It'd explain their failure to find them, wouldn't it?
It has emerged that senior officers believe there are still “many” firearms in the hands of people who should not have them, despite the former home secretary Priti Patel ordering them to look again at cases where they returned firearms to people after confiscation.
If I disobeyed my boss I'd expect to have a very uncomfortable conversation. Why is that never the case for failing police farces?
Alarm bells have also been rung because the number of shotgun certificate applications Devon and Cornwall are rejecting has doubled since the Plymouth shootings but the rate in the rest of England and Wales has remained at just 3%, suggesting some forces may still be looking too leniently on applications.
Maybe. Or maybe Devon & Cornwell, realising they had not just dropped the ball but then drop-kicked it into their own goal, were overzealous?
The new chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, Will Kerr, who came into the post the year after Davison’s attacks, is among those calling for fundamental change.
He said the firearms legislation, introduced in 1968, was “no longer suitable”, arguing that the emphasis was on “permitting rather than preventing gun ownership”.
As indeed it should be. In a modern capitalist democracy, that should always be the default, shouldn't it? Whether we are talking about cars, second homes or guns...
Look to every one of the (conveniently timed, with legislation already waiting in the wings) 'justification for restrictions' events (be it Hungerford, Dunblane or Whitehaven) and in each case the perpetrator was long known, had weapons removed by the local bobby, only for the elites to give them back. Every. Single. Time.
ReplyDeleteLook to the knife crime epidemic and resultant legislation. I (limited by draconian laws to) my penknife 'will' warrant an armed response unit if I dare to show it in public (whilst opening my sandwiches), but the local ethnics and yobs get to wander around with 'cultural' machetes unmolested even whilst attacking each other and innocents.
It's almost as if they are deliberately restricting 'only' the entirely innocent and law-abiding whilst not just ignoring the criminals, but facilitating them, so as to use 'their' behaviour as justification for further restrictions on the rest of us.
They wouldn't do that ... would they?
So? I wonder just which weapons will be being returned, and which wont. I can guess that if you're one of the honest, law-abiding (overwhelming) majority of licence holders, you aren't seeing yours back for sure. If you're a scrote with a mental-health history, a criminal record as long as your arm ... yours probably weren't even seized. (Similarly, I doubt many British will see their firearms, but Albanians ... for sure - with a flowery apology and extra benefits on the side).
Hint: Those using firearms for crime, aren't legal licence holders, but already criminals. So just what does restricting/punishing the innocent actually achieve?
Call me a cynic but ... I 'fear' we are due another 'event' where some returned weapon is used to kill, and the rest will be (preplanned and manipulated) history.
"...and in each case the perpetrator was long known, had weapons removed by the local bobby, only for the elites to give them back. Every. Single. Time."
ReplyDeleteSpot on! As we are seeing in the Manchester bombing enquiry.