Trying to understand UKARA and the VCRA can be tough.
A lot of laws in the UK are born out of knee-jerk reactions to things which get hyped up in the tabloid papers. This is like a red rag to a bull for many Z-List backbencher MPs in the UK's Parliament, most of whom are trying to make a name for themselves. The favoured MP's method for that, is to 'crusade' a certain flavour of the month issue, since it means they'll get their face on current affairs TV programmes. Sadly, there are a lot of politicians in this country for whom the notion of being an Member of Parliament, is less about having a burning wish to spread their heartfelt political beliefs, or desire to serve their fellow countrymen, and more about setting themselves up for a career path which consists of serving three terms of office as an MP (which in itself is not a bad wage), then the hope that they'll get some sort of gong or honour sponsored by their party (Knighthood, CBE, MBE, OBE, peerage or some such letters after their name). Such an accolade means they can then get a non-executive directorship with a big corporation, then sit back doing feck all for the rest of their life, whilst on a pretty good director's salary. Most big UK companies like the idea of having someone on the board who has 'Sir' or 'Lord' as part of their name, since this looks good on their company stationery.
The fallout from all that self-serving bollocks which a good many UK politicians indulge in, is that we often end up with dumb ass laws sponsored by someone who rarely knows much about the subject at hand, or doesn't think a great deal about consequences and effects of what they are attempting to force through as a law. The VCR Act is a case in point for this, most of it stems from the press baying for legislation changes after some loony tune has gone postal in some town centre, whereupon some MP sees this as his or her gravy train pulling into the station. It matters not one jot that when somebody does flip out like that and kill a bunch of people, the press are hardly concerned with the real issue - since that requires some thought - which is that anyone who does flip out like that, should clearly have been dealt with by getting assistance for their mental issues long before they ever got hold of a weapon, certainly in any country which really is concerned for the welfare of its citizens, and such should certainly be championed by newspapers if they really were the moral compasses they pretend to be. For if not, such potential killers could just as easily flip out and attack people with a hammer, screwdriver, kitchen knife, half a brick etc, but even if they do not do that, such mentally ill people have clearly fallen through the safety net of society, which should be offering assistance to people with mental health issues which might cause such destructive behaviour.
It should be obvious to anyone who applies some intelligent thought to the matter for more than a nanosecond, that since the vast majority of people
can be trusted to not go out and massacre their fellow man if they have access to a rifle or pistol, then the solution to much gun crime is therefore to be found in seeking to help those who have problems which result in them not being capable of such trust. For if not, then we'd better ban kitchen knives, half bricks, screwdrivers, hammers etc.
