The availability of section 1 firearms

---

9.99   So far I have concentrated on the practicability and effectiveness of various measures. However, it is necessary now to consider the implications.

9.100  The various measures which stop short of a ban would obviously cause varying degrees of inconvenience to shooters. They would impose heavier responsibilities on club officials: and they would entail additional work on the part of the police. On the other hand the banning of handguns of one type or another would have very serious implications for the future of the sport of target shooting.

9.101  In his evidence Mr Penn said that restriction to single shot would rule British shooters out of serious competition in a wide range of international events. More importantly it would, he said, destroy the variety of shooting disciplines which required multi-shot pistols and provided the principal reason for the popularity of the sport. It would virtually eliminate pistol shooting in its present form in this country. As I understand the position, clubs own a certain number of handguns which are primarily intended for the use of those who are not yet ready to apply for a firearm certificate or who have no intention of applying for one. However, the sport of target shooting depends essentially on the activity of those who possess their own handguns under their own firearm certificates. As I have already noted Table 7 Annex A to the Green Book states that under 5% of licensed handguns are single shot pistols.

9.102  In their submission the BSSC emphasised that one of the principal attractions of target shooting, and the reasons for its continuing popularity, was the variety of competitions and the demands made on physical and mental fitness - variety and demands which have grown and developed as the handgun has evolved, particularly over the past 20 years or so.

9.103  By way of comparison, what would be the effect of banning of handguns with calibres greater than .22 but leaving .22 multi-shot handguns unaffected? Mr Penn said that this would have a very major effect on the sport. It would for practical purposes remove this country from international target shooting as a sport. It would substantially reduce the range of interests which were available to shooters, and in particular the challenge of improving accuracy which was a strong attraction. He accepted that there would still be many shooters who would go on with the sport. He envisaged that centrefire events might be redesigned for the use of .22 handguns. A combination of this ban with a restriction to single shot would have more or less the same effect. It may be noted that such a combination would affect all Olympic events for handguns except the Free Pistol, which, according to Mr Greenwood, is probably the least popular event in pistol shooting on account of the cost of the pistol and the demands of the event. The BSSC pointed out in their final submission that a ban on calibres greater than .22 would reduce the physical skills required in competition and therefore reduce both the attraction and level of achievement gained through practice and competition. In international competitions the number of events for centrefire pistols far outnumbered those for .22. Such a ban would involve the expropriation of some 50% or more of all handguns.

9.104  The expropriation of handguns would give rise to claims for compensation. Mr Paton provided evidence as to their cost. He stated that prices for new self-loading pistols ranged from £200 to £2,000 or more; with second-hand handguns ranging from £150 to £1,500 or more. The most common price range for both new and second-handguns was from £300 to £600. The cost of new revolvers ranged from £200 to £1,000 or more; with second-hand ranging from £100 to £500 or more. The average range for new and second-hand revolvers was between £150 and £500. By way of comparison, a single shot pistol ranged in price between £200 and £2,000 or more; and second-hand from £50 upwards. Due to the limited market for such guns it was not possible for him to estimate an average cost. It is also right to take account of the money invested in accessories such as optical sights, holsters, carrying boxes and security cabinets. In his submission Mr Colin Greenwood stated that in Great Britain the annual sales of ammunition and related accessories approached £20 m: and that a considerable number of jobs - such as in clubs, manufacturing and supplying, the gun trade and the work of gunsmiths - were dependent on pistol shooting.

9.105  It has been said that as a sport target shooting has a good record for safety. The evidence at the Inquiry did not give me any reason to doubt the accuracy of that claim, but what matters is what may be done with the guns when they are not being used in target shooting. I have no doubt that the great majority of those who participate in target shooting are law-abiding and sensible people who are highly committed to the sport and derive great satisfaction from what they do. Mr Penn and the BSSC set out what they maintained were the benefits of target shooting. In brief, they were that it was a very social sport; it was classless; did not discriminate according to gender; competition was on equal terms; physical disability was no barrier to success; it brought a sense of achievement and progress through improving scores and success in competitions; it developed mental skills, self-discipline and clear thinking; it developed physical skills and in particular manual dexterity and co-ordination; it offered both team and individual participation; it could be carried on indoors or outdoors; it instilled a disciplined sense of responsibility, particularly for safety; it provided a significant opportunity for distinction at national, international and Olympic levels; and it could provide a lifetime's enjoyment and challenge.

What should be done

9.106  I will now review what I have set out above. I am satisfied that of all the measures which stop short of a ban the one which is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components
(para 9.83-9.93). It has the merit that it does not require clubs to accommodate the handguns, with the various accommodation and security problems which I have already mentioned. In each case the component which is removed could be kept by a club official or on the club premises, where there was adequate space and security for the purpose, while the remainder of the handgun would be kept by the shooter at home. In exceptional cases it would not be practicable for some pistols and some revolvers. The exact extent to which that would be the case is a matter of detail. The solution to it, short of banning such handguns, would be to require barrel blocks of the type which Mr Paton envisaged (para 9.94). The barrel block would require to be fitted and locked to the satisfaction of a club official. He would keep the key while the shooter would keep the handgun in its blocked state until it was to be used again. Where the club had premises with adequate security to accommodate members' handguns, there would be no need for either of these expedients. If the shooter is to be able to shoot elsewhere there would be a limit on the effectiveness of such measures. However, a pass system of the type which, as I have explained in para 9.68, was outlined by the Dunblane Snowdrop Petition would be worthy of consideration. I appreciate all that has been said about what a calculating would-be killer could do but it does seem to me that such a system would effect a substantial reduction in the opportunity for misuse of lawfully held handguns.

9.107  A ban on multi-shot handguns on the other hand would be clear cut and would effect some reduction in the incidence of serious crime. However, the appalling result of the actions of Thomas Hamilton should not obscure the fact that such outrages are comparatively rare; and that the number of crimes which are committed by means of firearms which are or have been in lawful ownership is relatively small, especially so in the case of handguns. A ban on multi-shot handguns would to a very large extent destroy the sport of target shooting and have significant effects on the economy.

9.108  It is not enough to consider what would be practicable and effective. No assessment of what should be done would be complete without considering what would be proportionate and just, having regard on the one hand to the scale of risk and on the other the implications of one course of action or another.

9.109  It has seemed to me that if there was a case for restricting the availability of multi-shot handguns, as I have held there to be, it would be a proportionate and just result if a practicable and sufficiently effective way could be found to minimise the opportunity for such handguns to be used except on the ranges without in effect destroying the sport in the process. If such means could not be found, there would then be a case for banning them. That remains my view.

9.110  At this point I should observe that throughout the Inquiry the BSSC who acted as the umbrella body representing the interests of the shooting community at large were opposed in principle to any restriction on the availability of handguns; and objected not merely to the suggestion of one kind of ban or another but also, as I have explained above, to various measures which stopped short of a ban. This entrenched attitude meant that as each measure was supposedly discredited what was at stake became the greater. That has not, of course, prevented me from making my own assessment as to the merits of any particular measure but it did mean that so long as the principle of there being any restriction was in dispute there was no incentive for them to see how a measure less drastic than a ban could be made to work.

9.111  At the same time I am very conscious that proposals such as a ban on the possession of a certain type of firearm raise questions which are peculiarly within the province of the Government and Parliament to decide. Thus after the shootings at Hungerford in August 1987, the Government decided how far there should be, in the words of the White Paper, a shift in the balance of controls "between safeguarding the public at large and protecting the interests of the legitimate shooting community" (Firearms Act 1968: Proposals for Reform, para 4.) Michael Ryan had killed half of his victims with shots from a self-loading pistol and the fact that handguns posed particular dangers was recognised (Green Book Part II, para 11). However, the Government did not propose that handguns should be banned. The proposal of such a ban after the shootings at Dunblane once more raises a question of policy. It is necessary to decide what risk is acceptable, bearing in mind that some risk is an inevitable feature of daily life. Against the risk to society has to be balanced the loss of freedom of the individual and the other implications which I mentioned earlier (paras 9.100-9.105). There may also be competing claims on the use of resources. In the light of these points it is clear to me that in stating my own conclusions I should confine myself to what I recommend should be considered.

9.112  Following out the approach which I have explained I recommend that consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre which are held by individuals for target shooting. Preferably this should be done by their disablement while they are not in use, by either (i) the removal of the slide assembly/cylinder, which is to be kept securely on the premises of an approved club of which the owner is a member or by a club official: or (ii) the fitting of a locked barrel block by a club official. As I stated in para 9.106 where the club has premises with adequate security to accommodate members handguns there would be no need for either of these expedients. There would require to be a system which would enable the handguns to be used elsewhere for target shooting, but subject to the strictest controls which are practicable. I regard this as the preferable course having regard to the scale of risk, the practicability of disabling handguns and the extent to which such a system would be effective in reducing the opportunity for the misuse of such firearms.

9.113  If for any reason that course is not to be followed I see no alternative to considering the more draconian alternative of a ban on multi-shot handguns. However, in such circumstances I would suggest that the ban should be directed to the possession of such handguns by individual owners rather than the possession of handguns by shooting clubs, since it is through possession by individuals that the risk, in so far as there is a risk, of homicide or serious injury arises. Thus I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified. I have no particular recommendation as to the legislative means by which effect would be given to such a ban.

Other matters

9.114  Before leaving this chapter I should make some reference to a number of other matters on which I was invited to make recommendations but have not done so.

9.115  During the course of the Inquiry there was some controversy as to the status and acceptability of hollow-point ammunition which is commonly used in target shooting in Great Britain. The object of such a bullet is to maximise the transmission of energy to achieve "stopping power" and minimise over-penetration. As part of his evidence to the Inquiry Mr Penn explained that it was undesirable in police or self-defence use that a bullet should exit from its target, or exit with any significant residual energy, since this placed innocent third parties at risk. It was also desirable that bullets that miss their intended targets should penetrate wood, brick, etc fully so that risks to third parties were reduced. As I recorded in chapter 3 of this report this type of ammunition formed part of what Thomas Hamilton brought with him to the school. On balance I am not satisfied that I should make any recommendation in regard to the availability of such ammunition.

9.116  Some of those who presented submissions to the Inquiry sought to have me entertain a large number of proposals relating to firearms which had no connection with the circumstances which were my concern. It may be of some assistance if I give a brief summary of the main ones which I have declined to entertain. It should, of course, not be taken as indicating that I formed any view adverse to them.

9.117  As regards weapons I was invited to recommend the prohibition of the sale of deactivated weapons; and in any event the further tightening of the specification for deactivation. I was asked to enter into the question of whether certain weapons should be classed as "carbines"; and to recommend a restriction in the scope of the expression "antiques". I was also asked to recommend the prohibition of the sale of replica firearms; and restrictions on the advertising and sale of firearms by mail order.

9.118  As regards the certification regime I was asked to recommend, on the one hand, that there should be a single type of certificate for all firearms; and, on the other hand, that there should be different types of certificate for different users. It was also suggested that there should be separate certificates for each firearm and for the ammunition. As regards shot guns it was proposed that "good reason" should require to be shown; and that multiple ownership should be discouraged. In regard to the use of firearms for shooting over land it was proposed that there should be a means of restricting the number of persons who were authorised to do so. It was also proposed that the minimum age for the possession of firearms should be raised; and that young shooters should be subject to a greater degree of supervision.

9.119  There are two matters which I have not so far mentioned. They caused me some concern and, while they do not properly arise out of the circumstances of the Inquiry, I would like to draw particular attention to them. The first relates to the dangers posed by the use of air weapons at large, along with the question of whether they should be subject to certification and unavailable until a later age than at present. The second relates to the fact that at present the components for reloading ammunition may be obtained without production of a firearm certificate. In that connection it was suggested, with a view to preventing the reloading of ammunition for illegal purposes, that the purchase of primers and propellants should be subject to the production of a firearm certificate by the purchaser. There was widespread agreement in the written and oral evidence before the Inquiry that the current position was anomalous when compared with the requirement to produce a firearm certificate for the purchase of factory-made ammunition, and that this loophole should be closed by legislation. I make no recommendation on these matters but would draw them to the attention of the Home Office and The Scottish Office.