The home secretary today said the Government would "consider all the options" on gun laws, as the prime minister cautioned against a "knee-jerk reaction".
The home secretary said the Government would “consider all the options” on gun laws in an emergency statement before the Commons this afternoon, as the prime minister cautioned against a “knee-jerk reaction” on gun ownership laws following the murder of 12 people in Cumbria yesterday. The comments came as police confirmed the weapons used by Derrick Bird were legally held firearms – he had held a licence for 15 years.
Though there was agreement from Alan Johnson, the shadow home secretary, that there should be no rush to change firearms laws but they should be reviewed, there were growing calls today for tighter gun control laws in Britain. Peter Squires, professor of criminology at the University of Brighton, wrote in today’s Guardian that “if gun owners weren’t able to store ammunition at home mass shootings would be less likely”.
Professor Squires explained:
“If firearm owners were not permitted to store guns and ammunition at home, the incident could not have happened… the risks are out there – if gun owners are to keep their weapons at home, as they want to, then they should not be allowed to keep ammunition at home as well.
“We can’t look into a crystal ball to say who may or may not be about to go off the rails/encounter depression/be consumed by murderous rage – but we ought not let them have the means to perpetrate a mass shooting outrage if and when they do. Keeping guns separate from ammunition would make such incidents preventable – and our communities safer places.“
International evidence shows that there is a correlation between the percentage of households with firearms and the rate of intentional firearms deaths per 100,000 of population, as the graph below illustrates:
There have, however, been some calls for gun licensing laws not to be tightened, but repealed – citing Israel and the United States as examples Britain should follow. Dr Sean Gabb, director of the Libertarian Alliance, said:
“The Libertarian Alliance notes that these shootings would have been extremely difficult in a country where the people were allowed to arm themselves. In the United States, at least one campus shooting was brought to a premature end by armed civilians. The same is true in Israel, where many members of the public go about armed…
“All the Firearms Acts from 1920 onwards should be repealed. The largely ineffective laws of 1870 and 1902 should also be repealed. It should once again be possible for adults to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford.”
34 Responses to “Calls for tighter gun control in wake of tragedy”
Anon E Mouse
mike – I didn’t vote Tory and if they lost then Labour REALLY lost.
There is overwhelming public support for bringing back capital punishment (that’s hanging mike) but that won’t happen.
I want to rid this country of the control freak laws and tax credits that make people dependant on the state and as for fox hunting I was a sab at sixth form college (the Quorn Hunt) when you were probably still in nappies (diapers mike).
Let’s try again.(I assume you’re not a Labour MP and therefore may answer the question)
“mike – You are seriously comparing the Countryside Alliance to the NRA?
Do you know anything about either organisation?”
Well?
Politics Summary: Friday, June 4th | Left Foot Forward
[…] relatives, neighbours and workmates whether people are fit to hold a gun licence”. Yesterday Left Foot Forward looked at the international evidence on gun ownership, which showed a correlation between the […]
mike
You tell me the difference between the NRA and Countryside Alliance
both funded by big right wing business and the wealthy land lords
I see no difference
All I see as someone living in arural community is a Countryside Alliance looking after the Landords and the joys of the rich
Of course we need guns to control pests and I am not even fussed about fox hunting
but what seriously have the Countryside Alliance done about poverty, housing or transport in rural Britain
or redistrabution of Land ( as per Adam Smith)
The Countryside Allince is like the Tory party run by the rich for the rich
Rural Revolt
Anon E Mouse
mike – I don’t need to tell you the difference – you made the silly comparison; not me.
“What have the Countryside Alliance done about poverty, housing or transport in rural Britain?”
Nothing I would presume mike – why would they? They’re not in government. That’s not their job.
I personally hate guns and animal cruelty and as for Adam Smith well it wasn’t his land he advocated giving away.
Finally on the NRA they are a bunch of right wing nutters – hey maybe they should move to Britain and join the Labour Party – Cameron is WAY more left wing than the last government….
Stephen
what the laws to let rapists go un named
Untrue. Laws to ensure that those ACCUSED of rape should be unnamed. If convicted, they will be named. I cannot see any principled objection to this proposal unless you are so prejudiced as to believe that everyone accused of rape is guilty.
DNA of rapists scrapped
Again, completely untrue. The DNA of a convicted rapist will remain on the DNA database for life. No one objects to that. What I object to is retaining the DNA of the innocent for life. I was asked to volunteer my DNA once. Since I would have been treated in exactly the same way as a convicted rapist, I refused. If you think there are votes in criminalising the innocent, you are dead wrong.