Tim Bonner: Weaponising the firearms debate

Gun ownership is as sensitive a political issue as it is possible to imagine. On the one hand there are roughly 600,000 gun owners in England, Scotland and Wales and a significant proportion of rural households include at least one person with a firearms licence. On the other, despite general acceptance that UK gun control legislation is amongst the strictest in the world, research consistently suggests that 75% of the public think there should be greater restrictions, including a third who think that there should be a ban on all private gun ownership.

The politics of firearms licensing in the UK is also heavily influenced by the failure of US politics to address the appalling consequences of the virtually uncontrolled availability of guns of all sorts. The debate in the UK could not be more different than it is in the US. Here, no sensible voice is arguing that gun ownership is a right or that there should not be strict controls on who should be able to have a firearms licence. There is no suggestion that ‘self-defence’ is a justifiable reason for gun ownership, or that people should be able to own a gun that does not have a legitimate sporting or practical purpose. Despite these fundamental differences, gun control advocates try to politicise the debate by suggesting there is an equivalence on either side of the Atlantic.

These political differences become heightened in response to the thankfully extremely rare examples of licensed guns being used in shootings. The killing of five people by shotgun certificate holder Jake Davison, who subsequently killed himself, in Plymouth in 2021 quite rightly shone a spotlight on both the law and its implementation. The evidence seems very clear that the decision by Devon and Cornwall Firearms Licensing department to grant Davison, who had already faced allegations of assault, a shotgun certificate was questionable, let alone the decision to return it to him once it had been removed following an admission of another assault. 

However, suggesting that current legislation should have been properly enforced is rarely, perhaps understandably in relation to such horrific murders, seen as enough. In this case and others there have been calls for new laws to restrict gun ownership further. The government this week published a consultation on changes to firearms licensing which focuses on the operation and issuing of licences and additional powers for the police to remove guns when concerns arise. You can respond to the consultation here.

The Alliance has some questions about the proposals, but they do largely address areas where we have been working positively with government over many years to improve the licensing system. The concern, however, is that opposition parties have signalled their intention to weaponise the gun ownership debate by suggesting that much more significant changes to the law are needed. In particular, aligning shotguns with Section 1 firearms which would fundamentally change the requirements for shotgun owners. Some have also suggested very significant increases in licence fees.

All politicians should remember that the gun owning community is committed to making firearms licensing as effective as it can be to protect our own ability to continue to own and use guns. We do not see ownership as a right, but a responsibility, and that the most effective improvements will come from working with us.