The contents of this pack are provided to help answer
some of the most frequently asked questions about gun control in the UK.
There are references to other material and sources of useful data.
For more information on Current Issues, and Facts and
Research, together with links to other relevant sites, you can also visit
the Gun Control Network web site at:
1. THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE
No one could dispute that guns are dangerous objects
with the potential to cause damage to property, and injury and death to
animals and humans. It is why most people fear them, yet it is also the
reason why others are attracted to guns. Most guns were designed
specifically for killing, to be used by the military and law enforcement
agencies. In the wrong hands they are the tools of crime and terror. A
civil society controls dangerous objects in the interests of public
safety. Guns should not be an exception, yet the issue of whether and to
what extent guns should be controlled is extremely contentious.
At the heart of the gun control debate is the question
of where the balance should lie between the rights of the general public
to be safe from gun violence and the privilege of gun enthusiasts to own
and use weapons. No civilised society would deny its citizens the right to
be safe, but opinions on the ‘rights’ of gun owners can be poles apart and
are viewed very differently from one country to the next. In most
developed countries gun ‘rights’ are restricted and are dependent on
factors such as proof of the necessity to own guns (for sport, hunting,
vermin control and, more rarely, for self defence) and a person’s fitness
(mental, emotional) to use them.
Many gun enthusiasts contend that their rights are more
fundamental than this. In the United States, for example, members of the
gun lobby, and even some outside it, believe that an unconditional right
for civilians to own guns is enshrined in the Second Amendment to the
Constitution. The matter is still fiercely debated and a definitive legal
judgement has yet to be provided. The constitutions of most other
countries, however, make no reference to a "right to bear arms".
Assuming that there is no absolute right to own a gun,
(and gun control advocates would argue that there is no moral or practical
justification for this), the gun control debate hinges on the extent to
which public safety is compromised by gun ownership. Gun owners put their
faith in screening procedures that would eliminate unsuitable, and
therefore unsafe applicants for firearm licences – in their view all legal
gun owners could then be regarded as trustworthy and competent to own even
the most dangerous weapons without risk to the public.
Gun control advocates argue that this is unrealistic
and dangerous - no screening procedure can reliably predict the present,
let alone the future behaviour of an applicant, an opinion supported by
medical and psychiatric experts. This was apparent in Britain at the time
of the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, and in many other instances when
licensed gun owners turned their guns on innocent victims.
Even if fitness were guaranteed, the question then
arises as to which particular guns can be entrusted to those who wish to
shoot. Gun enthusiasts would probably say ‘any gun’. The gun control view
is that the most dangerous guns (based on how easily concealable the gun
is, its rapidity of fire, power and calibre) should be prohibited.
However, since all guns are potentially dangerous ownership should not be
permitted unless it is essential.
The most reliable data indicate that from country to
country the rate of gun violence correlates with the level of gun
ownership (see International Aspects). High gun ownership creates a
higher risk, not only for a community in general, but also for gun owners
themselves, and so gun control advocates support any measures that lead to
an overall reduction in gun availability.
There is a contrary view, widely expressed within the
American gun lobby, that higher gun ownership reduces crime, but there
is very little objective support for this. Indeed most academic research
supports the opposite conclusion.
It is fair to say that there is a significant
difference in the motivation of advocates on the two sides of the
argument. Although the specific aims of those in favour of tight gun
control vary from country to country, reflecting differences in existing
gun legislation and cultural aspects of gun use, they all base their
arguments around the need for public safety and are concerned with the
welfare of the whole population. In contrast, the gun lobby generally
argue on behalf of a minority, themselves, defending the right to gun
ownership irrespective of its wider implications.
For a detailed discussion of the main arguments put forward by the
gun lobby and gun control advocates see:
Simon Chapman (1998) Over Our Dead Bodies. Pluto Press,
This book is about the Australian gun control campaign that
followed the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in April 1996
Peter Squires (2000) Gun Culture or Gun Control? Firearms ,
Violence and Society. Routledge, London and New York.
Focuses on the gun control debate in the UK
Josh Sugarmann (2001) Every handgun is aimed at you. The Case
for banning handguns. The New Press.
The book summarises the leading research and statistics on
handguns and handgun violence in the USA.
2. THE CAMPAIGN TO BAN HANDGUNS,
In Great Britain all handguns were banned from
private ownership as a result of legislation passed in 1997. The handgun
ban was the culmination of a campaign that began in the immediate
aftermath of the Dunblane massacre. A summary of the key events before
and during the campaign is provided. More details can be found in the
Events prior to the Dunblane massacre
The Home Office asked Her Majesty’s Chief
Inspector of Constabulary to undertake a review of firearms
controls. The resultant McKay Report, prepared in 1972,
was never published.
Following the McKay Report, the
Conservative government prepared a green paper, proposing
eleven broad-based restrictions on gun ownership and use.
After intense lobbying from gun users, the Government
abandoned its plans to tighten the gun laws. Licensed gun
owners were able to own and use a range of weapons including
semi-automatic rifles and high-powered handguns.
On 19 August sixteen people were killed and
fifteen injured by a lone gunman Michael Ryan in and around
the Berkshire town of Hungerford. Ryan finally shot
himself. His guns were all legally owned. Half of his victims
were shot with a handgun. There was no public inquiry.
As a response to the Hungerford massacre
Conservative Home Secretary Douglas Hurd introduced the
Firearms (Amendment) Bill 1988. In spite of calls for a
significant tightening of the gun laws, the legislative
changes were very limited. Semi-automatic rifles were banned
but handguns remained legal weapons. To own a handgun an
applicant for a firearms licence had to show good reason for
ownership. In the vast majority of cases this simply involved
a wish to participate in target shooting. In Great Britain
handgun ownership was not permitted for the purposes of
self-defence and private security (the situation is different
in Northern Ireland), a fact that is frequently overlooked by
those commentating on British gun laws from outside the UK.
One consequence of the 1988 Act was the
setting up of the Firearms Consultative Committee
(FCC). Its role was to provide advice on firearms to the Home
Secretary. The membership consisted almost entirely of men
with personal interests in shooting and/or the firearms trade
and their advice had a tendency to make it easier for
enthusiasts to use guns. The views of the victims of gun crime
were generally ignored. Neither was there any place on the FCC
for professionals such as doctors who dealt with the
consequences of gunshot wounds.
Events following the Dunblane massacre
March 1996 On 13 March sixteen five- and
six-year old children and their teacher were shot dead at
Dunblane Primary School in Central Scotland. Three more
teachers and eleven other children received gunshot wounds.
The perpetrator Thomas Hamilton was a licensed gun owner who
had brought his four lawfully-held large calibre handguns from
his home to the School. After his three-minute shooting spree
he killed himself with a revolver shot. Before he entered the
School Hamilton had not committed any offence under existing
The massacre had a huge impact on the
British public, the majority of whom would have been totally
ignorant of the types and numbers of weapons that gun owners
were able to keep at home. There were immediate calls,
especially among national newspapers for a tightening of the
gun laws. Most focussed their attention on handguns,
considered to be especially dangerous because they are
rapid-firing and easily concealed. Many observed that they had
no social use, their ownership justified solely on the basis
Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth (also by
coincidence the MP for Dunblane – the Shadow Scottish
Secretary George Robertson also had a Dunblane connection as
he lived in the town) announced that there would be a public
inquiry into the massacre chaired by the senior judge Lord
Cullen. Until Lord Cullen reported the Government would not
comment on new gun legislation, although it did promise that
legislative time would be made available later in the year.
April 1996 Two major petitions calling for
a ban on the private ownership of handguns were launched. One
was run by the Sunday Mail (a Scottish tabloid
newspaper). The other, the Snowdrop Petition, was
started by a group of people from the Dunblane/Stirling area
not directly involved in the tragedy (although some knew a few
of the victims’ families). Most were mothers with young
children who simply wanted something to be done to prevent
another such atrocity happening again. None had any previous
The Snowdrop Petition was formally launched
on 22 April at the Scottish Grand Committee in Inverness. It
quickly gained the support of the families of the Dunblane
victims. Contrary to press reports, the campaign was neither
instigated nor run by the families themselves.
The Sunday Mail petition gained 428,279
signatories within 5 weeks. It was handed to Home Secretary
Michael Howard on 26 April by a group of Dunblane families.
The group met other senior politicians including Prime
Minister John Major and Labour Opposition leader Tony Blair
and pressed their case for a total ban on handguns. The
families were convinced that the Dunblane massacre would not
have taken place had handguns been banned after the Hungerford
massacre nine years earlier. Thomas Hamilton would not have
planned and executed the massacre without easy access to
handguns, they argued.
May 1996 The Cullen Inquiry started
in Stirling. Evidence was taken on a number of matters
relating to the massacre, including the private possession of
The Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee
began its own investigation into "Handgun Ownership". The
Committee took oral evidence from a limited number of
witnesses representing shooters, the police and the Home
Office. No gun control advocates were asked to provide
evidence. The minority Labour group on the Committee suggested
that its investigation should be abandoned because of the
Cullen Inquiry but were overruled by the majority Conservative
July 1996 Once the Cullen Inquiry had
finished, the Dunblane families were able to give interviews
for the first time and took advantage of the intense media
interest to speak out for a handgun ban.
The Snowdrop Petition, signed by more than
705,000 people, was handed into Parliament. The occasion
provided another opportunity for Dunblane families to meet
senior politicians, and for campaigners to discuss the issues
with the media.
Two weeks later Gun Control Network
(GCN) was launched at a Westminster press conference. GCN was
founded by a small group of people including parents of
victims of the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, academics
and lawyers. It was set up not only to contribute to the
immediate campaign for a handgun ban but also to argue the
case for tight gun control after the handgun issue had been
resolved. It was a recognition that the gun lobby were likely
to push for a reversal of any handgun ban and that a permanent
organisation was needed that continued to promote the
arguments in favour of tighter gun control. During the
campaign, members of GCN, the Snowdrop campaigners and the
Dunblane families coordinated their activities, participating
in radio and TV discussions and providing frequent media
interviews and statements. Discussion programmes often
involved members of the gun lobby who were adamant that no
changes to the gun laws were necessary.
Aug 1996 The Home Affairs Select Committee
published its report on "Handgun Ownership". The committee was
split along party lines. The majority Conservative group ruled
out any significant changes to gun legislation and rejected
the need to prohibit any weapons. The Labour group provided a
minority report supporting a handgun ban and recommending
tighter controls over other weapons including air guns. The
Conservative majority’s status quo stance was condemned
by much of the media. The Report’s conclusions were
effectively ignored by their frontbench colleagues in the
Oct 1996 All the main opposition parties,
Labour, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists and Plaid
Cymru agreed to support a total ban on handguns. The
Conservative government was awaiting the publication of the
Cullen Report before revealing its position.
On 16 October the Cullen
Report was published. It recommended a number of changes
relating to the licensing and use of handguns but stopped
short of recommending a ban. The Government went beyond
Cullen’s recommendations and announced that it would introduce
a bill to outlaw the private ownership of high calibre
handguns (those above .22). There would be tighter
restrictions on the use of .22s but these small calibre
handguns would remain legal weapons. The Dunblane families and
others immediately announced that they would continue to
campaign for a total ban. Their central argument was that all
handguns could kill irrespective of the calibre.
A parliamentary Early Day Motion
demonstrated all-party support for a total ban, but the
Government insisted that all Conservative MPs support their
position of a partial ban. Opposition MPs were allowed a free
vote, and campaigners urged the Conservatives to follow suit.
In fact some pro-gun Tory backbenchers went on defy the party
whip and voted against any ban, while a smaller group who took
the opposite view voted for a total ban (see below).
Nov 1996 An intense period of lobbying
preceded the Second Reading of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill
during which an amendment proposing a total ban on handguns
was introduced by Conservative backbencher Robert Hughes.
Campaigners urged other Tories to vote for the amendment and
asked the Government to drop its three-line whip. The
amendment was defeated by the Government despite being
supported by four Conservative backbenchers and the vast
majority of opposition MPs. The lobbying campaign for a total
Under the auspices of the Sportsman’s
Association of Great Britain the gun lobby organised a
number of marches and demonstrations against any changes to
gun laws. These attracted patchy levels of support.
Feb 1997 In spite of dogged opposition from
parliamentary supporters of the gun lobby, especially in the
House of Lords, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill became law and a
partial ban on handguns was introduced. There would be a
surrender period for the guns and related equipment lasting a
few months, and gun owners would be compensated.
The campaign for a total ban continued and
now included billboards and cinema advertisements.
April 1997 The Snowdrop Campaign was wound
up and its administration taken over by Gun Control Network.
The Labour Party manifesto for the forthcoming General
Election pledged that, if elected, Labour would introduce a
bill banning low calibre handguns. Candidates from the Labour,
Liberal Democrat and Scottish Nationalist parties all
indicated their support.
May 1997 A Labour government was elected
and immediately introduced another Firearms (Amendment) Bill
to ban all remaining handguns (.22 calibre). It received
overwhelming support in the House of Commons.
Nov 1997 Attempts were made to amend the
Bill and allow exemptions for international competitions and
for disabled shooters. The amendments were defeated. By
November the Bill had reached its final stages and became law.
All handguns were now illegal.
Feb 1998 All .22 calibre handguns were
surrendered by the end of the month.
Gun Control Network continued its work (for
current issues visit the GCN web site).
1999 GCN members were invited to join the
Firearms Consultative Committee. Since then the membership of
the FCC has been broadened, though it remains dominated by men
with shooting interests. When the Home Affairs Committee
reviewed the issue of "Controls over Firearms" GCN was invited
to provide evidence.
Further details and comment on the campaign can be
Mick North (2000) Dunblane: Never Forget.
Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh.
Peter Squires (2000) Gun Culture or Gun Control?
Firearms, Violence and Society. Routledge, London and New York.
Stuart Thomson, Lara Stancich and Lisa Dickson.
(1998) Gun Control and Snowdrop in FF Ridley & Grant Jordan
(eds) Protest politics: cause groups and campaigns. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Home Affairs Select Committee Fifth Report (1996)
Possession of Handguns. HMSO, London.
Lord Douglas Cullen (1996) The Public Inquiry
into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996.
The Stationary Office, London.
The Firearms (Amendment) Bill 1996 was
discussed in the House of Commons on 28 October 1996
(Queen’s Speech), 12, 18 and 19 November 1996, 4 December 1996, 18
February 1997 and in the House of Lords on 16 December 1996, 16
and 21 January 1997, 4, 11 and 20 February 1997.
The Firearms (Amendment) Bill 1997 was
discussed in the House of Commons on 11 and 16 June 1997, 27
July 1997, 3 November 1997 and in the House of Lords on 6 June
1997, 15 July 1997, 16 and 27 October 1997 and 11 November 1997.
Firearms Compensation was discussed in the House of Commons on
9 June 1997.
Also of relevance to the handgun debate is a
statement on gun victim Thomas McIntyre made by Dr John Reid
(Motherwell, North) on 15 January 1997.
For transcripts see Hansard at:
The use and misuse of firearms remains an important
issue to politicians. The following list refers to parliamentary activity
since the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Acts in 1997
Committee and Group Reports
The Second Report from the Home Affairs
Committee Session 1999-2000 HC95 -
Controls over Firearms
- Report and Proceedings
- Written Evidence
The Fourth Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Session 2002-2003 HC 67 – The Control of Firearms in Northern Ireland
and the Draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
- Report, Proceedings and Evidence
The Government Response was published on 8 May 2003 by The
The Report from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Gun Crime –
Combating the Threat of Gun Violence, November 2003
- Published by Saferworld
Bills and Debates
For transcripts see Hansard.
Bill moved by Dr Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (21 January 1998)
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Firearms Act
1968 to restrict the acquisition and possession of air weapons; and
for connected purposes.
House of Commons debate on Air Gun Safety (23 June 1999)
Bill moved by David Atkinson (Bournemouth East) (30 October 2001)
That leave be given to bring a Bill to restrict the availability
and use of ball bearing guns and similar replica weapons
Bill moved by Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (29 October 2002)
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Firearms Act
1968 to restrict the acquisition and possession of air weapons; and
for connected purposes
Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003) – Part 5 of this Act introduced new
controls over certain types of firearm.
4. CRIME FIGURES
Gun crime statistics are published annually by the Home
Office for England and Wales, and by the Scottish Executive for Scotland.
As with all statistics they are open to differing
interpretations. By quoting selected data, the gun lobby have suggested
that recent figures for England and Wales demonstrate that the handgun ban
did not work and has led to an increase in violent crime. This
interpretation was widely reported in the press, yet careful analysis of
the figures does not support any such conclusion. Because of tight gun
control the British gun crime figures are low in comparison to many other
countries, but low numbers are inevitably subject to fluctuations that are
not always statistically significant.
Any analysis of changes in reported handgun crime must
also take into account the growth in the use of legal imitation
guns in crime (the police estimate that up to 80% of reported handgun
crime is attributable to imitations) and the reactivation of legal
deactivated guns such as blank-firing pistols. Neither group of weapon was
affected by the handgun ban. Handgun use is also linked to the growth of
illegal drug trading, gang activity and ‘organised’ crime, all of which
must be tackled by tougher law enforcement measures.
The most recent Home Office data (2002/03) show:
A total of 24,070 offences were committed with
An air weapon was the most commonly used firearm
(in 13,822 instances)
A handgun was used in 40 homicides and in a total
of 5540 crimes
See Crime in England and Wales (2002/03): Supplementary
Volume 1. Homicide and Gun Crime
The latest figures for Scotland from the
Scottish Executive (2002) show:
An air weapon was the most commonly used
A total of 1014 recorded offences in which a
firearm was alleged to have been used, at a similar level to that
in the five years since 1998
The number of offences involving the alleged
use of a pistol/revolver decreased from 64 in 1999 to 32 in 2001,
the lowest number since 1990
See the Scottish Executive Statistical Bulletin
Criminal Justice Series CrJ/2003/7 (Sept 2003)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats - earlier
The most recent annual British Crime Survey 2001
shows overall crime fell by 12% between 1999 and 2000, violent crime by
19%. The full British Crime Survey 2001 is at:
5. CURRENT ISSUES
The last few years have seen an increase in the
criminal use of imitation and replica guns in crime. Research strongly
suggests that the gun manufacturers are behind the growing replica market
- many of these guns are exact replicas made under licences issued by the
major gun manufacturers. Some of the guns are so called ‘soft air guns’
which shoot plastic bullets, others are BB guns which shoot ball bearings.
Unlike the handguns they resemble, replica guns have not been banned and
there are almost no restrictions on their purchase.
Among concerns shared by gun control advocates and the
The insecurity and fear engendered by the presence
of lookalike guns in communities
The encouragement of an early interest in guns
The pressure put on police to respond to all
sighting of guns, some of which are replicas, requiring the frequent
deployment of armed response units
The risk to users, since the police must assume the
gun is a real one even though it may not be - fatalities have resulted
from such incidents
The use of replica guns in crime - it is impossible
for most people to distinguish a replica from a real gun, so those
confronted with a replica gun would understandably consider themselves
threatened and endangered.
Whilst the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003) makes it
illegal to possess an imitation firearm in public, campaigners believe
that nothing short of banning the manufacture, sale and possession of
replica weapons will deal with this escalating problem.
For further details see:
Ian Taylor and Rob Hornsby (2000) Replica
firearms: a new frontier in the gun market. INFER Trust Report
Gun Control Network leaflet (enclosed)
The majority of reported gun crimes are committed with
air weapons, yet there are few restrictions on the purchase and use of
these weapons. Some of the present laws are frequently flouted. In
particular, a large number of air gun offences are carried out by
unsupervised youths, even though it is illegal for anyone under the age of
14 to use an airgun unless supervised by an adult (over 21).
The Home Affairs Committee took evidence on the use of
airguns in 1999, and recommended to the Government that the weapons should
be brought into the licensing system. The present Government is reluctant
to introduce licensing for airguns, citing the costs involved and manpower
required. To gun control advocates and animal welfare groups the amount of
airgun crime is sufficiently high to justify the expense and effort of
more effective control.
The recent introduction of the Anti-Social Behaviour
Act (2003) resulted in measures which made it illegal to possess certain
types of air weapon (the self-contained gas cartridge or SCGC guns)
without a firearms licence, but the other changes made to the legislation
relating to airgun ownership and use were rather limited.
Current legislation permits owners to keep deactivated
guns. Firearm collecting is often given as the reason. Although methods of
deactivation are supposed to ensure that the process is irreversible, some
of these guns have been reactivated and used in crimes. Together with
replica guns they represent a significant proportion of the handguns used
In a recent report on Illegal Firearms by the
Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College London, the authors state that
"…there are at present two types of handguns that are popular with
criminals – both of these involve the conversions of items that can be
obtained legally". The Report, which was commissioned by the Countryside
Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting, has been used by the gun lobby to
support its claim that the handgun ban has not worked. However, the fact
that reactivated weapons, which whilst deactivated are legal, are
frequently used in crime supports a case for extending the ban to
See Centre for Defence Studies (2001) Illegal Firearms in the United
Working Paper 4. Kings College, University of London.
Minimum age for shooting
Current legislation allows children of any age to be
introduced to firearms and shoot, provided they are supervised. Some
shooting organisations actively encourage young shooters by emphasising a
fun element in the sport. In the view of gun control advocates the
recruitment of shooters at an early age can lead to an unhealthy
attachment to guns. They reason that such dangerous weapons ought only be
handled and used by mature adults. This issue was also raised during the
Home Affairs Committee’s hearings in 1999. The committee concluded that a
minimum age should be introduced. This recommendation has not been taken
up by the Government.1
Field sports (game shooting, deer stalking) and clay
pigeon shooting have not been affected by the recent legislation, nor are
there proposals to outlaw any of these shooting activities.
Some concerns about the firearms used in field sports
have been raised by gun control advocates and by the Home Affairs Select
Committee.1 These include:
The licensing of shotguns – this differs from that
for Section 1 firearms (rifles) and permits an unspecified number of
shotguns to be held on a single licence thus promoting an uncontrolled
proliferation of weapons
The use of multishot rifles and shotguns – guns
that can fire more than one shot without reloading are significantly
1For details of the evidence given to Home
Affairs Committee, the Committee’s Report and the Government’s response
see the links under Parliament (p.9).
Firearms Legislation Review
The Government is about to undertake a review of all
the legislation covering the ownership and use of firearms. The Government
has promised to consult with all interested parties before bringing
forward its proposals. Future versions of this Pack will provide
information about the proposed changes.
For details see:
6. INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS
Data on firearms and violence
Data on firearms and violence are currently being
collected from countries all over the world. The data allow comparisons to
be made between countries and the relationship between gun violence and
gun ownership to be analysed. The data indicate that levels of gun
violence are greatest in countries such as the United States where gun
ownership is highest, lowest in countries like Japan in which firearm
ownership is very tightly restricted.
The most comprehensive set of data has been collated by
The HELP Network (The Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan Network) in
collaboration with SAFER-Net (Small Arms/Firearms Education &
Research Network). Fifty countries and cities are currently covered.
Campaign to restrict the global trade in small arms
As many as 500,000 people are killed each year with
small arms, a category that largely equates with guns. About 200,000 are
victims of murder, suicide and ‘accidents’, often in countries that are,
at least nominally, ‘at peace’. Another 300,000, the majority of whom are
civilians, die in conflicts. The staggering human and economic devastation
caused by the proliferation of firearms has led to action by a number of
agencies, including the United Nations.
The World Health Organisation highlighted the problem
in its recent report on Violence and Health.
In July 2001 the UN held a conference to discuss the
Illicit Trade in Small Arms. For campaigners the outcome was
disappointing, as it did not lead to a binding agreement among states to
restrict arms trading. The agreed pact simply urges states to
establish new laws aimed at regulating arms brokers and ensuring "control
over the export and transit of small arms and light weapons" and limits
itself to appealing to states to destroy surplus stocks of small
arms and to criminalize the illegal production, possession, stockpiling
and trade in small arms. Plans to prevent states selling guns to rebel
groups were blocked by the United States.
For a report see: http://www.un.org/events/ref40.htm
Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have urged
more radical and immediate measures. Gun control groups believe that the
issue of domestic gun control impacts on the arms trade, as guns will
frequently flow from countries with weak gun laws to become part of the
illicit trade. In 1999 a large group of NGOs, including international aid
agencies, development organisations, peace groups and gun control
organisations linked up to form the International Action Network on
Small Arms (IANSA). IANSA is coordinating many of the efforts to
restrict the arms trade. Together with Amnesty International and Oxfam,
IANSA is running a Control Arms campaign. To get more information on
current campaigns visit these websites.
Control Arms: http://www.controlarms.org
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear