More than 30 children aged under 10 issued with shotgun licences in past three years.
More than 30 children aged under 10 in England and Wales were issued with shotgun licences in the past three years, official figures revealed.
10 children under 10 years old issued with shotgun certificates per year? It doesn't say 'shock' figures reveal, yet I get the impression we are about to have a call for some kind of government restrictions on shotguns.
The statistics show 11 certificates were issued to under-10s last year, five in 2009 and 15 in 2008.
The figures were obtained by Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who has campaigned for a change in the law to set a minimum age for holding a shotgun licence.
Children are not allowed to use a gun unsupervised until they are 15, but the Dunfermline and West Fife MP said the rules were 'really weak'.
The rules seem fine to me. You can hold a shotgun licence but must be supervised by an adult until you are fifteen.
Mr Docherty said: 'Society as a whole is deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a seven-year-old having access to a lethal weapon.
I wish these MP's would stop trying to speak for me. I am not uncomfortable with a seven year old using a shotgun under adult supervision. I would prefer young children are taught gun safety and respect by their parents, than be shielded from guns by the nanny state, only to be introduced to them by wannabe gangsters when they get older.
MP's of the bansturbatory type make me much more uncomfortable.
'I have not heard a single coherent argument for why a seven-year-old, who has no legal culpability, should be allowed to have unfettered access to fire a firearm.'
MP's should be held accountable every time they tell a lie, preferably by losing their seat. Kids do not have 'unfettered access' to guns. They can only use them under adult supervision.
And why does he need to hear an argument for why under 10's should be allowed access to shotguns? Do we need to give MP's a reason why we should be allowed to own things, or why we should allow our children to? No we don't.
Mr Docherty, who earlier this year launched a parliamentary bid to ban under-14s from holding a licence, said senior police agreed with the need for a minimum age.
The Association of Chief Police Officers had argued that 10 would be a suitable minimum age.
As one of the comments on the article says, this man has a solution and is looking for a problem. Why 10? Why a minimum age at all? Why do these people feel a need to constantly stick their noses into other peoples business.
Issuing shotgun certificates to children to be used under the supervision of adults is not causing any problems. On the contrary, it helps teach young children the proper respect for firearms.
When there is a problem, come back.
Mr Docherty said: 'Do we have to wait until we get a tragic accident involving a seven or eight-year-old before we take action?'
I'm assuming from that off the shelf statement that there has not, so far, been a tragic accident involving a seven or eight year old (Probably not true but I'm using his words for my counter argument).
Laws get made but they never get repealed. That means that under tens have always been allowed shotguns, and probably with less restrictions than present as you look back through history. How long have shotguns existed?
Modern shotguns have been around for more than 150 years as far as I can see. That means no accidents in 150 years according to this muppet. Why does he want to regulate?
(I'm sure there have been accidents involving children, but considering how few certificates are granted it must be a statistically insignificant amount.)
The BBC ran a similar story last year and this quote is taken from there:
A spokeswoman for the Gun Control Network told the BBC News website: "We oppose the idea of anyone under the age of 18 being given a firearm or shotgun.
"We totally oppose this - children and guns do not mix.
"If people are familiar with guns they are far more likely to use them.
"If a gun is in a house people are far more likely to be affected by a gun injury accident."
If people are familiar with guns they will use them? That's the whole point isn't it? I assume they mean for criminal purposes, so this statement is completely untrue as people who legally own guns and understand gun safety are the least likely people to use their guns for criminal purposes.
As for gun injury accidents, again where people understand gun safety they are not likely to have an accident. A person who owns illegal firearms is more likely to have an accident.
The Gun Control Network is campaigning for a gun free environment. They are not campaigning to take away criminals guns though, they want yours.
7 Comments:
No, probably not. These people don't seem to want anyone using guns, for any purpose.
What a knob. Apart from the bollocks about the use of 'unfettered' when, as you pointed out, Bucks, that's clearly not the case, there'd be more benefit dropping the idea of a magic age for criminal culpability. As with all age limits it doesn't bear much in the way of logical examination - at 9 years, 364 days and 23 hours you're too innocent and unworldly to be held answerable to any crime you may commit, but an hour later awareness forms instantly? Ridiculous. Determining culpability is part of the job of courts and juries, the whole trying cases on their merits thing. Just let them do it for everyone, and in the highly unlikely event that a seven year old shotgun certificate holder goes postal with it then they can be charged.
Not saying there are no minimum ages limits that are necessary, just that they are by nature a very crude and imprecise form of regulation. I can't think of one offhand but I'm sure there are a few things where there's really no alternative, but even so all the faults will still apply. If set too high they're unfair, and if set too low they're pointless, and if set just right they'll get it wrong as often as they get it right
Yes I'll have to agree. When I worked in the pubs I met many under 18s who were more than mature enough to sit in a pub and enjoy a pint. At the same time I met many more over eighteens who couldn't handle a couple of pints of piss weak lager and had no business drinking anything.
Post a Comment