Jumping the gun
The real problem is the licensing system, not shotguns
Gun control is not usually a major political issue in Britain mainly because we do it quite well. We have some of the most stringent firearms legislation in the world, but there are well over half a million gun owners who are able to use guns for wildlife management and various sporting activities. Those of us who own guns accept the accompanying regulation as we see gun ownership as a responsibility, rather than a right, and work on the basis that legislation that stops the wrong people owning guns protects our ability to continue doing so.
Deaths caused by guns in Britain are rare and the rate of all gun deaths is around 0.2 per hundred thousand of population compared to 1-1.5 in EU countries and 12-14 in the United States. Of those deaths in Britain most relate to illegally held guns used by criminals in urban settings. There are, however, killings which involve legally owned guns and the bodies that represent gun owners have always been ready to work with government to reduce even further the incidence of misuse of legally held guns. After a horrific shooting incident in Cumbria in 2011, for instance, in which the mental health of a licensed gun owner seemed to play a significant part, we worked with the Home Office to implement a new system of medical checks for applicants for firearms licences and the inclusion of a confidential marker visible to GPs in the records of gun owners.
If the government is concerned about safety it should be looking to create a centralised licensing body
Join Britain’s most civilised publication.
![]()
Subscribe NowChallenge the consensus. Access rigorous analysis.
The new Labour government has, however, fired the starting gun on a fundamental battle over gun ownership and the licensing of shotguns in particular. Responding to a consultation on licensing carried out by the last government it has stated that it is to carry out a further consultation on “aligning the controls on shotguns with other firearms”. This dry language cannot hide what would be the most wide ranging and restrictive changes to gun ownership for 30 years. When the government talks about “other firearms” it is referring to mainly high-powered rifles which are held under Section 1 of the Firearms Act. Rifles designed to kill deer at long ranges or for target shooting have for over a hundred years been considered more dangerous than shotguns used for shooting clay pigeons and real pigeons at short ranges. They have, therefore, been regulated more strictly and an applicant for a firearms licence (rather than a shotgun certificate) has been asked to show good reason for owning each firearm which might include membership of a target shooting club or permission to shoot deer on a mapped area of ground.
Applicants for a shotgun certificate must also have a good reason for ownership, but they are not required to prove the use for which they wish to own a shotgun, or to license each gun they own individually. Licensing shotguns in the same way as Section 1 firearms would have a devastating impact on the entire shooting world. It would add massively to the bureaucracy of gun ownership, reduce the number of licence holders and create a significant new barrier to entry for all forms of shotgun shooting, but it would not address the fundamental problem, which is the licensing system, not the law.
For reasons that are lost in the mists of time, firearms licensing is carried out by individual police forces which has created an archaic and dangerously inconsistent system of 43 separate licensing bodies.
The killing of five people in Plymouth in 2021 by a licensed shotgun owner, who also killed himself, is referenced as justification for these changes, but that appalling incident was the result of shocking failures in licensing procedures, not of any weakness in the law. The perpetrator should never have been granted a shotgun certificate in the first place, his certificate was withdrawn when he was investigated for an assault and then returned to him after he received a caution for battery. No law can protect the public if it is not implemented and as the inquest jury found there were “catastrophic failures” and a “seriously unsafe culture” in Devon and Cornwall Police’s firearms licensing unit.
The evidence very clearly shows that failures in the licensing system are the fundamental issue in many killings involving legally held guns. If the government is concerned about improving public safety it should, therefore, first be looking to create a single, centralised firearms licensing body with full digitisation to replace the current outdated system. An effective body like the DVLA would improve public safety, provide a consistent service for gun owners and allow police forces to focus on law enforcement, rather than licensing — a function they were never set up to deliver.
However, politicians like to believe that the relatively easy job of changing the law, rather than the difficult one of tackling entrenched cultures, delivers results. Added to that is the limited understanding of the scale and importance of gun ownership amongst many in the parliamentary Labour Party, and a whiff of prejudice in some parts. The last time Labour was in power it alienated the countryside with its pointless and unjustified attack on hunting. If Ministers are not careful they will stumble into a battle over gun ownership which is potentially just as toxic, but which involves a far bigger section of the rural community.
