Jacking up firearms fees will cost SMEs £3.5 MILLION. Thanks, Plod The Home Office has admitted that police plans to force a 76 per cent hike in the cost of a firearm certificate will cost firearms dealers alone £700,000, with gamekeepers and vets being smacked with a further £2.8m in government-imposed fees. A consultation on the proposed increase in firearms fees, issued earlier this week, …
Since what the plods currently get to charge for processing a firearms certificate is much less than what it actually **costs** them to process it, the public is subsidising gun-owners. Who generally tend to be people like the landed gentry and others who are far better-off than most of us.
So perhaps it's no bad thing that they should actually have to pay enough so that we don't have to feather-bed them?
After all, most guns are used for no better purpose than blasting birds out of the sky so chinless wonders can pretend they're wonderful "sportsmen" just because they've slaughtered a bit of wildlife.
It's equally as obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. The side of the shooting sport that targets birds (and other animal life) is comparitively small. Mostly, shooters in these here blighted isles target paper or clay, not fleshy things. Firearms licences tend to specify that "approved ranges" be used, rather than open spaces of rolling hills and dales. So, unless a swarm of hornets happens to pass between you and the targets downrange, the worst that can happen at the business end of a black powder pistol, full-bore rifle, or a shotgun, is a few paper cuts and maybe some clay powder hitting the deck.
And no, I don't have a firearms licence: No need for one, as the weapons I used to use (full-bore semi-auto rifle and pistol) are no longer available here. My side of the hobby was made illegal after Dunblane.
"It's equally as obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about."
The only fact he actually said was that it costs more to administer this scheme than it brings in in revenues. If that is true, all of The Register's campaign to talk about this incredibly niche and off-topic subject (seriously, what's up with that? Are the Reg's editorial staff all keen shooters?) is rubbish, and this is simply a reduction of the subsidy. If it isn't, then it becomes a punitive fee and shouldn't take place.
This is the only real question here, and one that I haven't seen answered by the end of the first page of this long, long, loooong article. Or in the ones before it. Since you haven't said whether that fact is true or not, you apparently have no idea what you are talking about. The chinless wonder stuff is stereotype, but irrelevant.
"(seriously, what's up with that? Are the Reg's editorial staff all keen shooters?)"
Gareth is.
Also, in my experience, shooting clubs seem to be disproportionately filled with engineers (of both mechanical and electronic bent), computer scientists, tradesmen - anyone who likes problem solving or fiddling with intricate mechanical stuff. I recall my uni rifle club at one stage had a committee consisting of an aerospace engineer, an electronic engineer, an ocean scientist, two chemists, a medical student and a single, solitary humanities student. That was representative of the club as a whole, and is something I have noticed in other non-university rifle clubs.
I imagine there are probably quite a lot of people on El Reg who shoot or have shot in the past.
...So, unless a swarm of hornets happens to pass between you and the targets downrange...
Funnily enough my dad was at Bisley the other week when shooting had to stop for 20 minutes after 3 large lumps of venison fallow deer wandered onto the range. The rule is if anyone shoots a deer the entire club is permanently banned from the ranges.
...and for Tony's chinless wonder read retired millwright.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's at least 30 years since I called upon the 'services' of the police, unlike some people I read about or even some I know who've had cars vandalised or stolen or had their homes or businesses burgled. Yet, I still have to pay my general taxation and a distinctly annonated amount for police services in my councuil tax every year.
I'm far less of a drain on the police budget that these people, so why can't I get a rebate?
Tg,
You are a narrow minded twat.
Most of the flying lead in this country gets aimed at bits of paper, which generally don't mind as that is their job. From my experience (working class lad) many shooting ranges and clubs have members from all levels of society.
But imho the 'knob quotient' can be a little higher at CLAY BIRD shoots, why don't you check out one near you, I could be wrong but I think you would fit right in....
Did you miss the bit in the article that had the sums in it? Try reading it slower this time and leave your biases a little further away this time eh?
I mean we can't be running around with people enjoying a sport that you don't approve of can we now?
Just out of curiousity what sports/hobbies tickle your fancy?
J
Since what the plods currently get to charge for processing a firearms certificate is much less than what it actually **costs** them to process it, the public is subsidising gun-owners. Who generally tend to be people like the landed gentry and others who are far better-off than most of us.
So perhaps it's no bad thing that they should actually have to pay enough so that we don't have to feather-bed them?
You're missing the central point - who is the licensing regime designed to benefit? It isn't for the gun owner for whom it is an administrative burden and adds significant costs, not just in terms of the licence application but associated costs for e.g. secure storage as mandated by law and inspected as part of the approvals process. Focusing on one small element (the toffs) and extrapolating an entire emotive argument from that single misrepresentation adds no credibility at all.
There are many reasons to own a gun, the various forms of leisure pursuit amongst them but also occupational reasons as highlighted in the article such as vets. If you accept some people need guns but equally don't want any undesirable miscreant to have one when they are unable to demonstrate any lawful use you need a system of licensing. Those licences exist to protect the public rather than benefit the individual gun owner and the system works - if somebody ambushes you in the street and demands your wallet when you consider your options the possibility that they might be packing heat doesn't register if you have any sense of rationality.
So the licensing system becomes not a matter of individual entitlement but a public policy for public protection. The entire purpose of the police is the protection of the public. They don't charge you several thousand pounds for investigation if you happen to be burgled, even though that is first and foremost for your own benefit. Why then should they expect to recover their costs if you want to own a gun, for an administrative process that primarily protects the wider community?
"Your are correct. I had forgotten that you Brits had given up your right to protect your home and your family decades ago. Some States have done that in the U.S.. Easy to spot as they have the highest crime rate."
Remind me again who has the highest number of firearms related deaths, the UK or USA? In fact let me help you...Deaths per 100,000
USA
10.30 (2011)
UK
0.25 (2010)
"I had forgotten that you Brits had given up your right to protect your home and your family decades ago. "
Pig-Ignorant trolling. We're quite entitled to use reasonable and indeed deadly force to protect ourselves and families. It's just that it has to be reasonable for the circumstance: Someone stealing a lawn ornament is not grounds for taking a human life, and shooting someone in the back who has your TV isn't, either.
If you're mocking us for not being able to blow the back of the head off someone straying on our lawns without warning, then it's not us who are the primitive and unenlightened.
Err no,
it's a different country you know? We have different laws, cultural history and social norms, as GBS said, two countries separated by the same language.
Also my mother-in-law is from the East Coast so I have the 'benefit' of the whole Puritan thing to deal with as well, I absolutely love the states and have travelled there A LOT on business as well as pleasure, I delight in the differences between our countries and peoples.
Btw unlike a lot of Brits I have used a wide range of things that go bang, and did so from an early (safe & legal btw) age.
So if a broader range of guns were available (pistols etc) and it were permissable to carry them concealed in the UK, what difference do you think it would have on crime and injury/homicide rates?
Thanks for sharing your opinion either way!
J
@fruitoftheloon,
Perhaps its the wrong country but it's the right argument.
How would you protect yourself from an armed (with a gun) criminal intent on doing you harm?
BTW, all the cops are busy for the next hour trying to act non militarized.
Your answer has only two possibilities. You can't outrun a gun.
Ac,
you're quite right, I can't outrun a gun.
But I guarantee that if more people in the UK had more guns, then more people would get shot by guns in the UK.
Which means IT IS NOT VERY LIKELY to happen in the UK!!!
My grandfather was a boxing champ in the Navy and (by all accounts) a pretty good brawler, his advise re fighting was (in order)
1) don't get into the situation in the first place
2) if you can, walk away
3) run
4) find something to hit the one with the biggest mouth
5) pray, as by now you're probably f*cked anyway
Btw my formal training is in risk mgmt (stats & probability) so I believe that gives me a different viewpoint to most folk re guns and the UK.
Thanks for your contribution to the debate anyway.
J
But I guarantee that if more people in the UK had more guns, then more people would get shot by guns in the UK.
Citation needed. Go talk to your local firearms officer (the police officer responsible for local firearms grants and enforcement, rather than an armed response officer) and ask them for the stats. In the UK, the firearms used as part of criminal activities are overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) illegal firearms.
People don't go through the process of applying for a shotgun or firearms certificate just to get a gun to commit crimes with. Those people instead talk to Big Dave at the local dodgy pub and pay well over the odds for a knackered old revolver. The people who do go through the legal process to obtain firearms, do so because they have a sporting interest in shooting at paper, metal or clay targets; it takes far more effort to obtain a firearms certificate (including going through the vetting process) than it would to obtain firearms illegally.
I do not believe that an increased interest in, and participation on, legal shooting activities would cause more people to be shot on UK streets. I do not think there is a correlation, and I certainly do not think there is causation. If anyone has information to the contrary I would be extremely interested to see it.
I agree with you, re my earlier posts, as a teenager I would.go to my dads' club for small bore rifle, we also had full bore rifle and pistol as well as shotguns, hence I am quite familiar with motivations for most shooters in UK.
But if there were a dramatic increase in gun ownership and authorised concealement, which may encourage the dodgier elements of society to carry so that they can 'protect themselves' I would be rather surprised if there were not more inadvertent injuries and murders - mostly by unlicenced weapons.
Re specifics and numbers it is clearly a hypothetical construct anyway.
J.
"Who generally tend to be people like the landed gentry and others who are far better-off than most of us."
I'll give credit for the first sentence of your comment, but the one quoted is laughable. Most firearms are owned by people who shoot pieces of paper or clay and people who shoot vermin.
"After all, most guns are used for no better purpose than blasting birds out of the sky."
Citation required. Because you're talking cr4p.
Since what the plods currently get to charge for processing a firearms certificate is much less than what it actually **costs** them to process it, the public is subsidising gun-owners. Who generally tend to be people like the landed gentry and others who are far better-off than most of us.
From the article:
Your correspondent took that one apart earlier this year, noting how South Wales Police admitted that administering the grant of a firearm or shotgun certificate cost just £68. Not quite the £196 figure the Association of Chief Police Officers was bandying around at the time.
Although ACPO never did explain how they arrived at £196, it's notable that as soon as the £68 figure became public knowledge they immediately stopped talking about the higher number.
So please, provide corroborating figures for your cost-based argument, which you'll note was actually dismissed as part of the article you are commenting on. If you have information that would prove the claims that it does cost £196 to process applications then by all means speak up.
So perhaps it's no bad thing that they should actually have to pay enough so that we don't have to feather-bed them?
"Based on the assumption that there will be 714 grants and 938 renewals each year" (from the article) even if we are subsidising them to the tune of £150 per grant / renewal (based on the discredited £200 a year figure) that is still a grand total of £250k per year. Local councils spend more than that each year maintaining children's play areas (353 principal authorities would have a budget of <£1k per year to cost less than the alleged subsidy on firearms administration). If you take the smaller figure of £68 per year, then based on those renewal assumptions we are subsidising a whole £30k per year.
Spread that between 25 million taxpayers, and at worst it's a whole penny each. Now do the same sum for those aircraft carriers we bought that can't even carry aircraft (£4 billion total) and let me know how you would prefer your tax revenue to get spent. I'd rather it went on perfectly legal activities that citizens have a right to participate in, personally. :)
"the public is subsidising gun-owners. Who generally tend to be people like the landed gentry and others who are far better-off than most of us."
Bullplop.
My current club has 200+ members, of which the vast majority are engineers, tradespeople, retirees, along with some juniors. My last club had 100 members and was much the same.
I don't dispute that every country estate has a gun room, which may contain some fairly valuable firearms, but that is in no way representative of the UK's shooting community.
The rest of us are regular joes, farmers (for whom a firearm is a tool of work, no different to a tractor - not a recreational article), etc, etc. Not spending our weekend with Lord Grantham shooting Grouse with a £100k pair of Purdeys.
"After all, most guns are used for no better purpose than blasting birds out of the sky so chinless wonders can pretend they're wonderful "sportsmen" just because they've slaughtered a bit of wildlife."
Well, most of the 10million airguns in the UK are for target shooting or back-garden tin-can plinking.
Of the couple of million or so rifles and shotguns, the overwhelming majority are for target shooting, clay pigeon shooting, or pest control - not driven game bird or deer stalking.
Of course deer stalking is a perfectly legitimate activity too - in the absence of a top-level predator such as wolves, population control falls to us (deer herds controlled by famine and disease are not a pretty thing to behold).
I take it you'll be sitting down to your nice Turkey over Xmas or you'll be eating a nice broiler Chicken (the vast majority of Chickens you eat are broiler bred) At least when I go shooting the pigeon, rabbit, Pheasant, Woodcock, etc has had a sporting chance and has lived a natural "Free Range" life rather than being raised in a small cage and wrapped in green plastic
This will do a lot to help reduce firearm crime - given that no license is required for a cosh or knuckle duster we can expect to see many petty criminals abandon their firearms in favor of less expensive methods of assault.
No don't laugh - seriously that's the way the police are thinking - the restrictions on gun ownership were sold on the basis that they would reduce gum crime - it's been wonderfully effective hasn't it?
There seems to be a pattern here that goes far wider than just firearms. Whether it's the Police or the security services, whether it's somebody with a legally accounted-for gun and a mental defect, or a potential terrorist with a Facebook account who has already come to the attention of the authorities, the tip-offs and questions get ignored. Whether it happens in Dunblane or Woolwich, the internal failures are fixed by blaming the outsiders.
In my time I have seen Police officers being damn stupid around guns. The safety essentials are so incredibly simple that one can argue that every Police officer should be taught them. It's not an exotic skill not to point a gun at somebody, and not to put your finger on the trigger.
And it is rather depressing when an air pistol can be included in an official photograph of "firearms" surrendered in an amnesty, or when, amongst a mix of assorted guns and knives found in the possession of a terrorist, the pictures show a wood chisel or an ordinary hatchet.
Some of the silliness can come from taking public reports seriously—it wasn't far from here that Police firearms officers were called out to a Royal Artillery aid defence battery on exercise, because somebody saw a lurking mad with a gun—but there's a lot that seems to be directed at making the public more scared, exaggerating the threat. There have been newspaper and television reports on the illegal trade, the smuggled guns that criminals can buy and even rent, but there has been far more effort made to get rid of legal firearms.
In the end, it's all about finding an easy fix. Whether it make any difference is irrelevant.
" It's not an exotic skill not to point a gun at somebody, and not to put your finger on the trigger."
On the bright side, I'm personally quite glad that I live in a nation where our police do not have to be intimately - or even passingly - familiar with firearms.
[I've had an officer ask for a rifle to be safely 'broken' when handed to him, and he refused to accept it until it was. Which was awkward, because he was being passed the bolt and the firearm separately...]
The Police NEVER stand up and take the Blame for ANYTHING be it Dunblane or Hillsbrough or any of the awful things that have been going on in south Yorkshire (Jesus how many feck ups can one force make!) If you take time to examine the Dunblane enquiry report (and if you shoot I urge you to do so) it lists a catalogue of Police feck ups but ohhhhh noooooo we'lllay the blame at the UK's shooters. And a note to numb nuts who thinks its all toffs. NONE of my many mates who shoot are toff's we're all ordinary working class blokes living in a rural part of the country, who enjoy shooting in the winter and fishing in the summer. Poke your class war bolloxs right up.
And of course one of the reasons behind the national firearms database (yep the one that costs millions and was years late) was it would reduce the cost of administering licenses, total joke. I'm not saying the fee should go up but this is a bleddy big rise!
It costs me more than £200pa to licence my car, the car has to undergo annual inspection at my expense, it has to be insured against risks to third-parties and I or anyone else who drives the car has to be individually licenced following an examination of competence. Surely anyone who wants to own or use a device which is fundamentally a dangerous weapon must expect rigorous control, regular monitoring and to pay for the privilege.
And how much of the year are you driving your car and over how many miles of the roads? if you want gun costs to be proportionate to car use most gun owners should get a rebate.
It is not done on the cheap, gun owners already pay their share of taxes to support the police in addition to their firearms licences, if you read the article the police are looking at at least full recovery of the cost of managing legal firearms.
What would it cost you if they did the same to policing vehicles and the roads?
The briefing, delivered by police constables from our source's local Prevent anti-terrorism team, focused on preventing “vulnerable people” (i.e. potential terrorists) from gaining access to firearms, he told us.
" Vulnerable People" are the fuzz getting all touchy feely about proto terrorists while they are targeting legal gun owners with ridiculous fees in an ongoing attempt to reduce legal ownership to zero in the civilian population becuase the fuzz think they are the only people responsible enough ti have guns?
The police record is not too good based on individuals they have shot who shouldn't have been.
The overriding glaring hole in their 'Public Safety argument however, is here; http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
Published by the University of Sydney, they calculate some 6.7 guns per 100 of the British population, perhaps the police will use the money from legal owners to try to find the 2,500,000 illegal guns in the country that should help to make everyone safer.
Sadly however, only your car needs an inspection of competence once a year. You can drive pretty much as dangerously as you like, and the most that's going to happen is points on your license, even if you end up leaving somebody crippled for life. Killing somebody might lead to a couple of years in prison, but even then, you probably won't lose your driving license.
It would be nice if people would treat driving a car with a similar respect to a firearm given that both can easily inflict fatal wounds, but despite 2.5k dead every year it's not seen as important by the public.
So I presume you have never ever broken any elements of the road traffic act, and if you did you deposited a sworn statement of such at your local cop shop, then left your vehicle and driving licence too and walked home, awaiting your appointment with the beak?
Just wondered....
Please don't get upset by the point I'm about to make - think objectively, not subjectively.
A substantial proportion of the population has no interest in firearms and has concerns about people who seem to get pleasure from handling lethal weapons. Would you be surprised that many are suspicious of the psychology of such people, especially those who seem to enjoy killing things "for sport"? Many of us wish to be protected from such people and would expect that the cost of licencing for such a hobby be fully borne by its participants, if not taxed penally.
I'd ask you also to consider the historical trend. Handguns have been banned for a decade or so. Is there much public support for a repeal of the ban? I'd suggest you brace yourself for a complete ban on the private possession of all firearms within a generation or two.
When we were coming down from the trees, having an element of the population which was eager to go out and slaughter the lions was a profitable evolutionary trait. With mass ubanisation and industrialised food production, the individuals with that motivation just aren't valued anymore.....
I would love to see you have that debate with the farmers that earn a crust in the bit of Devon I live in.
Talking about other people not being comfortable with other people being in charge of lethal weapons, when I lived in London I had the pleasure of meeting many people on a daily basis that would have better served society if they weren't granted the right to drive a car based on my experience of how they exhibited their skill, attitudes and experiences.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't tho eh, it's called Rights you know?
How much fun life would be if everyone had the same biases, priorities, pleasures and interests as you....
Think about that for a bit eh?
BTW I haven't picked up a gun for about twenty years or so, and I used to cycle through central London every day, I know A LOT about people and their lethal weapons...
J
Please don't get upset by the point I'm about to make - think objectively, not subjectively.A substantial proportion of the population has no interest in firearms and has concerns about people who seem to get pleasure from handling lethal weapons. Would you be surprised that many are suspicious of the psychology of such people, especially those who seem to enjoy killing things "for sport"? Many of us wish to be protected from such people and would expect that the cost of licencing for such a hobby be fully borne by its participants, if not taxed penally.
You present a subjective, emotion laden argument there. It's a shame you asked us to evaluate it objectively, because it's damn hard to objectively evaluate a subjective opinion. You provide no corroborative facts on how large this "substantial" proportion who have no interest in firearms is, you make a suspiciously ad-hominem looking attack regarding "the psychology" of people who wish to use firearms for sport (without providing any corroborative studies on shooter psychology), and you provide no figures on the percentage of people who "wish to be protected from such people".
So, objectively, that appears to be the presentation of a personal opinion, devoid of any scientific backing for any of the points made. You may want to rectify that before re-presenting it as an "objective" piece.
How about we go back to your car analogy?
In the UK, cars kill far more people each year (1713 in 2013) than guns (58 in 2010/2011), this is from observed data (rather than opinion). However, drivers are not required to provide multiple character witness statements from friends before they are considered for application, they do not have to renew their license every 5 years, and they do not have that license taken away permanently if they are ever convicted of any violent crime. All of those are applicable to a firearms certificate.
I would suggest that, from a public safety perspective, all those measures and more should equally be applied to driving. I drive, and I would fully support regular re-examinations, police powers to drop in unannounced and check the roadworthiness of your vehicle (like they do for the security of firearms safes), and driver licensing fees increased to cover the cost of running the DVLA, so taxpayers who do not drive are not subsidising drivers. I regularly see dangerous, idiotic and frankly life threatening behaviour on my commute to and from work. People exiting motorways from lane 3, people proceeding at 45mph on 30 limit residential roads, people driving through red lights because the fact that they are running late is more important than the safety of pedestrians. I am quite frankly appalled at the state of driving in this country and I would argue that it is far more important to deal with than the demonstrably less dangerous threat of gun crime.
1,700 deaths on the roads compared to 60 deaths from firearms; more than one order of magnitude difference.
ahhh but its not a license for your car. You don't have to have VED to own a car and many cars are exempt from VED A better analogy would be your driving license which only costs you a ONE OFF fee of £43, rather than £50 for section 1 or shotgun (renewable every 5 years for £40)
This has nothing to do with public safety, it is just a stealth tax increase. The Government is spending more than it collects so it borrows the money. They try to counter this by cutting police funding, the police react by putting up the fees of what they regards as politically sensitive.
If the government/police were really concerned about safety, they'd drop the licence fee to zero (to encourage licensing) while insisting on inspected greater physical security for licensed weapons and ammunition.
...A Home Office mouthpiece ignored our questions and instead sent us a press release full of the dodgy stats, along with the statement: “We won't be adding anything further.”...
A question addressed to your friendly local MP should get the HO to disgorge...
...At this point it's important to note that firearm certificate (FAC) and shotgun certificate (SGC) fees do not offer shooters anything other than the ability to purchase a firearm or a shotgun, unlike angling licenses where the fee revenue goes towards maintaining rivers and so on. ...
Tell me about it. I used to fly radio controlled model aircraft back in the days when you needed a license for them. We were told that the cost of the license went to ensure an allocation of radio spectrum so that our aircraft were safe from interference. Then along came Citizens Band, and the government just sat there and did nothing. They kept taking the license money, though...
A gun is an optional and somewhat dangerous (in the wrong hands) item.
I have no objection to charging £50 a year more, especially as its still less than my VED.
Sorry about the costs of providing a secure place to store it and a regular inspection to prove its not lying around on the table and the owner isn't a nutter but I actually would like those checks made.
You don't seem to have many sympathisers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
