Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 219)
THURSDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2002
MR W G DOE
AND MR
DOUGIE GLAISTER
200. Yes, but you are not answering my question.
Is it satisfactory that nobody cares whether I can handle it safely
or not? They care about what I want to use it for, they care that
I have got adequate land and places to use it, places which are
safe to shoot it, but nobody asks me whether I am competent to
handle a firearm. Is that satisfactory? That is all I am asking.
(Mr Doe) Put like that, I suppose the answer is no.
Mr McCabe
201. Just a very quick point in response to
that last answer you gave. Are you saying that you do not know
what competent means in this situation or are you arguing with
someone else's efforts to define competence?
(Mr Doe) I would like to know what is meant by "competent".
Mr McCabe: Would it be fair to put it to you,
Mr Doe, that if you do not know what competence means you are
not competent to comment on whether it is relevant or not?
Chairman: I do not think that is fair. I think
he is talking about the technicalities.
202. In fairness, Chairman, I did ask Mr Doe
whether he was saying that he does not know what competence means
or whether he was arguing with somebody else's efforts to define
it. I think it is a reasonable question. Competence has a meaning
in this situation.
(Mr Doe) My point is what is defined by the word "competent".
If you are referring to the proper safe handling of a firearm,
a person should be competent in that respect.
203. Yes.
(Mr Doe) But, from my point of view, from a target
shooting point of view, competent also means the ability to place
a projectile within a certain small area. In that respect competent
has got nothing to do with public safety.
204. I think it says here "competence in
handling a firearm". I wonder if I can put one point to you
to help you. There have been hundreds of hours of work completed
in this country in defining competency in relation to the national
vocational qualification structure across a whole range of fields.
Do you think it would be helpful if that approach were applied
to this situation?
(Mr Doe) I see no reason why not.
Mr Clarke
205. I think we have ascertained that there
are situations, and there could be situations, where somebody
has a licence and is considered competent but would not know how
to use that weapon correctly. Is that acceptable?
(Mr Glaister) Doug Glaister from the National Rifle
Association. Having seen the document that Geoff has referred
to, looking down this, certainly the stuff on the first page I
would regard as basic firearms etiquette which I would hope was
passed down from father to son, if you like: do not point a gun
at anyone; keep your finger away from the trigger, etc. That has
to be learned from somewhere.
206. This is my very point. We have taken evidence
from a number of associations which have talked about the use
of firearms by children in gardens for shooting practice. Are
you actually saying, and I want us to be clear about this, that
under the present legislation it is possible to obtain a firearms
certificate without any competence in its use and to train a child
in the use of that firearm without competence? Is that what you
are saying? I am not saying that is the ideal, I am just asking
if that scenario is possible.
(Mr Glaister) If we take that down to the nth degree
that is possible, yes, there is no doubt about that. It must be
a very, very isolated case. It would be a very, very poor firearms
inquiry officer at the interview for the certificate who did not
turf out the fact that "hang on, there is somebody here who
knows absolutely nothing about firearms at all". He could
give his good reason, etc., but having been in that situation
I can assure you that these are the sorts of things that are asked.
If there is any suspicion at all that the man is incompetent,
if that is the correct terminology, then he should not get the
certificate to start with. Having said that, I must agree with
you, get the wrong person in the wrong circumstances and it is
possible that it could happen.
207. If it could happen then do you believe
that we should legislate to ensure that it could not?
(Mr Glaister) Do we need legislation? Again, we go
to the man who is on his own on his own farm, if you like, who
wants a .22 rifle to shoot rabbits. The more I think about it
the more it could happen. The gun trade mentioned dealers, should
a dealer be the person to be teaching competence? Surely he is
one who could question it as well.
208. I do apologise for labouring the point
but it is my belief that there are many thousands of people in
this country who hold firearms certificates who use their firearms
very rarely. They may have them for a variety of purposes that
are no longer relevant or their interest in the sport has waned
or the original use and intent is no longer applicable. In those
circumstances if their son or daughter says to their mother or
father "I want to know what this gun is about" and they
take them into the garden to show them, that is a huge risk, is
it not? You have got somebody who uses a firearm rarely, who holds
a certificate, who is then charged with supervising a child in
the use of the weapon that they are at best unfamiliar with in
recent times.
(Mr Glaister) If they have had the certificate for
some time and they have used the firearm in the past—
209. So if somebody passes their driving test
at 17 and does not drive until they are 60 and then buys a high
powered motorcar, they would be quite fine and competent to drive?
(Mr Glaister) They would still need to know that they
drive on the left-hand side of the road and they stop where there
is a halt sign, which is the sort of stuff that we are talking
about here by way of competence: do not point a gun at someone
and unload it when you are not using it and keep it safe.
Mr Clarke: I think I have pressed the point.
Mr Beggs
210. Again, to come back to the Chief Constable's
discretion. The draft Order gives the Chief Constable continuing
discretion to refuse an application for a firearms certificate,
even if the applicant passes the tests of fitness. Do you think
the grant of a firearms certificate should be automatic if the
appropriate tests are met?
(Mr Glaister) I think the short answer to that is
if he has gone through the whole hoop of the questions and the
good reason and the security and everything else then we are in
the same situation as we are with a section 2 firearm over here.
The answer is yes, if he has gone through everything.
211. Might there be any disbenefit if the Chief
Constable's residual discretion were to be removed, particularly
in the Northern Ireland situation?
(Mr Glaister) Surely if there is any sort of doubt
at all anywhere along the line that this is not a suitable or
fit person, for whatever reason, then more and more enquiries
will be made into it and the certificate certainly would not or
should not be granted until everyone is perfectly happy that this
is a suitable and fit person to have a firearm. After that, if
he has passed the test, medical examination or whatever you will,
I think the Chief Constable is duty bound to issue the certificate.
Reverend Smyth
212. Taking you away from shotguns to air weapons.
There have been disputes as to whether there should be further
regulation or deregulation. I wonder what your position is? Do
you think that it would add to safety or minimise safety factors
if there were to be further deregulation of air weapons in Northern
Ireland?
(Mr Doe) I think, again as the Gun Traders' Association
have said, we need to recognise what is an airgun. We have heard
the discussion this morning that an article of less than one joule
is not a firearm under the Act, therefore we see no reason why
it should be caught by the Act if it does not comply with the
Act. On firearms, air rifles, air pistols, that are above one
joule, we would certainly like to see the UK mainland legislation—if
I can convert to an imperial measure—of 6 ft/lbs and 12
ft/lbs. I say that because that is how the Act is written and
I understand it better.
213. I will not hold that against you.
(Mr Doe) Thank you. 6 ft/lbs for pistols and 12 ft/lbs
for air rifles. We do not see why that should not be implemented
for Northern Ireland.
214. Welcoming the concept, you think it should
be introduced in Northern Ireland, would you also recognise there
are those who believe that the greater deregulation that has been
going on in Great Britain has added to the misuse of air weapons,
even when we are speaking of the size that you are speaking of?
(Mr Doe) I would say that I am not aware of any deregulation
of airguns in the recent past. Maybe I have missed something.
(Mr Glaister) The only thing I can think of there
is removed from the section 1 certificate is the CO2 powered airgun
as opposed to the pure air powered airgun. Surely if we are talking
about vandalism with airguns and the misuse there, the NSRA look
after the formal side, the target side, which is very, very well
held. On the other side of it there are sufficient laws, if correctly
enforced and sufficiently enforced, to deal with the subject of
a vandal with an airgun under the Criminal Damage Act and various
other Acts without going any further into legislating against
a particular type of firearm.
215. One recognises that there has been a fair
amount of incidents of vandalism, although most of them might
be against be property. In your view what are the main factors
leading to the abuse of air weapons?
(Mr Doe) I think before answering that we need to
look at the statistics and the detail behind the statistics. For
many years criminal damage was recorded if the value was greater
than £20. That value never increased with inflation, so over
many decades the £19 broken window of 1980 cost a lot more
to repair in 1995, 1996 or 1997. In 1998 the limit was removed
so any damage was recorded. I would suggest that much of the apparent
increase in the damage in the statistical analysis was because
of those two reasons. If you look at injury which is recognised
to be hurtful then the current statistics—I use the word
"current" in relation to 2000 because there are no statistics
available after that—show that injury, serious and less
serious injury, to persons with an airgun is currently running
at less than the 1980 levels. What other area of crime has reduced
in 20 years? Going on specifically to your question, I think—
Chairman
216. Excuse me, crime and accidents are not
the same thing. Are you saying the criminal use of airguns?
(Mr Doe) In an injury sense it is criminal recording.
217. Not accident?
(Mr Doe) Not accident.
218. Okay.
(Mr Doe) Which was the point of your question, was
it not?
Reverend Smyth
219. Yes.
(Mr Doe) I am not convinced from statistics that there
is an increased misuse. I agree that there is a lot more press
coverage but I am not convinced that the statistics support that.
| 
