The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

christel wrote:No no no...you guys have got it all wrong.

The reason for the FAC/SGC etc medical check is for the safety of the public.
It is not for our benefit.

Therefore I struggle to understand why we shooters have to pay for something that is for somebody else's benefit.
Not that there is much of a benefit because the average shooter will not commit an atrocity, it is the one who escapes the system that will.

If you want to go flying, diving, be that water or the sky, you need a medical check, pay for it yourself as it has nothing to do with anyone else.

THIS /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

Do you really expect the non-shooting taxpayer to foot the bill in order to reduce the risk, (however slight), that someone who shoots as a hobby/sport/occupation might go off the rails ??.................good luck with that..............

Pete

Pete wrote:Do you really expect the non-shooting taxpayer to foot the bill in order to reduce the risk, (however slight), that someone who shoots as a hobby/sport/occupation might go off the rails ??.................good luck with that..............

Pete

I agree, this is why the system does not work.

We foot the bill already via our taxes, football supporters aren't asked to contribute extra to policing outside football pitches as that policing is a public safety issue. Popular music followers aren't asked to pay extra towards policing outside the venues as it is a public safety issue. So it goes on except for devotees of shooting.

The taxpayer already funds public safety policing in many areas already rather than the participants funding it so as to reduce the risk to public safety.

Pete wrote:Do you really expect the non-shooting taxpayer to foot the bill in order to reduce the risk, (however slight), that someone who shoots as a hobby/sport/occupation might go off the rails ??.................good luck with that..............

Pete

That has been the system/arrangement since firearms licensing came into being until the last couple of years when full cost recovery was brought in

And yes, i do expect the beneficiaries of systems to pay for them, as crazy as that apparently sounds

Quite, the only beneficiaries of shooting are shooters...............QED. AFAIK, no-one pays to watch shooting, only to take part.

And as far as the cost of policing other sports activities, the price of tickets etc. should reflect this, and it wouldn't hurt if the audiences plus the highly paid players (particularly in the case of football) chipped in..........they're the beneficiaries, after all.........

Pete

Yes shooters pay for shooting, unless you're lucky enough to be sponsored, but i don't see the relevance?

Shooters also pay for the benefit* of the licensing system, as does the rest of the general tax paying public through the part of council tax that goes to the police. Shooters should not have to subsidise all of the rest of the public who benefit from the licensing system.

*Public safety

The slippery slope of getting the people involved in paying for the police is that it would also include the likes of protests and could potentially lead to only rich people being able to afford the cost of policing the protest, ergo, oiks like me couldn't do it.

The only reason why this is being discussed in society is because it is such a perceived "dangerous" pastime.

It is "dangerous" due to what it can be, not what it is.

Because of that somebody has to pay, one way or another, be that with bans, control or the cost of fees.

I understand why the general public does not want to pay as who in the right mind wants to own a gun.

We shooters do not understand why we have to pay the cost as we do not benefit from it.

It is not an easy situation.

I am of the opinion that shooters should not pay as we are no different to a football match that is being policed and paid for by the tax payer.

If society wants control, it pays for it.
If you want to go skydiving, you pay for it.

It's not about shooters paying for the police, or doctors charging stupid money for a signature on a bit of paper, it's about who's held responsible when someone goes bananas.
If I was a GP, I'd be quite happy to confirm that so & so doesn't suffer from a list of stated conditions, and maybe take a tenner off them for my trouble.
What I wouldn't do under any circumstance is state that he/she was suitable to be granted a FAC/SGC, and there's the rub.............
Stating that you don't see any reason why not is subtly different to saying yes, he/she will be fine.
I'd like to know if recruits to the services, army, etc. are subjected to positive psychological vetting, because it now seems this is what's being asked of some civilian shooters.
Even worse is that it appears to be a postcode lottery..............

Pete

Even worse is that other groups in society are not vetted as we are.

You can do a lot of damage with a golf club.

Farmers hold a lot of stuff that you can make bombs with.

Cars

You can't prevent a tragedy no matter how much you legislate.

It is about who is responsible if it happens, I can understand GPs not wanting to get involved.