Dunblane: Disarming Through Fear

Who will save us from the lions and tigers and bears? Oh, my![1]

Good question, Ms. Gale.

The police have said since the day the Met was founded that they are under no obligation to protect anybody. OK, so you see the guys outside the county courts every so often packing H&K MP-5 submachine guns? They’re not protecting the asshole in Court 14 on racketeering charges, they’re making sure no disruptive elements make it in to kybosh the opportunity to seize his (OK maybe ill-gotten) money and assets. They’re not interested in making sure no member of the public is harmed. Don’t ever delude yourself that they are.

When the incidents of Dunblane occurred, on March 13 1996, the British Government were already talking about a blanket ban on private ownership of handguns, particularly the “Brocock” cartridge type.

These cartridges use compressed air in reusable shells as propellant, hence are relatively inexpensive to run compared with blackpowder or nitrate/smokeless cartridges – and don’t require the acquisition or storage of explosives. All the Government needed was an excuse, such as a mass killing, preferably one involving children.

Enter stage left, Thomas Watt Hamilton. Former scout leader, currently unemployed. Gun owner. Perfect political fodder.

Hamilton walked into the Dunblane Primary School armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolvers. He was carrying 743 cartridges, and fired his weapons 109 times. Sixteen children and two adults died as a direct result of gunshot wounds, including Hamilton himself.

The Home Affairs Select Committee concluded in 1996 that a ban on handguns would be “panic legislation” and would do little to prevent a repeat of the Dunblane incident. It also said that rules governing gun ownership must be changed to prevent people such as Thomas Hamilton from owning weapons.

The Government banned Brocock-type cartridge weapons and outlawed the sale of such weapons.

Current owners had only one avenue of disposal: to turn them in at the police station for destruction. No compensation for owners was ever offered.

Back to the event itself, which could have easily been avoided had the Scottish police actioned complaints made against Hamilton, which included but were not limited to acts of paedophilia. NO charges were ever brought against Hamilton, even considering the weight of complaints made against him – he was well known to the police entirely because of his apparent behaviour towards boys. The man was the perfect scapegoat and object of rage for the anti-gun lobby to lean against to push their agenda. Why did the police do nothing? The only reason I can think of at this time is that they had larger plans for him. Plans that could not bear fruit had he been incarcerated.

Plans such as the ban on handguns and the severe limitations placed on rifle ownership.

As it stands today, the power limits for pistols and rifles not on firearms certificates are 6fpe (foot-pound energy) and 12fpe respectively. Also, these have to be spring-air, tank or CO2, as the problems of limiting powder or nitrate cartridge weapons to this power level are technically prohibitive. As before the Firearms Amendment Act 1997, an individual could not own or operate a firearm if at any time he had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act or had any convictions for violent crime or had spent more than six months in penal incarceration for any reason. The power limitations for non-FAC weapons means, in a practical sense, that ordinary citizens could own and operate firearms still, but the limited power of these things would be less likely to break human skin even at very close range. Hardly the stuff for violent rebellion.

Even at FAC power levels, most air weapons would have trouble reaching for 24fpe, but then you’re into the realms of nitrate and black powder as well, each of which has their own limitations such as the allowable quantity of ammunition in storage, the amount of propellant in storage, even the number of blank shells and number and type of bullet heads. All these items have to be registered and accounted for with the local police, which gives them carte-blanche to enter an FAC-holder’s property and seize his weapons at any time they (or the Government) choose. An FAC document represents the holder’s tacit approval of this condition, he has no choice in the matter if he so chooses to enter into such a contract; it is even made perfectly clear in auxiliary documentation. FACs existed before Dunblane, so the question there is: if Hamilton was known to the police how did he hold his weapons legally? They knew he was a danger to boys, why did they sign him off on an FAC?

Further questions: if Hamilton used a 9mm and a .357, why are these still available to FAC holders? He didn’t use a Brocock loader, so why ban them right after Dunblane? Why ban all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot to non-FAC holders? (Yes, I know, they banned these also not long afterward in a second amendment to the Act in the same year).

Answer: to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the ability to defend themselves against Government militia when the hammer comes down.

---

[1] The Wizard of Oz, 1939