Acting threateningly should be enough for permanent gun ban

THE tragic murder of five people in Plymouth has rightly shaken the nation. Unlike the United States, incidents of this sort are blessedly few and far between.

That’s because our gun laws have always been stricter, and our attitude is we are better without dangerous weapons, rather than safer with them.

Following the multiple shootings in Hungerford in 1987, gun laws were strengthened. And after the 1996 murders of children in Dunblane primary school, further restrictions were imposed on the right to own, and carry, a weapon.

Labour brought in the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act in 1997 to strengthen the law in terms of banning handguns. Then, in 2003 I piloted through the Criminal Justice Sentencing Act, which introduced a mandatory minimum sentence for firearms offences.

What is so shocking about the Plymouth tragedy is the failure to bring assessment over granting licences into the 21st century and, quite simply, to use common sense.

Online misogynistic behaviour promoting violence must flag, to any right-thinking person, the danger of allowing that individual to own a firearm. Threatening behaviour should be sufficient for permanent disqualification from holding a gun licence. So we need to be more vigilant and, frankly, more intelligent about how we grant such licences.

No one should be authorised to hold a gun outside specific regulated premises unless they can prove it is essential to their duties, such as controlling vermin; or under the supervision of authorised persons for “rural sports”. Anyone applying for a licence should be appropriately vetted. They should have their online profile examined, and have clear references and an assessment of their mental capacity.

Putting the onus on doctors to assess applicants is not acceptable. The question should always be “why should I” rather than “why can’t I” own a potentially lethal weapon.

As a former Home Secretary, who had to respond to terrible murders, I was taken aback at Priti Patel’s response. Rushing to Plymouth to lay flowers but refusing interviews about immediately strengthening measures to prevent a repeat left me feeling deeply uneasy.

We want positive action from our politicians, not gestures. A tweet is no substitute for decisive action.

We need positive action from politicians, not more gestures