Cumbria shootings

there seems to be two sides to this there are illegal firearms ( i have seen them during my duties patrolling the streets !!

usualy these are used but mainly against other crimminals or drug related if used in robberies they are very rarely used to kill mainly used as a threat !!

then there is the legal owned firearms side dunblane , hungerford , cumbria , the millionaire that killed all his family because he was going bust !!

multiple murder shootings in the uk have nearly if not always been legaly owned weapons used by the legal owners , fact !!

the fact you have a person who is fascinated by shooting things then allow them to have a gun beggars belief

personaly speaking i saw enough of firearms and what they can do in their rightful place ( the millitary )

they are not a welcome addition to a home in any civilised society

i have yet to find another practicle use for a gun other than killing !!

another overwhelming piece of evidence that it is a dangerous fixation is , i have known many legal firearms owners

few are happy with just owning one for enjoying target shooting ( most have an armoury !! )

It all sounds like neat media pegging of a personality to me.
It goes against the normal ‘loner strikes’ image, would his drinking buddies really turn around and say he was an awful chap with severe financial problems that liked collecting guns?
The first impression I got was not one of ‘he didn’t seem like he was capable of what he did’, and my partner actually said he looked liked he was a killer, just shows how people can get different impressions from the media.

I’m not saying he wasn’t a nice chap, but unless you did know him (and apologies if you did) then you don’t know that he was a nice guy if you are relying on the media to inform you so.

The point I was making was the contrast between Derrick Bird and Thomas Hamilton.
IIRC,Hamilton was portrayed as an alienated loner,who wouldn’t have had any drinking buddies to express their shock at his actions.
On the other hand,Bird was surrounded by a social network so was outwardly the more ” normal ” of the two.
I’m guessing,but correct me if I’m wrong,that you didn’t know him either,so both of us can only draw conclusions from whatever information is reported.( Sorry if that sounds sarcastic,it’s not meant to be ).

It’s interesting that your partner said he looked like a killer.
I can’t find it now,but if I remember correctly somewhere I read or heard a comment from a relative by marriage of Bird’s,the usual ” I always thought there was something odd about him ” type of thing.
It concluded with the words,” anyway,he was short “.
As one of the world’s shorties myself ( barely five foot ),I know whereof I speak.
It’s bad enough being short as a woman.but I imagine it must be purgatory for a man.Bird was apparently five foot two,overweight and balding.I’m only guessing,but I would have thought that would be enough to make you feel slightly inferior at times.

I don’t know whether Ryan Short is right in his assertion that assault weapons are commonly held in Israel and Switzerland. Do both have armed Police Forces? But I can find no mention of spree shootings in either of those countries.

This might answer a part of your question…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

It all sounds like neat media pegging of a personality to me.
It goes against the normal ‘loner strikes’ image, would his drinking buddies really turn around and say he was an awful chap with severe financial problems that liked collecting guns?
The first impression I got was not one of ‘he didn’t seem like he was capable of what he did’, and my partner actually said he looked liked he was a killer, just shows how people can get different impressions from the media.

I’m not saying he wasn’t a nice chap, but unless you did know him (and apologies if you did) then you don’t know that he was a nice guy if you are relying on the media to inform you so.

With the greatest of respect, you don’t really know that.

Judging by what I’ve seen reported,numerous people who knew him described him as a nice bloke,the last person you’d expect to do something like this.

I have to say that I totally agree with Kev35’s well summarised analysis of the subject.

Derrick Bird was the archetypal nice bloke,a family man with a social network of friends,workmates,drinking buddies and so on,who pursued hobbies and was outwardly as normal as they come,which makes this crime even more shocking.

With the greatest of respect, you don’t really know that.

Try reading my posts.

We do not have an armed Police Service. There have been three so called spree shootings in relatively recent memory including Hungerford, Dunblane and now Cumbria. Compare that with America. You have a large and extremely well armed Police Force. I would assume they are well trained and dedicated professionals. Yet being armed hasn’t prevented many shooting sprees in America, nor has it ended them. It seems largely that they end the same way as the one in Cumbria, with the suicide of the perpetrator.

It’s not about Nationalism at all. It’s about what appears to work. There may well be a case for more armed Officers in the UK. I honestly don’t know the answer. but the points you seem to be absolutely intent on missing are two fold. Firstly, when people join the Police Service here they join on the understanding that they do not carry firearms. To become a firearms Officer is voluntary. It then becomes personal choice as to whether serving Officers wish to be trained to become firearms Officers.

Secondly, the level of gun ownership is substantially lower than in the US. Therefore the potential for someone who has serious mental health issues in the US to just go and get their legally held weapon and go on a shooting spree is much higher than it is in the UK. And then the weapon is often prised from ‘cold, dead fingers’, but only when it is too late.

I don’t know whether Ryan Short is right in his assertion that assault weapons are commonly held in Israel and Switzerland. Do both have armed Police Forces? But I can find no mention of spree shootings in either of those countries.

I don’t know what the answer is. But surely the simple statistic that there have been 145 incidents of shootings related to educational establishments in the US over 31 years compared to one in the UK can only point to the fact the widespread availability of guns facilitates such incidents whilst the arming of the Police Force does nothing to prevent the same and in the majority of cases has little impact on how these incidents come to an end.

Regards,

kev35

Has it ever occurred to you that less guns may just mean less gun crime?
Regards,
kev35

I haven’t addressed that issue in any way.
Please feel free to point out where I did.
I’ve never said the U.S. was a crime free haven.

The topic I’ve beed addressing is arming the police….you seem to think “…that less guns may just mean less gun crime?”
Does that mean if the police have less guns there will be less crime? Becaus ethat’s the topic for discussion here.
I don’t know about you, but I trust the UK police to be professional in their use of firearms. I don’t think they’ll add to the crime problem.
It’s possible having more armed police might reduce casualties when this happens again.
And sadly, I’m sure it will..unless all the guns are taken away. IIRC, this shooting as well as Hungerford were done buy people with the proper licenses and permits.
And I don’t hear anyone calling for all guns to be taken away.

You’re telling us that we may have it wrong by having a largely unarmed Police Service. You may be right, but the evidence from America does not seem to support that does it?
Regards,
kev35

Again, instead of discussing the topic, you seem to be trying to turn this into a nationalism “We’re better” argument.

Please calmly read my posts…
I’m just saying that in light of recent shooting sprees…Hungerford (where it is said the police weapons unit were 40 miles away doing training) and Dunblane, that the topic should be up for DISCUSSION.

But given the emotions some seem to have on the issue, that may not be possible.

Forget about the police. They almost never get there in time to stop anything. If you’re going to have guns, then they need to be commonly accessible and not restricted in certain locations. If not, then don’t let a few elites have them either. Any death is sad and wrong, but it’s not the gun’s fault.
Those parents should have been more responsible, but I’d say that there’s a deeper subject that bears addressing that’s outside the scope of this particular thread. It has to do with morality, how you deal with problems, and the sanctions against evil in society. There IS a problem, but banning guns isn’t the real answer.
In the big scheme of things, it is a part of the price we choose to pay for our liberty over here. Seems we’re selling it anyway, but there’s still hope.

Ryan

Part of the discussion here relates to whether the Police should be routinely armed. They can enter any building in America if called to an incident but were still powerless to prevent the 273 deaths I mentioned earlier. In many of those cases, the perpetrators had access to either a gun that they owned or, in many cases, it was a child or young adult taking a weapon belonging to a parent. If the weapon had not been owned in the home they wouldn’t have been able to take said weapons and use them. Do you not see that? Instead of a disgruntled child trashing their room they take daddy’s toy and kill a few people. If the weapon wasn’t there then they couldn’t do it could they?

Regards,

kev35

If all those “good guys” hadn’t had everything from pistols to M16’s stored in their closets then they, or in many cases their children, wouldn’t have been able to go out and cause the deaths of 273 people in the 31 year period I looked at.

Funny but we in Texas came to nearly the exact opposite conclusion. It was after the mass murder in Waco at the Luby’s restaurant. There was a lawmaker who was there with her gun stored as it was supposed to be, who watched as her parents were killed in front of her along with several others. He could’ve been stopped very quickly if she’d had her gun present. Same could be said for other instances. The point is, if the elite few can get to a gun, you can’t prevent it from happening even in England. Here, the common folk often do have guns, but the places where mass-murders take place are the places where we can’t defend ourselves.

Ryan

Derrick Bird was, by all accounts, a “good guy” right up until the early hours of last Wednesday when he went on his murderous drive through Cumbria. The weapons he had were legally held.

If all those “good guys” hadn’t had everything from pistols to M16’s stored in their closets then they, or in many cases their children, wouldn’t have been able to go out and cause the deaths of 273 people in the 31 year period I looked at.

Regards,

kev35

I see. So you’re suggesting that it is a fundamentally American problem?

In the figures I’ve looked at neither Israel or Switzerland get a mention so the point you’re trying to make there just doesn’t work.

Regards,

kev35

Not saying it’s a fundamentally American problem at all. I’m saying that there is a disconnect in some of our laws that makes it unreasonably easy to commit a mass murder by creating invisible gun-free zones that are largely un-enforceable for criminals, while most law-abiding citizens including myself leave the gun locked up in the car or elsewhere to go into the bank (I do that as little as possible!).

I brought up the other two countries because guns are plentiful and available there as well, and you don’t hear about them having serious mass-murders. I think it’s not so much the guns as it is the culture. If you’re going to have guns in a society, you need to allow them to be carried by the good guys who so chose. If not, then you really shouldn’t allow ANYONE, including the government or the elite to own them either. It should be a level playing field for all. That’s why I’ll never give mine up unless the government does, too!

Ryan

And yes, people need to be responsible with who has access to their weapons and need to train their children and others to behave properly. on the flip side of things, how’s the Swiss crime rate these days or the Israeli crime rate? Do you hear about a lot of mass shootings in those countries where armed citizens have assault weapons readily accessible and somewhat common?

Ryan

I see. So you’re suggesting that it is a fundamentally American problem?

In the figures I’ve looked at neither Israel or Switzerland get a mention so the point you’re trying to make there just doesn’t work.

Regards,

kev35

Just a few figures from a country where gun ownership is the norm rather than the exception and where the Police are permanently armed. This is a summary of shootings which have taken place within or on the grounds of American educational establishments, from infant schools to universities, from January 1979 to the present.

In 31 years there have been 145 seperate shooting incidents in American educational establishments. As a result of those 145 separate incidents, some 273 people lost their lives. A further, staggering, 339 people received gunshot wounds from which they subsequently recovered.

Not a single one of those incidents was prevented by the presence of either an armed Police Force or an armed populace. In the majority of cases the incidents ended because either the perpetrator gave themselves up or took their own lives. A surprising number of the perpetrators were children or students who took weapons and ammunition from their own homes to carry out the shootings.

Kev,

Basically every one of those mass-murders has taken place in a locality where normal people, and even licensed concealed-carry holders like myself aren’t allowed to take our weapons to defend ourselves. Banks, federal and state buildings, educational institutions, and many churches, as well as other places are strictly off-limits.

And yes, people need to be responsible with who has access to their weapons and need to train their children and others to behave properly. on the flip side of things, how’s the Swiss crime rate these days or the Israeli crime rate? Do you hear about a lot of mass shootings in those countries where armed citizens have assault weapons readily accessible and somewhat common?

Ryan

This topic seems to hit a nerve….(judging by Grey Area’s seemingly personal affront to my post and your standard …”Look how bad America is” response).

The point still stands. You’re speaking from the standpoint of living in a Country where gun ownership is the norm as is an armed Police Force, some elements of which are equipped to a level higher than the armies of many nation’s. But still the gun crime rate is high. You’re telling us that we may have it wrong by having a largely unarmed Police Service. You may be right, but the evidence from America does not seem to support that does it?

Regards,

kev35

The figures I gave show a massive level of gun crime in the USA. Guns are easily accessed. Someone becomes deranged and it’s all too easy to get hold of a gun and to use it. An Armed Police Force does not prevent the shootings I have referred to, nor, apparently, does an armed Police Force end them. It might be said that an armed populace facilitates such shootings.

In response to your comment about whether or not armed Officers could have stopped him, the only people who may have an idea about that are the three Officers who saw him. Would they have been close enough to shoot him? Would they have been armed with a suitable weapon? Would they have been sufficiently trained and practiced? We’ll never know.

As far as I’m aware, I haven’t said that the British Police Service shouldn’t be armed. I relayed the sentiments expressed by both serving and retired Police Officers on a radio programme.

The fact remains that the British Police Service are largely unarmed other than with an asp or sprays. And despite our preponderence of bucolic chocolate boxes I can find no evidence to support any assertion that per capita, the level of gun crime here is anywhere near the level experienced in America. Has it ever occurred to you that less guns may just mean less gun crime?

Regards,

kev35

Just a few figures from a country where gun ownership is the norm rather than the exception and where the Police are permanently armed.
regards,

kev35

I don’t think anyone is saying that having a armed police force would have prevented the shootings.
That’s rather like saying the Spitfire was a load of rubbish because it didn’t prevent WWII. No, it didn’t prevent anything, but it was handy to help end it.

But I think it’s fair to discuss whether a armed response would have stopped the shootings.
If a life or two had been saved would that be worth it?
If the answer is no, it would be interesting to hear that argument presented to a victim’s family.

But to go back to my response to your post about what you heard on the radio….
There may be several good reasons to NOT arm the police…but personal preference is not one of them.

This topic seems to hit a nerve….(judging by Grey Area’s seemingly personal affront to my post and your standard …”Look how bad America is” response).

Don’t not discuss the issue because the country might be afraid of the answer.
Yes, it’s great to have bragging rights to foreigners “We’re so peaceful that our police aren’t armed.”
That’s all well and good, but it’s not the “old days” where people left their homes unlocked and never worried about crime. My friends and relations in the UK (in London and a perfect Kent village) have been victim to far more property crime than my friends in America.

The days of bucolic chocolate box villages are rapidly dwindling.
All I’m saying is perhaps, it’s time to re-examine the issue.
But, you may not like the questions posed or the solutions offered.

Martin.

He couldn’t drive the car upstairs to kill his brother, or through the hedge to kill the farm worker. Run a few people over with a car and the car becomes undriveable, long before he had completed his 45 mile drive through Cumbria. Placing a shotgun in someone’s face makes it very easy. If he had used a knife don’t you think it likely that the Police Officers who saw him might just have had a go at him? Remember, it was guns he had, plural. Yes, there are probably more ways to kill people than you or I could ever imagine, but guns simplify things and made it possible to kill so many in a short space of time.

regards,

kev35