With this recent shooting of a boy, near Liverpool, I think valid questions arise about ownership of firearms. Hopefully without repeating too much of the obvious. Britain is famous for the "fact" that neither the police and Public have firearms. We pride ourselves that "others" have them and are plagued by the results. In the case of the Police this is obviously debatable, not that I am questioning the very real need they have for firearms. It is also, following Hungerford and Dumblain [sic?] now almost impossible for a member of the Public to LEGALLY own most kinds of firearms. yet the criminal elements too ARE armed. The resulting crimes are there for all to see, while the very rarity (no bad thing) of them makes them national news. It is my personal impression that violent crime is as rampant in the UK, as in the USA, only the means vary. When I emigrated from the UK, to the USA, I was pretty much opposed to private firearms ownership. Since then my views have altered. I hold a Concealed Firearms Permit (possible here in Indiana) and I own several firearms. Within my home, I take care to keep weapons and ammunition apart (no sleeping with a loaded pistol under the pillow for me). My rifles are all locked AND in a gun safe. This I feel is a suitable level of care on my part for the storage of what is a potentially lethal tool, but a tool non the less. This level of ownership is in no way unique in America (they have the right to bear arms, or indeed some would say Arm Bears). Nor have felt a desire to go on some rampage. Given that The English Bill of Rights (1689?) specifically allowed private ownership of firearms, as well as the fact that total prohibition has COMPLETELY FAILED TO HALT THE CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS, is there any other reason they have been banned? Surely if a citizen has no criminal intent, and is professionally tested for mental competence ownership of firearms for sporting interest is not something that should be denied? Could it not be that various governments have decided that a completely disarmed populace is the true aim of banning legal ownership of firearms? Perhaps the true end game was prevent armed resistance to some, hypothetical government that was completely unpalatable to a otherwise potentially armed Populace? Alternatively, is the ANY reason at all to revisit the issue of Legal firearms ownership, by members of the General public, in the United Kingdom?