Raedwulf,

You should take issue with Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

The claim, kendall asked us to comment on was - "since all handguns were confiscated in those countries, crime has gone through the roof."

Now with respect to crimes involving firearms the statistics show that the law passed in 1997 has had no effect whatsoever in deterrring those wishing to acquire guns and use them.

"It was hoped that the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. According to internal Home Office statistics, however, handgun crime is now at its highest since 1993."

So what was the law passed for? To reduce the probability of another Dunblane? Has it? There certainly hasn't been an incident on the same scale since 1996, but that is only by chance - remember the two youngsters gunned down at the bus stop, who got caught in the cross-fire of a gang shoot-out? What would have been the result if that had been a school playground or in a shopping centre? Outlawing gun ownership has done nothing to improve the situation, as anyone wishing to get a gun can do it, and do it with apparently increasing ease - and that holds true for the Hamiltons (Dunblane) and Ryans (Hungerford) of society as well as the criminal element, only difference in the past was that the Police knew that the likes of Hamilton and Ryan had guns, could check them, and had the power to confiscate them. Now they only know about it after the gun has been used. Are we in better shape, or worse off?