Cumbria and the lessons we should all learn!

[m24]

A great article in shootingtimes.co.uk by Tim Bonner. Very proactive. We should have such articles in our own media.

Source: http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/features ... mbria.html

Gun licensing after Cumbria

How could firearms regulation change to protect both public safety and legitimate gun owners' rights?

Modern news stories are not reported in full. They develop in front of our eyes. The public has access to nearly all the facts only moments after the journalist as the 24-hour news media race to be the first to report statements, stories and suppositions.

When a Cumbrian taxi driver embarked on a horrific killing spree his first known murders had been fully reported well before he took his own life only three hours later. The news agenda moved relentlessly onward and even before the full scale of Derrick Bird’s atrocities was known the focus had moved on to questions about why he had the guns he used to kill so many innocent people.

Some of the response was predictable: “why do people need guns at all? Ban guns in private hands”. Some was more measured and, unlike the political response to Dunblane and Hungerford, the leaders of all political parties warned against a knee-jerk reaction to the inexplicable behaviour of one individual. David Cameron notably said: “You can’t legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone’s head and for this dreadful sort of action to take place.”

While this is a positive starting point it still means that the use of a licensed firearm and shotgun in such a mass murder will, quite rightly, be investigated and properly scrutinised. It does, however, suggest that those inquiries and, crucially, action on any conclusions will be considered in a rational way.

There will be two separate inquiries by the Association of Chief Police Officers into the West Cumbria killings, one of which will focus on firearms licensing and Derrick Bird’s suitability to hold both a shotgun certificate and firearms licence for a .22 rimfire with sound moderator. A report is expected within weeks, which would allow a Parliamentary debate on firearms licensing, which has been promised by the Home Secretary, to take place before Parliament goes into recess at the end of July. It is likely that the Home Secretary will use this debate to announce the next steps the Government intends to take.

Meanwhile, the coroner’s inquiry into the death of Derrick Bird’s 12 victims, and Bird himself, may take 18 months to report. There may be calls for a public inquiry, but there would seem to be little that could be uncovered by what would be a long and expensive process that will not be revealed elsewhere. An alternative possibility is that a judge could be appointed to oversee the coroner’s inquiry as has happened in other high profile inquiries such as that into the death of Princess Diana.

Improving the system

For the shooting community the starting point of any debate must be that this is not the US and we do not have or claim a “right to bear arms”. A sensible and workable licensing system should protect our ability to own and use legitimate firearms by making it as unlikely as feasibly possible that guns are owned by people who might misuse them. No system can legislate for a switch flipping in someone’s head but it can and should pick up high-risk individuals and prohibit them from owning guns legally. So, as legitimate members of the shooting community we have a vested interest in improving the system and if it is to be reviewed we must be fully involved.

Being perceived as unwilling to contemplate any change to the licensing system will only serve to exclude the shooting community from the debate. The political climate was different after Dunblane, but there are plenty of sensible independent observers who suggest that the shooting community did itself no favours by being inflexible in considering the possible legislative response. That does not mean that we stand meekly by and accept unjustified and unwarranted restrictions; it means we should work with the Government and relevant authorities to get a system that protects both the public and legitimate gun ownership. Protecting public safety and legal gun ownership should be the question, not “would this have stopped Derrick Bird?” because sadly it may be that nothing would have stopped Derrick Bird.

So, in practical terms what does that mean? What changes could be proposed and what, if anything, would make a difference? To start with there are proposals already put forward to which we could obviously never agree to, including the restriction of firearms to “professional” pest controllers and wildlife managers, and the compulsory storage of guns and ammunition at central locations. These proposals are impractical and do not recognise the role of firearms in the countryside and their legitimate use in management and sport.

There are other suggestions that should be given proper consideration. One of those is whether applicants for shotgun certificates should require a “good reason” for the ownership of a shotgun as is necessary with a firearm. In practice this is a question that most firearms licensing officers ask anyway. Such a proposal naturally leads on to asking whether shotgun certificates should be subject to the same licensing procedures as a Section 1 firearm. This would mean an applicant having both good reason to own a shotgun and supplying two acquaintances to give confidential references.

There has been much comment about the fact that Derrick Bird had criminal convictions for theft and a 12-month suspended sentence. At present only someone who has served a three-year sentence is permanently stopped from holding a licence. Should a conviction for a non-custodial sentence mean someone is unsuitable to hold a shotgun certificate or firearms licence?

Then there is the question of mental health and the ability of doctors and the police to take action if they are concerned about the state of mind of a firearms licence holder. The suggestion has been made that the holding of a firearms licence should be on medical records and doctors required to inform the police if the mental state of a patient might make them a risk. Many doctors’ groups are firmly against such proposals not least because they suggest that patients with firearms licences would be much less likely to seek professional help for depression and other mental problems if they felt that they were going to lose their licences. Potentially unstable people could then be less likely to get the treatment they need.

There is a comparison to driving licences where people who have had certain medical conditions such as heart attacks or epileptic fits have the responsibility to report their condition and their licences are revoked for a fixed period. However, when dealing with diagnosis of mental illness rather than a physical event, such self-reporting seems less practical.

We may decide that none of these proposals meets the twin criteria of increasing public safety while protecting legitimate shooting, but that does not mean we can ignore the fact that they are part of the debate. The Government has rightly warned against a knee-jerk reaction, but it cannot ignore the random murder of 12 people by a firearms licence and shotgun certificate holder who then killed himself. The debate on our licensing system must be had and we must be part of it. To close our eyes, cover our ears and shout “no” will simply leave others to decide the future of shooting.

Regards

[OverUnderPump]

Even the House of Commons is rethinking its stuff, post Cumbria.
Seems like some sane voices still exist.
Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5/9504.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A common theme to many submissions is that illegally held weapons pose a far greater danger to public safety than those which are held in conformity with the present controls.It is argued that weapons held outside the licensing system are used in the commission of the majority of armed crime. This is an argument which we recognise: it is clear that those determined to live outside the law are unlikely to respect the law's requirements when they wish to acquire or use a weapon. Mr Colin Greenwood pointed out that armed robbery, which he termed a "graduate offence", was most likely to be committed by persons who, by virtue of their previous convictions, were already prohibited from holding firearms.

In his written evidence, he cited a Home Office study of firearms-related homicides committed between 1992 and 1994. Of the 196 homicides in this three-year period, 128 are known to have been committed with illegally held firearms and 23 with weapons legally held: the status of the remaining 45 weapons is not known. Violent offences committed with legally held firearms were, he contended, relatively rare. The Scarman Centre for the Study of Public Order at the University of Leicester told us that violent crimes—such as robbery and homicide—"are rarely committed with legally held guns": "consequently further bans on guns are unlikely to bring about reductions in gun-related crime".
----------------------
Though other parts of this piece also had anti gun paranoia and rhetoric, this snippet shows us that the powers that be even in the "Nanny State" are waking up to smell to coffee.

Now we need to brew some tea for our slumbering babus .

regards

OUP

[MoA]

I hope they do wake up and smell the coffee... the nanny state is idotic. The Olympic Pistol team practises in france or in Belgium due to the laws..

[m24]

Home Affairs Committee announces a new inquiry into Firearms Control

Source: http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... s-control/

On 15 July, the Home Affairs Committee announced a new inquiry into firearms control. The Committee will examine whether or not there is a need for changes to the way in which firearms and/or shotgun certificates are issued, monitored or reviewed as a means of preventing gun violence. In particular the inquiry will focus on:

The extent to which legally-held guns are used in criminal activity and the relationship between gun control and gun crime, including the impact of the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997;

Whether or not the current laws governing firearms licensing are fit for purpose, including progress on implementing the Committee’s recommendations set out in its Second Report of the 1999-2000 session;

Proposals to improve information-sharing between medics and the police in respect of gun licensing;

Information-sharing between police and prisons in assessing the risk of offenders who may have access to firearms;

and

The danger presented by, and legislation regulating, airguns.

The Committee is seeking written submissions of no more than 2,500 words from interested parties, before it takes oral evidence on this inquiry. Organisations and individuals interested in making written submissions are invited to do so by Friday 27th August 2010. Further advice on making a submission can be found below.

Oral evidence sessions will be held on Tuesdays in the autumn: further announcements will be made in due course.

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Committee, said:

“In the light of the recent tragic shootings in Cumbria and in Northumberland, the Committee wishes to examine the legislation governing firearms.”

“It will seek to determine whether there are lessons to be learnt from recent events, including the role of doctors and criminal justice agencies in liaising with police to assess the risk posed by individuals. We also want to be certain that our gun laws are clear, transparent and enforceable.”

What BASC has to say: here

Regards