MPs debate firearms control

Just hours after the Home Affairs Committee published its report on Firearms Control, the subject was debated by MPs in the House of Commons.

The debate was available live on the web and can still be viewed in the box at the foot of this post if you have the necessary add-on installed (I don't so I can't see it!). Or read the full text here (scroll down towards the foot of the page, or search for 'Column 1234').

Coming so quickly after the report's publication, the debate didn't amount to much - and many MPs were absent, due to commitments back in their constituencies and, no doubt, the difficulties of travelling.

Therese Coffey (Con, Suffolk Coastal) read a prepared speech which made many positive points about shooters and shooting, and emphasised the need to "tackle criminals, not the innocent".

Keith Vaz (Lab, Leicester East), chairman of the committee, ran through the report - admitting that his only previous experience of firearms had been using a water pistol "many years ago". Considering his reputation of being firmly anti-gun, he appeared to have learned a lot in recent weeks, and had clearly been impressed by the responsible attitude of shooters.

He highlighted the muddled state of Britain's gun laws, and suggested they should be revisited, not to make them "tougher", but "even better" - ensuring they are effective but reducing the administrative burden on police and legitimate sportsmen and women.

Chris Williamson (Lab, Derby North) made a muddled speech in which he appeared to confuse legal and illegal firearms use, referring to "gun culture" as though it was the same thing as sporting shooting.

Home Office Minister James Brokenshire (Con, Old Bexley & Sidcup) said the government would "consider" revising the law to make it less complex; in the meantime they would consider the need for revised Home Office guidance to make existing law simpler to administer.

Other issues discussed included pistol shooters training in Britain for the Olympics, and concerns over young people being granted certificates. Again, the debate was calm and rational, and acknowledged that legitimate shooters are safe and responsible.

All in all, I felt we could hardly have expected better from this debate - and it raises the possibility of rewriting our confusing and bureaucratic gun laws to make them simpler and easier to follow, freeing up the police to concentrate on the real problem of illegal guns used by gangs and organised criminals.

Share|

Gun licences are like Smarties

We're used to irresponsible reporting of guns and shooting in the media, but a story in the Daily Mail today really takes the biscuit.

The hysterical Lucy Cope of Mothers Against Guns accuses police of "recklessly handing gun licences out like Smarties" to youngsters, including an un-named 10-year-old.

Of course. Because you need a police interview, criminal record check, etc, etc, to buy Smarties nowadays don't you? And if you break the law the police will bang your door down and take your Smarties away. And you can only use your smarties if you're supervised by someone over 21...

Ridiculous, silly woman. There are some of those about, sadly. What depresses me is that the Daily Mail reports her rantings as if they had some value. Only several paragraphs down does the reader learn how the law actually works, and that the 10-year-old won't be able to roam the streets "playing cowboys and indians" with a shotgun, as Cope suggests.

Instead of attacking responsible, legal shooters, perhaps those seeking to reduce gun crime might consider asking for our help and advice. It's just possible we might have something useful to contribute. I'm not holding my breath.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see Lucy Cope apply for a Shotgun Certificate. She'd be turned down flat, as too emotionally unstable to be trusted with a gun. Shame the Daily Mail doesn't apply a similar test.

Stunned

In common with all shooters, I am stunned by the awful killings by Derrick Bird in Cumbria yesterday. As people who use guns for sport and competition, we feel particularly horrified by these terrible events. It's an appalling tragedy, and my thoughts are with the victims, families and many others affected.

In due time, answers will emerge to the questions of why and how. For now, I feel proud to be a member of BASC, seeing them do an excellent job of handling a flood of media enquiries with professionalism and sensitivity, helping to ensure balanced reporting and resist any clamour for a kneejerk response.

UPDATE: BASC have issued the following statement:

BASC welcomes Government response to Cumbria murders

3 June 2010 - The Home Secretary’s announcement that the full facts behind the Cumbria murders must be established before any move is made to review firearms law has been welcomed by the UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. (BASC).
 BASC spokesman Simon Clarke said “Every legitimate firearms owner, along with the rest of the country, is still in shock after the appalling events in Cumbria, and our thoughts are with the community and the affected families.
“Inevitably questions are being raised about the UK’s firearms licensing laws. Those controls are amongst the toughest in the world. It is essential that the police and other agencies are given all the time they need to complete their investigations and enquiries. That will doubtless include an examination of the licensing circumstances in this case.
“We welcome the Government’s commitment to take a cautious approach to any review of firearms laws, and BASC will contribute its expertise to any such review. BASC staff work day-in, day-out dealing with lawful shotgun and firearms owners and police forces over licensing issues. Incidents of this nature are extremely rare in this country and the UK needs a working firearms licensing system which balances use with public safety. “
“Shotguns and rifles are essential tools of the countryside, used in agricultural pest control, game shooting and target shooting."

4/6/10: There is a very sensible opinion piece in the Guardian, of all places, explaining why knee-jerk 'tighter regulations' are not a good idea:

"We cannot stop people having rows at home or work, taking leave of their senses, finding a gun and going berserk. Such things rarely happen. But even the most authoritarian state must allow some personal liberty, and everyone accepts the resulting risk. No free community can be wholly safe without losing its freedom."

4/6/10: The blogger Bill O'Rites makes a similar point in typically forthright terms:

"How about we ban motor vehicles, as they kill & maim more than 30 people every day."

As an observation, the blogosphere does seem to be taking a strongly anti-banning line over this. Examples include Old Holborn, Devil's Kitchen and The Magistrate's Blog,  while others, including Mud in the Blood and Angry Teen are arguing the case for deregulation of guns altogether - a step too far for me, but it's hard to argue with the logic.

Meanwhile the League Against Cruel Sports, finger on the pulse as always, has launched a major political lobbying initiative... it has sent each MP a rather tasteless blood-spattered coffee mug with an anti-hunting slogan. If you want one, rather than paying their exorbitant £10, I suggest you rummage through the bins in Westminster.