Examination of Witness (Questions 240
- 259)
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER 1999
MR KEVIN
DEGENHARD
Mr Fabricant
240. No one is going to defend the nasty little
squits who aim guns at cats and whatever. I am just wondering,
given that we heard last week that the control of firearms does
not really affect the amount of crimes against people, that a
criminal is going to obtain a firearm one way or another anyway,
whether the nasty little squits who are going to aim a gun at
a cat is going to get one anyway. I am just wondering what you
can achieve by legislation.
(Mr Degenhard) Possibly. I think there is a deterrent
value in that, contrary to popular belief, perhaps a large amount
of those people would comply with the law, but there is no incentive
to do so at the moment. I have read some of the evidence presented
to this Committee from people who favour the use of air guns.
One of the proposed justifications appears to have been that it
disciplines and prepares younger people with a view to using both
rifles and shotguns more responsibly later in life. I am afraid
the RSPCA clientele generally do not know these organisations
exist. They are not the type of people who would go to those organisations.
We are talking back gardens, canal banks and so on. We are not
talking about the disciplined people who those organisations attract.
241. But you are not advocating a ban on air
guns, are you?
(Mr Degenhard) No. We are advocating a higher age
limit. We feel that nowadays 18 is normally regarded as the threshold
of adulthood and perhaps that would be an appropriate level.
242. Would it be enforceable for the sort of
people you are talking about?
(Mr Degenhard) I think it would be more enforceable
if these people were traceable. There is another problem with
air guns and I do not know if it has been mentioned by previous
witnesses. Something that causes us grave concern is that by virtue
of air guns being very quiet in nature it tends to be an attraction
for people who carry out clandestine activities and that does
not help us either.
243. What sort of clandestine activities are
you talking about?
(Mr Degenhard) We had the situation last month, in
fact, where three boys were walking down a canal bank and one
of them had an air rifle. The other two tried to dissuade him
from shooting the swan. There were people in the vicinity and
the evidence that came out was that those people did not even
hear the swan being shot. Therefore, you are more likely to get
away with it. Having some faith in human nature still, I would
like to think that people over 18 are on the threshold of being
mature and less likely to do that sort of thing.
Mr Cawsey
244. We are talking a lot about the air gun
regime at the moment, as you can probably pick up from our questioning.
The issue is that a lot of witnesses have been saying to us so
far that these incidents are in the minority and the reaction
of the politicians is to come down with some tremendous big sledgehammer
which hits the law abiding and the people who would not do anything
wrong with a weapon, no matter what it is. What I am trying to
get my head round so far as air guns are concerned is to what
extent this abuse of weapons is taking place at the moment. You
said 10,000 cats a year.
(Mr Degenhard) That was in 1996. We have no reason
to assume it is any different now.
245. I wonder what more information you have
as to what other animals are being abused through irresponsible
use of air weapons?
(Mr Degenhard) I have three pages of returns with
me which I have received from my colleagues over the last three
weeks and it includes the shooting of a lot of wild animals. We
are talking about badgers and birds predominantly. I do not know
why swans get such a hard deal. Perhaps it is because they are
just a slow moving, easy target, but this happens to a large number
of swans. We are talking about dozens of cases that are recorded.
The really big issue as I see it is that we are arguing from a
position where there are very few statistics. The very nature
of hitting a fairly large animal with a small pellet is probably
going to cause that animal pain and suffering over a long period
of time and it may die of blood poisoning at a later stage because
once the animal is hit, if it is not killed or so disabled as
not to get away, he gets away and we see it later or perhaps,
as more often is the case, we do not see it later. We have many
many instances of picking up wild birds and animals and only subsequently
do we realise that the injury was caused through an air gun pellet
and it festers and creates pustules and the animal becomes very
sick over a long period of time. It is not dramatic. This is where
we are arguing from a position of some weakness in so much as
we instinctively know this happens but we have not all the statistics
to support it.
Chairman
246. In your evidence you argued for certification
for all air weapons. How would you deal with existing air weapons?
(Mr Degenhard) I presume that a period of amnesty
would help in the same way as the first Act in 1997 created a
period of amnesty whereby people voluntarily hand weapons in.
I am sure there are weapons locked in garages and sheds at the
moment.
247. The advantage of having such certification
and registration would be what?
(Mr Degenhard) The main advantage is traceability.
Say, for example, we are at 5 Acacia Avenue and there is .22 pellet
fired and the police are aware that the people next door have
such a rifle, then at least it would give us an area to go and
examine.
248. But there are smooth ball weapons, are
there not?
(Mr Degenhard) Yes.
249. They are not all traceable, in other words.
(Mr Degenhard) No. Presumably the weapons could be
traced, but the ballistics on ball weapons is not perfected and
we cannot trace those at the moment.
250. Is it possible to tell how recently an
air rifle has been fired?
(Mr Degenhard) No.
251. You mentioned earlier to one of my colleagues
that you would like to see the age for purchasing air weapons
raised from 17 to 18. Given that that is 12 months, what is the
argument for that?
(Mr Degenhard) It is not just purchasing, we would
like there to be a control introduced so that people less than
the age of 18 should not be using these weapons.
252. I am trying to get at the difference between
17 and 18.
(Mr Degenhard) It is across the board. It is one year
in the right direction. We did not think we could justify 19.
253. So if they are older they would be more
responsible?
(Mr Degenhard) I think so. It brings that legislation
in line with others, the age to vote and so on.
Mr Fabricant
254. You mentioned the numbers of people who
attack swans. Is there any information about the age of them?
(Mr Degenhard) This is a group and a dynamic check
showed that we are talking about people between the ages of 11
and 16. There were some older people doing this as well, people
who are protecting pigeon lofts and Koi carp and such other hobbies
in their back gardens.
Chairman
255. You go on to introduce this concept of
before a certificate could be gained you would have to prove the
need for having the weapon. How would you do that? You would not
go and say "I need a weapon to shoot the cat next door,"
would you?
(Mr Degenhard) I would hope that if that were the
need then it would not be permitted in the same way as section
1 firearms are licensed, i.e. you have to show a need. A need
could be being a member of an air pistol and air rifle club and
then a restriction would go on the certificate saying you may
use it there and nowhere else.
256. I thought you were saying earlier as far
as the abuse of air weapons is concerned that those who are likely
to do this of whatever age are unlikely to be members of clubs.
(Mr Degenhard) Members of those associations were
suggesting that this is a learning curve towards using shotguns
and rifles. I think a lot of teenagers do enrol in sporting and
shooting clubs, but it evaporates when boys discover girls and
discos and their social life develops and it is left by the wayside.
In that period we are talking about the younger people maybe at
clubs.
257. You go on to raise the issue of competency
and you say that you do not believe anyone should have charge
of a weapon unless their competence can be proved. To whom would
they prove it?
(Mr Degenhard) I go on later to suggest that it has
to be a competent assessor and therefore we suggest making it
compulsory that you are a member of a club if you have an air
pistol or air rifle and therefore a suitable person at that club
assesses the person's competence using club weapons before they
get their own.
258. Let me just be clear on this. You would
make it mandatory for those getting certificates for air weapons
to be members of clubs?
(Mr Degenhard) Yes.
259. And the competence is in what? It was a
large number of disciplines. I think it was Mr Hoare who mentioned
36 competencies within his association.
(Mr Degenhard) This is rifle shooting and shotgun
shooting, I presume. There ought to be an ethos which is taught
with the weapon. People who pursue martial arts, for example,
who go to responsible organisations to learn those activities
are taught the ethos that goes with it. They are not just taught
accuracy and how the gun works. There is a large amount of responsibility
which ought to be taught to those people as well and there would
be a knowledge base part of the competence and a practical part
of the competence.
| 
