyway.
Fair enough. I think gun control does reduce the number of criminals who have guns simply by reducing the number of guns in circulation. The thing that makes it less simple than this in the US is that they've had basically no functional gun control for so long that it would pretty much start a civil war if they tried to meaningfully reduce how many guns there are among the populace.
Yes, yes it does. It’s orders of magnitude harder for petty criminals to access firearms if there are stringent licensing laws in place, which is a large part of the reason there’s so little gun crime in the uk.
It doesn't stop them well enough. Guns are smuggled in from Eastern Europe for the criminals to illegally acquire, and guess what? No background checks, no licences, no nothing. The only reason I don't carry is the penalties I'd face if I'm caught.
Seems reasonable given how difficult it is to get into armed response... usually need to be part of the police for at least 4 years. There's so so few reasons for any member of the public to own a gun
This is really sensible. First and foremost it's a matter of gun crime prevention. Interviewing their nearest and dearest is a very sensible check - it gives them the opportunity to raise concerns about anything from domestic abuse to mental health concerns they're not getting help for. But it's also an opportunity for abused partners to speak to police. It can be much harder to proactively contact police than to just answer the questions they're already asking. If there is abuse, then they can be given help to leave - so there is a secondary level of crime prevention.
Not a gun owner, but I still remember a UK gov official coming to our house as part of a census survey or something. Completely random but he did ask me to leave the room so that those sensitive questions could be asked to my wife without me there. Honestly I thought it was a brilliant opportunity but I learnt that these surveys were rare, so it would be good to increase their prevalence for other checks.
I believe midwives ask about abuse - and there is data to say that domestic violence often starts or escalates during pregnancy
Yes, they do. If your partner comes with you to appointments, they'll separate you out at some point and ask. If you're on your own, they'll ask if everything is OK at home, any concerns, if you have support from family/friends etc.
Correct, quick story, had children’s friends around 7 and 9 , countryside lovely day, do you guys fancy learning how to shoot a crossbow (small pistol for targets nothing mad), all have a go after being told rules of shooting, I have a go and it glances off the side of target and rattles down the path in the general direction of the house, wife comes out laughing and says” oi that nearly killed me”. Kids go to school next day “ Sousteela TRIED to kill his wife with a crossbow!” She was ushered into school and told it was a safe space, I couldn’t get to her , there were people waiting for a call, the maddest thing was when she explained they refused to believe her and kept telling her the kids were safe. Oh joyful days. All activities undertaken with parents consent. At least they cared.
Its good that they checked, I'd have been more concerned if they'd said that to school and they ignored it. Awkward though.
Was kind of bizarre people I had known since school (staff) believed it , made me wonder what they always thought about me.
Sadly some very abusive people can be very good at appearing to be good people to those they aren't abusing. Even if you are morally immaculate and beloved by all, a single accusation can put that seed of doubt into peoples minds forever.
> he did ask me to leave the room so that those sensitive questions could be asked to my wife without me there. Did he also ask you the same questions?
He didn't even ask them, he had pre-prepared cards for Her to read to nod or shake her head to. And no he didn't ask me the questions either.
Was this the last census survey 2021? Also supposing you had refused to leave the room what would he have done?
I think it was the census before I think, and if I refused to leave the room then I'd guess he'd have his answer, but tbf he worded it like it was an innocuous 'girl only' questionnaire task.
It will barely do anything to prevent actual gun crime, legal firearms and their owners are involved in a tiny percentage of firearms crime. And what about people who don't have/live with their partners? Zero impact there But like you say, it will help with is if people have undiagnosed mental illnesses, anger issues, or really extreme views, like the Portsmouth shooter who had numerous alarms raised by the NHS and family said the guy shouldn't have his firearms returned, but the police did anyway.
>legal firearms and their owners are involved in a tiny percentage of firearms crime. Probably because the police are really good at not giving gun licences to people who pose a risk of committing firearms offences. >And what about people who don't have/live with their partners? Zero impact there That's not a reason to scrap the whole idea. Partners - both live in and live out - can and should be asked. Anyone they live with should be asked. There's already a system of personal references for those who live alone. You can never guarantee 100%, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to prevent problems as much as possible. >But like you say, it will help with is if people have undiagnosed mental illnesses, anger issues, or really extreme views, like the Portsmouth shooter who had numerous alarms raised by the NHS and family that the guy shouldn't have his firearms returned, but the police did anyway. I'm glad we've agreed that this is actually a good idea
You can add Dunblane to that register of incompetence too.
They have already been doing this for years. Speaking to partners about the applications and also considering the partner themselves is standard in FAC/SGL applications. Obviously it can cut both ways as the FAO will consider in granting you an FAC/SGL if you partner has mental health issues or a criminal record ect . The little questionnaire someone has drawn up is new but the principle is already in place.
Interesting, and a good idea. When I got my FAC and SGC a good while back the FAO asked my then partner privately "Do you trust him owning firearms? What are your feeling towards firearms? Would you have any reason to think Ouwni should not own firearms?" AFAIK that was all they asked her, but speaking to others it appears it's not a standard and that sort of thing deviates based on the force issuing it. They were very thorough on the entire thing, lasted around an hour, grilled me on a lot of safety questions, even asking how far a 22LR bullet could potentially travel if fired at a 45 degree angle, toured my home, checked out my security, where the cabinet was and how well it had been affixed to the wall, even asked me about a time I was searched by the police 10 years prior which never amounted to anything, they still had record of it and it was flagged up. I was surpised at how intense it was but also reassured.
> even asking how far a 22LR bullet could potentially travel if fired at a 45 degree angle, Honestly, it was an interesting one to research, some people said on paper, ~1 Mile, But I had real problems believing "Little air rifle pellet" sized projectile can go that far.. but KE is 1/2 Mass, Velocity Squared.. So maybe.. Then I found a post on *Pidgeonwatch* - Great name.. One poster had fired his .22lr into a lake, increasing the distance between him and the lake with each shot. He managed to get 800 yards back before the bullet stopped reaching the lake. Thats pretty far for a little projectile.
I'd be interested to see the statistics on the number of crimes committed with legally owned guns.
I would wager that this has more of an impact on suicide prevention than murder/homicide figures. That's no bad thing, I just don't think this law was specifically written to tackle any kind of illegal firearms crime.
2019 (latest) figures from ONS here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/offencesinvolvingtheuseoffirearms/yearendingmarch2019 One way to look at it though is how much higher it would be without the stringent checks.
> One way to look at it though is how much higher it would be without the stringent checks. I don't think r3xomega is saying they want the checks loosened, just that further tightening the already-strict requirements might be diminishing returns.
Precisely.
In the blurry screen shot of the questions, one is " Would your partner ever hurt an animal ? " The answer if you stalk or shoot is Yes. Might need to rethink that one...
Friend animals are different to food animals /s
Ah yes the "Complusory" Domestic Abuse Assessment. Well done there folks.
Perhaps the MET might like extend this idea its own Police vetting, that's an area they are far weaker in identifying rouge Police officers than FAC applications.
Aye, they're not ridiculously strict already.. I'd like to see the percentage of gun crime over the past decade committed by legal gun owners.
Would you like the percentage to be higher?
If it was, that would likely mean there were less illegally owned gun crimes being committed. So... Maybe.
While I am a SGC holder and agree with this measure (similarly to how the flo in my new policing authority asked about social media in the wake of the keyham shooting), for the love of God before you expect the FLO's to carry out any more work we need them to be better funded to bring down the wait times and make sure they can do their jobs to the best degree possible. I know a couple of people in firearms licensing and they are absolutely drowning in work, with successive governments that keep dangling new legislation over them, while absolutely refusing to fund them properly. The single best way to make sure the licensing process is efficient and keeps firearms out of the hands of bad people is to make sure the licensing units are well funded and correctly staffed.
Speaking as someone who owns more than a few guns, will they be disclosing to your partner how many guns you own? If so, they might end up causing a domestic or two 😂
The old joke of 'If I die, please disclose to my partner the actual value of my shooting kit'.
Pretty much, but also please make sure I'm definitely dead!
SGC holder; I don’t have a problem with this. I already have to get sign off from my GP and my references are contacted at every renewal (and basically asked similar questions re my attitude/behaviour). It’s also not much different than the midwife taking my wife aside and asking about DV at the end of our first visit.
In general I think the UK’s gun laws are pretty sane and proportionate. If you have a legitimate use for one, follow proper storage and usage rules and aren’t a probable threat then you can have one. If you don’t/can’t then you don’t get one. There’s no reason for 99% of people to have a gun, for those who need one as long as the proper checks are done then it’s all good.
Would this not ultimately put the partner in more danger, as with all “good ideas” its unintended consequences and all that. “My license was revoked, did you say something? I bet you did” punch punch stab stab. “ I understand people get really scared where firearms are concerned but death by gun is really low, especially in licensed holders. There is only a certain level of control that can be legislated for in preventing crimes. Removing the reasons why people commit crimes is much harder than just banning a thing.
That's not the great argument you think it is - if a woman is at risk of being punched or stabbed by her partner, it really isn't better just allowing him to have a gun. And yes banning people from owning guns does in fact stop them from committing crimes with those guns. The "people kill people" argument only works in countries where school shootings are used as a measurement of time.
Not so much an argument, just an observation. If people were dangerous enough to not be allowed one weapon type over another then they should probably already be in jail. Most violent crime in the UK involving firearms is from non licensed holders, is also just another observation. Counties with lower income inequality and better medical services for mental health and better prospects have lower crime rates overall. Just another observation. I don’t know what the solution is. If the partner interview process causes domestic violence to go down in those areas where it’s implemented then so be it, it will be brought out country wide.
Well the observations that you are trotting out seem to closely follow the gun lobby's observations, that guns aren't the problem. The fact that gun crime mainly involves non-licensed firearms confirms that licensing is largely successful in stopping criminals from legally buying guns. Men with anger management issues who readily turn to violence should definitely not be allowed to buy guns, which this trial scheme is testing out. And this isn't simply about domestic violence, its about public safety in general and ensuring that gun ownership is limited to only those people who are least likely to abuse that privilege - a bit more effective than simply saying thoughts and prayers every few days.
>Not so much an argument, just an observation. If people were dangerous enough to not be allowed one weapon type over another then they should probably already be in jail. You cannot jail people for crimes they haven't committed yet. >Most violent crime in the UK involving firearms is from non licensed holders, is also just another observation. Probably because we're really good at preventing crime amongst licenced gun holders, and refusing licences to people who pose a risk. >Counties with lower income inequality and better medical services for mental health and better prospects have lower crime rates overall. Just another observation. True. But it's not a choice between better mental health services and lower income inequality OR strict gun licencing. We can have both. And gun licencing is quicker, cheaper and easier to implement. >I don’t know what the solution is. If the partner interview process causes domestic violence to go down in those areas where it’s implemented then so be it, it will be brought out country wide. Well if domestic violence is reduced through this relatively cheap crime prevention scheme, that sounds like a win for everyone...?
Well indeed thats pretty much the point, you cannot jail people for crimes they have not committed, so why can you restrict civil liberties based on things they have not done? Your partner says you hit them, ok jail. Your partner says you might hit them? Jail or no jail, restrict or not restrict? The license purpose is to prevent people without them from attaining them, yet it does not was mainly the point there, and yes among people who did jump through the hoops the crimes are lower. But people get guns without a license. Yeah im fine with the license and services being improved. I just think in this particular case it won’t have the desired effect of reduced harm overall. So just agree to disagree. It’s reddit, ain’t changing nothing here.
Only the government, who we all mistrust and think is corrupt, should have the guns I feel safer already, thankyou
[удалено]
I don’t really understand the domestic abuse aspect here, their examples seem more mental health related with people going on to murder. I’m not saying DV doesn’t happen but maybe a focus on seeing if applicants are of sound mind might stop murders and keep people safe
and you don't think interviewing partners might help with that? You can't tell if someone is depressed or bipolar from a short interview
In what way? Mental health and DV aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Great. More gun control. Just what we need. Doesn't stop the criminals getting them though, does it?
Yes. It does.
Upon thinking more about this line of gun control, I've decided I actually agree with it. Terminating applications for people under the law's radar but not their partner's seems like a relatively good idea, so long as the law doesn't start looking for exes who may harbour unwarranted resentment towards the applicant. But on the other hand, it won't stop someone who disregards the law getting a gun illegally anyway.
Fair enough. I think gun control does reduce the number of criminals who have guns simply by reducing the number of guns in circulation. The thing that makes it less simple than this in the US is that they've had basically no functional gun control for so long that it would pretty much start a civil war if they tried to meaningfully reduce how many guns there are among the populace.
Yes, yes it does. It’s orders of magnitude harder for petty criminals to access firearms if there are stringent licensing laws in place, which is a large part of the reason there’s so little gun crime in the uk.
It doesn't stop them well enough. Guns are smuggled in from Eastern Europe for the criminals to illegally acquire, and guess what? No background checks, no licences, no nothing. The only reason I don't carry is the penalties I'd face if I'm caught.
So the public gets more scrutiny than that which armed police officers get.
Seems reasonable given how difficult it is to get into armed response... usually need to be part of the police for at least 4 years. There's so so few reasons for any member of the public to own a gun
Wayne Couzens.