Written evidence submitted by Greensleeves
Shooting Club
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper makes the following points:
Shooting sports, in their various forms, make an
important contribution to national life. Participation in shooting
sports is widespread and involves people from all backgrounds
and ages. Shooting sports are recognised as a legitimate activity
and do not represent an inherent threat to public safety. Further
restrictions on the sport are unjustified.
The existing laws governing legal firearms ownership
are some of the tightest in the world. All the evidence shows
that is no direct correlation between the overall levels of legal
firearms ownership and criminal use of firearms.
Existing legislation is adequate to ensure public
safety (as far as it is possible to do so) provided it is implemented
correctly by Chief Police Officers. The risk of variations in
standards across the multiple Constabularies in the United Kingdom
is the current system's greatest weakness—as was shown by
Lord Cullen's inquiry into Dunblane. The establishment of a National
Licensing Authority could address this issue—one of several
suggestions made by the shooting community to improve the operation
of the licensing system.
The Section 2 status of shotguns should not be changed
as there are adequate safeguards in the existing legislation.
A move to Section 1 listing would be a disproportionate measure,
with a significant adverse impact on shotgun shooting sports with
no resulting public benefit.
The current law regarding young persons and firearms
ensures that activities are properly conducted and safe. There
are clear benefits, not the least in terms of developing self-discipline
and responsibility in allowing young people to participate in
shooting sports.
Airgun ownership and use is already controlled and
subject to over 30 potential offences. Enforcement of existing
law, particularly against anti-social behaviour, delivers greater
benefit than additional legislation—as demonstrated by the
falling rates of airgun crime.
The shooting community is committed to minimising
any risks associated with legal firearms ownership. Active engagement
by the authorities with shooting organisations is the best way
to maintain the correct balance between legitimate sporting interests
and public safety.
BACKGROUND
1. This evidence is submitted on behalf of the Greensleeves
Shooting Club by its Chairman, George R N Ellis MBE. The Club
has over 80 members and provides a number of target shooting facilities
in the Cheltenham area. The Club runs two very successful Small
Bore (.22" rifle) teams and operates a full bore range that
is also made available for use by other clubs, the Gloucestershire
Constabulary Tactical Firearms Unit, Cheltenham College and for
Deer Stalker training. Greensleves members shoot the full range
of target disciplines (including muzzle-loading) and many participate
in National-level competitions at the National Shooting Centre
at Bisley, Surrey. The Club draws its membership from people of
all ages, backgrounds and both sexes. The ethos of the Club is
to promote the safe and responsible use of firearms for sporting
purposes in the spirit of friendly competition.
2. In terms of my personal experience of shooting,
I have been a keen shot since the age of 14, having been taught
to shoot by my father. I have held a Shotgun Certificate continuously
for 37 years (since the age of 15) and a Firearms Certificate
for 15 years. I have participated in nearly all forms of shooting
sports in the course of my career—from Full Bore Target
Rifle Shooting when a student at Cambridge to wildfowling on the
Wash. I now participate in rifle, game and clay shooting. For
me all forms of shooting sports share a sense of personal challenge
and achievement but also social engagement and friendships.
GENERAL
3. Shooting sports encompass a diverse range of disciplines
and activities. On the one hand shooting forms part of the fabric
of rural life and is a major contributor to the economic and environmental
well-being of the countryside. On the other hand, target shooting
is an internationally recognised sport (including at Olympic and
Commonwealth level) at which the United Kingdom excels.[4]
Participants in shooting sports come from all parts of society,
all ages, both sexes, able and disabled. It often forms a life-long
interest for individuals as age is not a barrier to performing
competently and disciplines can be adapted to any physical limitation
on the part of the participant. Shooting, in all its disciplines,
is a mass participation sport, generating a significant numbers
of jobs, economic and environmental benefits.[5]
Shooting is also one of the safest of sports in the United Kingdom.
According to United Nations statistics, the UK figure for accidental
firearms fatalities is one of the lowest at 0.02 per 100,000,
a figure which includes military and police fatalities.
4. Sadly, there is widespread ignorance of the nature
of shooting sports and their place in society amongst the general
public, the media and some politicians. The portrayal of firearms
in films and on television is overwhelmingly in the context of
violent dramatic entertainment or criminal use, creating an impression
of sinister motivations for all firearms ownership. There is a
lack of knowledge of the licensing system and the full extent
of the existing controls on legal firearms ownership. Those groups
and individuals who oppose all private ownership of firearms as
a matter of social ideology exploit this ignorance by attributing
false characteristics to inanimate objects ("guns")
and suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with any
sport that involves the use of firearms. Such claims extend to
the use of extreme and offensive language about those who participate
in shooting sports.[6]
5. It is essential therefore that any review of firearms
controls is fact based and balanced. The current Government has
rightly sought to avoid repeating previous mistakes of knee-jerk
reactions following specific events. Given that the police investigation
into the recent terrible event in Cumbria has not yet been made
public and the facts surrounding the implementation existing legislation
are currently not available, any evidence submitted suggesting
changes on the basis of recent events will be speculative. The
evidence presented here avoids such speculation.
The extent to which legally-held guns are used
in criminal activity and the relationship between gun control
and gun crime, including the impact of the Firearms (Amendment)
Acts 1997
6. As criminals do not apply for Firearms and Shotgun
Certificates, it is assumed that the "the extent to which
legally-held guns are used in criminal activity" is taken
to mean "how many crimes are committed by previously law-abiding
Firearm and Shotgun Certificate holders?". Unsurprisingly,
as a "vetted" community, all available evidence suggests
that the shooting community is overwhelmingly law-abiding, with
the misuse of firearms being very rare. Sadly, there have been
cases of so-called "spree killings" in the UK but the
individuals involved have been unrepresentative of the shooting
community. In the case of Thomas Hamilton and the terrible murders
at Dunblane—the only event for which there has been a public
inquiry—Lord Cullen identified fundamental failings in the
licensing process applied by Central Scotland Police. Specifically,
Hamilton was "known to the Police" and had been identified
as an unsuitable person to hold a Firearms Certificate long before
the murders, yet the responsible Deputy Chief Constable refused
to take any action.[7]
Hamilton also made a number of false statements to retain his
Firearm Certificate and acquire additional firearms. These in
themselves constituted criminal offences for which he could have
been prosecuted had the certificate been revoked and further investigation
taken place. There is little doubt that had the existing controls
been correctly applied the murders might well have been prevented—one
of the most shocking facts in a truly horrific event. For this
reason one of the first questions that must be answered in the
recent Cumbria case is "were the existing controls and the
required licensing processes correctly applied?"
7. Looking more widely at the criminal use of firearms,
there are remarkably few, if any, reliable statistics on the sources
of firearms used by criminals in the UK. This is in part because
of the slowness in the development of a national data base and
a traditional lack of consistency in the handling and identification
of recovered firearms across the multiple Constabularies in the
United Kingdom. It seems most likely that criminals source firearms
from a variety of sources. Firstly, from the substantial pool
of unlicensed and illegally held firearms extant in the UK (again
there are no precise figures but estimates have suggested that
the number is potentially at least as large as those held legally).
Secondly by illegal importation (in recent years particularly
from the Balkans and Eastern Europe[8])
and there have been a number of cases of interdiction by HMRC
that suggest that a significant number, particularly handguns,
may escape detection. A third source is firearms stolen from licensed
firearms owners; however most of the types of firearms that can
be lawfully held are unattractive to criminals. For example, rifles
are bulky and hard to conceal and while thefts do happen there
is nothing to suggest that they form a significant element in
the availability of firearms to criminals. The final source, which
has attracted much attention in recent years, is the reactivation
of deactivated firearms or the conversion of replicas, blank firing
or low power pellet guns[9]
to fire live rounds. It has been stated on occasions by the Police
and Home Office that this is now the single most important source
of handguns used in crimes, while this may be a debatable conclusion,
it does suggest that previously legally held firearms are not
a significant source of supply for the criminal market.
8. While there are many apocryphal stories about
the ease with which prohibited firearms (handguns and automatic
weapons) can be obtained illegally in the UK, it is clear that
it is the nature of the underlying crime that dictates the criminal
demand for firearms rather than the supply of firearms itself
creating the underlying crime. This has been vividly demonstrated
by the Police Operation TRIDENT that recognized the inherent susceptibility
of the black community to violence as a result of the level of
involvement in the illegal drugs trade and the growth of competing
gang cultures. Those two factors created the demand for illegal
firearms—self-evidently the availability of illegal firearms
did not create either the drug trade or the gang culture. Another
such example is the rise in the murder rate in Washington DC (a
city that had effectively banned all legal firearms ownership)
in the early 1990s which was directly attributable to the arrival
of crack cocaine and the subsequent competition for control of
the financially lucrative market. Too often, however, the symptoms
of crime (i.e. the rise in the use of firearms) are confused with
the root causes, particularly when subject to inaccurate media
reporting. A sense of perspective can also be lost: Home Office
figures for 2008-09 show that UK firearms crime only accounts
for 0.3% of all crime.
9. On the wider relationship between gun control
and gun crime, one of the least understood facts (because it is
counter-intuitive) is that there is no direct correlation between
the levels of gun control (i.e. the number of legally held firearms)
and the level of criminal activity. This seems to be one of the
hardest points for those opposed to all private firearms ownership
to accept. Yet all the available evidence shows that it is not
the legal availability of firearms that dictates criminal activity
in a country but (as stated above) its underlying culture and
the changing nature of crime. In Switzerland, where there is widespread
legal firearms ownership and shooting is a national sport, the
level of firearms crime is very low and almost insignificant in
comparison to the UK, where there are lower levels of legal firearms
ownership. In the United States where, contrary to popular and
media perceptions, gun control is actively and extensively exercised
at the National, State and City levels, there is also no direct
correlation between levels of legal gun ownership (on a State
by State basis) and criminal use of firearms. In the United Kingdom,
the level of criminal use of firearms was far lower in the 1950s
(when firearms were widely available and prior to the main gun
control legislation applied from 1968 onwards) than it is today.
For example, the Metropolitan Police now deal with as many firearms
incidents in a day as they did in a year in the 1950s. Neither
do variations in gun crime rates over time correlate to variations
in legal ownership levels over the same period. In Scotland in
2005-06, gun crime fell by 6%, 28% lower than nine years previously.
At the same time there has been an increase in privately-owned
firearms, currently at a five-year high in that country. Home
Office figures published in May 2006 for gun crime in England
and Wales show a similar pattern, the year 2004-05 saw gun crime
fall by 8% but the number of privately-owned firearms rose 8%
from the previous year. Finally, in the longer term, gun crime
rose steadily from 1999, to peak in 2003-04. During the same period
the overall number of firearm and shotgun certificates on issue
fell by 8% and 9% respectively.
10. Thus, in spite of the many claims to the contrary,
there is no simple correlation between levels of legal gun ownership
and levels of firearms crime. This is not to say that controls
are not necessary but rather that further restricting legal firearms
ownership has no effect on the levels of criminal use of firearms.
This is vividly illustrated by the "non-impact" of the
1997 Amendment Acts on the criminal use of handguns. These continue
to be the criminal's weapon of choice and are routinely used in
crime to the extent that in 2008-09 handguns were used in 52%
of all non-airgun firearms crime.
11. So if the 1997 Amendment Acts have had no impact
of the criminal use of firearms what difference have they made?
Were they proportionate and were they intended to achieve a defined
and measurable effect? The answers to both these questions are
highly debatable. In many ways all that has been achieved by the
reclassification of handguns as Section 5 firearms[10]
is the banning of an internationally recognised shooting discipline
in the United Kingdom. This has forced top level sportsmen and
women to travel overseas to train and has required the UK Government
to make special arrangements to host both the Olympic and Commonwealth
Games. In terms of effect, the Amendment Acts did not, contrary
to statements made at the time, "remove handguns from the
streets" (i.e. from illegal circulation) since the firearms
in question were legally held and not "on the street".
12. A number of changes were made to Certification
procedures, including the role of referees, verification of Club
membership and regular use of firearms to justify their continued
ownership. These were introduced as an attempt to address the
obvious failings of Central Scotland Police in the Hamilton case.
As such they are rather mechanical and while they give Chief Officers
additional grounds to refuse the renewal of a Certificate, in
practice they have done little to aid the identification of those
genuinely unfitted to hold a Firearms Certificate or who present
a danger to the public. Pre-1997 processes already addressed these
issues, provided they are correctly applied.
Whether or not the current laws governing firearms
licensing are fit for purpose
13. The United Kingdom has some of the tightest laws
in the world governing the legal ownership of firearms. Certificated
ownership is generally restricted to sporting and collecting purposes
only, which are recognized as legitimate activities. Those applying
for Certificates have to prove a legitimate use for the firearms
they wish to acquire and their personal suitability to possess
them. The assessment of the individual's suitability is made by
the Police and reassessed when certificates are renewed. Chief
Officers must be satisfied that an individual is not a risk to
others and they currently have sufficient authority to refuse
or revoke certificates, if they choose to exercise it. The focus
on the suitability of the individual is the right approach as
any potential threat comes from the person not the object. Legally
held firearms have to be securely stored and, in the case of Section
1 Firearms, the places where they may be used are defined as a
condition of the issue of a Certificate. Generally (with the exception
of disproportionate aspects of the 1997 Amendments) the current
laws reflect the correct balance between protecting public safety
while recognizing that shooting sport are legitimate activities,
that in themselves represent no threat to the public. Any further
restrictions on the types of firearms that may legally owned are
both unnecessary and would simply be a direct restriction on sporting
activity with no public safety benefits.
14. If there is a weakness in the current system,
it is in the devolution of licensing to individual Chief Police
Officers and the consequent potential for variations in standards
across the 43 Constabularies in England and Wales, together with
those in Scotland. Chief Constables are renowned for jealously
guarding their independence and resisting any move to national
policing but in the case of firearms licensing there is a proven
need for greater central oversight (the critical lesson from Dunblane).
On several occasions, the shooting community has proposed the
establishment of a National Licensing Authority to ensure the
consistent application of licensing procedures and standards.
Such a means to ensure high standards of administration and application
of the law across Constabularies would offer tangible benefits
and underpin confidence in the licensing system. A National Licensing
Authority would also be able to engage with the organisations
that represent the shooting community to better identify areas
where the law might be changed to improve the effectiveness of
the overall licensing system.
15. The current distinction between Section 1 and
Section 2 firearms is entirely fit for purpose and reflects both
the nature of the firearms themselves and the type of sports for
which they are used. It has been suggested that the distinction
needs to be removed and shotguns moved to Section 1 status on
the basis that Shotgun Certificates are too easy to obtain. It
has also been suggested that there is currently no need to demonstrate
a "good reason" to own a shotgun. While it is true that
the onus is on the Chief Officer to prove that an applicant is
unsuitable to hold a Shotgun Certificate, in practice Chief Officers
(certainly it is the case with Gloucestershire Constabulary) satisfy
themselves that the applicant has a legitimate reason for acquiring
or holding a shotgun before granting or renewing a Certificate.
Indeed, Chief Officers must satisfy themselves that the individual
is not a threat to the public. The existing arrangements are proportionate
and ensuring consistency of the application of the existing law,
rather than changing the current classification system is most
likely to deliver improvements. Raising all shotguns to Section
1 (those with a magazine capacity of more than two cartridges
are already classified as Section 1), would also place an unnecessary
additional burden on Police Firearms Licensing Departments, some
of which already struggle to complete renewal processes prior
to the expiry of existing certificates. The impact on shotgun
sports would be huge if the full Section 1 controls were applied.
These could include: unrealistic limitations on where individual
shotguns might be used; the potential need for clay shooting clubs
to be Home Office approved; ending of clay shoot at game fairs
and other events; and a variety of other measures that are detrimental
to shotgun sports. If any changes are required to assist Chief
Officers in administering the control of Section 2 firearms, these
should be made within the wording of the criteria for granting
a Section 2 certificate rather than by abolishing it entirely.
16. Firearms law and the control of firearms have
developed in a piecemeal fashion over the last 100 years, usually
in response to specific events. As a result, the detail can be
complicated and confusing, not least for the Chief Officers who
have to implement it. The shooting community has been proactive
in suggesting improvements to the current situation and has previously
made a case for a new comprehensive act that consolidates all
existing legislation in clear and simple terms. This would also
offer the opportunity for a new firearms classification system
to better reflect the legitimate uses of all types of firearms
(including airguns), their respective licensing requirements and
conditions under a five or six tier system. The detail of such
a proposal was made during a consultation exercise on firearms
controls by the Home Office under the last Government.
17. Some have suggested that the law with regard
to young people and firearms should be changed. However it is
again an area where the current law is precise and the existing
arrangements are proportionate (in particular, in the need for
supervision by a responsible adult). All evidence suggests that
young people who participate in shooting sports gain a sense of
responsibility and respect for the safe use of firearms. Far from
being a risk there are real benefits to be gained from youth participation.
18. One of the most obviously counter-productive
proposals made by gun control advocates is that Certificate holders
should be publicly named and their addresses provided to anyone
who wants the information. This is asserted as a "right"
to know who has legally held firearms. This is claimed as an improvement
in public safety because it would, presumably, allow people to
"watch" firearms owners and report any suspicious activity
or behavior to the Police. This is frankly bizarre as it would
effectively be advertising the location of firearms to terrorists,
criminals or the mentally disturbed. Even though the firearms
are securely stored it would obviously put the Certificate holders
and their families at risk. Ironically, the proposal increases
the risk to public safety rather than lowering it. A similar case
can be made against the proposal to mandate the central storage
of all firearms—where again the risks would simply outweigh
the benefits[11].
Proposals to improve information-sharing between
medics and the police in respect of gun licensing
19. Applicants for the grant or renewal of a Firearms
Certificate already have to state whether or not they suffered
from any form of mental illness and give permission for the Police
to approach their GP for further information. Referees also have
to state whether they are aware of any mental problems suffered
by an applicant. It is entirely appropriate that in these circumstances
that the Police should consult the individual's doctor. It has
been suggested, however, that the medical records of certificate
holders should be flagged and that GPs made responsible for reporting
to the police any issues regarding the individual's mental health.
Attractive though this might sound, it is fraught with difficulties.
Firstly, it assumes that Certificate holders with mental problems
will consult their GP, they may not in any event and the fact
that a consultation might result in the immediate loss of their
Certificate may put off an individual from seeing their doctor.
The security of the records themselves is an issue and unauthorized
access could potentially put the individual or their property
at risk. Finally, GP's themselves may be wary of such as measure
given the potential civil legal liability that might arise from
failing to identify or report a certificate holder with mental
problems who subsequently commits an offence.
20. Thus while information sharing between Police
and the medical profession may be appropriate in granting or renewing
a Certificate (and is already provided for under current arrangements)
any attempt to make GPs responsible for what could be seen as
"continuous monitoring" of the mental health of Certificate
holders presents significant ethical, legal and, above all, practical
issues that makes the delivery of any real benefit highly questionable.
From the information available, it seems highly unlikely that
such a process would have prevented the past "spree"
killings in the United Kingdom nor stop them in the future.
The danger presented by, and legislation regulating,
airguns
21. While there have been several highly publicised
cases of the illegal use of airguns there is no evidence to suggest
that changes in current legislation would of themselves make any
practical difference. While low-power air rifles (below 12 foot
pounds power) are not licensed, higher powered air rifles are
subject to Section 1 controls. Low-powered air guns are, however,
still controlled and are subject to over 30 potential criminal
offences if misused. Thus it is already an offence if a person
under the age of 14 uses an airgun while not under the direct
supervision of an adult aged over 21. It is illegal for someone
under the age of 18 to purchase an airgun or its ammunition. It
is an offence for anyone to fire a pellet beyond the premises
where they have permission to shoot. The issue with airguns is
not the lack of current legislation but the enforcement of existing
legislation and dealing with the wider anti-social behaviour issues
of those who commit the offences. Successful police action and
education of young people has contributed to a decline of 19%
in airgun offences in 2008-09, the level of which was in turn
a 15% reduction over the previous year. There has been a 56% overall
decline in airgun offences since the peak year of 2003-04.
22. In purely practical terms, any move to licence
or prohibit low powered air rifles is unlikely to be unsuccessful.
Estimates suggest that there are upwards of 4 million low powered
airguns in the United Kingdom. Not all of those would be licensed—only
the already law abiding would apply—but it would place a
huge burden on Firearms Licensing Departments. The remainder would
likely form a substantial "black market" and remain
in the hands of irresponsible individuals. The focus of law enforcement
would, as ever, have to remain on the offender not the object.
There are already ample laws to achieve this effect, what has
been lacking on occasion is the will to address the fundamental
issue of anti-social behaviour by young people.
CONCLUSIONS
23. No licensing system can ever be perfect or provide
100% guarantees but the current one can be improved without the
need for draconian legislation. The shooting community supports
any practical and proportionate measures that improve the licensing
system and reduce to the greatest extent possible the risk of
the misuse of legally held firearms. It stands ready to engage
with the authorities to help do this but in too many instances
in recent years the political debate has not been about how to
achieve this aim but rather how to simply further restrict the
legal ownership of firearms (and therefore restrict shooting sports).
At the heart of this issue is a debate about the place of legal
firearms ownership in civil society that has little to do with
effective legislation or public safety. Many of those now advocating
ever more restrictive controls (bans) clearly believe that there
is no place for private firearms ownership in a modern society
because guns themselves are a "root of evil". The evidence
shows that such a puritanical and extreme approach is both unjustified
and entirely out of place in a modern, diverse and tolerant society.
Shooting sports contribute much benefit to society and a balance
must be maintained between effective controls and the protection
of legitimate sporting interests.
26 August 2010
4 For example in the 2006 Commonwealth Games, 23 of
the UK's 116 medals were won in shooting disciplines, second only
to swimming with 24. Back
5
According to a report published by PACEC in 2006, game shooting
and deer stalking is worth £1.6 billion to the United Kingdom,
supporting the equivalent of 70,000 jobs. Back
6
For example, Gill Marshall-Andrews, the self-appointed head of
the Gun Control Network is reported to have recently compared
Firearm and Shotgun Certificate holders with paedophiles. "Shooting
Times" Magazine August 2010. Back
7
Lord Cullen noted no satisfactory explanation was provided for
the DCC's refusal to revoke Hamilton's certificate. The exact
nature of the relationship between the DCC and Hamilton remains
a subject of speculation in Scotland to this day. Back
8
For example, a handgun used to murder a Police Officer in Yorkshire
post- 1997 was part of a batch that had been smuggled out of the
Balkans and supplied to the European criminal market. Back
9
For example, the Baikal CO-2 pistol, this has been illegally imported
from the Baltic States and converted. Back
10
Handguns we not banned as such but legal possession was made subject
to the Home Secretary's approval. The Committee may wish to ascertain
how many handguns are currently held in the UK under Section 5
authority and for what purposes. Back
11
Criminals, terrorists or others would simply need to observe the
places where firearms are stored and rob certificate holders after
they had picked up their firearms. Back
| 
