“Once again we are faced with another death of a child and we are not even into the first week of the summer holidays”. The words are those of a spokesperson for the Gun Control Network (GCN). They were prompted by the death last week of six-year-old Stanley Metcalf, who was shot with an airgun whilst in the care of his great grandparents. The circumstances behind the shooting are yet to become clear; however, all indications are that what occurred was an appalling accident and a tragedy for the family. And whatever else we may come to learn about what happened, we have learned nothing new about the Gun Control Netbook whose willingness to recruit to its cause tragedies such as this one, remains undiminished.
Here’s what the anonymous spokesperson said in full: “This is an appalling, very sad and completely unnecessary accident. Air weapons need to be licensed in England – full stop. If Britain had these laws then the gun would have been locked away, a licence and medical certificate would have to be provided for being allowed to keep them. How many more children are going to die playing around with air guns”
It takes an act of massive self-control to quell the feeling of nausea that arises upon reading this tripe. No one knows whether or not the gun was under lock and key and by what act of necromancy the spokesperson was able to discern that the young boy had been “playing around” with it, is a mystery. Then there is the ludicrous claim that a medical certificate would have reduced the likelihood of such an event happening in the first place. What are they saying? That Stanley Metcalfe’s great grandparents were not mentally suitable people to have an airgun in their possession? And if they are by what sort of corrupt logic have they arrived at the conclusion that right then, within hours of the boy’s death, was the best time to be saying it.
The Gun Control Network is arguably the most reptilian of the groups opposed to the legal ownership of firearms. Set up in 1997 in the wake of the shootings at Dunblane, its most prominent members were Doctor Mick North, whose daughter Sophie was killed by Thomas Hamilton, and Gill Marshall-Andrews, wife of former Labour MP and bon-vivant Bob Marshall Andrews. It has many aims, but they can be summarised as trying to attract support for far reaching and rigorous controls on the ownership of firearms and in some cases outright bans. Much given to taking credit for any tightening of regulation in this area, the Network paints a picture of itself as a body legitimised by widespread public support, a myth which it has allowed it to sometimes claim a place at the table whenever the subject of new regulation comes up. Years of attempting to force the Network to come clean about exactly how many supporters it has have all failed, although back at the time of the introduction of the handgun ban and when its profile was at its highest, under questioning by a House of Commons committee, Gill Marshall-Andrews was forced to admit that actual signed up supporters numbered no more than “a couple of dozen”. That must be considered a high point, as it is widely believed that it would be doing well now to muster more than three.
Perhaps the worst thing about the GCN’s casual exploitation of this tragedy was their question: “How many more children are going to die playing around with air guns”. One senses behind the hand wringing tone the steely edge of a PR opportunity, but more than this is the suggestion that children dying from wounds inflicted by airguns is a regular occurrence, which is something the GCN knows is not the case. And it knows it because it publishes the figures on its website. Best estimates suggest that there are six million airguns in circulation in England; however, in 2017 there were no recorded deaths as a result of injury by one. The year before one death of a child was recorded. Sad and regrettable no doubt, but hardly indicative of slaughter and certainly not when one thinks about this in relation to the number of airguns owned. In the light of this to demand draconian and costly controls on their ownership and use is simply not in proportion to the risks involved. Hopefully the speed with which the GCN sought to harness its message to the public sadness at this young boy’s death will not go unnoticed. It should certainly not go uncondemned.