division_name: Firearms (Amendment) Bill
motion: <p>Order for Second Reading read. 
  
  <p>
   I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  <p> 
  
   None of us will ever forget the appalling events that took place on 13 March 1996 in Dunblane, when 16 innocent children and their teacher were gunned down by Thomas Hamilton, armed with a lawfully licensed handgun. In response to that tragedy, the previous Parliament passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which banned all higher-calibre handguns. We supported it, but, in our view, it did not go far enough. In our manifesto, we said this about gun control:
  <p> 
   
    "In the wake of Dunblane and Hungerford, it is clear that only the strictest firearms laws can provide maximum safety. There will be legislation to allow individual Members of Parliament a free vote for a complete ban on handguns."
  <p>
   I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  <p> 
   
    'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill since the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has dealt comprehensively with the problems identified by Lord Cullen; believes that there is no justification for a total ban on all handguns including those of .22 calibre which would eliminate all legitimate <p>
  They did not, therefore, recommend a .22 ban, but said instead that single-shot .22 pistols should be accepted. Why have the Labour Government changed their views?
  <p>Question put,  That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 173, Noes 384.
  