Gun laws come under scrutiny in wake of Cumbrian tragedy

Published on Saturday 5 June 2010 20:32

BRITAIN is said to have the toughest gun laws in the world, yet they did not prevent the shocking events of last week that saw Derrick Bird massacre 12 people in an appalling attack that brought back memories of Hungerford and Dunblane.

The clamour for a tightening of our gun laws inevitably grew in the aftermath of the Cumbrian killing spree. But would that stop such tragedies happening again?

Or are the rampages embarked on by Michael Ryan (Hungerford), Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) and now Bird (Whitehaven), more to do with an uncontrollable psychopathic urge?

The Prime Minister appeared to back the latter theory when questioned about gun laws that have already been through the wringer in the aftermath of Hungerford and Dunblane.

"You can't legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone's head and for this dreadful sort of action to take place," David Cameron said. But his wariness about "knee-jerk" reactions does not mean that Britain's gun laws will not be exposed to scrutiny after Bird's acts of murder.

Alarmingly for Cumbria Police, there is a strong case to suggest that Bird, a licensed gun owner for 20 years, should not have been allowed to own weapons in the first place. He had held a shotgun licence since 1995 and a firearms licence (for a .22 rifle) since 2007, police confirmed his licences covered the shotgun and the rifle used to slaughter 12 innocent people.

But a conviction in 1990 – for stealing building materials from the Sellafield Nuclear plant where he worked from 1985-90 – did not prevent Bird from holding his weapons legally.

Home Office policy dictates that an applicant for a firearms certificate should normally be interviewed, visited at home and a check should be made on where a weapon is to be stored. Firearms Form 101 requires applicants to declare criminal convictions.

Many in the police believe anyone with a record ought not to be given a firearms certificate. Had Cumbria Police taken that view, then Bird would not have been the legal holder of weapons. However, he was able to keep the weapons because our gun laws give chief constables the discretion to issue licences. Because Bird had not served a jail sentence for the theft, he was not automatically barred from holding weapons. According to Home Office guidance, Bird's conviction for theft would only have to be "considered".

The Criminal Justice Act sets out restrictions on the possession of firearms, stating that those jailed for three years or more are never allowed to possess them, and those sentenced to between three months and three years must not possess firearms until five years after their release. To get a firearms or shotgun licence, the person has to be interviewed by the police or firearms licensing authority, and the process takes about eight weeks.

The applicant must detail any criminal convictions, provide reports from their doctor and state why they want a gun. The police must be satisfied the applicant will not present a risk to the public and that they have a legitimate reason for holding a weapon. If the certificate is granted, the police will repeat their checks after five years.

Some, such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, have welcomed Cameron's cautious approach to the issue arguing that guns are still an "essential tool" in the countryside. The BASC talks of the need to balance agricultural pest control, game and target shooting with public safety.

But to critics of the status quo, that is simply not good enough. The Gun Control Network points out there are no mandatory checks for mental illness, alcohol or drug dependency. Gill Marshall- Andrews said: "We should know who around us has guns so we can judge whether they are suitable people to hold such deadly weapons.

"The gun licensing system … on its own is clearly insufficient because it doesn't foresee that previously law- abiding gun owners can become depressed, isolated, delusional, angry, suffering from relationship difficulties or just unhappy.

"If more people had known Derrick Bird had guns, someone might have alerted the police and the killings might never have happened."