Extracts from Commons proceedings - Nov 28
|
Extracts from remaining stages (Commons) of the Offensive Weapons
Bill Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con):...That needs to be
considered against the wider perspective of the very small chance
of people being murdered with legally owned guns. In 2017, for
example, just nine people were killed by someone in legal
possession of the murder weapon. That is nine people too many, of
course, but it is a very small figure compared with deaths by
illegal weapons. There has been a lot of confusing...Request free trial
Extracts from
remaining stages (Commons) of the Offensive Weapons Bill
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con):...That needs to be considered against the wider perspective of the very small chance of people being murdered with legally owned guns. In 2017, for example, just nine people were killed by someone in legal possession of the murder weapon. That is nine people too many, of course, but it is a very small figure compared with deaths by illegal weapons. There has been a lot of confusing evidence about .50 calibres potentially being used as military-style “materiel destruction” rifles—for instance, by terrorists to shoot car engines. However, that would be possible only when used with armour-piercing or incendiary ammunition, both of which are already barred for civilian use. Not only is there no evidence of such firearms being used for criminal purposes in this jurisdiction, as recognised by the National Crime Agency, but to imply that the provision would make the public any safer from gun crime is, I believe, unrealistic... ...The National Crime Agency position brief was received by the Library and heavily commented on by shooting experts across the board. The following points are based on their feedback. The NCA brief states that .50 calibre rifles “are built around enormously powerful cartridges originally designed for military use on the battlefield and to have devastating effect”. That is true, but it is also true of one of the most common target rifles ever used, the .303 Lee Enfield rifle and one of the most common hunting rifles, the .308, which is also based on a military round. The current full bore civilian target shooting round, at 7.62 mm, is a military round often used in machine guns. The NCA brief further states:
“The propellant mass in a standard M33 .50 calibre ‘ball’ round
is nearly ten times as great as that in the standard ‘ball’ round
used in the…Army’s primary battlefield rifle, the L85.” Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP): On high-energy and .50 calibre rifles, having looked at all the evidence in the round, we would have supported the position set out by the Home Secretary and the Minister at every previous stage of the Bill’s passage. We echo much of what the shadow Minister has said today. In Committee, we heard persuasive evidence from the NCA, the National Police Chiefs Council, ballistics experts and counter-terrorism police about the power of these weapons. The evidence we heard was that these rifles are dangerous because of their range and because there is little—perhaps nothing—that the police have in the way of body armour or even protected vehicles that could go up against some of these weapons. I emphasise that we are not in favour of prohibition for the sake of it. If those same expert witnesses think that an alternative solution to alleviate risk can be found, we will listen. We fully appreciate the impact that this would have on the recreation of a small number of citizens, but it is a small number; we are talking about 18 certificates in Scotland altogether. The point is that the Home Secretary said he would further consider the proposed prohibition months ago on Second Reading, way back before the summer, yet no amendments were forthcoming before the previously scheduled final stages of the Bill. There has been no adequate explanation of what has changed in the past couple of weeks, and as matters stand, the Bill will leave this place with the prohibition removed but no alternative measures in its place. The Home Secretary is now going against and ignoring the evidence we received from the NCA, the National Police Chiefs Council, ballistics experts and counter-terrorism police, as well as what I have been told by Police Scotland. I have tried, without success so far, to find out whether any of those witnesses has changed their view. In the absence of any adequate explanation, this reeks of internal party politics trumping important issues of public safety. It is not the right way to make legislation, and it is not the right way to treat the public. To read the whole debate, CLICK HERE
Extract from
Westminster Hall debate on Offence of Sex for
Rent |