Just my two pence worth ...

Years ago, when I was in the UK armed forces, my unit was sharing some rifle ranges with a local firearms club. At one point, the range staff ordered firing to cease so that the butt parties (i.e. those behind embankments under the targets, who raised and lowered targets and pasted over holes) could march off for lunch. Everything waited for the best part of five minutes while one of the club shooters fired off one last shot (at a miserable 100 yards). Then with all safety flags raised and the butt parties in the open and marching off, another of them fired off another shot. I don't know where it went or where it was aimed; the intention was clearly to annoy or scare the butt parties (most of whom were very young recruits).

Even as the rooks took flight and the echoes of the shot were fading, the culprit was calling, "Sorry ! Didn't see the flags going up !", in the manner of a soccer player raising his hands to say "Accident, ref !" before cutting an opponent's feet from underneath him with a vicious studs-first tackle.

I was very tempted indeed to march over and give him a toecap sandwich. However, several senior officers and SNCOs were present, and seemed to make light of the incident. In hindsight, I find their attitude rather improper. The soldiers they were responsible for were subject to draconian penalties for negligently discharging a weapon, or mishandling one. However, they seemed to take the view, "He's not a soldier, he doesn't have to cringe when I shout at him, he's not my responsiblity. I can't be a*sed."

Gun "control" in the UK, prior to the Dunblane shootings, seemed to be similarly laxly controlled by the Police etc. In the aftermath of that incident, the Government seemed to take the view that all the legislation necessary to prevent the incident was in place, but not properly enforced. The alternatives were continuing as before and hope, on no evidence, that the existing controls would be properly applied; or impose a draconian ban. I was pleased that they took the latter course.

I agree that adopting a similar course in the US. would be very difficult. However, it should be noted that firearms crimes in the UK now attract the most severe jail sentences (as in the case of the minimum 35-year sentences passed recently on four men who shot two innocent girls in a Birmingham gangland feud). The attitude of the judiciary is clearly that anyone who plays with weapons intended purely to kill others, deserves little mercy.