BRITAIN: Olympic marksmen will have to practise in Switzerland

BRITAIN: Olympic marksmen will have to practise in Switzerland
Date: Jul 11, 2005 7:54 AM
PUBLICATION: The Daily Telegraph
DATE: 2005.07.11
PAGE: 02
SECTION: Features
NOTE: Comment
BYLINE: Philip Johnston

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Our Olympic marksmen will have to practise in Switzerland Home front

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

One of the stars of the 1948 Olympics - the last time the games were
held in London - was a Hungarian called Karoly Takacs. Ten years
earlier, when he was a member of his country's world champion pistol
shooting team, an accident with a grenade shattered his right hand - his
pistol hand. Takacs taught himself to shoot with his left hand and, 10
years later in London, he won a gold medal in the rapid-fire pistol
event.

The reason for telling this story is that pistol shooting will, of
course, be an event at the games in 2012; but British shooters, because
of the ban on handguns introduced after the Dunblane massacre, are
almost as disadvantaged as Takacs because they cannot practise in their
own country at all.

They, along with all the shooting competitors from overseas, need a
special dispensation from the Home Secretary to bring their pistols into
the country. Indeed, in order to secure the bid for London, the Home
Secretary has already graciously granted his authority for the shooting
events to take place and for a test event in the previous year.

This column has previously highlighted the ridiculous predicament of
perfectly law-abiding sportsmen and women who happen to enjoy hitting
targets using pistols, rather than, say, an arrow or a dart. Some have
written to me, detecting the hand of a kindred shooter, but I have never
picked up a pistol or a rifle in my life, other than at a fairground,
nor a shotgun for that matter.

What exercises me is the sheer unfairness and disproportionate nature of
the imposition that has been placed upon law-abiding individuals because
of the murderous activities of a single madman, combined with the fact
that because shooting is a minority pastime, few politicians are
prepared to stand up for them.

The ranks of those who are so prepared were depleted still further by
the recent death of Lord Swansea, described in his obituary in this
newspaper last week as "one of the finest marksmen of his generation and
a dogged champion of the shooting lobby in the aftermath of the
Hungerford and Dunblane shootings''.

When the legislation banning handguns went through Parliament in 1997,
Lord Swansea said this: "The Bill will do nothing to improve public
safety. The criminal element will still be quite unaffected. They will
be laughing their heads off right now. I shall not be at all surprised
to see a continuation of crimes involving firearms held illegally.''

His words, as we now know, were prescient. Since the prohibition, there
has been a sharp increase in gun crime, though ministers recently hailed
a slight fall last year. But London is experiencing a record number of
gun killings and shootings, mostly linked to gangsterism and the drugs
trade, but also to resolve disputes and feuds.

An extraordinary report last week on an unpublished Metropolitan Police
survey of children under 16 living in inner London suggested that six
per cent of the group polled said they had fired a handgun and eight per
cent said they could easily gain access to one. Police say the number of
youths carrying firearms has doubled in the past five years and many
teenagers see them as fashion accessories.

So, banning pistols that are used in legitimate sporting events has not,
as Lord Swansea foresaw, made a ha'p'orth of difference to the criminal
possession of guns. Why do we in this country persist in introducing
legislation that inconveniences or even criminalises responsible,
sensible people in all walks of life, simply in order that politicians
can claim to have "done something''?

Since this is now blindingly obvious to everyone other than those who
will never be happy until air rifles and shotguns are also banned, the
time has surely come for a sensible reconsideration of this law, at
least as far as sporting shooters are concerned.

It seems patently unjust that, uniquely among the competitors preparing
for 2012, pistol shooters will have to go to Switzerland or wherever to
practise and the sport will find it hard to attract new adherents
because of the restrictions on ownership and the costs involved in
training overseas.

At the Sydney games in 2000, shooting had the third highest number of
countries competing. They must all think we are mad. And it is not the
first time this has happened. When the Commonwealth Games were held in
Manchester in 2002, the competitors' pistols were guarded on their
journey from the airport to the competition venue at Bisley.

The Cullen report into the Dunblane massacre never recommended a
complete ban; a partial prohibition was brought in by the last Tory
government and then fully implemented by Labour soon after it took
power. This affected the sport of an estimated 50,000 participants,
which is a pretty big minority, at a time when it was growing rapidly.

The anti-shooting lobby already has its sights set on further
restrictions. The age for using an airgun is being increased and there
is concern among sporting groups that the Animal Welfare Bill about to
go before Parliament will be used to impose restrictions on game
shooting, which supports up to 40,000 jobs and generates around pounds 1
billion annually for the rural economy.

We seem to have our priorities askew at the moment. One would have
thought that last Thursday's events in London would make our politicians
and law enforcers stop and think about who the real enemies are before
they further persecute the honest and the law-abiding.

As an example of this lunacy, a colleague was at King's Cross station in
London last week, the day before the bomb there, and was stopped by a
police officer who wanted to know why he was carrying a cricket bat. He
was, believe it or not, on his way to play cricket. The officer was then
required to fill out a lengthy form explaining why he had stopped him.
It is fortunate that cricket is not an Olympic sport, otherwise the
police would really have their work cut out.