The pen and the sword

The Times' editorial of Monday, October 1 (Streamlining Gun Laws) is basically a rehash of the item that appeared some months ago. The inaccuracies, absurd conclusions and consequent scaremongering, which we identified in our response, are still there. However this time round the irresponsibility of incorrect reporting is amplified by the fact that this is an editorial. The newspaper's credibility is at stake.

The editorial claims that it takes one "about a month" to get registered in a target shooting club and obtain a target shooter licence.

The reality is quite different. The applicant has to go through the club membership procedure, which in the case of our association may take as long as three months and which includes an intensive one-week firearms safety course and a final assessment test. Successful candidates are issued with a letter of recommendation which is appended to the police application. The Weapons Board then vets the application and eventually sends its recommendation to the Commissioner of Police who then has the final say whether or not to issue the licence. The Weapons Board and the police are each allowed a maximum of one month within which to process the application.

However the biggest gaffe is the claim that a licensed target shooter may acquire "up to 10 weapons that can range from a revolver to more sophisticated and deadly weapons such as a sniper's rifle or a sub-machine gun!". Fully automatic military firearms such as sub-machine guns and assault-rifles are Schedule I firearms and are prohibited (therefore forget owning a Kalashnikov). The 10 pieces allowed to the target shooter are Schedule II semi-auto, repeating and single-shot firearms, as in most countries where target shooting is practised under a plethora of matches and events.

Contrary to what the editorial states, the new law does distinguish between collecting and target shooting and the types of firearms allowed by the respective licence. The editorial has failed to grasp the spirit of the law which focuses on the person rather than the firearm. An applicant has to prove his credentials for either licence before he is allowed to take up the particular activity. As the editorial itself states, licensing is carried out on "the basis of the intended use of the weapon and, consequently, depending on the user himself".

While target shooters may own and use up to 10 firearms from Schedule II plus any number of airguns, muzzle-loaders and shotguns, collectors may acquire and keep any quantity of firearms from Categories I and II provided that these firearms are certified as being antique, rare or historical by the Weapons Board. It cannot be simpler and the editorial's confusion is surprising.

Mentioning the UK is to be expected; what is not said however is that ever since the "mother of all democracies" turned against its own law-abiding citizens and confiscated their guns, the armed crime rate shot up and is now out of control.

We are in full agreement with the editorial when it calls for "more rigorous conditions when issuing licences, whether for target shooting, collecting, or hunting". That is precisely what the Association of Maltese Arms Collectors and Shooters has been advocating for years! We are all for harsh penalties for abuse. We want to foster a serious approach to licensing.

Likewise, it would be appreciated if the media could take a serious approach to its reporting by checking the facts before putting pen to paper. After all "the pen is mightier than the sword" and abuse of the pen has been known to lead to far more damage.

Editor's note: The Times appreciates Mr Piccinino's input and his explanation/corrections. Any error/s is/are regretted. The aim of the editorial was to warn against the promotion of a gun culture under any form or guise.