Should private ownership be a public issue?
British society is not known for its gun crime. Felonies involving guns is by and large far lower in Britain than most other nations worldwide.
Fourteen years ago, the Dunblane massacre sparked a national outcry that uncontrollably warped perceptions amongst the general public towards the heavy restriction of firearms.
Only a few sections of society clung on to their ability to hold guns; those who either used them for hunting and conservation, and those who shoot for sport, both of which have significant overlap.
Dunblane demanded a quick response whether or not the gun holders of Britain felt that the new narrative was reasonable or not and firearms were quickly restricted to the point of near illegality in the UK.
While the Conservatives of 1996 stopped just short of making all handguns illegal, the Labour government essentially followed through when it took office in 1997.
The expectation was that any repeat of Dunblane, where Thomas Hamilton shot sixteen children at their teacher, would be impossible. Those holding guns for sport or hunting of animals would be required to pass strict checks on their fitness to hold a licence to do so, which would target those with a criminal past or mental illness.
But on 2 June, Derrick Bird murdered 12 people and injured a further 11 with a variety of weapons with a terrifying potential to kill.
The caveat is that all of them were legally acquired. Where do firearms laws in Britain go now, and where does the community of British firearms holders stand?
University of York students practice shooting
The story of Derrick Bird is vastly confusing for those that attempt to apply a sole reason for his rampage, but it nonetheless paints a picture of a man troubled.
Journalists and police seeking to paint a picture of why he went on his killing spree have yet to find any particularly illuminating cause; his unpaid tax bills, his embarrassment at the hands of a Thai prostitute and family bickering have all been pointed to as the potential spark for his murder-suicide spree.
Regardless, his story presents a problem for the owners of firearms in Britain. In the wake of the shootings, pro-firearms lobby British Association of Shooting and Conservation have organised an enormous campaign to contact MPs and demand that no further restrictions be placed upon the ownership of firearms in Britain.
The number of people that they represent is surprisingly sizeable, claiming that there were “453,383 firearms and 1,366,082 shotguns” registered with the police as of 2009.
“We are shocked by what happened in Cumbria” says Debbie Collins, who works for the organisation. She adds though, “we reject any further restrictions on the ownership”.
The group already contends much of the stigma around gun ownership in Britain. “Legal gun owners by the nature of the licensing system have to be amongst the most law abiding members of society. A conviction for drink driving or a family argument could cause you to lose your certificate,” adds Collins.
While pro-firearms lobbyists point to laws in place to avoid individuals with a criminal past getting hold of weapons, the case of Derrick Bird does provoke concern that the systems that were set up to avoid this are inadequate.
Bird was approved for his firearms certificate despite the fact he had previously received a three month prison sentence, a conviction due to stealing from his previous employer, escaping from being flagged in the system due to the fact it was suspended and later spent.
It was largely unsurprising when the anti-firearms lobby quickly organised after the shootings. Their start in the United Kingdom came from the Hungerford (where Michael Robert Ryan shot sixteen people, including his own mother, in 1987) and Dunblane massacres, as each incident demanded responses from experts and provoked the anger of local residents and concerned citizens. Their work was influential throughout the 1990s, but with very little cause to complain at the actions of legal owners throughout the last decade, the focus turned largely to illegal firearms being used in inner-city areas.
The ‘crossbow cannibal’ killed prositutes and the media didn’t bat an eye lid. There’s much less reason for owning a crossbow
The Cumbria shootings have reawakened their membership and cause, with their leading experts offering suggestions on avoiding more nightmare murders happening.
Some have already suggested furthering the monitoring and transparency surrounding the right to own a firearm: “Gun owners in the UK have always been protected by a culture of secrecy.”
“Police will not give out information about gun ownership, saying it’s a private matter. But when legal gun owners commit such dreadful crimes, it’s clearly not a private matter.
“We should know who around us has guns so we can judge whether they are suitable people to hold such deadly weapons,” said Gill Marshall-Andrews, who works for the Gun Control Network, an anti-firearms pressure group.
The anti-firearms lobby has also laid out their belief that firearms or ammunition no longer belong in homes at all. “If firearm owners were not permitted to store guns and ammunition at home, the incident could not have happened,” said David Squires, who also works for the Gun Control Network.
He added that “we can’t look into a crystal ball to say who may or may not be about to go off the rails, or encounter depression, or be consumed by murderous rage – but we ought not let them have the means to perpetrate a mass shooting outrage if and when they do.”
Already though, this kind of narrative has agitated the shooting community in Britain. Debbie Smith considered the remarks, and commented: “the suggestion that guns be centrally stored, rather than being stored securely in owners’ homes, represents a significant danger. Such a store would become an immediate target for criminals and terrorists and there are recorded incidents of central storage facilities being ram-raided in the 1980s.”
Target practice to pass competency test
The reality of gun ownership is somewhat more uncertain than the black and white lines that the lobbying groups of each side present.
“We do have a shotgun, and it’s kept in a locked up cabinet” says Steven Roberts, who lives in an agricultural area. “We’re unsure of what to do with it though. It was a relative’s and the license to hold it was his. We have no use for it or ammunition, but the legal status of it is weird.”
His case, while harmless, is an example of the way in which ownership can present challenges and nuances, despite the strict intent of the law.
For a great many more gun owners, they see their way of life as being threatened. Organisations such as the BASC place an effective political and public face on the community, but the feelings of its membership is more erratic and frustrated.
One sports shooter commented online: “The ‘crossbow cannibal’ killed prostitutes with a crossbow and the media didn’t bat an eyelid. There’s a much less legal reason for owning a crossbow than there is a shotgun or rifle. Yet not one person in the media is calling for crossbows to be banned.
“I really don’t see the difference there; both are evidently capable of killing, but because it’s not a firearm and doesn’t go bang, people don’t seem to take as much notice.”
There is some cheer for the mostly countryside based communities, who are beginning to feel under siege; the newly elected Conservatives have already responded favourably towards the pro-firearms lobby.
While announcing a review of firearms laws, Cameron has yet to make any significant response other than stating that he would avoid any knee-jerk response.
The suggestions of anti-gun lobbyists have taken hold with the public however, as pollsters YouGov reported that nearly 70% of the population are now in favour of increased restrictions on the rights of gun owners.
The Conservatives are broadly in support of the efforts of the pro-shooting lobby. However, our new Government may ultimately be left with no choice as to how things progress if the Cumbria massacres find the same level of public outcry that was met with after the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres.
Image credits: Justyn Hardcastle
Loading ...
It is time to remove guns from civilian’s home and private ownership. The licensing system should be scrapped as it does not work. If someone wishes to shoot the guns and ammunition should be kept at a secure location guarded by the police. All expense associated with this should be met by those wishing to shoot. No civilian should be allowed to use a gun outside of a gun club where again they are monitored by train police.
Bite the bullet – Ban Guns!
Chumpy, where would that leave farmers/conservation workers who use guns regularly for their job?
Although in no way a proponent of looser gun control, perhaps the current system isn’t so bad? After all, the tragic massacres that the article reports on are actually very few and far between- and allows a majority of people with a legitimate need to own a weapon ‘safely’.
Even if we introduced a total ban on all forms of firearms, gun crime would not vanish completely- whether from warehouse raids, illegal imports or other methods, organised crime will find away to obtain guns (they manage with drugs after all). Perhaps then a total ban would take guns out of the hands of those who legitimately need them for their occupation, but leave them available illegally to the very criminals a ban was intended to stop.
The problem with banning things completely is that it is only the law-abiding public who will adhere to it. Criminals don’t really care about the law – that’s usually why they’re criminals. You can disrupt supply and distribution, but if criminals want to get guns they will find a way.
I think busy body liberal townies need to keep quiet on issues fundamental to the country and its way of life. Sick and tired.
Mr Rural, you are not in Kansas anymore.
The Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies arose because the Police failed to implement the legislation as it stood, in boith instances the Police have admitted they were aware that Ryan and Hamilton suffered mental illnesses, owned firearms that were not on their firearms licences and regularly carried firearms in public places. The Police did nothing and as indicated in the article above they failed to record Bird’s convictions.
Shotguns and Rifles are ‘tools’ used by rural communities and as such are regulated already.
The blanket ban on hand guns introduced after Dunblane would, as we were assured by both Government and the Police, ensure there would be a “significant reducation” in handgun crime. In fact handgun crimes rose by more than 50% over the following years… the only people who lost out were people like me , who legally held a licence and used a handgun in competition at a registered and regulated Gun Club.
The people who gained, the criminals and the trigger happy police because they can now shoot at you without risk.
What a joke. Gun crime in the UK has gone up since it’s government implemented its draconian gun laws.
Having a push for more laws every time some tragedy occurs is retarded. Heroine is illegal, yet people still die from it.