Read the statement by James Gray, Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire in which he speaks out against a politically motivated response to the Cumbrian Shooting Tragedy. 

Hello

I have received a couple of suggestions that the job of trying to respond to the pressures and attacks on the British shooting community arising from the terrible Cumbria killings last week, is probably best left to the major shooting organisations.

I strongly disagree with this view and would like to explain why. I have been a Member of numerous British shooting organisations over the past 40 years or so.  I have retained my membership of some, despite moving to Jersey 33 years ago.  For example, I remain a Life Member of both the UKPSA and NRA.  The NRA website is certainly a useful source for press comments and coverage. Sadly, in the 31 years that I have been a student of the costs and effects of gun control legislation, during which time I have come into contact with a great many of the senior officials in the various British shooting organisations, I have never met one who has given the impression of having studied the subject more than superficially. 

As a somewhat exaggerated and sarcastic generalisation, they have all tended to fall into the category whose views on the subject are broadly along these lines:

"Guns are lethal weapons and the government and police are quite right to have stringent controls over those who may own them.  But the type of sport shooting pursued by me and my Members and friends is safe, decent and honourable and shouldn't be trodden on too hard, as hardly any of us are killers.  But all the gun uses that I and my friends don't personally pursue are very dubious and those who do enjoy them should be treated with grave suspicion and probably banned".

This is precisely the policy that has been substantially pursued by the UK "shooting establishment", hand-in-hand with government, from 1900 to the present day (with some very welcome indications of a wider perspective in the last few years).  That policy has taken British sport shooting, as well as British gun design, manufacture and distribution, a long way down the road to extinction. 

And, in parallel, it has helped take the UK from having the lowest crime rates in the developed world 100 years ago, to having one of the highest today.

The reality is that gun control legislation that is designed primarily to put obstacles in the path of gun-ownership by the general public and, especially, gun-use in self-defence and the defence of others, is seriously anti-social.  It consumes resources, both public and private; damages or destroys sport shooting, as well as trade and technical development; encourages criminals by publicising that not only will their victims almost certainly be unarmed, but that those victims who attempt to use force against their assailants, will likely be prosecuted severely.  Possibly worst of all, it encourages an irrational and perverse belief throughout society that the inanimate device is the problem. 

Every possible method of gun “control” – up to and including total bans – has been tried, usually in several different countries and for long periods – but I have found it impossible to find any persuasive evidence of consequential social benefit anywhere, from any control procedure, whether examined individually or collectively.  In contrast, evidence of perverse consequences, both individual and collective, are legion.  For example, research discloses that the 40+ jurisdictions that have had genocidal events since WW2 in which over 50,000 people have died, had all already introduced strict gun control before the killing started.  Armed victims tend to make the whole process much more messy and difficult.

The UK is a particularly glaring example of the unwillingness of the government, police, media and public to learn lessons from either the UK’s own legislative mistakes, or those of other jurisdictions.  Or absorb the powerful lessons offered by those jurisdictions that have relaxed or even done away with controls.  For over 100 years the UK has continued down the same destructive path, all the while cloaked in righteous indignation, extreme ignorance and even pride in having “one of the world’s toughest gun control regimes”.   

As recent examples, the major UK legislative changes in 1967/8, 1988 and 1997/8 were all extremely expensive, all did huge damage to lawful shooting and all were promptly followed by a severe worsening in violent crime trends.  No doubt the reduction in lawful gun-ownership and sport shooting were well worth the collateral damage.

The steadfast objective of the UK Home Office, ever since the late 19^th century, appears to have been: “to reduce civilian gun ownership to the lowest possible level”.  They are probably very proud of their consistently successful work towards that end.  Perhaps they get large bonuses for it.  The Home Office staff selection procedure is amazingly consistent - it has produced multiple generations of civil servants who are all so intelligent that they know that government knows best.    The toll of avoidable dead and injured victims, raped women and very high burglary rates are probably seen as very small beer in their drive for a Britain in which only criminals and the State have guns.

So … I regard it as essential to attempt to publicise an alternative view, based on a considerable amount of work over many years, in many different countries; and to “say it like it is”, even if that usually feels like swimming against a powerful tide. 

Kind regards

Derek

Derek Bernard

Jersey

From the Director.

I am pleased to say that 2009 was a most successful show season in which we picked up a goodly number of new members and renewed many connections in the shooting world.  In particular we were welcomed by show organizers who were delighted to have us at their shows. Two questions were raised by members we met at these events:

Number one: “Where does the association stand regarding Bisley and the Olympic Games 2012”?  The unequivocal answer to that question is that we stand by our principles without deviation, unlike certain other shooting associations, in that there can be only one place for the 2012 Olympic Shooting events to take place and that place is Bisley. After all, it is the National Shooting Centre. 

The second question that was raised was “Where does your association stand regarding the granting of a special section 5 dispensation  to an elite team of shooters”? The crucial point here is that this is contrary to the Olympic Charter which states: “Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind”.

Mainland U.K. pistol shooters are being discriminated against when an elite group are to be granted special dispensation. It is the intention of this Association to fight with every means at our disposal the 1997 Act that banned the private ownership of pistols.  To us this is a political matter and it can only be changed by political action. Petitions have thus far proven to be ineffectual.

The National Shooting Association fights for all forms and types of shooting.

Join us now!

E-mail to the Jeremy Vine Show, B.B.C. Radio 2, concerning the misuse of air guns - much in the news recently:

Another tragic incident and the inevitable clamour for "tighter airgun control".  Bearing in mind there are numerous firearm laws currently in place, it's clear existing legislation doesn't prevent misuse. We can't legislate against idiots! However, what would prevent misuse and subsequent tragedies is education and responsible adults.
The law dictates the ages at which persons can own, acquire and use all firearms - including air rifles and pistols, which are used safely by many in competitions and pest control. Behind these newsworthy events is usually an irresponsible adult who did not keep young, inquisitive persons separate from what is a firearm under UK law.  So, rather than condemn all those who properly use airguns I hope the person owning the air rifle in this recent incident will be called to account.
 
Check the NSRA,  BASC,  and  ATEO organisations that help educate those who wish to shoot airguns safely.
Cheers!

Rod Newnham

E-mail to Sally Keeble MP on the subject of handgun legislation:-

And the reply to it:

ONE OF OUR MEMBERS WROTE TO THE HOME OFFICE TO ENQUIRE HOW POTENTIAL COMPETITORS FOR TARGET PISTOL SHOOTING WERE SUPPOSED TO PRACTICE FOR 2012 WHEN THE 1997 FIREARMS ACT PROHIBITS THEM FROM PRACTICING IN THIS COUNTRY. TO READ THE HOME OFFICE RESPONSE TO THAT ENQUIRY
letter 1 click here         letter 2 click here

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE RECENT E-MAIL PETITION CONCERNING ARRANGEMENTS FOR TARGET PISTOL SHOOTING IN THE RUN UP TO THE 2012 OLYMPICS TO BE HELD IN LONDON.
click here to read

EVALUATING BRITAIN'S HANDGUN BAN  - by Colin Greenwood. First published in Australian Shooter, June 2008   click here to read
 

Read Richard Munday's letter to the Times in The Times Online:
"In Britain we have come a long way from our forebears who believed that guns were a great deterrence: from the days of the Rev Brontë (father of the sisters), who used to fasten his watch and pocket his pistol every morning; or the Yorkshire hotel guests once encountered by Beatrix Potter, all but one of whom were routinely carrying revolvers. "     Richard Munday

Also read Derek Bernard's report on the British blind faith in gun control:

"This link will take you to a report on the development of the British "faith" in strict gun control, from the latter part of the 19th century through to the present day.  That faith has been so strong for so long that it now flourishes despite a total absence of any evidence of social benefit and lots of evidence of high costs and many perverse effects. Indeed, it has reached the point where to even question its usefulness, or to ask for evidence of cost-effectiveness, will be regarded by many as a clear indication of social irresponsibility."      Derek Bernard