Countryside Alliance Deputy Chief Executive Robert Gray writes: When a Cumbrian taxi driver embarked on a horrific killing spree his first known murders had been fully reported well before he took his own life just three hours later. The news agenda moved relentlessly onward and even before the full scale of Derrick Bird’s atrocities was known the focus had moved on to questions about why he had the guns he used to kill so many innocent people.
Some of the response was predictable: why do people need guns at all? Ban guns in private hands. Some, however, was much more measured and, unlike the political response to Dunblane and Hungerford, the leaders of all political parties warned against a knee-jerk reaction to the inexplicable behaviour of one individual.
There will be two separate ACPO inquiries into the West Cumbria killings one of which will focus on firearms licensing and Derrick Bird’s suitability to hold both a shotgun certificate and firearms licence for a .22 rimfire with sound moderator. A report is expected within weeks which would allow a parliamentary debate on firearms licensing, which has been promised by the Home Secretary, to take place before Parliament goes into recess at the end of July. It is likely that the Home Secretary will also use this debate to announce the next steps the Government intends to take.
Meanwhile the Coroner’s Inquiry into the death of Derrick Bird’s 12 victims, and Bird himself, may take 18 months to report. There may be calls for a public inquiry, but there would seem to be little that could be uncovered by what would undoubtedly be a long and expensive process that will not be revealed elsewhere. An alternative possibility is that a judge could be appointed to oversee the Coroner’s Inquiry as has happened in other high profile inquiries such as that into the death of Princess Diana.
A sensible and workable licensing system should protect our ability to own and use legitimate firearms by making it as unlikely as feasibly possible that guns are owned by people who might misuse them. No system can legislate for a switch flipping in someone’s head but it can, and should, pick up high risk individuals and prohibit them from owning guns legally. So as legitimate members of the shooting community we have a vested interest in improving the system and if it is to be reviewed we must be fully involved.
Being perceived as unwilling to contemplate any change to the licensing system will only serve to exclude the shooting community from the debate. The political climate was different after Dunblane, but there are plenty of sensible independent observers who suggest that the shooting community did itself no favours by being so inflexible in considering the possible legislative response. That does not mean that we stand meekly by and accept unjustified and unwarranted restrictions; it means we should work with the Government and relevant authorities to work for a system that protects both the public and legitimate gun ownership. And protecting public safety and legal gun ownership should be the question, not ‘would this have stopped Derrick Bird?’, because sadly it may be that nothing would have stopped Derrick Bird.) | 
