Too true!
I've sent my 2p worth to the consultation email address;
Dear sir/madam,
Thank you for the opportunity to send my views to you in regard to the above consultation. I wish to make it clear that i am an active firearms owner/user and that is primarily my interest in this consultation. On that note, i have to say that i find it quite insulting that lawfully owned firearms, and by extension, their owners, have been 'lumped in' with proposals relating to vicious acid attacks. If i were more cynical i would say that the firearms element of this consultation has been 'by the back door' and i am thankful that various shooting bodies and forums have made the shooting community aware of it. I would certainly hope that it was intended to be published when it was, and it wasn't 'tagged on' to get the maximum impact because of the horrendous shooting in Las Vegas that week.
The proposal to make .50BMG rifles and 'certain rapid fire rifles' (which still has not been clarified exactly what is meant by this, although it is presumed by the text that this refers to the VZ58 MARS action guns sold by Caledonian Classic Arms), Section 5 (Prohibited) does not appear to be evidence or incident based. The firearms part of the consultation paper begins by outlining an increase in firearms offences but fails to demonstrate or even acknowledge whether these offences are being carried out with legally owned firearms, let alone 50cal and 'rapid fire rifles', or (much more likely) illegal, already prohibited firearms. There appears to be a deliberate effort to try and link the two but without providing any evidence whatsoever. It is my understanding that neither legally owned 50cal or MARS rifles have ever been used in a crime or terrorist attack in the UK, possibly because both are found in low quantities in this country, possibly because the current licensing system actually works and also possibly, because the type of criminals/terrorists who would use such firearms have no difficulty sourcing them illegally/outside the control of firearms legislation.
The notion that a serious criminal/terrorist is going to expose themselves to police/security forces attention by applying for a Firearms Certificate to obtain one of these guns legally is bordering on the ludicrous so it can only be assumed that the 'threat' comes from the loss or theft of the firearms. Loss of a firearm that is solely used at a rifle range (they are not practical guns for pest control etc) is exceptionally unlikely, given the nature of gun clubs in the UK i.e. the guns are used from firing points and rarely, if ever, with only one person there. Even if they were somehow left behind it is again very unlikely that they wouldn't be found quickly by other members or the staff at the range. Given the size of .50cal rifles and the cost of both types, i think it is exceedingly unlikely that an owners mind would slip and leave one behind. While there is always the risk of theft of a legally owned firearm, surely the requirement for additional security would be a more proportionate response than completely banning them? It is my understanding that the targeted theft of firearms is exceedingly low, to the point that I have been unable to obtain figures on the matter and thefts of guns are generally an opportunist type crime when safes are broken into for other items.
Further, the idea that banning such firearms would prevent crimes being committed with that type of firearm has no empirical backing, given that fully-automatic firearms have essentially been banned since 1937, and 'proper' handguns being banned since 1997, yet both are still used in the commission of crime to this very day, with both types of gun being used at the Halloween party shooting in Leyton recently. It is also noted that the Office of National Statistics shows that handguns are still the most common firearm* used in firearm crime and murder. Why this lesson STILL hasn't apparently been learned by Whitehall is a mystery to me and the shooting community as a whole.
(*actual firearm, not air gun or replica)
Aside from the empirical evidence showing that 'banning' guns does not work, a person determined to do harm to others does not need to use a firearm, as the horrible vehicle attacks this year and last within the EU and UK have clearly demonstrated. I understand that the government at times needs to be 'seen to do something', but placating the general public by pretending that the proposals outlined will somehow make them any more safe is at best dishonest.
Crime, violence and murder are the result of a complex mix of socio-economic factors and gun control legislation has little, if any influence. I have seen several letters of response from MP's regarding this consultation that trot out the same tired nonsense about a USA Vs UK comparison between so-called lax and strict gun control. What most of them seem oblivious to is that the UK has always had relatively low gun crime and murder, even before we had ANY gun control at all in this country. If i was being lazy i'd say that gun violence has become worse in the latter half of the last century and beginning of the 21stC, while gun control has become more and more restrictive, as 'evidence' that firearms legislation doesn't work, however the two issues are unrelated from one another.
I have also seen a bizarre response from an MP stating that reducing the availability of firearms would somehow impact upon suicide levels, with examples of World Health Organisation statistics showing that the US has more gun suicides than the UK as if that somehow means something. Of course the US will have a greater number of gun suicides than the UK because they have a much larger population, and more people there own guns! If high gun ownership levels directly equated to high suicide rates then the US would be the top of the WHO's suicide rate chart with Finland, Norway, Greenland etc coming up close behind and places like China, Japan, Lithuania and the UK far lower. Examination of the WHO data clearly shows this is not the case, and yet again it is socio-economic reasons that lead people to suicide rather than the means the person has available to them to achieve their goal.
To go back to the consultation documentation, it is noted in the 'risk assessment' that only 3 options are given for possible courses of action (Do nothing, and two different flavours of banning the guns). There are at least two other options that i can think of including; similar to the Brocock revolvers, give existing owners Section 5 authority to remain in possession of the guns already in circulation, but prohibit their sale/transfer, so once the current owners pass away, or no longer wish to own the guns, they are handed into the police for destruction. While i firmly disagree that these guns are any more dangerous than any other currently legal firearms, this would at least be a reasonable compromise and would mean that there would be no requirement to pay compensation, thus saving the taxpayer the expense. Another option would be to require enhanced security to be provided to retain ownership of these firearms. A monitored house alarm, vehicle safe etc would minimise the chance of theft of such guns.
To summarise;
- Banning guns does not work. If it did, handguns would not be the #1 type of firearm used in crime now despite being 'banned' for 20 years.
- Legally owned 50cal and MARS guns have no record of being used in crime or terrorism as they are not attractive guns for such criminals.
- 'What if'/no evidence based legislation is fundamentally bad legislation. The perceived actions of those who operate outside of the law should not dictate the freedoms of those who obey the law.
- Currently S5 guns are apparently freely available to criminals and there is seemingly no desire from the criminal/terrorist fraternity to obtain .50cal/MARS guns.
- Other means of causing injury and death are far more easily obtainable, and arguably more effective i.e. large vehicles.
It is time for the government to take a serious approach to tackling the socio-economic factors (employment, poverty, gang culture, lack of integration etc) which actually cause crime and terrorism and stop pretending that preventing Mr Smith from shooting a 50cal/MARS/handgun/semi-auto rifle at the local rifle range has had/will have any impact on day-to-day violence and the criminal use of firearms.
I would be most obliged if you could take the above into consideration and acknowledge receipt of this email.
If you require any clarification of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me on this email address.
Yours faithfully
Mr Blackstuff
