Report on the Home Office Consultation Paper - Controls on Firearms
Author: R. S. Taylor, with contributions from M Anderson, G.
Bulmer, M Houlden, H Howell, H Owen, D Reece, P Watson, and others.
The author and named contributors have a combined experience of
over 300 years in all forms of shooting and in shooting club management.
Abstract
Our firearms laws are shown to have been flawed in principle since
1920. Data from Home Office Crime Statistics are presented
to confirm their consistent failure to prevent the criminal use
of firearms. An alternative system of firearms licensing
is recommended and discussed.
Contents
Section 1 - Introduction
Section 2 - Context : history, firearms
crime, summary
Section 3 - Effectiveness of the firearms
laws
Section 4 - Discussion on the failure of the
firearms laws
Section 5 - The problem - criminal use of firearms
Section 6 - Recommendations for new firearms
laws
Section 7 - Discussion on the recommended new
firearms laws
Section 8 - Common misunderstandings
about the private ownership of firearms
Section 9 - Miscellaneous : air guns,
ignorance, terrorism
1. Introduction
1.1. Before attempting to solve any problem it is essential that
it be clearly defined and quantified. Failure to do this
invariably results, at best, in wasted resources and, at worst,
in serious adverse consequences.
1.2. It is assumed that readers are familiar with the extensive administrative procedures associated with Firearm and Shotgun Certificates, Home Office Approved Clubs, and Registered Dealers. (top)
2. Context
2.1. History
The following is a brief summary of the major firearms legislation
from 1920 to date, primarily as it affects the private ownership
of firearms.
2.1.1. 1920 Firearms Act. This introduced the Firearm Certificate. It applied to centre-fire semi-automatic rifles until they were banned in 1989 and pistols until they were banned in 1997. It still applies to rifles, muzzle-loading pistols, and certain air guns and shotguns. It was introduced not because of firearms crime but because of fears about serious civil unrest following the example of the Russian Revolution. It was accepted that the owning of a pistol for personal and family protection was a ‘good reason’ for the granting of a Firearm Certificate. Later it became police practice not to allow this though no reasons were ever given for this change.
2.1.2. 1937 Firearms Act. This consolidated various changes that had been made since 1920. It included the banning of the private ownership of sub-machine guns though no evidence was given to show that these were a threat to public safety.
2.1.3. 1968 Firearms Act. This introduced the Shotgun Certificate. Previously there had been no controls on shotguns - it was possible for anyone to buy one ‘over the counter’ quite legally. No evidence was given to show that this was a threat to public safety. For the few professional criminals who chose to use firearms, the Crime Statistics show that the majority preferred the pistol - then having been rigorously controlled for 48 years - rather than the easily purchased shotgun.
2.1.4. 1989 Firearms Act. This banned the private ownership of centre-fire semi-automatic rifles after the Hungerford murders. No evidence was given to show that, apart from the actions of one deranged individual, these were a threat to public safety.
2.1.5. 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act. This banned the private ownership of pistols after the Dunblane murders. No evidence was given to show that, apart from the actions of one deranged individual, these were a threat to public safety. It resulted in the closure of many clubs and businesses and destroyed the long-established Olympic and International sport of pistol shooting.
2.1.6. Because of the highly restrictive nature of these Acts, special provisions had to be included to allow members of Home Office approved shooting clubs to use firearms not on their Firearm Certificates, i.e. to borrow club, or friends’ equipment. These provisions have become progressively more onerous and bureaucratic and are now a serious burden to both club officials and the police. (top)
2.2. Firearms Crime
2.2.1. While offences such as
burglary, fraud, vandalism etc rightly cause public concern, it
is the risk of personal violence that causes fear and which confines
people to their homes, thereby most adversely affecting society’s
collective sense of security. This section therefore deals
only with crimes of violence, namely, Robbery, and Violence Against
The Person (R & V), involving the use of rifles, shotguns
and pistols (i.e. omitting imitation and replica firearms, air
guns etc).
All data have been taken from Home Office Crime Statistics.
2.2.2.
|
R & V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1975 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1997* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1998/1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1999/2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2000/2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2001/2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2002/2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3. Summary
2.3.1. Since 1920 there has been
a steady tightening of restrictions on the private ownership and
use of rifles, shotguns and pistols.
2.3.2. Since 1968 (and earlier) there has been a steady increase in violent crime generally. Firearms have featured in a small and fairly constant percentage of this.
2.3.3. Currently, as in 1968, the firearm preferred by criminals is not the marginally less strictly regulated shotgun, but the pistol - very strictly controlled for 77 years up to 1997 and then banned outright. (top)
3. Effectiveness
of the firearms laws
3.1. Assuming that the intention of successive firearms laws has
been to prevent criminals gaining access to firearms or to deter
their using them, the data show quite clearly that they have failed.
3.2. Placing firearms crime in a wider context, the data also show that the best possible outcome of any form of firearms legislation could only have had a slight and transient effect on violent crime generally. Graph 2 shows what would have happened if all rifles, shotguns and pistols - both legally and illegally held - had been removed from circulation in the arbitrarily chosen year of 1988, and that all crimes that were going to involve a firearm did not then occur. Violent crime would then have followed the lower, dotted, line. The maximum possible reduction would, on average, have been less that 2% and, as can be seen, it would soon have been overtaken by the increase in violent crime generally, which averaged over 6% per annum for the 22 years shown on the graph. (For the period 1998 - 2003 violent crime has increased at about 13% per annum and firearms crime at over 16% per annum).
3.3. As the various laws since the 1920 Firearms Act have merely been more restrictive versions of the same basic thinking - up to and including the unprecedented banning of the Olympic and International sport of pistol shooting - it is obvious that more of the same will continue to fail. A radical new approach is essential. (top)
4. Discussion on
the failure of the firearms laws
4.1. The firearms laws have failed because the problems they were
intended to deal with have never been properly defined or quantified.
While firearms crime, like all weapons crime, is intrinsically
serious, the data show quite clearly that, contrary to the general
perception, it has never been a major problem. It is simply
a very small and fairly constant part of the real problem of increasing
violent crime and, as Graph 2 shows, the best possible firearms
legislation could only have had a negligible effect on this.
4.2. The steady growth in violent crime over such a long period is a symptom of a deeply unsettled society. It will not be halted, still less reduced, without a major return of trust and co-operation between people and Government, and part of this will lie in Government being seen to approach practical problems rationally and honestly.
4.3. The laws assume that firearms, objects, are intrinsically dangerous. This is fundamentally unsound and has led to much effort being wasted in attempting to differentiate between, for example, the many types of firearm, ammunition, parts of firearms, convertible and non-convertible replicas, dangerous and non-dangerous air guns etc. The net result has inevitably been inequitable, confusing and illogical, e.g. a Firearm Certificate holder may be deemed fit to own one rifle, but not two of the same kind, and a shotgun with a 23¾" barrel is deemed to be more dangerous than one with a 24" barrel. If inanimate objects are to be classified and controlled by their potential misuse, then many things are in practice far worse than the firearm - the pint glass, the craft knife, the car, for example. The true danger, of course, lies not in the object but in the intention of the user.
4.4. The laws assume that the availability of firearms can be controlled. Modern cartridge firearms have been manufactured in enormous quantities for well over a century. The technology is simple and they can last indefinitely. As a result, there are probably enough firearms for the world’s entire population. Control of the supply has thus never been a realistic possibility. It can be seen all too clearly from the pistol data alone since 1997 that criminals have no difficulty in obtaining firearms when they so wish.
4.5. The registration of firearms can only be applied to those who voluntarily accept it, i.e. legitimate shooters, who have nothing to do with violent crime and indeed have the same vested interest in seeing it eliminated as any other section of the law-abiding community.
4.6. In summary - the firearms laws have failed because, in treating objects as being intrinsically dangerous, in attempting to control their availability, and in focusing on the regulation of recreational shooters, they have been flawed in principle and, as the data confirm, could never have denied firearms to criminals or deterred their using them. They have also effectively alienated a substantial section of the law-abiding public, drastically handicapped shooting sports, closed businesses, and directed extensive practical and intellectual resources away from the more serious problem of relentlessly increasing violent crime. (top)
5. The problem - criminal
use of firearms
5.1. Criminals will use firearms only if it is profitable. Currently,
firearms facilitate the commission of crimes because widespread
public ignorance makes them ideal for intimidating victims and
because the firearms laws have given criminals an absolute guarantee
that their victims and any witnesses will be unarmed.
5.2. Any firearms legislation, and the associated allocation
of resources, must address the above directly and
5.2.1. be part of an overall strategy
for the reduction of violent crime generally, taking due note
of the fact that even the complete elimination of all firearms
crime would have a negligible effect on this, (para 3.2).
5.2.2. accept that there are two
quite separate and distinct aspects to the treatment of firearms
ownership: their use by criminals and their use by law-abiding
citizens for work, recreation or self-defence.
5.3. Any continuation of the thinking which has informed our firearms laws since 1920 will, as shown, fail to make any inroads into the use of firearms by criminals (and terrorists). Firearms will remain available to them and their use profitable. Criminals will thus continue to use firearms and there is no reason to suppose that the steady increase in violent crime which has occurred over the last thirty years and more will not continue. (top)
6. Recommendations
for new firearms laws
6.1. A Firearms Licence would be required to own, use, buy or
sell firearms. There would be no restrictions on quantities
and types of firearms and ammunition, and no recording of transfers.
Like the Driving Licence the Firearms Licence would be lifelong
(though similarly revocable). There would be restrictions
on criminals, the mentally incapable and the young. Anyone
not holding a Firearms Licence would be allowed to use firearms
under the supervision of a Firearms Licence holder.
6.2. A Firearms Code, similar in principle to the Highway Code,
but much shorter and simpler, could be prepared after consultation
with the existing shooting community within which resides a wealth
of expertise and still considerable goodwill.
It would contain information on:
6.2.1. safe handling and use of firearms.
6.2.2. basic ballistics: ricochet
and backsplash problems, distances travelled by bullets, penetration
of bullets through various materials etc.
6.2.3. when and where firearms could
be used.
6.2.4. specialized disciplines such
as hunting and vermin control, (in appendices).
6.3. Firearms Licences would be issued by a single Firearms
Licensing Authority.
Outline of possible procedure:
6.3.1. Applicants would write to
the Authority for an application form.
6.3.2. The form would require a counter-signature
to confirm identity, similar to the Passport Application Form
and, together with photographs, would be sent to the local Police
who would complete a section detailing, if any, the applicant’s
record of violent, sexual, or socially irresponsible crimes, (serious
driving offences, public order offences etc). They would
also be allowed to make recommendations in cases where local intelligence
gave rise to concerns about the applicant being allowed a Firearms
Licence.
6.3.3. The police would then forward
the form to the Authority who would issue or refuse a Firearms
Licence as appropriate.
6.3.4. There would be an arbitration
form of appeal against a refusal to issue a Licence.
6.4. Holders of Firearm and Shotgun Certificates would be issued a Firearms Licence automatically. (top)
7. Discussion on the
recommended new firearms laws
7.1. It is appreciated that there will be a reluctance on the
part of the police and others toward anything that is seen as
a ‘relaxation’ of the existing firearms laws. However,
it cannot be emphasized too strongly that any continuation or
extension of the present, fundamentally flawed system will not
only fail to reduce firearms crime, but by again misdirecting
resources will almost certainly allow its growth to continue.
It will also continue to leave members of the public defenceless
against extreme violence by criminals, mentally unstable individuals,
and terrorists.
7.2. The proposed system :
7.2.1. will eliminate much wasteful
bureaucracy and release many police officers and civilian employees
for more effective duties.
7.2.2. will deter criminals from
carrying firearms.
7.2.3. will prevent the legal sale
of firearms to criminals, children, the mentally incapable and
the socially irresponsible at least as well as the present
system.
7.2.4. will encourage recreational
shooting.
7.2.5. will benefit the engineering industry.
7.2.6. will be a major step towards re-establishing trust between
people and Government, (see also paras 8.3 and 9.3).
7.3. Elimination of bureaucracy
7.3.1. The present system involves,
amongst other things, extensive and resource-consuming paperwork
for every police force in the country: checking on and recording
the details of every Firearm and Shotgun Certificate holder, recording
every firearm sale, renewing Firearm, Shotgun and Dealers’
Certificates, checking applicants to join approved clubs, checking
on club members who do not attend regularly etc. None of
this contributes materially to public safety. Most experienced
police officers are all too aware of this basic worthlessness
which must necessarily have a detrimental effect on their morale.
7.3.2. The present system also serves
to create artificial crimes and inequities, e.g. an owner may
be prosecuted if a firearm is lost or stolen, whether it is recovered
or not and whether it is used in a crime or not. This is
not done with, for example, cars, which are very frequently stolen
and used by criminals.
7.3.3. The recommended system will
eliminate all the above and also all the pointless and time-wasting
confusion associated with the minutiae of the Firearms Act such
as defining different firearms, ammunition, parts of firearms,
replicas, imitations etc.
7.4. Deterrence of criminals
7.4.1. It is often said that, ‘If
members of the public carried guns then criminals would carry
them.’ There is no basis for this conclusion. Criminals
are a tiny minority of inadequates who should not be allowed in
any way to set the tone of society. They use firearms only
for the reasons stated in para 5.1. If there was a possibility
that intended victims or passers-by might be armed, and empowered
by law to defend themselves, i.e. if there was a risk of serious
injury or death during the commission of a violent crime, then
few criminals would accept it. Violent crime and burglaries
where the occupants are on the property, for example, are rare
in Switzerland where private ownership of firearms is widespread
and, contrary to the common perception, in those states of the
USA with a more trusting attitude towards their citizens owning
firearms.
7.4.2. Serious thought should be
given to the ‘surcharging’ of sentences for crimes of
violence involving the use of any weapon.
7.5. Recreational shooting
Despite many years of discouraging legislation and adverse public
commentary, shooting is still a sport at which the UK excels,
often winning international prizes. It is a disciplined
and very safe family sport which, perhaps uniquely, men, women,
children and many physically handicapped people can all enjoy
on equal terms. As such, like any sport, it can make a valuable
contribution to the general well-being of society.
7.6. Engineering
As with the sport, gun-smithing - customizing, repairing and manufacturing
firearms - is something at which the UK excels. The industry
consists for the most part of small precision engineering businesses
which represent a wealth of high-level skill and ingenuity. An
increased interest in shooting sports would benefit manufacturing
industry generally and both the rural and urban economies. It
would also perhaps afford an ideal opportunity for re-directing
towards a less contentious internal market the manufacturing skills
currently dedicated to the international arms trade.
7.7. Shooting test
It has been suggested that would-be shooters should take a test
similar to the driving test. However, this would involve
an expensive national administrative infrastructure and would
serve no useful purpose. Unlike the safe handling of a car,
safe firearms handling is very quickly and easily learned and
applies to all firearms equally, be they .177 air pistol, 12 bore
shotgun or hunting rifle.
Safety in reality is a matter of continual awareness, and passing
a test does not guarantee this any more than the driving test
guarantees safe driving. Indeed, the passing of a test may
risk militating against safety by breeding a degree of complacency.
The knowledge and simple skills required for safe firearms handling
could best be gained from a clear, well-written Firearms Code
(see para 6.2), and from short public information films. In
addition, clubs, dealers, landowners, schools, and national associations
could be encouraged to run safety courses, (see also paras 9.1
and 9.2).
Basic safety should not be confused with the more elaborate technical
aspects of the many different shooting disciplines, such as for
example, target range procedures, or when, how, and with what
to shoot deer, game or vermin etc. These are many and varied,
and appropriate instruction can and should be trusted to those
expert in them, namely those organizing such activities. (top)
8. Common
misunderstandings about the private ownership of firearms
8.1. ‘If guns became more readily available the UK will become
like the Wild West.’ There is no basis for this conclusion.
It is also a considerable slur on the British public’s
sense of responsibility. There was no widespread reckless
behaviour with firearms before the 1920 Act when they were freely
available, nor was there any with shotguns before the 1968 Act.
As stated, firearms safety is simple and easy to teach and,
given the opportunity to own firearms, the vast majority of people
will continue to behave sensibly and responsibly. The minority
who might behave otherwise will, like criminals, be effectively
deterred by the majority, and, as now, there will be strict laws
against the dangerous use of firearms.
8.2. ‘If guns become more readily available it would be easier for criminals to get them.’ This is true, but see para 7.4. Currently, only the law-abiding have difficulty in obtaining firearms. As the data show, criminals have no such problem, despite extensive long-term restrictions on rifles and shotguns and a complete ban on pistols.
8.3. ‘If guns become more readily available we’ll
have more shootings like Hungerford and Dunblane.’ Sadly,
both these tragedies occurred despite the existence of strict,
long-established and rigorously enforced firearms laws. The
truth is that there is no protection against the actions of lunatics,
save perhaps a society open and trusting enough to detect and
deal with the signals that such individuals give before they descend
into insanity. That firearms crime has increased unhindered
for decades and particularly since the 1997 pistol ban shows that
we are all still completely at the mercy of such spree killers.
Though not commonly known, the police have no legal duty to protect
individual citizens. As such a duty would be manifestly
impossible, the position could not be otherwise. Personal
protection will always be, can only be, the responsibility of
the individual, not the State. The question therefore, ‘would
Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton have done what they did had there
been the possibility of their meeting someone who was armed?’,
uncomfortable though it might be, strikes at the heart of the
problem with our existing legislation: lack of trust between Governments
and people. (top)
9. Miscellaneous
9.1. Air guns
To combat the misuse of air guns, safe firearms use could easily
be taught to children. It is a simple matter to build portable
air gun shooting facilities for use in schools, and children could
then be given the opportunity to participate in a safe and disciplined
sport which can be enjoyed by all members of the family.
9.2. Ignorance
Public ignorance about firearms is widespread and profound. The
only source of information for most people is the cinema which
is almost invariably both sensational and incorrect, not to say,
ludicrous. Ignorance is always bad and in this case it has
allowed the firearm to become demonized as an icon of power and
destruction, (see also paras 4.3 and 5.1). Short public
information films and, particularly, the teaching of firearms
safety in schools would do much to destroy this myth.
9.3. Terrorism
Widespread private ownership of firearms would afford some protection
against certain kinds of terrorism, e.g. kidnapping, hostage-taking.
Given the random nature of terrorist violence, no place,
no person, is safe from it, and individuals should be trusted
to make their own judgement on how best to defend themselves.
Perhaps more importantly, widespread private ownership of
firearms is a powerful political symbol of a mutual trust between
Government and people, which in itself is an unequivocal statement
of a united resolve to oppose terrorism. (top)
