S.1(2) OF THE FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1997: JUSTIFIABLE LEGISLATION, CYNICAL ELECTION PROMISE OR JUST A WILD SHOT IN THE DARK?

Guy Frazer Staniland
Student No. P94134339
THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED IN PART FULFILLMENT OF THE REGULATIONS FOR THE LL.B DEGREE.
OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY 1998

 

CONTENTS

THE AUTHOR DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE CONTENTS OF THIS DISSERTATION BEING REPRODUCED FOR NON-PROFIT MAKING PURPOSES BUT MUST STRESS THAT THE COPYRIGHT BELONGS TO HIM AND MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS SUCH IN EACH AND EVERY REPRODUCTION.

 

 

 

(I) Contents.

(II) Acknowledgements.

(III) Abstract.

(IV) Introduction.

(V) Why would anyone wish to own a handgun?

(VI) It’s easy to legally obtain a firearm in Britain isn’t it?

(VII) Surely the availability of legally held firearms mean they figure prominently in armed crime?

(VIII)

(IX)

(X) Hungerford.

(XI) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988

(XII) Dunblane.

(XIII) The Cullen Report.

(XIV) Hamilton, the police and the freemasons.

(XV) The beginning of the end.

(XVI) Figure 4: The cost of Britain’s “car culture”.

(XVII) Compensation.

(XVIII) Conclusion.

(XIX) Appendices.

(XX) Letter to the Prime Minister.

(XXI) Letter from the Police Policy Directorate.

(XXII) The Author’s reply

(XXIII) Letter from the Police Policy Directorate.

(XXIV) Letter from the Prime Minister’s Senior Correspondence Secretary.

(XXV) Bibliography.

 

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author should like to thank the following:

Nicola Purdy for her help in obtaining copies of all the relevant Acts of Parliament.

John Baxter of Brookes University Law School for supervising this dissertation.

Lottie Elson of the Reader Relations Dept. of the Daily Telegraph for numerous copies of helpful articles.

Fran Walker of the Health Education Authority for supplying statistical information pertaining to alcohol abuse.

David Dix and Helen Giles of the Office for National Statistics for supplying statistical information pertaining to deaths arising from smoking, alcohol and obesity.

Bernard Vere of the Health and Safety Executive for providing health and safety statistics for 1995/96.

GL Wilkins of the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, Crime and Criminal Justice Unit for supplying invaluable firearm related statistics.

Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance for the wealth of information contained within the plethora of Free Life publications provided entirely gratis.

Chris Valentine of the Dunmore Shooting Club for extremely detailed background information given over long lunches at Bisley.

Steven Kendrick editor of Cybershooters who took the trouble to comb through my draft copy checking for errors, providing the necessary corrections and furnishing invaluable additional information.

III

ABSTRACT

 S.1(2) OF THE FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1997: JUSTIFIABLE LEGISLATION, CYNICAL ELECTION PROMISE OR JUST A WILD SHOT IN THE DARK? - GUY FRAZER STANILAND

 

The purpose of this dissertation is to strip away the political and media hyperbole surrounding the sport of modern pistol shooting and examine the true risk that pistol shooters posed to the general public prior to the eradication of their sport.

Research consisted of: detailed examination of the relevant firearms Acts, the Cullen report, Hansard reports of debates in both Houses, Home Office statistical reports, trawling the Internet, large scale reading of a broad range of newspapers and long discussions with people within the sport.

 

The reader’s initiation to the subject begins with an illustration of just how hard it was to legally obtain firearms prior to the recent legislation. The author goes on to demonstrate the negative correlation between civilian firearm ownership and armed crime within the British mainland. The reader’s likelihood of being shot with a legally held handgun is put into perspective by drawing comparisons with everyday hazards.

The tragedies of both Hungerford and Dunblane are examined with regard to the perpetrators’ legal access to firearms and questions the role played by the police in granting their certificates. Particular attention is paid to Lord Cullen’s report on the enquiry instigated after the Dunblane massacre.

 

The author comprehensively demolishes the argument put forward by politicians and the media that banning legal handguns will prevent armed crime. The role of the proponents of the legislation and their motives is called into question and the reader is encouraged to wonder whether they were backed by public opinion.

In conclusion the author believes the legislation was based on flawed information, political opportunism and a desire to conceal the inadequacies of senior policeman despite receiving adequate warning. The public have been duped by those with hidden agendas and should not consider themselves any safer than they were prior to the ban.

IV

INTRODUCTION

 

Imagine this: You are driving along in your privately owned car. It was bought from new with your own money. It has a current MOT, is taxed and you possess both an appropriate driving licence and insurance. A policeman stops you and tells you the following:

Somebody who had a driving licence illegally issued by Swansea DVLC decided to drive his car into a bus queue, killing 16 children and a teacher. You own the same kind of vehicle as the killer did; consequently you are potentially a sick pervert who might go mad and kill little children with your car. Therefore the Government, greatly influenced by the media and the anti-car lobby, have passed legislation to impound your property. You may eventually be paid compensation at 75% of the market value of the car (1) but you may have to wait up to eighteen months or more for the money. Interest will not be paid. They will not compensate you for the loss of amenity of your vehicle, nor will they compensate any car dealerships or car-related tradesmen who are forced out of business, become unemployed or made bankrupt.

When you protest, you are told that your right to drive a motor car doesn't equal the right to life of those 16 children. Furthermore, by complaining you have proved how disturbed you really are because you obviously equate your right to drive safely to and from Tescos as being on a par to the life of a child. You protest again that you have committed no crime, that the police allowed the criminal to drive a car on the public highway, that records show the murderer had illegally obtained a driving licence, that senior policemen were aware of previous incidents showing him to be unfitted to drive a car and yet the police let him keep it. You are vilified again and told to hand over your car or face ten years in prison.

Sounds like fantasy doesn't it? It would be quite absurd to condemn every driver based on the actions of one clearly disturbed individual of criminal inclination. Unfortunately this is an accurate analogy of sections 1.(2), 15 and 16 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and subsequent Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 (2) following the tragedy of Dunblane.

It is the intention of this essay to expose the injustices of the aforementioned Act and the flawed reasoning that brought it about. The reader is encouraged to question whether the public should feel any safer for the legislation and whether they, as tax-payers, have received value for money. Furthermore shouldn't the apparent ease with which legally held property can be confiscated by the Government to appease the more hysterical elements of the media and for political gain be cause for concern? Is emotion an appropriate substitute for reasoned logic when forming legislation? Finally, does the British public really want to live in a nanny state where the authorities attempt to control every facet of its citizen's lives through legislative means?

Although the atrocity of Dunblane was to sound the death knell of modern pistol shooting within the British mainland it is important for the reader to realize that the precedent for the widespread banning of certain non-burst firearms was set by events that occurred in Hungerford some nine years earlier. For this reason the author has spent some time considering some of the issues that arose from an incident that, until the latter part of 1987, was considered to be of a type peculiar to the United States of America. In order to properly discuss the topic it is necessary to dispel a few myths about the use and the availability of firearms with the United Kingdom.

V

WHY WOULD ANYONE WISH TO OWN A HANDGUN?

 

It is a popular misconception amongst the tabloid press and their readership that many shooters own a firearm of one sort or another for the purpose of self-defence. This hasn't been true since October 1946 when the then Home Secretary, commenting on the statutory requirement initiated in the Firearm Act 1920, remarked: "I would not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for the protection of an applicant's person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate." (3) Despite the statement having no basis in legislation and the use of the word "necessarily" suggested such an application would not be refused out of hand, chief constables throughout the length and breadth of the land interpreted the statement to mean that defence of the person and property was no longer held to be "good reason" for holding a certificate. Since then no firearm certificate in Great Britain, save for Northern Ireland, has been issued to a citizen on the strength of personal protection.

 

Prior to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 civilians legitimately owned pistols for the following reasons:

The latter two could be further sub-divided into a myriad of diverse interests. For instance: .22 calibre pistols could be shot over distances varying from 25 to 100 metres. They could be either `stock' pistols straight out of the manufacturer's box and worth a few hundred pounds or extremely sophisticated `match' pistols worth many thousands of pounds. Venues ranged from informal works clubs to the Olympics. They could be shot using traditional `iron' sights or elaborate telescopic sights; some even utilized laser technology. Scoring could be based on simply striving for a `bull's-eye' to attempting to put a succession of bullets through the initial hole. Full-bore pistols were similarly shot although further diversification came in the shape of `Practical Pistol', `Police Pistol', `Western', `Black Powder' and `Service Revolver' to name but five.

Within the limitations of this dissertation it is impossible to even begin to analyse the many reasons why people took up pistol shooting. For some it was undoubtedly the challenge of continually striving to beat the opposition. For others the important aspect was beating one's personal score. Some may have simply enjoyed the noise, smell and pleasure of shooting at a distant target. For others it may have been the appreciation of a precision instrument, fine workmanship and/or an interest in ballistic science. One can only say with certainty that there existed a high degree of social interaction, good-natured bonhomie and that it was a FUN pastime enjoyed by both young and old, male and female, able-bodied and disabled on an equal footing. In a truly free country that should be reason enough.

VI

IT'S EASY TO LEGALLY OBTAIN A FIREARM IN BRITAIN ISN'T IT?

A succession of increasingly restrictive firearm and related Acts, (4) consolidated by the Firearms Act 1968, have meant that, properly enforced, only the most responsible and upright citizen could hope to obtain the section 1 firearm certificate necessary for the purchase of firearms and ammunition. s.27(1) states: "A firearm certificate shall be granted by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made, and can be permitted to have it in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace: Provided that a firearm certificate shall not be granted to a person whom the chief officer of police has reason to believe to be prohibited by this Act from possessing a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies, or to be for any reason of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or to be for any reason unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm.." The wording of this section has enabled chief officers a very wide discretion as to whom he or she considers suitable for the grant of a certificate.

They are also expected to have regard to the advice contained in Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police, issued by the Home Office, the present version of which was published in 1989.  The Guidance to the Police states in para. 6.8(e): "A certificate for a handgun and ammunition should not be granted (except in very rare cases) unless the applicant has regular and legitimate opportunity of using the weapon, e.g. for target practice as a member of a pistol shooting club.....”.

Para. 6.8(i) states: “that the 'good reason' requirement has to be demonstrated satisfactorily in respect of each firearm.” Thus it can be seen that the onus to show good reason for obtaining a certificate rests squarely with the applicant in both statute and guide.

 In practice there are only five acceptable reasons deemed to satisfy the section:

 

An appeal lies in s.26(4) following the procedures laid down in s.44 for those aggrieved at the refusal of a grant but in practice few take it up and even fewer manage to overturn a decision of a chief constable in a Crown Court. (6)

s.29(1) enables the chief officer to vary the conditions subject to which a certificate is held. In practice this has meant that the police authorities have universally required applicants to have an approved firearm cabinet in which to store arms and ammunition should a certificate be granted. This cabinet must be bolted to an internal wall and be as far as reasonably practical inaccessible to unauthorized personal. No mention of these requirements appear in any firearm legislation but the reader can be assured that failure to comply will render an application unacceptable. (7)

When making out an application for a s.1 certificate the applicant's attention is drawn to s.26(5) making it "an offence for a person to make any statement which he knows to be false for the purpose of procuring, whether for himself or any other person, the grant or renewal of a certificate under this Act."

 s.21(1) Permanently forbids the possession of either firearm or ammunition by persons sentenced to specified forms of detention for a term of three years or more. Those sentenced to terms of three months or more but less than three years are excluded under s.21(2) from possession for a period of five years from the date of their release. Contravention of the aforementioned is a criminal offence under s.21(4) as is, under s.21(5), the supply of arms or repairs to such persons the supplier knows or reasonably believes to be prohibited from possession of a firearm.

In addition the possession of firearms, as with shotguns and air guns, are subject to a number of age restrictions under varying conditions and circumstances. For example: it is an offence for a person under seventeen to purchase or hire a firearm under s.22(1) and s.24(1) & (2) creates the offence of supplying arms and ammunition pertaining to the age limits set out in s.22 It is an offence under s.25 "... to sell, transfer any firearm or ammunition to, or repair, prove or test any firearm for, another person whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be drunk or of unsound mind."

 Whenever the sale or transfer of a firearm or ammunition occurs the seller, not being a registered dealer, is obliged under s.42(1) & (2) to notify the transaction to the chief officer within forty-eight hours via either registered or recorded post. In the case of a registered dealer he or she must comply with s.40 ss.(1)-(7)

The above are examples of the very basic foundations of the Firearms Act 1968. It is a very comprehensive statute consisting of sixty sections and seven schedules. As well as enabling the strict control of the possession and supply of firearms and ammunition it prohibits certain weapons deemed unsuitable for civilian use under s.5 It also endows chief officers, police officers and the courts with wide ranging powers, under s.46 - s.52, for law enforcement and the punishment of offenders. Thus the reader will appreciate that, so far as reasonably practical, the legislation strikes an equitable balance between allowing responsible citizens to possess firearms for legitimate usage and prohibiting access to undesirable elements.

 Unfortunately such legislation has one glaringly obvious fault; it is only really an effective measure against generally law-abiding citizens. Whilst the Act undeniably must have prevented tragedies that could otherwise have occurred in consequence of carelessness, the acts of irresponsible youths and the insane, it appears, judging by the armed crime figures (see following tables), that it has posed little more than an inconvenience to the criminal fraternity. Indeed, that this is so was admitted during the House of Lords discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill (prior to its enactment in 1967) when the Under-secretary of State at the Home Office, Lord Stonham stated: “Of course a determined criminal can get a shotgun illegally, as he can get a pistol despite the 1937 Firearms Regulations stringent though they are. Of course he can; and this Bill will not stop a determined criminal from getting a shotgun.” (8)

 

VII

SURELY THE AVAILABILITY OF LEGALLY HELD FIREARMS MEANS THEY FIGURE PROMINENTLY IN ARMED CRIME?

 

Lord Stonham's words are graphically illustrated below. Figure 1 represents notifiable offences committed between 1981 - 1995 involving both illegally and legally held firearms. (9) In the case of legally held firearms the data spans the period 1992 - 1994 and is the result of a specially commissioned survey carried out in 1996 to determine the extent to which they feature in homicides. The reader will note that they total only 22 incidents over three years; 70% were attributed to shotguns, most being suicides and none were carried out during organized crime or for gain. Only TWO pistols appeared in the statistics and both were involved in domestic homicides. (10) Conversely out of the 130 homicides where illegally held firearms featured, over sixty-six percent involved the use of handguns. In order to represent the data graphically it has been depicted as an average for this period. Figure 2 represents all firearms used in all homicides during 1992 - 1994 and illustrates the stark contrast in the relationship between the legal status of arms and their use in crime. (11)

 Figure 1 highlights a number of very interesting traits pertaining to armed crime and the availability of arms. The most frequently used weapon in armed crime is the airgun; its use is approximately double that of illegally held pistols and features prominently across the whole range of criminal acts save for murder. (12) The author submits that this is probably due to the fact that they are subject to so little regulation. With the exception of age restrictions given in s.22(4) - s.23(1) of the Firearm Act 1968 there is little to prevent ownership save for the purchase price; no certificate is required. Non-certificate weapons require no registration of sale. No legislation or guidelines exist regarding their safe storage making them susceptible to theft.(13)

 Conversely the least used firearm in armed crime is the legally held pistol being subject to the most stringent legislation. During the course of the 1996 special survey only TWO such pistols featured in two domestic incidents over a period of three years. This is particularly interesting given that there were approximately 142,000 firearm certificates in circulation at the time. (14) What special factor could have prevented the other 141,998 from going on the rampage the tabloids claimed likely? Could it have been that on the whole the legislation in place at the time, sufficiently enforced, was successfully weeding out those unfitted to be entrusted with firearms?

It would appear that the legislation, whilst thwarting the unfitted and/or petty criminal element, wasn't preventing those criminals willing to go the extra distance to obtain an illegal handgun. Even before the introduction of the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997 Britain had some of the most stringent firearm legislation within Europe and, indeed, the free world, yet recorded offences are shown to have steadily increased throughout the years in their thousands. How could this be? According to Frank Cook MP 2,500 illegal firearms are smuggled into Britain every week. (15) This being the case it is logical to assume that Britain had already gone as far as it could with preventative firearm legislation and, rather than introduce further irrelevant restrictions, ought to concentrate more heavily on enforcement and detection.

The figures plotted on Figure 2 leads one to question why, if further restrictions on legal ownership of firearms were considered necessary, both the previous and present Government (16) chose to restrict legal ownership of pistols. Logically it would have made more sense to restrict access to shotguns which accounted for 70% of homicides rather than a weapon responsible for 9.1% The reader may feel that the body count of Dunblane significantly upgraded this figure thus warranting the legislation. The author submits that this is incorrect. He would suggest that one should regard the incident as an unpleasant blip in the history of legal firearm ownership; that the better view would be to treat the nine year gap between Hungerford and Dunblane as being the standard climate with an average of twenty-two homicides every three years. If one were to add the seventeen deaths of Dunblane to this scenario the resultant homicide ratio would be: shotguns = 55.66%; pistols = 27.71% and other firearms = 16.62% Thus shotguns would still be the most logical target for further legislation. (17) That this did not happen leads one to believe that improper emphasis was placed on the type of victim involved in one particular situation rather than the mathematics of the larger picture. Legislation based on an emotional stance rather than a logical one inevitably ends in bad law. The author considers it to be thoroughly bad practice to consider the life of a child as being more worthy than that of an adult. In the eyes of the law all human life should be considered equal. To consider otherwise is to introduce ageism into law which is but one small step from declaring the elderly second class citizens.

 

VIII

IX

THE READER'S CHANCES OF DYING PREMATURELY.

 In order to put the preceding figures into some perspective they have been compared with statistics gleaned from a varied range of sources (18) pertaining to legally permitted activities which have resulted in death. The author submits that the resultant Figure 3 suggests that when attempting to legislate out risks to the public, legally owned firearms ought to figure very low in a state's priorities. For example: Smoking kills approximately 180,000 people per annum; the equivalent of 5806.45 Hungerfords and Dunblanes every year. Car accidents account for roughly 50,820 per annum or 1639.35 Hungerfords and Dunblanes every year. The author asks what formulae the Government and general public use to calculate that these lives can be considered acceptably expendable whilst playing the public safety card against a sport with an exemplary safety record? (9.105)

 

X

HUNGERFORD.

On the 19th of August 1987 Michael Ryan was to prove what shooters had been saying for decades; legislation is largely meaningless against criminals save for sentencing purposes and that legislation which is of merit is only effective if it is properly enforced. Michael Ryan was a criminal even before he murdered fourteen people and injured sixteen others. Despite the existence of s.5(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibiting public access to them, Ryan had possession of two machine guns. (19) A perfect example of how, at the end of the day, legislation cannot cope with the determined criminal. Even a total ban on ALL privately owned firearms couldn’t have prevented Ryan’s butchery. He was a criminal and as such had the right contacts to obtain illegal firearms. There is no arguing with this simple fact.

 

In addition to his illegal cache of weapons Ryan owned five legally certified handguns, one shotgun and a rifle. Ryan had proven himself unfit to posses firearms having had his shotgun confiscated only a week prior to his killing spree. Under s.30(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 the chief officer responsible for the Hungerford area could and should have revoked Ryan’s certificate and confiscated his firearms on the strength of the cause of the shotgun’s confiscation. He didn’t. In fact the local police returned his shotgun upon the request of his mother. This despite that it was common knowledge that Ryan often took his guns to work, threatened people with firearms, possessed unlicensed firearms and regularly shot illegally in Savernake Forest. (20) Somewhat surprisingly no public enquiry was held as to why Ryan was able to hold onto his certificate.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that Ryan should have had his certificate revoked it would probably have made little difference in his case. He could simply have opened up with his illegally held machine guns. Nevertheless the failure of the police to take steps to remove his firearms illustrated that the strict nature of firearms legislation, indeed any legislation, is only as good as the officers entrusted with its enforcement.

 

XI

THE FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1988

 Shortly after Hungerford the Government published a White Paper based on their findings. It stated: "... legislation cannot offer a guarantee against the repetition of the tragic events of Hungerford...” Having realized this one would have thought that instead of introducing further legislation the Government would have concentrated on ensuring that the police placed greater emphasis on enforcing existing legislation. An opportunity was missed whereby a national firearms register could have been compiled (21) In addition the police could have been required to make more frequent visits to certificate holders’ homes to inspect their security arrangements, check the firearms held comply with their certificate and to gauge whether he/she remains a fit and proper person to be entrusted with their possession. (22)

 This didn’t happen. Instead the Government, despite its earlier White Paper, introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which tinkered with the rules regarding shotgun certificates, granting, registration, transfer fees, ammunition and the like. Ironically it was initiated by the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd who had been fined £5 in 1975 for possession of a shotgun without a certificate. (23) Had he committed the offence in 1988 he would have faced a possible maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. (24)

 The Act also further increased the weapons to be prohibited under s.5 of the 1968 Act. These were semi-automatic firearms capable of automatically loading a fresh round into the breach from the magazine immediately upon ejecting a spent shell. It also included pump-action shotguns with a tubular magazine capable of holding more than two rounds. Lever action and bolt action rifles with magazines were still permissible .

 The restrictions appeared to be poorly thought through. Presumably the thinking behind prohibiting semi-autos was to prevent a wrongdoer from being able to present continuous rapid fire. However, in practical terms the difference in feed action and aiming times between these weapons and bolt or lever action rifles are negligible. A more realistic way of slowing down the cyclic rate of fire would have been to limit the capacity of rifle magazines thus enforcing a period when the firer would have to stop and reload. Detachable magazines could have been made s.1 items required to appear on the holder’s certificate in order to help prevent hidden caches of unmodified spares. If one were to indulge the anti-shooting lobby it would have been more logical, inasmuch as logic appears to enter into firearm legislation these days, to have prohibited all rifles rather than single out one particular design feature. Figures 1 and 2 argue the futility of such a measure in terms of effectiveness.

 Somewhat bizarrely the capacity of pump-action shotguns were limited. Whereas rifles with a much longer effective killing range had no limits placed upon magazine size, shotguns (held on a shotgun licence) were limited to just two rounds under s.2 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 amending. s.1(3) and (3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 ; presumably in order to bring them into line with traditional side by side or over and under twin barreled shotguns. Prohibited shotguns either had to be handed in under the compulsory purchase scheme devised, added to a s.1 firearm certificate or had to have a special blanking tube inserted into the magazine limiting its capacity. (25) This modification had to comply with s.1(3)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended by s.2 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 requiring London or Birmingham Proof House marks to be stamped on the firearm. Once again the Government had displayed just how badly informed it was. As any shooter could have told them, pump-action mechanisms allow the handler to insert one round into the breach and then a further two into the magazine. Thus the firer legally thwarts the intention of the legislation by one extra round whilst holding a standard shotgun certificate. Admittedly there would seem to have been little point in doing this when one could simply transfer the registration of a prohibited shotgun from one piece of paper to another that authorized its possession. Not unnaturally one finds oneself asking just what was the point of this fudging? The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that it was a public relations exercise.

The relevance of the legislation pertaining to shotguns was lost on the majority of shooters. Ryan had employed a self loading rifle and a pistol during his rampage; a shotgun hadn’t been used. Nevertheless the police were happy as they always are when given further control over citizens although they felt even more legislation was necessary. The media appeared happy, possibly because it gave them the impression that they help run the country via their campaigns directed from the moral high ground. The public, presumably because there was indeed ‘a law against it’, seemed happy enough to sink back into indifference. One cannot help but feel that the Government of the day had fobbed off the public with senseless legislation which left them no more protected than before. It appeared that just to be extra sure that they were perceived as doing something constructive they threw in The Firearms Rules 1989 setting out the format of firearm and shotgun certificates. Naturally these statutes only applied to law-abiding citizens; criminals and terrorists, by their very nature, were exempt.

 

XII

DUNBLANE

The obscenity of Dunblane and the subsequent Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 proved to be the epitome of everything that is wrong with the way successive British Governments have tried to legislate against armed crime. It also posed a number of disturbing questions regarding the manner in which the police were still executing their responsibilities. At 9.30 am on Wednesday the 13th of March 1996 Thomas Hamilton walked into a Dunblane Primary School armed with four handguns and 743 rounds of ammunition. Using a 9 mm Browning pistol he systematically murdered sixteen children and their teacher. He wounded a further ten children and three adults. It had been carefully planned and took just three minutes during which he fired 105 rounds of ammunition. As is the custom with such attacks it culminated with the gunman’s suicide. (1.3 )

 

The media had a field day. Initially they concentrated on Hamilton; picking over the minutiae of his less than successful life and alleging, based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, that he was a paedophile. Much was made of his being drummed out of the Scouting movement after complaints were made about two camps he organized during the latter period of 1973. The indications were that Hamilton's tendencies towards children were inappropriate, summarized as cruel discipline and a night in which he contrived to sleep in the back of a van with the children, in violation of Scout rules which specifically prohibit leaders from sharing accommodation with the boys in their care. (4.5 - 4.6 )

 Hamilton subsequently formed a number of boys' clubs which floundered when parents withdrew their children as word got around of his alleged “weird” behaviour. Apparently some Dunblane school teachers were instrumental in blocking his later attempts to resurrect the boys' clubs and copies of letters attributed to him clearly show the rage developing inside him as he was blocked from access to other peoples' children. (4.9 - 4.23 give a very detailed insight into Hamilton’s clubs, the rumours surrounding his behaviour and the noticeable lack of reliable evidence to substantiate them.) Whether Hamilton was genuinely guilty of the allegations or merely a misunderstood man pushed into madness by a close-knit and intolerant community (26) we shall probably never know. What is known is that because of the awfulness of his revenge on that community ordinary law-abiding pistol shooters were to bear the brunt of attention (27) by the sensationalist tabloids, anti-gun lobbyists and subsequently the politicians. It was as if society, deprived of punishing the true perpetrator, sought a substitute in the shooting fraternity.

XIII

THE CULLEN REPORT

On 21 March 1996 it was resolved by both Houses of Parliament that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into the incident at Dunblane Primary School. The Warrant of Appointment commissioned Lord William Douglas Cullen to head the Inquiry in accordance with Section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. In a Parliamentary reply to Mr. George Robertson MP on 21 March 1996 it was set out that the Inquiry's terms of reference should be:-

"To inquire into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the events at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday 13 March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people; to consider the issues arising therefrom; to make such interim and final recommendations as may seem appropriate; and to report as soon as practicable." (Foreword to the Cullen Report page 1 30th Sept. 1996)

 The Inquiry was held at the Albert Halls, Stirling. It sat for 26 days, opening on 29 May and closing on 10 July 1996. The whole proceedings were held in public and recorded by shorthand writers *(2.9) The subsequent 200 page report brought to light some very disturbing information regarding the role played by the police concerning Hamilton’s issue of a firearm certificate. The overall impression one gains is that Lord Cullen felt that the tragedy could have been avoided.

 The report gave cause to believe that Hamilton misled the police concerning the requirement to “have good reason” for acquiring a firearm certificate when it came up for renewal in 1986. At that time he was not a member of an approved gun club. He had been refused membership of the Bridge of Allan club where secretary Alistair Armstrong is quoted as having said that: "no one liked or trusted him and it's not a good idea to have a man like that around live weapons". Hamilton didn’t become a member of an approved club again until he joined a Stirling club in 1987 (4.9 - 4.66) (28)

This being the case Thomas Hamilton was in breach of s.27(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 regarding the need for good reason. He might also have been in breach of s.26(5) of the same Act for making a false statement in order to procure renewal of his certificate. Also it was contrary to para. 6.8(e) Chap. 6 of the Home Office Guidance to the Police.

In July 1988 complaints by parents concerning the operation of a summer camp at Loch Lomond run by Hamilton led to an investigation by Strathclyde police. Pc Gunn visited the camp but none of the children were willing to accept his offer of a lift home. Gunn reported that he was uneasy about Hamilton but “in a vague and indefinable way”. Allegations that Hamilton had assaulted some of the boys in his care led the officer to submit a report to Dumbarton police. (4.24 - 4.25) A subsequent report was forwarded to the Procurator Fiscal, James Cardle, but he decided not to prosecute Hamilton. Lord Cullen said: "... Mr. Cardle had reached this conclusion based on the quality and significance of the evidence...” (4.27 - 4.28) Hamilton lodged formal complaints against Pc Gunn and other officers which led to an investigation by Douglas McMurdo the Deputy Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police. Hamilton followed this up with a letter campaign which became very personalized and critical of the officers cited. Pc Gunn expressed the view in his evidence that Hamilton was “... untrustworthy, vindictive, malicious and obsessive ...” (4.3) The eventual conclusion of the investigations was that no action should be taken against any of the officers. (4.31)

Another incident was brought to the attention of the police in 1989. Contrary to the conditions of his firearms certificate Hamilton took two handguns and a semi-automatic rifle to the home of a boy to show it off. An acquaintance of the boy’s mother, Mrs. Doreen Hagger, made a complaint to the Lothian and Borders Police. After a short inquiry they dismissed it as “... a harmless display of weapons ...” (29) However, Sgt. McGrane said in evidence at the Cullen inquiry that: “... he did not consider Hamilton’s behaviour normal ... and did not think a firearm certificate holder should act in this way.” (4.69)

 Papers concerning the incident were sent to McMurdo but Hamilton’s certificate was not revoked. Lord Cullan remarked: “It may be noted that a copy of Inspector Nimmo's memorandum in regard to this incident was not put in the firearms file relating to Thomas Hamilton, although it should have been. Further, it was not entered in criminal intelligence.” (6.40)

In fact, as well as being inappropriate conduct, this incident may possibly have contravened s.19 of the Firearms Act 1968 regarding the possession of a firearm in a public place irrespective of whether the firearms were loaded or not providing he had ammunition with him. In any event is was certainly a violation of the conditions of his firearm certificate and therefore an offence.

Shortly after this incident Hamilton was said to have pulled up his van alongside the complainant and pointed a firearm at her. No action was taken. Again, no mention of this incident appears in Hamilton’s firearms file or is registered with criminal intelligence. (30) (4.72 - 4.74) At the very least this was an assault under s.4(1) or s.5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 Had he ammunition upon his person suitable for the gun in question he would also have been in breach of s.19 of the Firearms Act 1968 pertaining to carrying firearms in public. The fact that the incident occurred in Scotland also meant that schedule 2 para. 3 was applicable pertaining to s.17(2) of that Act relating to assaults.

Yet again in 1988, the Cullen inquiry learnt, Hamilton was found to be in possession of firearms for which he did not have a variation on his certificate. Again no action was taken. Despite being in breach of s.1(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968

 In evidence given to Cullen McMurdo stated the main reason for revocation of a firearm certificate was a criminal conviction which Hamilton did not have. He denied taking officers concerns lightly but felt that they amounted to no more than a “gut feeling” which was insufficient as there was no evidence to substantiate it. (6.60)

Actually this is not strictly accurate. In 1977 Hamilton was formally cautioned for the possession of a Smith & Wesson revolver for which he did not have a variation on his firearm certificate. An offence under s.1(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Rather obligingly the police then retrospectively authorized the variation. Somewhat bizarrely this incident was glossed over during the Cullen inquiry; no reference to the caution was made at all. (6.3) Either this information was deliberately suppressed by the police in order to mask possible negligence or the information was negligently lost. So far the authorities, despite constant pressure from shooting lobbyists, have failed to account for this anomaly. (31)

 Following further allegations in July 1991 concerning complaints of assaults and videotaping carried out at another summer camp Hamilton was brought to the attention of Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes. Hughes was concerned by the lack of supervision at the camp and numerous photographs of boys in swimming costumes. He was also worried that Hamilton had an unstable personality. He eventually delivered a report detailing ten charges to the Procurator Fiscal, Mr. Valentine, who passed them on to Procurator Fiscal Deputy, Mr. W Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher doubted that they showed enough evidence of criminality to merit court proceedings and decided to take no further action. (4. 39 - 4.43)

During his investigations Det. Sgt. Hughes learnt that Hamilton held a firearms certificate. He wrote a memorandum to the Detective Superintendent , CID, stating: “I am firmly of the opinion that Hamilton is an unsavoury character and unstable personality... I firmly believe he has an extremely unhealthy interest in young boys which appears to have been controlled to date... I respectfully request that serious consideration is given to withdrawing this man’s firearms certificate as a precautionary measure as it is my opinion that he is a scheming, devious and deceitful individual who is not to be trusted.” (6.41)    DS Hughes discussed his report with DCI Holden of the CID Department whose responsibilities included the Child Protection Unit. He was in full agreement with Hughes' appraisal of Hamilton and passed the memorandum on to Detective Superintendent Miller who forwarded it to Mr. McMurdo being responsible for issuing firearms certificates. After consideration McMurdo marked it “NO ACTION” although he gave no reasons for doing so. Yet again copies of the memorandum should have been placed in Hamilton’s firearms file and entered in criminal intelligence but weren’t. (6.42)

Lord Cullen’s report was scathing in its criticism of McMurdo’s conduct throughout the affair and stated: “It seemed clear to me that, while Mr. McMurdo accepted that he was exercising preventative police work, he had difficulty envisaging cases in which a person could be shown to be ‘unfitted’ to be entrusted with a firearm where there was no previous conviction or pending criminal case. He adopted an unduly narrow approach in which he had paid not much more than lip service to the idea that a person could be unfitted in the absence of a conviction.” (6.61)

Commenting on the above incidents Lord Cullen went on: “On any view, it was inappropriate conduct on the part of a firearm certificate holder and it raised a question as to whether it was serious enough to warrant revocation... I consider these considerations called into question Hamilton’s fitness to be entrusted with a firearm and that Mr. McMurdo should have taken the opportunity of making further inquiries, and in particular hearing what Mr. Hughes had to say at ... first hand. On balance I consider that there was a case for revocation of Thomas Hamilton’s firearms certificate and that it should have been acted upon.” (6.63 - 6.64) He went on: "... the absence from criminal intelligence of any reference to ... previous ... investigation of Hamilton's conduct...was a glaring deficiency in the operation of the force's information system.” (6.72)   

 Any number of the above possible offences typed in red would have been sufficient to revoke Hamilton’s licence under s.30(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 as would the recommendations and comments of the aforementioned officers. Given that Hamilton could have appealed under s.30(3) of that Act if he felt aggrieved why didn’t McMurdo err on the side of caution in the interests of the public? Why did he let this man run around brandishing firearms and generally flouting the law unimpeded?

 

XIV

HAMILTON, THE POLICE AND THE FREEMASONS

There was some speculation after the inquiry that both Hamilton and McMurdo were Freemasons belonging to the same lodge (32) and that this may have explained the extremely, and frankly absurdly, lenient treatment given to the gunman regarding his retention of a certificate. Unfortunately the public are unlikely to learn the truth because shortly after Lord Cullen’s report Mr. McMurdo resigned from the police force with his pension rights fully intact. According to the Home Secretary, Jack Straw: “Officers who have retired from the force cannot be disciplined.” (33)

Could it be that Mr. McMurdo jumped ship before he could be held criminally negligent? Just before McMurdo’s resignation the Shooters Rights Association approached the parents of the Dunblane victims with the proposition that they jointly lodge an action for criminal negligence against the Central Scotland police force for its alleged negligence. (34) The Snowdrop campaigners - none of whom were related to any of the victims - were outraged. Anne Pearston called the suggestion: “... a cynical and unfeeling attempt to muddy the issues of gun control ...” (35) Snowdrop managed to encourage the parents to look at a bigger picture and permit them, on their behalf, to concentrate on pushing for a total ban on civilian handgun ownership rather than apportion blame closer to home.

Tactically, if not morally, this was a brilliant move on the part of Snowdrop. Had the SRA succeeded in convincing the Dunblane parents that they should seek judicial vengeance on those responsible for the catalogue of malpractice which allowed Hamilton access to firearms, rather than calling for an indiscriminate ban, it is possible that the momentum for banning handguns would have been lost. The issue of Freemasonry might also have been given a full airing and further taken the wind out of the anti-gun lobby’s sails. The author would submit that Snowdrop, by cynically focusing on the narrow issue, were spared these inconveniences at the expense of public interest.

The subject of Freemasons within the police and, indeed, the Government should be cause for public concern as there is scope for conflicts of interest and loyalties to arise contrary to carrying out their official duties. The possibility of anonymous, unelected and unaccountable bodies being in a position of influence is worrying to say the least in a democracy. Especially so when legislation designed to protect the public is ignored so comprehensively.

This appeared to be at the front of Labour MP Frank Cook’s mind when he criticized the police and backed calls by the Association of Chief Police Officers for a registry of policemen who were also Freemasons. (36) The Police Federation replied: “The Joint Central Committee deeply regrets that the Association of Chief Police Officers has adopted the proposals set out in its press release, without consultation with the Police Federation. We regard the decision to recommend that chief constables maintain a register in which police officers and civilian staff will be required to declare their membership of organizations whose articles demand a bond of loyalty from their members, as an unwarranted interference with the private lives of police officers. As the decision implies sanctions against officers who do not register their membership, we believe that the decision is a clear case of an interference with the civil rights of police officers.” (37) The inference being that the Police Federation are prepared to run the risk of another Thomas Hamilton running amok rather than entertain measures that, whilst enforcing proper police procedures, might infringe a policeman’s civil liberties to belong to a secret society.

Ironically, the Police Federation were not terribly bothered about treading on the civil liberties of those citizens disposed to competition shooting, stating in the same Internet bulletin board: "... What this is about is whether we, as a society, are prepared to licence and legitimize a gun culture in this country. Whether we are prepared to allow citizens, in what the gun lobby describe as “the fastest growing sport in the country”, to own, possess, and legally practice their skills with .357 Magnums, 9 mm automatics, or .38 Smith & Wessons. Or for that matter, .22 weapons which, in skilled hands, are as deadly as any Magnum, and was the weapon used in the assassination of Robert Kennedy, if proof of this statement was needed. If we are prepared to tolerate such a gun culture, then we must accept that it will continue to attract, as well as thousands of law abiding citizens, a small but significant number of Ryans or Hamiltons. We believe that we must send out a clear message, that we don't want a gun culture in this country. The clearest possible message is to ban the private ownership and possession of all handguns, and impose severe prison sentences for those who don't comply...” (38)

 

XV

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

An hysterical media (39), the politically correct and those with personal agendas had been, predictably, very emotional from the moment word had got out about Hamilton’s murderous spree. However, this was as nothing once Anne Pearston and the Snowdrop Campaign got into their stride. (40) During a visit to the murder scene, Mr. Blair, leader of the Labour Party, was confronted by Snowdrop Campaigners and bereaved parents. When asked whether he could imagine his own daughter "lying in a box with a bullet hole in her head", he physically blanched and immediately pledged his party's support. (41) Reasoned debate, such as it was, largely ceased from then on, tending to be replaced by similar emotional ploys.

One such stunt being the presentation of a 700,000 strong petition to the House of Commons in July 1996. The author questions its worth as it conflicts with later public opinion polls and comprises a large percentage of minors who were unlikely to have had any grasp of the issues at stake. Similarly many adults conceivably signed the petition either unthinkingly because it was thrust upon them in the street or because there existed an element of moral / emotional blackmail. It is easy to petition away other peoples’ rights when the signatory has no stake in the matter.(42)

The Government had commissioned the Cullen inquiry insisting that any legislation that ensued would be based on its findings rather than a knee-jerk reaction. Labour, possibly recognizing an opportunity to distinguish itself in the run up to the general election, had allied itself to the Snowdrop Campaign and called for an all out ban of all sporting handguns regardless of the findings. Giving the impression of saying, in effect, never mind the truth let’s focus on the emotion. (43) The Conservatives, awaiting Lord Cullen’s report, appeared to panic and ditched their original pledge to abide by the enquiry’s findings. The ensuing scramble to retake the moral high ground became quite unseemly.

The Labour Party’s evidence to the Cullen inquiry (44) maintained in its introduction that the principal purpose of a gun was to kill people, that they were easily obtainable legally and that despite previous legislation having failed more Draconian legislation was required that would: "... stand the test of time...” (45) Whilst one cannot deny that most guns are designed to kill people that is not the purpose for which the vast majority of pistols were purchased in this country. They were used mainly for competition, vermin control and humane destruction. Those few legally held pistols that had been misused had, in the past, been confined to domestic (includes suicide) incidents. The number of such incidents were small. To put them in context try comparing them to the amount of incidents where a vehicle has been used as a weapon to kill or intimidate. How often, for instance, has the reader of this dissertation encountered hostile driving or read of its consequences in the press? (46) Yet cars are extremely easy to obtain with no restrictions upon their ownership despite their capacity for immense carnage if abused. (47)

David Mellor, a huge proponent for further legislation - despite representing BAe as an arms salesman, pooh-poohed this analogy saying: “Unlike guns, cars serve a useful purpose in society.” (48) One could easily argue that of the two, cars are the more harmful to society not only in terms of the cost in human life, policing, emergency services, hospitalization, the environment but also as tools of the criminal and, indeed, the object of criminal acts. Figure 4 depicts the scale of some of those costs in terms of frequency.

 

XVI

The statement concerning the readiness with which a legal handgun could be purchased seemed to be deliberately couched in terms that suggested anyone could obtain the necessary certificate. This simply wasn’t true, as the author has previously shown. The rules pertaining to firearms are strict and, providing the police act with due diligence when considering the granting of certificates, it is still considered easier to obtain firearms by illegal means rather than legal. (49)

Exactly why the prospective Labour Government felt that further legislation was the key to public safety, given that all before it had largely failed to prevent armed crime is unclear. Unable to obtain any estimate regarding the number of weapons used in crimes which were originally licensed, Labour concentrated on the number of firearms “presumably licensed” which had been stolen from residential homes. (50) Thus the shooting fraternity were later to be persecuted for “presumably” having been victims of theft as well as negligence on the part of senior Scottish policemen.

The document made the almost traditional comparison with the USA regarding homicide rates and the availability of guns. (51) What they conveniently didn’t consider was the vast disparity of legislation between States and even cities. For instance Washington DC has strict legislation prohibiting the private possession of firearms. (52) It also has the highest rate of gun related homicides per capita in America at 72 per 100,000 with an estimated 2,000,000 illegal firearms in circulation. (53) Conversely Minneapolis has no firearm ban and has a murder rate of 2.9 per 100,000. (54) Being a country where the right to bear arms (55) and self-defence is firmly entrenched in the nation’s psyche, with such ridiculously avoidable and variable gun legislation, easy access to firearms and such conflicting figures the author submits that any comparison with Britain is worthless.

In stark contrast to both America and Britain is Switzerland where every adult male is required to be a member of the militia (which numbers 625,000), to store a fully-automatic rifle and ammunition at home and to practice with it regularly. In addition to these government weapons, Switzerland has the world's highest level of private firearms ownership. Firearms, including semi-automatic rifles, can be bought freely from gun dealers on producing a purchase permit which is issued on demand to any adult (except those with certain criminal convictions or records of mental instability). Yet armed crime is negligible: firearm homicides have not increased since records began in 1931, and armed robberies are so few that they are not even recorded separately. (56)

The Labour document stated that at the end of 1995 there were almost 400,000 pistols and rifles together with 1,400,000 shotguns in legal circulation (57) This, it was maintained, was evidence of an extensive “gun culture” (58) In 1996 it had become something of a trend by the political parties, the Police Federation and anti-gun lobbyists to refer to a sinister “gun culture” pervading the very fabric of society. (59) Gun owners were frequently portrayed as highly suspect and inadequate deviants. Thanks to the tabloids and trashy television such as Central’s “Late and Loud” (a so-called public debate forum) the quiet, responsible club shooter metamorphosed into the Terminator, Rambo or Dirty Harry. What’s more gun owners weren’t called owners at all; they were gun “fanatics” to all but their more respectable opponents. A not very subtle way, in the author's view, of associating shooters with the unbalanced Ryan and Hamilton.

The author submits that all the ownership figures suggested was a perfectly healthy interest in a popular sport which enabled people from all walks of life to participate in a highly competitive discipline. And why not? It was perfectly legal after all. The author would go further and say that the 810,200 firearm and shotgun certificates issued in this country represented nothing more than a hard core of extremely responsible citizens. Certainly the available information didn’t indicate rampant gun crime amongst legitimate owners. (60)

The Conservative Government’s submission to the inquiry was in much the same vein as Labour’s with the exception that they were prepared to allow owners to continue shooting .22 calibre pistols under rules to have been drafted at a later date.

Lord Cullen’s attention was drawn to the work of Professor Martin Killias of the University of Lausanne which was published in 1993. He sought to use the results from the International Crime (Victimization) Surveys of firearm ownership in eighteen countries in 1989 and 1992; and to compare the results with the levels of firearm-homicide in those countries. (9.14) Despite protests that the work was deeply flawed (61) and that Home Office statistics showed that legal firearms were rarely used in criminal acts Lord Cullen, whilst accepting the information was defective, declared that there was a correlation between gun ownership and armed crime and based his recommendations accordingly. (62)

Ultimately legislation was to be hastily formed based on emotion, cynical electioneering, bigotry, flawed and irrelevant information often accompanied by a large disregard for common sense. Lord Cullen’s findings led him to make a number of suggestions for tightening up firearm procedures including certificate applications, storage, police powers and gun club membership. (711 -7.19 & 9.106 - 9.107) He felt a wholesale ban inappropriate and made recommendations accommodating both shooters and the public. (7.17) These were largely ignored except where they sanctioned more police powers and could be applied to those firearms still in existence after the proposed Bill became law.

 No dissenting opinion was tolerated by the politically correct or the media. Prince Philip, during an interview on BBC radio, bravely voiced the opinion that: "... people and not weapons were the danger... If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat - which he could do very easily - I mean, are you going to ban crickets bats?... I sympathize desperately with the people of Dunblane, but I’m not altogether convinced that it’s the best system to somehow shift the blame onto a very large and peaceable part of the community in trying to make yourself feel better.” (63)

The anti-gun lobby went ballistic. Snowdrop organizer Anne Parson, clearly displeased that a respected authority figure should have the temerity to differ with her cause said: “Prince Philip is effectively endorsing the argument of the shooting community and, as the husband of the monarch, he is taking sides in a very sensitive political debate.” (64)

The Labour MP Tony Banks said: “As ever, the Duke of Edinburgh has got it wrong ... this man is insensitive, selfish and ham-fisted.” (65)

The Scottish National Party leader, Mr. Ales Salmond added: “He should keep out of the guns debate ... the overwhelming majority of public opinion is for a total ban on handguns.” (66)

The tabloids also joined forces condemning the Prince’s comments, forcing an apology from Buckingham Palace but not a retraction. (67) Worryingly, in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, it had become improper to say what one believed. Interestingly media polls conducted shortly after the Prince’s statement (BBC, Radio Five, Sky News Poll and GMTV Breakfast Poll) returned results showing that between 68% and 75% of people surveyed agreed with the Prince. (68) Suggesting that perhaps the media, ‘politically correct’ and politicians were telling the public what they thought they ought to think rather than reflecting what they actually thought.

Equally as refreshing was John Junor’s comment: "... Has it really become a crime to tell the truth? ... Or has the time come to tell Snowdrop Campaign leader Anne Pearston, who is making a career out of Dunblane, and her fellow sob-sisters of both sexes...to go to hell? I would very much like to think so." (69)

A phone-in survey organized by David Dimbleby offered a rare insight to what ordinary people thought when given the chance to be heard. It asked the general public: “Do you think that the legislation (Firearm Amendment Act 1997) would prevent another Dunblane?” Of those that participated:

Unfortunately the survey was carried out too late for politicians to reflect upon genuine public opinion. The Bill had received Royal Assent on the 27th of February 1997 whilst the survey was carried out in June. (70)

In May 1997 the new Labour Government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2 ) Bill 1997. It received Royal Assent on the 27 November 1997. Save for a few concessions to black powder firearms and pistols of historic interest civilian ownership of handguns became prohibited having been placed within s.5 of the Firearms Act 1968. (78)

 

XVII

COMPENSATION

It is almost inconceivable that in a supposedly free country a large section of law-abiding, responsible and guiltless citizens should be held up for persecution by their own Government, politicians, the police, the press and sundry misinformed and misinforming organizations on the strength of one man’s crimes. Yet 70,000 British subjects were denied their right to pursue a legitimate sport, enjoy their property and in many instances their livelihoods. (79)

Unbelievably the Government had originally hoped to strip these people of their possessions whilst paying them only a token amount of £150 per gun (irrespective of its true value) by way of compensation. It wasn’t until the House of Lords backed by dissenting MPs voiced great concern about what amounted to legalized theft that the Government recanted and agreed to pay the market value of handguns and equipment.

Even so the compensation package didn’t cover loss of amenity, loss of business to gun clubs, gunsmiths, loss of business to shooting related clothing and similar. The Conservative Government reasoned that as small-bore shooting was able to continue, albeit much restricted, such businesses would still be able to continue. However, once Labour amended the 1997 Act pistol orientated businesses had nowhere to go but down. Many small businesses and clubs faced bankruptcy with subsequent losses to employees. The Labour Government refused to compensate those people it had destroyed. (80)

In June 1997 pistol owners started to receive bulky A4 envelopes from their local police firearms officers. They contained the necessary information for handing in their firearms and making out claims for compensation. It was to prove a lengthy and complicated process. (81) In the case of the author who handed his property over on the 8th July 1997 compensation has yet to be paid at the time (1st April 1998) of going to print.

As yet the total compensation to be paid by the treasury is unknown because restitution is ongoing. However, it is currently estimated to be in the region of £1.4 Billion in the case of full-bore pistols (82) and £19 million for small-bore pistols. (83) It could be a lot more depending on the quantity of ancillary equipment handed in. In addition the National Pistol Association has lodged two cases of action for compensation with the European Court of Rights. (84)

 

XVIII

CONCLUSION

The sport of modern target pistol shooting has been completely destroyed in this country. Any pistol shooter who wishes to compete in the Olympic games, a discipline included since 1896, will now have to practice abroad should they wish to represent Britain. According to the Government this state of affairs will not preclude the Commonwealth Games from being held in Manchester in 2002 nor from hosting future Olympic games as special arrangements will be made. (85) In other words British citizens cannot be trusted with handguns in their own country although visiting foreigners can. The author suggests British shooters are more likely to emigrate and shoot for their adopted countries than their own.

 

XIX

APPENDICES

 

* All references given as paragraphs in blue e.g. (9.14) pertain to: The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996 Cm. 3386, ISBN 0 10 133862 7.  The Stationary Office.

(1) para. 6 Option C p.5 of the Firearm (Amendment) Act 1997 Compensation Scheme for Large-Calibre Handguns, Ancillary Equipment and Expanding Ammunition Leaflet A published by The Stationery Office Ltd. states: “Any payment will be calculated on the basis of retail price during the period immediately prior to the 16 October 1996 ... minus 25%”

(2) 1.(2) In subsection (1) (which describes weapons which are prohibited by section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968), after paragraph (ab) there shall be inserted the following paragraph - "(aba) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, other than an air weapon, a small-calibre pistol, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus;".

* s.1 of the subsequent Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 brought small-calibre (.22) pistols within those proscribed by s.5 of the Firearms Act 1968 *

15. - (1) The Secretary of State may make such arrangements as he thinks fit to secure the orderly surrender at designated police stations of firearms or ammunition the possession of which will become or has become unlawful by virtue of section 1 or 9 above.

(2) The chief officer of police for any area may designate any police station in his area as being suitable for the receipt of surrendered firearms or ammunition or surrendered firearms or ammunition of any description.

16. - (1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments in respect of firearms and ammunition surrendered at designated police stations in accordance with the arrangements made by him under section 15 above.

(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide only for the making of payments to persons making claims for such payments in respect of firearms or ammunition-

(a) which they had, and were entitled to have in their possession on or immediately before 16th October 1996 by virtue of firearm certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers; or

(b) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled to have in their possession after that date by virtue of such certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers, and their possession of which will become, or has become, unlawful by virtue of section 1(2) or 9 above.

(3) (a) which they had, and were entitled to have in their possession on or immediately before 16th October 1996 by virtue of firearm certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers; or

(b) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled to have in their possession after that date by virtue of such certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers, and their possession of which will become, or has become, unlawful by virtue of section 1(2) or 9 above.

Home Office Minister Alun Michael said:

'Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. We recognize that only the strictest control of firearms will protect the public. This is why the penalties for the illegal possession of a prohibited weapon are severe - the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.' HOME OFFICE NEWS RELEASE. 29 Sept. 1997 0171 273 4610

(3) GREENWOOD, Colin. Firearms control. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. 1972 p.72. * Colin Greenwood is credited as being one of Britain’s leading authorities on firearms. He is the author of numerous books on the subject and currently the editor of Guns Review published by Ravenhill Publishing Co. Ltd. He is a former senior police officer and gave evidence at Lord Cullen’s inquiry.

(4)

 

5) As reported to the author by Witney (Oxfordshire) police firearms officers Pc1108 Laidler and Mr. Philip Gardner.

(6) Supra.

(7) Confirmed by the National Pistol Association, 21 The Letchworth Gate Centre, Protea Way, Pixmore Avenue, Letchworth, Herts, SG6 1JT

(8) GREENWOOD, Colin. Firearms 1972 Control Routledge and Kegan Paul pages 86 & 87

(9) The figures for airguns, illegally held pistols and illegally held shotguns were obtained from:

Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1991. Cm 2134 The Stationary Office. Table 3.3, p.63.

Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office. Table 3.3, p.65.

The figures for legally held firearms were taken from:

Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office. Table 3D, p.62.

(10) House of Lords Hansard Debates for Monday, 30th June 1997 speaking at 4.37 p.m. Lord Gisborough:

"My Lords, the arguments against the concept of the Bill were argued to exhaustion earlier in the year. I believe that everyone knows and agrees that Hamilton only obtained his licence through misrepresentation and inadequate policing; that the Bill goes far further than anything recommended by Lord Cullen; and that the Home Office decided in advance what it wanted. Evidence of the negative correlation of legally held guns to crime was ignored. The Home Office admitted last month that from 1992 to 1994 there were only two cases of homicide with legally held handguns, and both were domestic incidents in which a frozen leg of mutton would have been equally effective.”

(11) The figures for Figure 2 were obtained from:

Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office. Table 3D, p.62.

(12) Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office. Figure 3.2, p.59 & Table 3B, p.61.

Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office. Figure 3.3, p.63.

(14) According to Government figures given as evidence to the Dunblane inquiry page 2 submitted on 30th April 1996 GOV-EV64.HTML there were 142,000 firearm certificates in circulation. Steven Kendrick, editor of cybershooters and a contributor to Lord Cullen's enquiry, estimated that about 57,000 citizens actually owned handguns whilst a further 13,000 or thereabouts had access to them via clubs. Further information can be obtained from: cybershooters@compuserve.com

(15) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 December 1996 (pt 45) Column 1093, 6.45 p.m. “Frank Cook:

I have sought the views of the Greater Manchester police - which have been confirmed by observers in the Metropolitan police - who say that, according to realistic estimates, 2,500 handguns cross the Channel from the continent into Britain every week. I put it to the House that we can have all the compensation we want, we can sell the guns to the Germans, and then Jack the lad can buy them back at a lower price next week. It is easier and cheaper to buy a gun illegally than to procure one properly with a certificate.”

(16)

(17) Maths:

22 homicides carried out from 1992 - 1994

70% of which are due to legally held shotguns;

2 of which are due to legally held pistols.

22 divided by 100 = .22

Thus .22 = 1%

Thus number of shotguns involved: 70% X .22 = 15.4 shotguns

Number of pistols involved expressed as a percentage: 2 divided by .22 = 9.1%

Remainder of arms involved (probably rifles): 22 - 15.4 + 2 = 17.4

Thus 22 - 17.4 = 4.6

Remainder of arms expressed as a percentage: 4.6 divided by .22 = 20.90%

Projected over nine years and including Dunblane:

The 1996 study looked at figures for 1992, 1993 and 1994 inclusive. Thus it was a three year

study. Assuming the findings remain constant.

9 years divided by 3 years = 3

Thus:

Shotgun deaths: 3 X 15.4 = 46.2

Pistol deaths: 3 X 2 + 17 Dunblane victims = 23

Other firearms deaths: = 3 X 4.6 = 13.8

Total deaths = 83

83 divided by 100 = .83

Thus .83 = 1%

Shotgun deaths expressed as a percentage: 46.2 divided by .83 = 55.66%

Pistol deaths expressed as a percentage: 23 divided by .83 = 27.71%

Other firearms deaths expressed as a percentage: 13.8 divided by .83 = 16.63%

(18) The figures for Figure 3 were obtained from:

Total deaths caused by smoking in 1994 = 180,000 according to: Statistical Bulletin 1994/14, Office for National Statistics. December 1994. p.10.

Total of car accident deaths in UK in 1995 = 50,820 according to: Road Accident statistics

in English regions 1995 , Europe, Statistics and Research Directorate TSA5, Zone 1/28 table 6, p.25.

Total of alcohol-related deaths in 1995 = 28,000 according to: 1995 mortality statistics, causes England and Wales, series DH2 no. 22,

Total of deaths directly attributed to alcohol misuse in 1995 = 4243 according to: 1995 mortality statistics , cause, England and Wales, series DH2 no. 22,

Total deaths directly attributed to obesity in England and Wales in 1995 = 163 Courtesy of David Dix Admin. Officer of Office for National Statistics. Office for National Statistics 1997.

Total deaths directly attributable to legally held firearms = an average of 7.33 over three years according to: Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office. Table 3D, p.62.

(19) TENDLER, Stewart et al. Gunman kills himself after slaughtering 14. Times, 20 Aug. 1987 p.18.

(20) HAC Handguns (Cullen) Enquiry: SRA submission 18th April 1988 para.18. p.4 also;

Thames Valley Police conducted two internal inquiries but kept them secret. It is not inconceivable that in issuing Ryan with a certificate that they were in breach of the Home Office Guidance procedures. See article by HICKS Peter, Tax Payer and Voter, The Sportsman’s Association of Great Britain. 23 May 1997. p.4. available on http://www.sagbni.org/pages/sagb 1076.html

(21) Proposed by the Labour party in 1988 during the Firearms (Amendment Bill’s committee stage but dismissed as a “bureaucratic burden” by the Conservative Government. ) HAC Handguns (Cullen) Enquiry: SRA submission 18th April 1988 paras. 52 - 53 p.11.

(22) The author has held both a shotgun and firearm certificate since 1984. In all that time the police have visited him only twice. The first instance was when he initially applied for his certificates in order to check he had the necessary approved safety cabinets. The second was in 1995 when applying for a variation to allow him to possess a number of rifles.

(23) He had forgotten to renew his certificate upon its expiry.

(24) Now increased to a maximum of five years imprisonment under s.157. -(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in schedule 8 part III

(25) As per schedule 2 of the Firearms Law Specifications For The Adaptation Of Shot Gun Magazines, HMSO ISBN 0-11-341142-1 which gives explicit instructions pertaining to Home Office approved methods for reducing the capacity of shotgun magazines.

(26) Hamilton wrote prolific letters to parents, politicians and even the Queen protesting that he had been wrongly labelled a pervert. In one he stated he "... couldn’t even walk the streets for fear of embarrassing ridicule.” An illustration of the atmosphere pervading the small town of Dunblane twixt Hamilton and citizens comes from the recollection of Anne Dickson who was on the local council when it banned him from using town facilities for his boys club. He complained to an ombudsman, who reprimanded the council for listening to gossip and overturned the ban. Dickson said: "Mr. Hamilton knew his rights very, very well. He was well-versed in matters of the law.” Dickson went on: “the council kept a close eye on Hamilton but despite years of complaints and suspicions, there was never any evidence to charge him.” see pages 1 & 2 of 24 Hour News of 14th March 1996 http://www.canoe.ca/News Archive/shooting-why.html

(27) Look to footnotes 38, 39 and 59 by way of examples.

(28) If one reads these paragraphs carefully it becomes clear that there was a gap of some three years during which Hamilton was not a member of a legitimate club and consequently fell short of providing the necessary ‘good reason’ for possessing firearms.

(29) The Sportsman’s Association, August 1997. p.7

(30) Ibid.

(31) Revealed by Michael Yardley joint-editor of Shooting Sports Magazine published by Aceville Publications Ltd. and spokesman of SAGBNI; speaking at the Sportsman’s Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland protest rally in Trafalgar Square on 28/9/1997

(32) Allegedly the Gallow Hill Lodge, Glasgow, Scotland. BRUNDLE, David. SAGBNI title . 6 August 1997. http://www.sagbni.org/pages/sagb.html

 McMurdo’s rapid resignation on the 17th October 1996 has led to a number of conspiracy theories broadly similar to the following which can be found on the Cybershooters Web Site John Pate johnny@dvc.org.uk dated Tuesday, 16th September 1997 and entitled: Conspiracy Theory Latest:

"... It has long been a regular source of concern that Thomas Hamilton's involvement with central Scottish Police extended far beyond that of his well publicized altercations with the local firearms department. It is generally known that both Hamilton and McMurdo, the former Chief Constable, were members of the same Masonic Lodge. In addition, McMurdo's former police driver has made a statement to a member of Parliament to the effect that McMurdo visited Hamilton on a private social basis about every two weeks. It has always been a source of wonder as to how Thomas Hamilton was able to keep his firearms certificate in the face of at least eight separate investigations by junior officers who all concluded that he was of unsound character to possess firearms. Surprisingly, someone in authority stonewalled all such efforts to disarm Hamilton. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall. McMurdo was protecting Hamilton. One must wonder what Hamilton was doing for McMurdo in return for all these favours.

According to an English newspaper, during the verbal evidence to the Cullen Enquiry, two junior policemen announced their intention to give evidence against 'an unnamed senior police officer'. The newspaper went on to state that the two junior officers were then forbidden to give such evidence before Lord Cullen, on the orders of their chief constable. Lord Cullen was apparently not amused, but by the terms of the enquiry he could not compel the junior officers to give their evidence.

A number of investigators are determined not to let this matter rest and at least one Labour MP is continuing to gather evidence. The following has been privately told to me by a police officer: After the shootings at the school, the local police immediately raided Thomas Hamilton's home. They found incriminating and extensive files written by Thomas Hamilton with accompanying photographs and video tape evidence. The files showed widespread paedophile activity amongst certain senior police officers and a number of prominent public figures. Dunblane police were in the process of removing those files when a Special Branch team arrived informing the local police that the matter was now one of 'national security', and ordered that all local police officers leave without the files. My police informant said that this matter still rankled with the Dunblane police, and that they were later told to keep quiet or lose their pension. The story has been passed to several investigative journalists, one of which has already independently confirmed some of the details.

I have written to Jack Straw and his minister Alun Michael, indicating that new evidence has surfaced in the matter of Thomas Hamilton and his "friends". Their only response has been a standard brush-off letter from a minion at the Home Office.”

The allegations may or may not be true. The author submits that had McMurdo been formally investigated, rather than simply allowed to resign and slip into quiet retirement, the general public would have been better served. If there is truth in the rumours then the guilty parties should be exposed and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Given that many thousands of shooters were deprived of their sport, thriving businesses became bankrupt and the general public were exposed to danger the authorities, in a democratic country, owe the taxpayer a full and candid account of the matter.

(33) Radio 1 news interview with Home Secretary Jack Straw on 1/7/1997 explaining why no police officer was disciplined after the Hillsborough stadium disaster.

Also see: WAINRIGHT, Martin. et al. Hillsborough quest for truth Guardian 1 July 1997, p.6. regarding senior officers’ immunity from discipline procedures on the grounds of ill-health.

(34) As reported by BORILL, Rachel. Understanding reasons behind MPs’ gun support. Irish Times, 14 Aug 1996, OPINION.

Although the police are ordinarily immune from such actions they are not unheard of as illustrated in:

Swinney and Another v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police Times Law Reports 28th March 1996

where it was held that: “Although the police as a matter of public policy were in general immune from actions for negligence in respect of their activities in the investigation and suppression of crime, that immunity could be displaced by other considerations of public policy for the protection of the public.”

(35) As conveyed by Michael Yardley speaking at the Sportsman’s Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rally in Hyde Park on 28/9/1997

(36) Message from Frank Cook, MP. http://www.sagbni.org/pages/sagb1143.html

(37) Police and Freemasonry - Federation Will Oppose Chiefs' Registration Demand. Police Federation Newsletter 11 November 1996.

(38) Police Federation Urge Total Ban on Handguns. Police Federation Newsletter 25 October 1996.

(39) A prime example being the Sunday Times which mounted something of a crusade against pistols shooters. For example:

Sunday Times, 17 Mar. 1996, COMMENT. p.5. featured a cartoon of a disproportionately huge gun with a toe tag tied to its trigger with the words “The Right To Buy Guns” inscribed upon it. Underneath was the punch-line: “Was it worth it?”

NEIL, Andrew, Quick-fire action needed to disarm the gun lobby. Sunday Times, 24 Mar. 1996, COMMENT p.5. Which likened pistol owners to unpredictable fighting dogs and called for a firearms Act similar to the Dangerous Dog Act 1995. The ill-informed Neil then continued to make sweeping statements regarding shooters without the slightest authority to back them up.

Letters to the Editor. Sunday Times, 24 Mar. 1996, p.8. Printed an emotional letter by Ann Pearston of the Snowdrop Campaign which promoted the banning of handguns. On the same page were four other anti-gun letters which offered not the slightest authority for the claims therein. There were no pro-shooting letters to add balance. In the centre of the page there was a cartoon by Heath featuring the shadow of a large pistol over a street corner called imaginatively: “Shadow of a Gun.”

SHIELDS, Jenny. CRAIG, Olga. Dunblane father campaigns for stricter gun law. Sunday Times, 21 Apr. 1996 p.1. Advertised the Snowdrop petition whilst claiming that fears for personal safety after allegedly receiving hate mail required that the organizers remained anonymous. No evidence was produced to back up this claim and one cannot help but feel that it was a cynical piece of media manipulation to stir up public revulsion towards pistols shooters and thereby boost signatories.

Sunday Times, 23 Aug. 1997, p.23. Featured a cartoon of a large firearm with the words: “For sale to any socially inadequate fanatic.” inscribed on a price tag.

(40) Formed by Jackie Walsh and fronted by Ann Pearston with eight parents with young families. Daily Mail 18 Mar. 1996

(41) As reported by BORILL, Rachel. Understanding reasons behind MPs’ gun support. Irish Times, 14 Aug. 1996, OPINION

(42) As admitted by Dunblane Snowdrop Petition - Press Update 22/04/96 point 10 at p.3 available on: http://info.cf.ac.uk/ccin/nvo/press/dunblane.html

(43) House of Lords Hansard Debates for Monday, 30th June 1997 speaking at 3.12 p.m.

Baroness Blatch: "... there has been a feeling of playing politics and opportunism about the issue, ever since my right honourable friend John Major readily agreed, following an approach by the Labour Party, that Dunblane should be kept out of the party conferences last year, ahead of the report on Dunblane by Lord Cullen. The Leader of the Labour Party, at his conference and in his own speech, pressed for a ban on all handguns. Anne Pearston, one of the organizers of the Snowdrop Campaign, was invited to address the conference in a very high profile way. Jack Straw, the Shadow Home Secretary, repeated yet again the words of his party leader at that conference. To his credit, and entirely characteristically, my right honourable friend John Major did not bring the issue into the Conservative Party Conference and at no time did he make it a party political issue...”

(44) CONTROL OF GUNS: The Labour Party’s Evidence to The Cullen Inquiry, May 1996. The Stationary Office. p.1. para.1.

(45) Ibid. Paras. 1&2

(46) For example the Oxford Mail, 7 April 1997, p.9. reported the conviction of Jeremy Welford for dangerous driving having aimed his van at his ex-girlfriend’s car, forcing her to take evasive action.

Another example being the deaths of Toby Exley and Karen Martin who died when an enraged motorist deliberately rammed their car, sending them through a wooden barrier separating the dual carriageway of the A136 in West London. Police cited the incident as one of Britain’s worst “road rage” cases. Reported by WILLIAMS, David and ROSE, Peter. Double Death By Road Rage. Daily Mail, 16th October 1997, p.1.

Country lane duel. Daily Mail, 30 Jan. 1998, p.31. Describes how a truck driver chased and rammed a woman’s car after she overtook him and made ‘gestures’.

TREVOR, Edward. Heroes rammed in 70 mph terror chase. News of the World 1 Feb. 1998, p.12. Describes how a couple were chased in their car and rammed by three yobs in a stolen Ford Sierra.

(47) According to JOINT, Mathew. the Automobile Association’s Group Public Policy Road Safety Unit Report , March 1995. the Automobile Association. p.1: Out of a survey of 526 motorists 90% had experienced “road rage” and 60% admitted to aggressive driving.

(48) Daily Mail, 19th March 1996

(49) See Sections 26. - 32. of the Firearms Act 1968. HMSO. ISBN 0 10 542768 3

(50) CONTROL OF GUNS: The Labour Party’s Evidence to The Cullen Inquiry, May para. 3 1996. The Stationary Office. p.1. para.1.

(51) Ibid. Paras. 1&2

(52) Handguns have been banned in the Capital since 1976 although owners prior to the legislation's enactment were permitted to retain their weapons in a disassembled state. It is a Federal felony to take a handgun into Washington DC and punishable by a sentence of ten years in prison. The legislation has not worked. In 1993 the homicide rate was 83 per 100,000 people. The preferred weapon of dispatch was the illegally held handgun. Indeed no rifle or shotguns have featured in the criminal statistics since 1982. Chicago has similar legislation regarding firearm ownership and has a similarly high handgun/homicide rate. KENDICK, Steven. cybershooters@compuserve.com

(53) GREENWOOD, Colin. Comparative Statistics. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. 1972.

(54) Ibid. pp. 35-36

(55) CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (comprising The Bill of Rights)

The Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments to the constitution proposed on Sept. 25, 1789 and ratified on Dec. 15, 1791. They were adopted because some states refused to approve the Constitution unless a bill of rights was added. The amendments protect individuals from various unjust acts of government. Initially, the amendments applied only to the federal government. But the 14th Amendment declares that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law." The Supreme Court has interpreted those words to mean that most of the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well.

Amendment 2: Right to Bear Arms

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

An example being a situation that arose during 1966 in Orlando (Florida USA) where, following a major increase in sexual assaults and rapes, the local police began a well-publicized training course instructing 2,500 women in the use of firearms. The following year Orlando’s rape figures fell by 88% (the only large American state to experience a decrease that year) and burglary fell by 25% despite none of the trained women actually firing their weapons. Five years later Orlando’s rape rate was still 13% lower than it had been before the training, whilst the surrounding Metropolitan area had undergone a 308% increase. See KOPEL D.B. “Trust the People”, Cato Institute Policy Analysis 109, Washington, DC, 11th July 1988, p.18.

Another example cites Iselton, California, USA which has a population of 833 and has been virtually crime free since the local authorities authorized 500 concealed firearm permits the previous year. The citizens of Iselton argue that more guns equal less crime. GOODWIN, Christopher. Gun crazy town finds perfect peace. Sunday Times, 17 Mar. 1996, p.21.

(56) MUNDAY, R. A. I. Civilian possession of military firearms. Salisbury Review, March 1988 p.45 - 49.

(57) UK Labour Party Control of Guns Document. supra. p.3. para. 9

(58) Ibid.

(59) The author believes there was and is a gun culture in Britain but it wasn’t to be found in the extremely disciplined and safety conscious club shooter. It can be heard in the lyrics of ‘pop’ music, seen in glossy movies in cinema, video and television, in children’s comics, toys and games and on the cover of magazines. It is most prolific in computer games which allow the player to indulge in vivid blood baths on a massive scale. The all pervading theme throughout is that violence, especially when utilizing guns, is cool, fun, sexy, glamorous, exciting, empowering and ... perfectly appropriate! Think of the actors Schwarzenegger, Willis, Stallone, Eastwood and Connery and one immediately conjures up an image of high body counts and snappy one-liners delivered with the casual squeeze of a trigger. The author suggests that club shooters were saddled with this unfortunate image which had been skillfully and cynically cultivated to their detriment by those seeking firearm prohibition.

Ironically Sean Connery, a man synonymous with screen violence as the Walther PPK toting James Bond, agreed to do the voice over for Snowdrop’s anti .22 pistol advert which featured in cinemas. Press Association Newsfile (UK) March 17, 1997, Monday SECTION: HOME NEWS HEADLINE: ANTI-GUN CAMPAIGNERS TARGET CINEMA-GOERS BODY:

“Anti-gun campaigners have today launched a powerful and shocking new cinema advert in a move to bring the issue of gun control to voters. The launch of the 40-second commercial coincides with the expected announcement of the date of the coming General Election. The controversial commercial, which will be shown in up to 1,000 cinemas nation-wide, opens with a man loading the barrel of a .22 calibre handgun. Actor Sean Connery reads the voice-over. He says: "It is said a total ban on handguns, including .22s, would take away innocent pleasure from thousands of people." The man in the film fires a rapid and violent succession of shots, devastating a human-shaped cardboard target. This is followed by a close-up of the smoking gun. Connery is heard to say: "Is that more or less pleasure than watching your child grow up?" The film closes with the words: "Remember Dunblane. Ban all handguns. "

Snowdrop spokesperson Ann Pearston defended the campaign's decision to use Sean Connery, a star accused of glamorizing violence in his films. She said: "We don't regard this as hypocritical. We were delighted that Sean Connery agreed to get involved in the commercial. He is an eminent Scot and widely known film star, his voice is known all over the world. His opinions could hold sway in Hollywood to influence the gun lobby. But, our campaign is about banning all .22 handguns, not about the use of guns in films."

The launch today at the National Film Theatre, South Bank, London, was attended by the parents of two children killed in the tragedy, Les Morton and John Crozier ... Snowdrop campaigners are calling on all voters to consider the banning of handguns as an election issue. Ann Pearston said that the campaign was not backing one political party, but called on individuals to question local candidates for their opinions on the banning of handguns.

Mike Yardley, spokesman for the Sportsman's Association, attacked the launch of the Snowdrop campaign commercial. He said: "The shooting sports have become a pagan sacrifice to the anti-gun movement, our people are feeling bewildered and frustrated. "It's clear that the Snowdrop campaign is not interested in public safety, the issue has become political. I don't know of one instance when a .22 calibre pistol has been used in a homicide in this country. All a ban would achieve is totally destroy the Olympic and Commonwealth Games sport in this country. Mr. Yardley claimed the advert was deliberately designed to mislead the public. He said: "Although this slick production shows a .22 calibre handgun being fired, when it cuts to the man-shaped target, the bullet holes clearly are being made by a much larger weapon, a 44 magnum or something similar." He said "It misleads the public into thinking that a .22 calibre handgun produces the effects of a .44 magnum or something similar." But Barry Delaney, of London advertising agency Delaney Fletcher Bozell, which produced the commercial free of charge, denied Mr. Yardley's accusation. He said: "No bullets were used at all in the filming. It was felt that using real bullets would be far too dangerous. "Small controlled explosions were used within the target to give the impression of it being hit."

(60) Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office. Table 3D, p.62.

(61) Para. 9.13 of the Cullen inquiry “In Annex G to the Green Book the RSD discussed certain recent research into the relationship between firearm-ownership and firearm-homicide. This material was strongly criticized by a number of commentators, in particular Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. R A I Munday and Mr. Steven W Kendrick.”

(62) Para. 9.16  of the Cullen inquiry “there is no doubt that the work of Professor Killias attracted criticism in some academic quarters. Some said that resulting levels of firearm-ownership in certain countries or the apparent relationship of one country to another lacked credibility. It was maintained there were differences of definition and recording of crime as between one country and another which made comparison unreliable. It was also suggested that the picture could be much affected by the inclusion or exclusion of particular countries. But the aspect of the exercise to which the most trenchant criticisms were directed was the method by which the researchers had sought to find out whether anyone in a household had a firearm. This was done by random survey by telephone call. 47% of those who responded to the call refused to answer the question or terminated the interview. The commentators maintained that this could not give realistic results.”

According to JACKSON, P.H. MUNDAY, R.A.I. et al Was the Dunblane Inquiry Misled?

ftp://ftp.islandnet.com/ForgeConsulting/res/crimstat.zip 9 November 1996: “It was only after the closure of the evidence to the Dunblane inquiry that Lord Cullen received James Hawkins's reductio ad absurdum demonstration of the statistical weakness of this notional "relationship": over the same set of countries, firearms homicide correlates closer with car ownership than it does with firearms ownership. The Home Office, however, had further evidence of the relationship between firearms violence and firearms ownership levels in the UK itself, which it did not submit to Lord Cullen. The Home and Scottish Office's own figures on armed crime and firearms ownership by constabulary area show a negative correlation. In Britain, in areas where legal firearms ownership is higher, armed crime is lower: and this is the case both for total offences and for every individual category of armed crime. Moreover, factoring out the differences between urban and rural areas yields the same result: it is not just the total, but the proportion of crimes committed with firearms that is lower where licensed firearms ownership is higher. It is regrettable that the Home Office should have presented Lord Cullen with a study which (setting aside its specific flaws and weaknesses) suffered from the inherent fragility of any international statistical comparison, whilst failing to present him with the United Kingdom's own data which pointed to diametrically opposite conclusions. The failure to present this evidence to Lord Cullen has fundamentally undermined the firearms aspect of his report, and the validity of the political decisions associated therewith. ”

* Both Messrs. Jackson and Munday gave authoritative evidence to the Cullen Enquiry.

(63) 12 o’clock BBC Radio 1 news 20/12/1996

(64) The Age 20/12/1996 page A10

(65) Ibid.

(66) Ibid.

(67) Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror, Express, Daily Star and News of the World 20/12/1996 and; SHERMAN, Jill and ENGLISH, Shirley. Duke apologises for distress caused by gun comments. Times, 20 December 1996, p.2

(68) Prince Philip Stirs Dunblane Gun Fury httpp://www.alphalink.com.au/~tonka/link 12.html @ p.2.

Also:

SHERMAN, Jill and ENGLISH, Shirley. Duke apologises for distress caused by gun comments. Times, 20 December 1996, p.2.

(69) JUNOR, John. Wasn’t the Duke right on target? Mail on Sunday, 22 December 1996, p.29.

(70) Question Time with David Dimbleby BBC 1 12th June 1997

(71) JOHNSTON, Philip. THE FINDINGS. Telegraph, 17 October 1996, p.4.

(72) Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office. Table 3D, p.62.

(73) Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales. 1995. Cm 3421 The Stationary Office.

Table 3D, p.62.

(74) Contrast Table 3D p.62. Ibid. with:

(75) SHIELDS, Jenny. CRAIG, Olga. Dunblane father campaigns for stricter gun law. Sunday Times, 21 Apr. 1996 p.1. Advertised the Snowdrop petition. It announced that a copy was to being sent to every school within Great Britain. The author submits that a child, without a full grasp of all the issues at stake, is likely to sign anything that an adult in a position of authority, such as a teacher, puts before it and thus the petition was artificially swollen.

(76) BBC Radio 1 12 o’clock news 20/12/1996 & The Age 20/12/1996 page A10

(77) House of Lords Hansard Debates for Monday, 30th June 1997 speaking at 4 p.m. Earl Peel:

"... it largely ignored the recommendations of an extremely distinguished judge. If I were Lord Cullen today I would wonder what on earth did I do wasting my time producing such a report...”

(78) HOME OFFICE Press release 342/97 27 November 1997

(79) Such as Albie Fox who is facing the unhappy prospect of his £160,000 per year business closing without receiving a penny in compensation. His Shropshire based embroidery business is based almost exclusively on supplying track suits, baseball caps, T-shirts and insignia to gun clubs, consequently he doesn’t come within the remit of the Government compensation scheme. Similarly John Slough faces financial ruin with the closure of his Hereford pistol factory in which he invested £1,000,000. The factory is now worthless and he is left facing large outstanding bank loans and virtually penniless. See: Innocent victims of gun law, Sunday Telegraph, 15th July 1997, p.16

(80) "... On the Today programme last week the Home Office Minister, Alun Michael, tried to justify this side-effect of the new law on the grounds that there is no need to compensate a pharmaceutical company if a drug has to be withdrawn. His parallel does not stand up for a moment. If a drug company manufacturers a faulty drug that is its own responsibility, and anyway it is highly unlikely the firm will close.” Ibid.

House of Lords Hansard Debates for Monday, 30th June 1997 speaking at 2.54 p.m. Viscount Caldecote:

“My Lords, will the Government review the compensation provisions