APPENDIX 46
Memorandum by Dechmont Airgun Club
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION AFFECTING LOW POWERED
AIRGUNS, SHOTGUNS AND OTHER FIREAMS
LETTER TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
Enclosed herewith is a statement regarding the
above subject prepared on behalf of the management Committee of
Dechmont Airgun Club together with a selection of newspaper articles[112]
reporting on the activities of that club. The members and management
of the Club have asked me to request that the Home Affairs Select
Committee take cognisance of the information contained therein
and to recognise that Dechmont is but one of the organisations
representing the large majority of the estimated 7 million airgun
users in the United Kingdom.
The strong feeling among Club members is that
while they would, of course, comply with any new legislation which
results from your deliberations, the minority who cause all of
the problems of airgun misuse would certainly not. The only result
would be that while legal and responsible airgun shooters would
be penalised, the illegal use of airguns would not be significantly
reduced. Law abiding airgun shooters are not the problem and legislation
aimed at them would surely miss the target. (If I may use a shooting
metaphor.)
The current laws as laid out in the excellent
Home Office document "Gun Sense is Good Sense" are sufficiently
severe to deter such criminal misuse if they were only to be applied
by the judicial system. Police officers should seek to charge
offenders under the relevant sections of the law which would lead
to an exemplary sentence and the courts should play their part
by passing sentences commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
Only then will we see a reduction in the activities of those criminally
minded louts who cause all of us such concern.
J Craig
Club Secretary
11 October
DECHMONT AIRGUN CLUB (formerly Spittal Airgun
Club & Spittal and Toryglen Airgunners)
Dechmont Airgun Club has been operating in the
South East District of Glasgow for about 12 years. Situated in
a large area of multiple deprivation encompassing Castlemilk and
Toryglen, two of Glasgow's post war housing schemes which have
long been recognised as areas for priority treatment by both Glasgow
City Council and the now defunct Strathclyde Regional Council.
Both of these local authorities had both tacitly and factually
recognised the value of the work being carried out by the club
by awarding a number of small local grants to the club to allow
the purchase of equipment and the training of local youths in
the disciplines of target air rifle shooting.
The club was extremely successful in its operations
and has trained two Scottish champions in the recoiling rifle
discipline and one Junior Scottish Masters champion in field target
shooting.
Well rooted in the community, the club actively
participated in the life of the centre in which it was based (The
Geoff Shaw Community Education Centre), raised funds for local
charities and generated a considerable amount of favourable publicity
for the Centre. During the period of the club's tenure at the
Geoff Shaw Centre, the incidence of misuse of airguns in the local
area was so low that, according to local crime prevention panels,
it did not warrant a separate section in police statistics but
was included in the general minor nuisance category.
A selection of some of the newspaper reports
concerning the club is appended[113]
for your information and in support of this plea for fair treatment
by the Committee.
All prospective members of the club were required
to serve a probationary period, to pass a written and oral test
on airgun law and safety and to demonstrate their proficiency
in safe airgun handling before being accepted as a member. Junior
members had first to secure the prior written consent of their
parent or guardian before being given any training in marksmanship
or airgun handling and all in all the senior club members felt
that they were not only providing sporting opportunities for the
community in general but that they were contributing to instilling
a disciplined attitude among its members.
All of this was lost in the aftermath of the
tragedy at Dunblane when Glasgow City Council changed its policy
and the club was prohibited from using any of the local authority's
premises. Despite a 10 year record of safety (the club was the
only user group of the centre never to have had an accident in
the Accident Book) and of sporting achievement the club was forced
to close down its activities and concentrate instead of providing
sport shooting for its senior members in the new discipline of
field target shooting. The loss of its base in the community led
over time to a significant decrease in club membership and an
increase in the incidence of airgun misuse due to lack of proper
training and shooting facilities for local young people.
The general feeling among club members and indeed
other airgun shooters is that the present law which allows for
sentences up to and including life imprisonment for use of an
airgun to resist arrest or to endanger life or property and up
to and including 14 years imprisonment for lesser offences (Gun
Sense is Good Sense Leaflet, HMSO) is more than sufficient to
act as a proper deterrent if the courts could be persuaded to
actually award such sentences. Any further legal restrictions
would of course be obeyed by the law abiding majority of the estimated
seven million airgun users but ignored by the mindless minority
of thugs who cause the problem in the first place. So in five
years or so when such restrictions were found to be ineffective
and confiscation was proposed, only those who had registered their
airguns would be so affected and the troublemakers would be left
with their airguns to continue their mayhem. Much time and effort,
energy and, no doubt, public money would have then been wasted
by concentrating on penalising the law abiding majority and letting
the criminals once again go free.
I dare say that I have wasted my time and yours
by submitting this statement but I still retain some measure of
belief in the idea that it is the duty of any democratic government
to protect the rights of the minority when such rights do not
seriously infringe on the prerogatives of the majority and it
is my contention that this is precisely such a case.
112 Not printed. Back
113
Not printed. Back
|