Norman Tebbit is stirring up the proverbial hornet’s nest by suggesting that children be taught to shoot:
Teaching children how to shoot would be the best way to combat the spiralling gun crime culture, according to Conservative peer Lord Tebbit.
It would give teenagers the “violence and danger” they crave, while teaching them to take responsibility for their actions, he said.
I can hear the angry stirring even now; rising from a dim buzz to a screeching cacophony as the gun control lobby gird their collective loins for battle; bristling with righteous indignation at the very suggestion that children be given guns and taught how to use them. It’s interesting that these same reactionary people will, doubtless, be regarding Tebbit as the reactionary. And, of course we will hear Thomas Hamilton’s name bandied about as a justification for the excesses of the state:
His comments were branded “ludicrous” by school teacher Eileen Harrild, who was shot by Thomas Hamilton while trying to shield her pupils from his bullets during his rampage which claimed 17 lives at Dunblane in 1996.
Well, blow me down with a feather… I wasn’t expecting that one. Of course, Thomas Hamilton was an unfit person to own a gun and the existing regulations should have been properly enforced, in which case, he wouldn’t have been able to go on a rampage as he did. Still, the gun control lobby don’t let that one spoil a good scare story.
There was a time when I might have agreed with them. I used to be in favour of strict gun control. After all, why on earth would anyone want to own a lethal weapon? They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only; to kill.
Observation of history, the evidence and human behaviour forced a change of mind. Being taught how to shoot helped a little too. It taught me to respect guns – even though I still don’t much like them. I’ll never be a marksman, but I can hit what I aim at; which, I understand, is the object of the exercise. Importantly, I also know how not to kill people by accident, too.
What Tebbit is doing is appealing to the forbidden fruit syndrome. Guns are alluring to young boys not only because they are dangerous, but because they are forbidden and that is an attractive, seductive combination. Take away at least one of those aspects and some of that allure will inevitably pall.
So, yes, he has a point; as does his comment about the discipline that goes with gun usage. I recall my own weapons training and it was rigorous and highly disciplined to say the least – but, then, I’d expect nothing less from the Royal Navy.
It’s worth bearing in mind that it is illegally held weapons that are responsible for pretty much all of the gun crime in this country, and by far most of it still, before the restrictive controls were enacted; thus undermining the argument for gun control. The laws we have were based upon two high profile cases and making law on the basis of a high profile, highly emotive case, generally makes for bad law – and bad law was what we got. Indeed, what we got was law abiding people being criminalised for no good reason; so, no change there, then.
I write as a licensed firearms owner, so I have no anti-gun axe to grind. Tebbit’s remarks are pretty stupid. Not offensively stupid. Just stupid, stupid. The reasons for gun crime might go just a little deeper than an unrequited fascination with firearms. If he truly wanted to reduce gun crime he would advocate the decriminalisation of narcotics. But Tebbit is far too much of an authoritarian to countenance anything like that. I have no problems with teaching youths how to shoot. It is a great sport but it isn’t going to stop gun crime. I think he was just looking to stir things up. He must be 80 by now and I guess he just doesn’t give a fuck.
While you have a point about Tebbit’s comments being off target regarding some of the underlying causes of gun crime, I disagree that he is being stupid. Far from it, he makes a great deal of pragmatic common sense. Taking guns out of the discussion for a moment, he is suggesting that young people be given the opportunity to channel their energy in a positive manner, learn new skills and be taught to take responsibility. Indeed, it is the taking responsibility that is at the core of his argument. That, frankly, is far from stupid. Indeed, it is no different to the ideas espoused by people such as the Duke of Edinburgh or Lord Baden-Powell. As you say, shooting can be a great sport. Taking part in a sport such as this may, just may, change the attitudes of some and it might lead them to take a different path. To reject it out of hand as stupid is itself, somewhat… er… stupid… sorry. Sure, gun crime goes deeper than just an unrequited fascination with firearms – and Tebbit hasn’t suggested anything else. There is no one single cause, not even narcotics, so tackling one of those elements isn’t wrong or stupid – it’s worth giving some consideration.
Being in one’s seventies doesn’t mean that one stops caring. Tebbit is a polemicist – so, yes, doubtless he is stirring it up and why not? Someone needs to. I don’t much like his politics, but I do respect his willingness to speak his mind. Long may it continue.
All that said, yes, I agree with you about narcotics prohibition.
I agree wholeheartedly with shooting sports provided at school; there are massive bodies in England dedicated to shooting sports who would gladly help organise this for the next olympics – how much better would a games lesson be if there was the possibility to go shooting? I think a much better compromise for the more prissy of schools would be to have martials arts on the curriculum, separate to games lessons – these always seemed so pointless when I was younger and can think of nothing better to focus a young personsmind, build up confidence and self-esteem than being graded for their efforts and being taught to defend themselves; this would also have 2 useful side-effects; it would identify naturally violent children and would tackle obesity. Parents could opt their children out if so desired in both instances.
Thom’s last blog post..Bah, Humbug
Thom, I hated games lessons at school. Kicking a ball about or trying to run faster than someone else bored me rigid. When they let me indulge in the sports that I did in my own time (archery and judo) they realised that I wasn’t a hopeless geeky kid, but could do something that my peers could not – defend myself for one and shoot straight for another… 😉
Longrider,
My point exactly – I too hated games lessons, but I was a nintendo geek, was overweight and unhappy. It has taken me years to begin to work off the damage that games places on a young person to compete without any real formal training in place; something that Judo, archery and, more importantly, sports shooting, would offer.
Incidentally having tried the gym approach with weights, running and such I’ve moved on to do a variation of MMA (mixed martial arts) called AEGIS; I’m about to start weapons training this month (if I can find the time) and my little brother has just joined me. It is a hell of a lot more fun.
I can think of one problem with Tebbits suggestion and that is cost – the logistical, safety and licensing requirements for shooting would be a massive rollout to subsidise; martial arts on the other hand would require only 3 things:
1. A trained instructor – probably willing to work for the same cost of a games teacher on a part time basis.
2. slightly better equipped hall – breaker matts etc. Gi could be optional or provided by parents, who could also provide..
3. The insurance booklet that all martial artists need to partake; £20 the last time I checked, plus a permission slip to partake in training.
Thom’s last blog post..Bah, Humbug
Fair comment, and it may be that this makes it logistically impossible. However, Tebbit’s comments serve the purpose of raising these issues and hopefully to people doing something about them.
“rigorous and highly disciplined” weapons training? In the Navy?! (sorry I couldn’t resist a bit of inter service rivalry)
You’re right, of course.
Jackart’s last blog post..More Labour Doublethink
You may also be amused by the comment of our weapons instructor at the commencement of the training:
“Matelots with guns scares the shit out of me…” You can add the usual ‘orrible little man stuff as you see fit. 😉
Still, if we scared the shit out of him, just think what effect it would have had on the enemy.
Stephen points out how foolish it is to think that gun crime will go down if only we hand out more guns and teach kids how to fire them.
Longrider, there are plenty of more cost effective ways of teaching people responsibility and giving them something exciting to do, than thrusting guns into their hands. Guns are just too dangerous to be encouraged as a ‘sport’.
Neil Harding’s last blog post..My Letter to Michael Wills MP, Minister Of State
Neil, weapons of war have been used for sport since weapons of war existed. Yes, there is an element of danger, but “too” dangerous? No, certainly not. The whole point about Tebbit’s suggestion is that it brings with it the rigorous discipline of weapons handling that is aligned to good self discipline.
No, it is not foolish. He has a point to make and it is a valid one. It may prove as Thom suggested, logistically impossible, but to claim that it is too dangerous is, frankly, reactionary.
Most weapons of war originated in the hunting field, and kids played with them so they would be familiar when they needed them.
The costs of introducing the youth of today, (and if we restrict it to armed robbers and muggers, the policy will fail) would be prohibitive. They are going to have enough problems promoting cooking in schools and banning knives in schools. The knife is the essential bit of cooking equipment. I can prepare steak tartare without fire, but not without a knife.
Simon