Nov 14
My response to http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/11/paul-clarkes-shotgun.html #paulclarke
So if he had a licence then it would have been OK to carry the gun through the streets?
Does the licence prevent him from being mugged or having an accident?
Would him having a licence reduce the risk of that gun being used to kill or badly maim other people?
All having a licence implies is that some official has somehow deemed (probably financially rather than scientifically) that the person who has applied for the license does not represent a risk to the public, it doesn't stop the other things you mention from actually happening. Thus, the lack of licence is not an issue and (subject to all the facts coming to light) this is a farce.
[Edit 21:36]
Earlier, @DaveGorman (yes, *the* Dave Gorman) put me right :
DaveGorman@brindy Surely having a licence doesn't allow you to just carry a gun through town in a bag. Protected? Lock & key? It's a sawn off shotgun?
brindy@DaveGorman *shrug* no idea, my point was that article implied that having a licence protects you from mugging/accident, which it doesn't
DaveGorman@brindy It does if a condition of the licence means the gun is carried in a way that makes it inaccessible in event of mugging/accident.
