How many lives will banning antiques ‘save’? One, says Home Office

14 June 2016 – The Home Office has claimed that a theoretical one life per year will be saved by banning some antique firearms from general ownership.

In a government impact assessment released this morning, it is revealed that the department expects one life per year will be saved by outlawing some antique firearms from general possession and forcing them to be held on firearm certificates.

Antique firearms are old guns with obsolete ignition systems or that fire obsolete cartridges.

“We have used the data provided by NABIS as an indication of the scale of the problem,” said the Home Office, in an alarming confession, as it went on to say: “Most bodies who record criminal incidents involving firearms do not do so in a way which is conducive to this impact assessment. This is because the firearms that are of particular concern to this report often cut across the subcategories of firearms present in the data… The result of this is that, although recorded information on firearms does exist, often only indicative examples can be given.”

In plain English, the Home Office admits there are no other statistics to support NABIS’ claims about the scale of criminal misuse of antique firearms.

The costs to business and the economy are mostly unreported because the government says it cannot find any statistics on ownership or draw any meaningful conclusions about how many people will be negatively affected by a partial antique ban.

NABIS, the National Ballistics Intelligence Service, has long been campaigning for more lawfully-owned firearms to be banned. As more firearms and firearm-related objects are outlawed, so the ballistics and firearm testing lab, which is ‘hosted’ by West Midlands Police and funded by ‘contributions’ from the UK’s Home Office-regulated police forces, keeps its core market as broad as possible.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “How many lives will banning antiques ‘save’? One, says Home Office

  1. Nick B

    Bizarrely enough – there could be some good to come of this, more certificate holders to fight the fight – they may think, well I have an FAC now – what else can I get?

    Although – my gut feeling is that collection of antique firearms a la S.58 is mainly a preserve of the older gentleman – and that given a decade or so – the number of same possessing an FAC for this purpose is likely to drop.

    I wonder if this means there’ll be a new condition dreamed up to cover antiques.

    I had a look at the latest issue of the H.O guidance and there were some corkers in there – my favourite being “Not to be fired within the United Kingdom”…….intended for S5 holders normally associated with anti piracy 🙂

    Like

    Reply
    1. Nick B

      Oh dear – here we go again with the troll.

      Are you seriously advocating restricting something for such a low threshold? well that’s cars, trains, planes, kettles, boilers, pedestrians, stairs etc etc etc and so on – all restricted now.

      …and using NABIS for the evidence source – NABIS funded by West Midlands Police? that one? that clearly independent and not biased source?

      Do you really want your government legislating using such sources and for one person? really?

      As soon as someone does something with a single shot 7.62 target rifle you’ll be screwed on that basis – best you give it up now eh?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Paul

        Nick B, according to a recent FoI request, NABIS is funded by all of the Police Authorities in the UK. It is unknown at this stage whether they all share the burden equally

        Like

    1. tim

      To Paul,
      Nabis will work for all police forces, but not equally across the board unless they subscribe. Nabis sounds more and more like a commercial operation all the time, created no doubt in the same bastard cast as its father ACPO……..you know…. the really honest ones who had to be investigated by the MOD and shut down by the Home office………only to re spawn in another form. I wonder if garlic would work.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Paul

        The inference from the FoI would appear indicate that all police authorities are required to pay, whether they use the ‘service’ or not. The FoI does rasie more questions than it answers, but given the NABIS predeliction for lobbying some of us are working on it. As for the “theoretical [estimate of] one life” that needs to be challenged. Any cost/benefit analysis would show that this proposal is a load of cod’s wallop!

        Like

  2. Robert Sandison

    I wonder how many people are killed each year after being hit by a police vehicle i suspect it is a lot more than 1 .

    Like

    Reply
    1. Joachim

      According to the IPCC, there were 14 ‘road traffic fatalities’ in 2014/15 (the most recent one). To be fair, most of those were people being chased (or their passengers) crashing, but one was a teenager hit while crossing the road and another was a fellow who seems to have been pepper sprayed then run over while blinded – so yes, cop cars are still at least as deadly as antique firearms.

      https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/research_stats/Deaths_Report_1415.pdf

      In other news, the Carbon Monoxide and Gas Safety Society website tells me 13 people have died since 2004 from barbeques. I eagerly await the BBQ Control Bill in the next Queen’s Speech: after all, nobody *needs* to cook their food outdoors. If it can save just one life, you barbie nuts ought to give up your burners.

      Like

      Reply
  3. Jerry

    If we criminalize the possession and sale of rope, wire, and cordage, we can reduce suicide by hanging and murder by strangulation and garroting.
    These people’s wisdom is limited; their foolishness is not.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s