Cumbria shootings

You just know the ‘meejia’ would never show it but wouldn’t it be so refreshing if one of those eyewitnesses who was asked how they felt blurted out “I was scared to effing death!”

Gun control? I really don’t know what the answer is but to all those out there saying that people kill people, not the guns, have you ever thought how easy using a gun makes things for the killer? I’m sure if Derrick Bird had been running around Cumbria armed with a colander and potato masher it is likely that the death toll would have been considerably lower.

Regards,

kev35

I have considered how easy a gun makes things for a killer, But I honestly feel with somebody as clearly dearranged as he became he would of found a method no matter what, And it can never be known how many he would of killed by any other method.
There are no easy answers to this one and I doubt there ever will be. But it does cross my mind that realistically even his car could of proved a pretty effective weapon as much as a knife or his choice the gun. A dearranged person can do a awful lot of harm with anything sadly.

Maybe we need to be looking at why some people committ such acts that appear so out of character, rather than just adding another level of legislation to the gun laws. The mind can be the most dangerous weapon of all when its out of control and is the root cause of all these cases where a sudden mass killing spree has occured.

In the UK thankfully such events are very very rare which shows the law overall is controling the situation, Sadly as with all laws they are not a 100% perfect.
The saddest thing is nothing will ever bring these people back and worse very little can really explain why he did it for sure either.

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.

If Daddy hadn’t been so keen on keeping anything from a .38 revolver to an M16 in his closet, a good many of those killed and injured wouldn’t have been.

One incident which seems to have taken place in a Church at an educational establishment was ended by the (armed) “Church security guard.”

regards,

kev35

But equally when they sign to join the Police Service they sign on the understanding that the weapon they carry is an asp. Nothing more.
Regards,
kev35

That’s well and good…but sadly, sometimes that’s not enough.

But equally when they sign to join the Police Service they sign on the understanding that the weapon they carry is an asp. Nothing more. Unless they volunteer and are trained to do so.

Regards,

kev35

“What sort of little sh*t beckons someone over to his car,then shoots them in the face” ?

The same kind that kills children to get back at society.

With respect,not the same kind of person at all.

Thomas Hamilton was a suspected paedophile whom nobody would have described as ” a nice bloke “.

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.

It’s also rather disappointing to see you to belittle the thousands of dedicated men and women who make up the police forces of the UK in the way that you just have.

You miss my point…
Part of a police officer’s job is to protect the public.
That may mean doing things they’d rather not do.

I wouldn’t want the responsibility of perhaps having to shoot someone in the course of a day’s work.
But that’s why I’m not a police officer*.
I’m not getting the pay or wearing the uniform or driving around in funny cars.
When I was in the military I’d rather not have the opportunity to be shot at…but I signed on the line and took an oath.
So, if I got nuked at RAF Bentwaters, well…that’s the way it goes.
I was doing my duty.

Our police forces prefer not to routinely carry firearms while on everyday duty.

If you’re getting paid to do the job i.e. protect the public…you had better be prepared do it.
Personal preferences be dammed.
There are nutters out there. One day, one may happen to be in your ordinarily peaceful village.

*If they take a oath to protect the public, I’m sure it doesn’t have a proviso that says….”I swear to protect the Queen and country, if I’m comfortable doing it…”😀

My late brother-in-law was a police officer in the UK…no “belittlement” intended.
I seem to have hit a nerve..I thought I explained my opinion rather well the first time.

According to the press he made some comment to a friend about doing this some while back. it might just be paper talk but then again, if it is true, perhaps it was an indication of a change in his mindset.

Regards,

kev35

Nobody could have foreseen this event, i doubt even the man himself did. Banning guns won’t acheive anything but arming the police will see more criminals arming themselves.

If I may make an isolated point about police being armed:

If they don’t want the responsibility that comes with protecting the public, by whatever means necessary, I’d politely suggest they go back to selling clothes at M&S.

There is more to being a police officer than wearing the uniform and being beloved by school children.

No cop wants to shoot someone, but I would hope that if the case meant saving an innocent person’s life, they’d shoot a criminal.

This is not America, Mr B.

Our police forces prefer not to routinely carry firearms while on everyday duty.

It’s also rather disappointing to see you to belittle the thousands of dedicated men and women who make up the police forces of the UK in the way that you just have.

Frankly, I have come to expect better from you. 🙁

No argument. I’m only stating what I heard. I think it was the Five Live Victoria Derbyshire show which may still be available on listen again.

Regards,

kev35

The day after the shootings, there was a BBC radio phone in. A number of Police Officers rang in to say that they had no desire whatsoever to be armed. Some went as far as to say they didn’t want the responsibility of being in a situation where they may have to decide on whether or not to discharge their firearm.
kev35

If I may make an isolated point about police being armed:

If they don’t want the responsibility that comes with protecting the public, by whatever means necessary, I’d politely suggest they go back to selling clothes at M&S.

There is more to being a police officer than wearing the uniform and being beloved by school children.

No cop wants to shoot someone, but I would hope that if the case meant saving an innocent person’s life, they’d shoot a criminal.

Several points.

To begin with, it has to be impossible to argue against the absolute fact that utilising guns of any kind has simplified ‘spree killing’ enormously. How long does it take to chamber a round in a bolt action rifle? Or to replace shotgun cartridges? Not forgetting how much quicker it is still in countries where semi automatic and automatic weapons are readily available. When was the last time in the UK that twelve people were killed in less than an hour with a kitchen knife?

Proximity. Yes, we know Derrick Bird killed and injured a number of victims at close range, but he didn’t have to touch them. Not like if he was having to plunge a knife into someone. The use of guns removed him from that absolute proximity to his victims and allowed him to kill very quickly, without any actual physical involvement, and then to move on to the next victim.

I’m not advocating the banning of guns here, not at all. But it should be remembered that while guns are available, occasional shooting sprees such as this will continue. I have no answers, and to be honest, I’m not sure there ever will be an answer.

Regarding the arming of the Police. The day after the shootings, there was a BBC radio phone in. A number of Police Officers rang in to say that they had no desire whatsoever to be armed. Some went as far as to say they didn’t want the responsibility of being in a situation where they may have to decide on whether or not to discharge their firearm. I didn’t hear the whole programme but during the longish segment I listened to, I don’t recall a single Officer advocating the arming of the Police Service as a matter of course.

Regards,

kev35

Stuart Gowans – “Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose.” I which case we are in agreement, because that was the point I was trying to make in response to yours. In the wrong hands there are dozens of implements and tools which can cause serious injury or death.

But that is no argument for banning them.

And if you read my posts on this subject properly, you will see that I am not suggesting banning anything.

I was thinking of something along those lines, although if there are any other ideas or systems then I’m all ears.

The UK is one of the only countries in the world not to have Police Officers armed as a matter of routine, it seems to me that it might be worth it.

The question needs some qualification. Do you mean every beat copper all the time he/she is on duty?

I ask the question again, should the Police in the UK be armed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/10257836.stm

They actually saw Bird walking around with a shotgun, but the unarmed officers could do nothing to stop him.

As for the ‘guns stop tyranny’ argument, it has already been pointed out that gun ownership in some nations, such as Iraq, is very high- and this did nothing to stop a dictator such as Saddam Hussein from holding onto power.

Also, as long as there’s a military with guns, soldiers will have access to them and may snap just as easily as any civilian.
Ryan

The real reason why guns haven’t been collected yet in the U.S. is the liberals can’t get around the second amendment.
They’d love to, but in over 40 years of trying they haven’t been able to find a away to void it…without voiding the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Also, visit any of the military bases in San Antonio….soldiers don’t walk around armed, even on Army infantry bases.
Firearms are tightly controlled there. They’re locked up.
Witmess the Islamic militant/terrorist at Ft. Hood, he used his own guns, not Army issued weapons.

No amount of legislation would stop these sad people settling alleged grievances using any means available to them at the time.
I can’t help thinking though that Cameron’s no “knee jerk” reaction statement was to placate worried firearm owners, rather than the general public…

…these events happen once every 10-12 years in the UK, but happen almost annually in the rest of Europe. Tighter legislation hasn’t stopped the gun crime in the UK…

…but it would seem to have reduced such tragedies considerably…..by your own admission.

Stuart Gowans – “Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose.” I which case we are in agreement, because that was the point I was trying to make in response to yours. In the wrong hands there are dozens of implements and tools which can cause serious injury or death.

But that is no argument for banning them.