Blunkett is right to impose a ban on owning handguns

This is a government that can rarely resist responding quickly to a media frenzy, especially in the emotive policy area of law and order. Famously, Tony Blair once sent out a memo to his colleagues seeking an "eye-catching initiative" on crime, in other words one that would impress the newspapers rather than a measure that might have much practical impact.

In the case of the brutal killings of the two teenage girls in Birmingham there has been an inevitable media frenzy, especially during a quiet news period. The frenzy can easily give the misleading impression that gun crime is gripping Britain when the level is below most European countries and far below the United States. Helpfully placing this particular crime in context a spokesman for the Metropolitan Police has made clear that in London only 0.003 per cent of the cases they handle are gun-related.

Even so, in this particular instance the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is right to respond speedily, for the simple reason that he has a practical and straightforward proposal that he has been contemplating for some time. Tomorrow he will announce that the crime of possessing a handgun will carry a minimum sentence of five years. It is not the equivalent of what turned out to be the prime ministerial eye-catching initiative, the implausible one in which drunken louts were to be escorted to their cash machines to pay an on-the-spot fine. The minimum sentence to be announced tomorrow will, at the very least, signal the seriousness with which the Government views this particular offence.

Mr Blunkett must also be prepared to swat away any calls for a wider review of gun laws. There is an argument that the ban on the possession of handguns introduced after the Dunblane shootings – when 16 children and a teacher at a local primary school were killed by a lone gunman – has actually made matters worse, with more guns than ever before being obtained illegally. Some critics of the original ban are claiming vindication, suggesting that it would be better to license the use of firearms, rather than encouraging inadvertently a flourishing black market. The main evidence for their view is the relentless rise in firearms offences over the past five years.

But the laws introduced after Dunblane were aimed largely at preventing lone, undiagnosed psychopaths from legitimately obtaining firearms. They appear to be working effectively. Preventing gangs of inner-city criminals from acquiring guns is a different matter, involving tougher sentences, addressing some of the social causes of the crimes and also an increased vigilance at ports and airports to prevent the weapons from entering the country in the first place.

The gun culture, as far as it exists, is also related to access to drugs. Curbing access and tackling the other issues are long-term projects. Only incremental progress is likely, without an eye-catching initiative in sight. For these are daunting challenges, involving individuals capable of violence and small groups – out of fear or loyalty – willing to protect those who have committed crimes. But without the ban the use of firearms undoubtedly would have been higher still.