In the wake of the dreadful incidents at Dunblane and Hungerford the administration required for one to keep any sort of gun was greatly increased. At the time protests were heard that the only people who would be affected were the law abiding gun owners.

That was not strictly true.

The police were also affected because they have to enforce the regulations. That takes them from the part of their duty which relates to crime detection. It may be an attempt to prevent crime, which is another part of their duty, but what has happened?

The number of crimes committed which have included the use of guns has increased dramatically.

I wonder whether the gun used in the recent siege in Hackney was a licensed weapon?

Those used in the Birmingham murders appear to have been machine guns. I do not suppose they were legally held. But because of gun related incidents, I and thousands like me, with a shotgun for game shooting, have to fill in a large form and pay a fairly large fee every so often.

Then the police have to inspect it. Normally I do this on time because the law says I must. I would do it much more happily if I thought it actually did any good.

Therein lies the problem. This, and all governments, think that if they are not forever introducing initiatives, which the rest of us would call meddling, they are not doing their job. So anyone illegally holding a weapon is now subject to a five-year prison sentence. Which prison will be able to find the space for them?

This is the week when the head of the legal profession and the most senior judge have both said that, because of prison overcrowding and the lack of effectiveness of prison in preventing reoffending, burglary should not automatically attract custodial sentences.

Why then does it work for gun crime? So we get two initiatives working in opposite directions in one week. Is this a record? The Home Secretary must face the fact that guns held by criminals for illegal purposes are not going readily to be surrendered. Why does he appear to think that a good ticking off will solve everything?

Why does all this matter to the law abiding? After all, those of us who have guns for game shooting are a small minority.

This is not an age when small minorities carry much political clout. Uniformity is of paramount importance. That applies whether in dress codes or in behaviour patterns. It is vital not to stand out from the crowd.

The countryside looks as it does because our ancestors laid out the land for sport. The way foxes ran or pheasants flew influenced where trees and hedges were planted. There are corners of fields on this farm which have been planted up because they are suitable places for pheasants to nest. The countryside looks as it does because of field sports.

In upland areas the balance between field sports and farming has changed to such an extent that the income from these sports far outstrips the income from farming.

If it were not for the cash brought in by field sports the prospects of employment in remoter areas would be much worse. Some of the money comes from abroad, which makes it even better. We are all appalled by recent high profile incidents of gun crime.

It is important that restrictions on legitimately held weapons do not make it impossible for those in the remaining field sports to make a living.

Updated: 11:34 Tuesday, January 14, 2003