The current laws governing firearms ownership in the UK are overly restrictive. Both the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the Firearms (Amendment)(No2) Act 1997 were passed at times of significant outcry against firearms ownership. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that a ban on handguns in the wake of the Dunblane massacre would be "panic legislation". A report by the Center of Defence Studies, (Imperial College, London), revealed that the Handgun bans had no effect on the criminal use of illegally held Firearms in Britain. The private ownership of handguns was effectively banned in Great Britain in 1997. All registered handguns were collected by the police and destroyed. Since then, there have been an average of between 4,000 and 5,000 recorded firearm offences involving handguns every year. Criminals who want to use handguns don't seem to have too much difficulty in obtaining them, but they aren't stealing them from licensed gun owners. Whoever forms the new Government after May's Election must face up to the fact the majority of firearms crime is carried out with illegally held firearms, and that restricting the rights of law-abiding people can have little impact on this.
Why does this idea matter?
When the law's was passed i had hope for a better gun crime free Britain. but just the opposite has happened not once in 12 odd years the laws have been in power has the police managed to get it to a single % below what it was before 1997.
For this reason i find no reason in punishing innocent people who follow the laws. gun crime has be proven not to work. it stops people who follow the law the criminals simply don't follow the laws and so own them anyway.