In 1987, Michael Ryan walked out into the streets of Hungerford and shot dead 16 people including his own Mother and then shot himself with a semi-automatic rifle – legally held.

The Government was horrified and passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which banned the ownership of semi-automatic rifles – except in Northern Ireland.

In 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into the Dunblane Primary School and shot sixteen children, another adult and himself with two handguns – legally held.

The Government was horrified and passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act (No 2) 1997 which banned the ownership of handguns.

In 2010, taxi driver Derek Bird walked round Cumbria and shot dead 12 adults before killing himself with a shotgun and a rifle – legally held.

The Government was horrified and announced that lessons would be learnt – they are still talking about what they should do.

Whilst they were talking Raoul Moat went on the rampage with a sawn off shotgun – not legally  licensed! Ironically, neither was the Tazer gun which the police used to shoot Moat ‘at the precise moment he shot himself’.

Last night, another taxi driver, Michael Atherton was belatedly revealed to be one of the estimated 1.3 million adults who have been checked, investigated, reported on and duly issued with a section 1 firearm licence for a .22  – which he is believed to have used to shoot 4 members of his family in Peterlee.

Given that in order to hold a Section 1 Firearms licence you have to state the exact use to which you intend to put it – and one can assume that Mr Atherton didn’t spell out what he intended to do with it – isn’t it about time that we gave up this mockery of licencing Firearms? All it proves is that prior to obtaining the licence the person concerned hadn’t committed any crime – and those who have committed a crime are already locked into a network that can provide them with unlicensed guns.

Like the CRB check, the Mental Capacity Act and numerous other pieces of legislation over the past 50 years, it merely keeps the talking shop in Westminster in business, and does nothing to prevent the harm it was supposed to cure .

Your views? Will we turn into the Wild West without a Firearms Act? Will everyone rip off their elderly parents without the Mental Capacity Act? Will the CRB check cure paedophilia? Will the country go to Hell in a handcart if we dispense with our useless politicians and let everyone fend for themselves?

Ted Treen January 4, 2012 at 18:59

@Able
Well expressed & reasoned. The ruling élite would never
countenance relaxation of firearms law.

What! A population/electorate capable and equipped to resist
subjugation?

That simply would not do.

Able January 4, 2012 at 18:25

I would welcome a relaxation along the lines of what is sometimes still
called ‘Vermont style’ law or ‘shall issue’ – that is any citizen can apply
for a concealed carry permit, only those with either a criminal record or
mental health issues are legitimately refused, or on committing/developing
have it removed. Why?

Firearms have progressively been banned, knives and other tools banned or
restricted, and even the assumption of self defence has been questioned in
this country. The result? Violent crime (murder/assault/rape/etc.) in this
country has done nothing but rise astronomically over the last few decades.

Crime in the US has consistently fallen in every state which has adopted
similar rules. In each and every case dire predictions of ‘blood in the
streets’, ‘gunfights in bars’, ‘gun battles over parking spaces’, etc. have
been made – guess what? None ever occurred anywhere. What ‘mass killings’ have
occurred in the US have occurred exclusively in the few areas that ban
concealed carry – suggestive isn’t it? The number of crimes prevented each
year by permit owners (most without ever firing the weapon) numbers in the
millions.

We here have higher rates of murder, rape and house-breaking per hundred
thousand population than almost every area in the US (the exceptions being
inner city and those areas populated almost exclusively by certain ethnicities
– violent crime being partially cultural in basis witness the differences
between northern and southern Europe), in fact the only countries with worse
crime are South Africa and the ilk.

Consider the perpetrator and the victim. The victims are predominantly
either old, young, female or outnumbered. What is the only tool that will
allow a small, petite female to defend herself against assault and rape by a
large man? A firearm, nothing else is even vaguely a possibility. So if you
want your wife/daughter/sister to be able to walk out, or stay in, and stay
safe – they need a gun.

Oh, and the cited examples of the ‘massacres’ used in Britain as a ‘reason’
for draconian gun legislation – well have a look at the actual histories. In
each case the police were aware some time beforehand of the individual
perpetrators having major questions raised about their having access to
firearms, and they did nothing. The senior police officers who decided not to
remove the weapons from these deranged madmen before they committed their
horrendous crimes? Promoted of course. Ask yourself why. I suspect the same
will be true in the latest tragic occurrence.

Ask yourself, if you were given a handgun would you immediately go out and
shoot strangers in the street? Would you grab it and shoot your spouse in an
argument? When your football team loses would you grab it and shoot the
opposing supporters in the pub? If the answer is no, then why do you assume
everyone else will? (and if yes, then does not having a gun prevent you from
punching/kicking/strangling/hitting with a stick? Or is it you don’t want the
missus to be able to defend herself from your violent outbursts?). Also ask,
what would have happened if just one member of the public at each of those
mass murders had been armed, how many innocent lives could have been
saved.

Just my opinion (not that it counts for much here in the PC UK) YMMV

john malpas January 3, 2012 at 23:34

Of course there are plenty of traditional weapons about.
The fact that
knife wounds are not all that lethal is partly due to the lack of training of
the weilder.
A hatchet , a machete and the like would be more efficient and
had proven efficacy in recent armed conflicts.
Where there is a will there
is a way. But basically people in the UK etc are ver meek these days.

Over the hill
January 3, 2012 at 18:11

When seconds count the police are minutes away

Brian January 3,
2012 at 12:29

Anna,
The terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 were enacted in
Northern Ireland by the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 1989 No. 1338
(N.I. 10).
This was because firearms law in NI was governed by the
Firearms(Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Different legal system.

Spiral Architect
January 3, 2012 at 05:15

Increased gun ownership would lead to increased gun deaths?

Probably.

However, such is the piss poor nature of the British criminal justice
system whereby burglars (i.e. home invaders) are routinely spared custodial
sentences, I’d say that the any increase in deaths might be accounted for by
dead burglars.

Anyone who comes into my house uninvited, had better be prepared to leave
the area in an ambulance.

john malpas January 3, 2012 at 00:13

Back in 1940 -50 ish there were guns everywhere. Many souvenirs etc.
I
don’t recollect any mass killings of civilians. I suppose it is a long time go
and I was rather young.
We had an enormous webley revolver ( up in the
attic) .What happened to it finally I know not.

Aetius January 3, 2012 at 00:10

Single Act of Tyranny has got to the heart of it. The British state does
not restrict legal ownership of guns for the benefit of us – the British
people, but for the benefit of the state apparatus.

We should liberalise gun ownership, so that many more ordinary people are
armed. It will then be harder for the state to push us around.

For example, I am amazed that social workers are able to seize so many
children from their parents. I strongly suspect that if the British public
were well armed, social workers would be a lot less eager to take children
into care.

zaphod January 2, 2012 at 23:44

Increased ownership of guns would lead to increased death by guns.

Freedom and security have to be traded off, to some sort of balance.

Many of us here, (including me), would willingly accept reduced safety, to
increase our freedom. But the majority of people probably wouldn’t. This is
the real problem with modern politics. People are scared, mostly of the
bogey-man.

Saul January 2, 2012 at 22:51

Criminals have easy access to guns and use them for criminal activity.
Unfortunately most mass killings are the result of regular people snapping and
being able to use their legal firearms.

SadButMadLad
January 3, 2012 at 00:02

The problem is that the very few and far between and very rare cases
where regular people snap and use their legal (or illegal) firearms to kill
their family are highlighted very prominently in the media. But the numbers
killed by firearms are still very low. So it only needs one massacre to
raise the murder rate by 10s maybe 100s of percent – which always sounds a
lot.

Another point is that the murderer is the only one with the firearms
license. The rest of the family not having any guns, and usually nor any
training in using the household guns either. So the murderer can get rid of
the whole family knowing that the can’t respond at any time.

The reason such mass killings are highlighted in the media is the same
reason that a crash on the motorway floods the media outlets. Because it’s
rare and newsworthy. Even multiple pile up crashes on motorways are very few
and far between. Motorways are the safest roads in the UK.

Do we suddenly change the Road Traffic Act every time there is a multiple
pile up? Hard cases make bad laws.

MickC January 2, 2012 at 22:46

When applying for a Firearms Certificate, the applicant has to prove he has
a need for it. The need will usually be for sport e.g shooting of game or
targets, or for use in e.g. vermin control.
The need will be demonstrated
by membership of a club or of permission to shoot on appropriate land.
Two
referees are required and must provide confirmation that the applicant is a
stable person. The name of the applicants doctor must be given and the doctor
will be asked as to the applicants stability.
There is little more that can
be done in terms of trying to ensure that holders of firearms are
responsible.
To obtain a Shotgun Certificate, no need has to be proved; the
citizen is entitled to have a shotgun, provided he is stable. Two referees are
necessary as above.
No further changes should be made (but they will
be-probably applying the firearms rules to shotguns at the very least).

ivan January 2, 2012 at 21:41

This post over at ‘Orphans of Liberty’ gives a very good summary of what we
are facing.

http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2012/01/02/never-surrender-a-resolution-for-2012-and-beyond/

John77 January 2, 2012 at 21:03

If you could abolish ALL guns then the reference to past days when armed
crime was rare might apply. A burglar would have to consider the chanse of
being hit by a man’s fist or a kitchen knife wielded by his wife. However
there are claims that more people in the USA are killed by a gun owned by a
family member than one owned by a burglar.
I don’t think the problem is
anything to do with licensing firearms – it is due to the abolition of capital
punishment by the Wilson government.

Cascadian January 2, 2012 at 22:12

Owning a gun is a serious commitment, and requires serious training to
avoid accidents and stupidity.

JuliaM January
3, 2012 at 07:27

Same applies to ‘owning a big dog’.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 2, 2012 at 20:19

Yamamoto said the reason Japan didn’t invade the mainland USA in 1941/2 was
the likelihood of a gun behind every blade of grass.

The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto showed what could be achieved with even
modest handguns and a few rifles against the SS in 1944. Compare that to their
disarmed co-religionists in other parts of Eastern Europe who were just
marched off like cattle to the slaughter.

The reason the government doesn’t want you armed has nothing to do with
massacres, it’s to do with control. No dictator wants people armed to resist.
Now one person can’t resist a SWAT team, but a whole neighbourhood could. They
can’t resist an army but a whole country can. An armed populace is the last
guarantee of freedom and this is why we are disarmed, PLEASE see this for what
it is.

Ed P January 2, 2012 at 20:34

I agree entirely.
Two to three hundred years ago Britains were free to
carry weapons, daggers, swords (hangers), cudgels, small pistols, etc. Back
then, only fools started trouble, knowing their fate was probable
death.
If/when the entire global economy collapses, methods of
self-defence will be essential to defend possessions & property. Be
ready!

Cascadian
January 2, 2012 at 22:09

When Peel formed the first police force, there was an implied contract
that the populace would forgo violence and weapons provided the police
were successful in controlling serious crime.

Modern constabularies have given up on that preferring to penalize
mainly law-abiding citizens for minor infringements. Since the compact is
broken the citizenry should revert to arming themselves against
thuggery.

Cascadian January 2, 2012 at 20:00

There can be no doubt that in the wrong hands a gun can be an
indiscriminent and devastating killing machine, but as gun lobbyists and
others have pointed out the same is true of an automobile and many other
tools. Banning or restricting useful tools or automobiles is never seriously
contemplated.

What the government and the police force are attempting to do is control
gun ownership by unstable or mentally ill owners, an impossible task because a
person’s mental balance can and does change from day-to-day and under certain
circumstances minute-by-minute. The best they can hopefully achieve is to
insist that ownership of a gun is accompanied by strenuous safety training to
avoid mentally stable users accidentally discharging weapons, I support that
(but it should not be administered by the state), all other bureaucratic
form-filling and interviewing is pointless and a needless waste of money and
police resources.

Given the proven inability of the police forces to maintain order, I am
thinking of the recent riots, I think it perfectly logical that homeowners
would wish to have the ability to scare off rampaging mobs while you await the
arrival of the constabulary (hopefully). Here is where proper training comes
in, your fervent hope is that voice threatening and your appearance with a
shotgun will convince the rioters to disperse.

Before I veer off into further gun ownership advocacy, it seems to me that
whenever the government attempts to infer some malign intent is criminal they
make bad law. Surely their role is to define unlawful acts based on their
effects on others and punish actual law breaking that negatively affects
others. That is a very old fashioned point-of-view in these days of advocacy
and nanny-state.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 2, 2012 at 20:08

“Given the proven inability of the police forces to maintain order, I am
thinking of the recent riots, I think it perfectly logical that homeowners
would wish to have the ability to scare off rampaging mobs while you await
the arrival of the constabulary (hopefully)”

Yep, as it is, we are required to run away like sheep and surrender to
the looter. Whereas gun ownership would have ended the looting in about five
minutes.

Cascadian January 2, 2012 at 22:03

indiscrimenent- Doh, please substitute indiscriminate

The Thought
Gang January 3, 2012 at 21:08

“Banning or restricting useful tools or automobiles is never seriously
contemplated.”

Apart from the fact that automobiles are only allowed to be used by
people who are licensed to use them, you’re dead right. However, that’s
quite a big ‘apart from’, in this context.

As for the main thrust here.. I entirely get the argument. But I’m not
buying it. We don’t have much gun crime in this country, even less if you
only consider cases where someone who doesn’t have a gun gets shot by
someone who does. This is one area where I’m happy enough for the
politicians to blunder about being reactionary, and find work for idle
bureaucrats. I take the view that someone who comes after my stuff, has no
desire to shoot me.. and so is highly unlikely to do so unless he has reason
to believe I’m going to shoot him. Whilstever he would generally assume I
don’t have the tools to do so, I feel like, on balance, I’m safer.

zaphod January 2, 2012 at 18:54

I shall abstain on this one.

I don’t think that further increasing the controls on guns will have much
effect, other than creating pointless jobs and inconveniencing legitimate
owners.

Decreasing controls would have the reverse effect, and I would support
it.

I hesitate to support the abolition of all controls, but it is worth
discussing.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 2, 2012 at 20:06

Sammy “the bull” Bravano, mafia killer favoured gun control. Three
guesses why. Whereas in Switzerland where many if not most people have an
automatic weapon at home seems to enjoy low crime rates and tiny burglary
numbers. Again the reason is obvious, would you try to swipe a plasma TV if
you had to risk a twenty round burst from some homeowner?

binao January 2, 2012 at 17:41

There is a limit to what can practically be done to stop either the very
rare incidence of harm by licensed weapon owners or the more common problems
involving illegal weapons.
Our porous borders and relatively free people
movements mean that it is easy for the determined to supply and own illegal
weapons. Its hard to see that we can do much more than target known criminals
and their associates, I don’t suppose we need more laws that will just be
ignored anyway.
I’m not a gun owner, but have had some training, and,
having lived in countries where personal weapons are freely available and
carried (and used), I would not wish to see that here.
Tragic though the
misuse of licensed firearms is, we ought to look at the risks relative say to
the thousands killed and hundreds of thousands seriously wounded on the
roads.
I also doubt we will be placing tighter restrictions on the
ownership of sharp kitchen knives.
Tin hat on.

Pat January 2, 2012 at 17:39

Isn’t it funny that all the massacres of the innocent carried out with guns
occurred in places where it was illegal too carry a gun?
Perhaps someone
can tell me why criminals don’t shoot in places where others could shoot
back.
They’re really not playing the game are they

Joe Public
January 2, 2012 at 18:59

The ability of most citizens to legally possess & carry firearms in
the US of A hasn’t prevented gun massacres.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 2, 2012 at 19:21

Oh yes it has. These things tend to happen when ‘concealed carry’ is
banned. Ever noticed any lunatics cutting lose at an NRA rally? Of course
not, they would last about two minutes.

Joe Public
January 2, 2012 at 20:11

Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, Utøya, Tuscan Safeway, Fort
Hood (a US Army base!), Capitol Hill (Seattle), etc were not NRA
rallies, were they?

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 2, 2012 at
20:22

No that’s the point, the killers only go on a shooting spree when
they can be certain of a slaughter due to people being left
defenceless by the very politicians who have armed guards
themselves.

Cascadian
January 2, 2012 at 21:59

Erfurt 2002 16 dead, Dunblane 1996 18 dead, Kanhajoki 2008 11 dead,
Winnenden 2009 16dead, Utoya 2011 85 dead.

European gun controls really works huh?

This is a mental health issue not a gun issue.

Moppy January 2, 2012 at 19:01

What about Columbine High School and others………

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 2, 2012 at 20:02

Most US schools are designated gun-free zones, so carrying one is
illegal. Oddly genocidal madmen seem predisposed to ignore this law and
rather like the certain knowledge that all the targets will be
defenceless.

Smoking
Hot January 2, 2012 at 16:51

Guns are readily available in the EU, especially from former Eastern Bloc
countries. Getting them into this country is so easy it makes your head spin.
As a foot passenger on the ferries, especially the Belgium – UK run, l’ve
never seen anyone have their person or luggage searched in Zeebrugge. Arriving
in UK the most you can expect is having your luggage searched for tobacco
products … their is no attempt to search your person whatsoever.

Only this past summer l saw ‘farmers’ in Bulgaria using AK-47′s for pest
control of rabbits etc … l kid you not.

Engineer January 2, 2012 at 16:38

If someone really, really wants a gun, they’ll get one, legally or
otherwise. The harder it is to obtain one legally, the more extensive will the
illegal trade in them become.

For many (farmers, gamekeepers, some conservationists, pest controllers)
firearms are just a tool ofthe trade. Making legitimate activity harder is no
business of government.

If someone really, really wants to commit murder, they will, with or
without a gun.

Tighter gun controls will only inconvenience the law-abiding, whilst doing
nothing to address the illegal trade in and use of firearms. That was true
after Dunblane, it was true after the tragedy in West Cumbria, and it is true
now.

SadButMadLad
January 2, 2012 at 16:16

Sometimes having a license for something does nothing in terms of stopping
bad things from happening.

Tim Worstall has highlighted the case that having a driving license doesn’t
make the roads any safer – http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/abolish-driving-licences-now

A bit of clarification is required though. This is in a few Mexican states
where there is so much corruption in getting a license that effectively it
means nothing and so when the licenses were abolished there was no change in
crash statistics.

But it does show it that if you assume that everyone else is mad and bad
and you act accordingly then not having any licenses doesn’t make the country
a worse place to live. And not having the license doesn’t mean that you’ll
have everyone driving around like arseholes nor that you will have everyone
shooting the place up like the mythical wild wild west.

Judd January 2, 2012 at 15:35

When you criminalise guns only criminals have them.
The criminal who
wants to carry a gun already does so illegally.

People have the right to defend themselves in their own homes, those
responsible for maintaining law and order have failed miserably in doing so,
its immoral to disallow law abiding citizens from defending themselves and
their loved ones.

Those who make the rules are already protected or can afford to live in
places unaffected by gun crime.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 2, 2012 at 19:18

They are of course protected by people with guns, only we are
disarmed.

Jock January 2, 2012 at 23:57

No use if they are an hour away dealing with a rumble in the Dog and
Duck.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 3, 2012 at 08:51

Yes quite, I was talking about Blair’s armed guards (and other
members of the elite of course) that we aren’t allowed.

Sister
EvaLongoria January 2, 2012 at 15:34

As Captain of the Convent Shooting Team and also a qualified sniper I have
to say that it would probably be undesireable to make guns more freely
available. We saw in Salford last week the sad result of allowing guns into
the possession of the morally defunct smack head lunatics which inhabit large
swathes of this once green and pleasant land. Although I suppose I can make
out a case based on self defence by the rest of us….

JuliaM January
2, 2012 at 16:27

“We saw in Salford last week the sad result of allowing guns into the
possession of the morally defunct smack head lunatics which inhabit large
swathes of this once green and pleasant land. “

You think his gun was licensed, registered and legally purchased?

You think he’d have been so cavalier with it if there’d been a chance
Anuj Bidve was similarly armed?

Saul January 2, 2012 at 18:38

And the accused gave his name as Psycho!

Anna
Raccoon January 2, 2012 at
19:28

And his barrister put his head in his hands and wept…….!!!

Radical
Rodent January 2, 2012 at 20:56

Is there not evidence from the USA that people who use guns for
self-defence are MORE likely to be shot?

ivan January 2, 2012 at 21:36

No.

gladiolys January 2, 2012 at 15:26

As for the CRB – yes it’s a costly paper pushing exercise and there are
probably people who get rewarded with their approval stamp who shouldn’t. I’m
still quite happy though that it prevents people who have offended against
children from finding further work with other children (although I quite
accept that those who are determined will create their own opportunities that
by-pass the CRB all together). But as that arbiter of all that is moral in
this country so aptly says: “Every little helps.”

JuliaM January
2, 2012 at 16:25

“I’m still quite happy though that it prevents people who have
offended against children from finding further work with other
children…”

Correction: It prevents people who have offended against children and
been caught and convicted from finding further work with other
children.

gladiolys
January 2, 2012 at 20:43

That’s still fine by me.

ThePresentOccupier January 11, 2012 at 06:50

A further correction (sorry) –

It *may* flag people who have been caught and convicted. It may not. It
may also flag people who have not been caught and convicted (by dint of
them not having committed the crimes the computer says they have).

Exasperating though the rules on dealing with children may be at times
(e.g. never leaving 1 adult with children), they’re IMO more useful than
the CRB can ever be.

SadButMadLad
January 2, 2012 at 16:27

Yes but it doesn’t require everyone’s full criminal record to be checked.
Only those who have been convicted of sexual offences against children will
have their details on a list. When anyone applies for a sensitive job the
list is checked. If their details aren’t on the list, then assume they are
OK. Rather than assume that everyone is a potential kiddy fiddler. Every
little helps in making the country feel like a scary place to be with child
molesters on every street corner.

gladiolys
January 2, 2012 at 20:45

So what do you suggest.? We do fuck all and hope for the best? And when
a convicted sex offender re-offends I can already hear the howls of moral
outrage.

Ed P January 2, 2012 at 15:15

This presents a difficult balance of relative freedoms. There are now so
many poorly educated and amoral people in this septic isle, that allowing them
more firearms, without even the cursory controls now pertaining, might be
disastrous. Even if the EU allowed relaxation of such laws, somehow I can’t
see our pathetic politicians voting for more freedom and less taxation
revenue.

Yoo is on our turf,
innit January 2, 2012 at 18:41

“There are now so many poorly educated and amoral people…”

Good point.

Single Acts of
Tyranny January 2, 2012 at 19:17

Er, they already have guns, I would rather like one to protect myself
from them as the police can’t.

Jock January 2, 2012 at 14:51

Of course the West was not so wild (pdf)

JuliaM January 2,
2012 at 14:42

“Will we turn into the Wild West without a Firearms Act? “

Relaxing the regulations will never, ever happen….

JuliaM January 2,
2012 at 14:41

“…All it proves is that prior to obtaining the licence the person
concerned hadn’t committed any crime…”

All it means is jobs for police officers in checking and recertifying. And
since – a few years ago – one of their own officers checked out a shotgun and
went to pay his wife (or wife’s mother, I can’t remember) a visit it means
less than nothing. No one can guarentee it won’t be misused.

But, since there are indications the police had ‘prior contact’ with this
family (threats of self-harm have been mentioned) I suspect someone’s taking a
long hard look at the relevant paperwork right now….