Should GPs have role in firearms oversight?

PAUL Mercer (April 4) makes a number of good points which caught my eye as a retired GP.

There can be a high turnover of doctors in many practices, with clients often moving area or changing GP within the region where they are registered.

The chances of a doctor having an immediate and intimate knowledge of any given client may have radically reduced over recent decades.

As Mr Mercer rightly seems to infer, it is flawed or questionable for GPs to still have a pivotal role in firearm oversight. Where mood disorder or depression exist, a doctor can at times face a very tough or uneasy choice.

Initiating processes to have weapons (and/or ammunition) removed may compromise confidentiality, undermine the doctor-patient relationship, risk destabilising a fragile patient and

also place a family under burden. Asking a spouse, or other family member, to remove or temporarily lock away weapons and cartridges, is an option some GPs may apply.

The broader problem, in our densely populated and urbanised island nation, may be a very simple one: just too many guns.

Unless someone has a clearly identified need for a weapon (pest control on a farm, or deer culling) would we do well to take a great number of guns out of circulation?

The noise impact and environmental damage, from activities like clay pigeon shooting, also needs to be considered.

There may be compelling reasons to minimise UK gun ownership and press for a political review of our laws. It’s good for families to discuss their need to have any firearms and make a collective decision to surrender unneeded or unused guns.

J T Hardy By email