Cumbrian Shootings

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Wolfstan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:Wouldn't surprise me to see the UK ban bolt action rifles if he did indeed use a hunting rifle with a scope attached.

It would surprise me because we would not be able to cull deer, etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:Just looking at this shooting as is, there could be an arguement for a further ban. Yesterday's shootings, Dunblane & Hungerford involved non criminals. People just losing it and going on the rampage. Although you hear of criminals involved in driveby shootings, the figures aren't the same. So although a ban wouldn't affect the guns available to the criminal world, it would have an affect on mainstream users.

Not that I'm calling for a ban, but I can see how it could be justified.

Looking at it statistically, the total killed in the three mass shootings is 16 at Hungerford, 17 at Dunblane and 12 in Cumbria, which is 45 in 23 years or two a year.

In comparison there were 42 gunshot deaths in the UK in 2008, which was the lowest on record for 20 years, and there had been 51 in 2007.

From that perspective, the number of deaths from illegal firearms is about 20-25 times greater than the number of deaths from legally held weapons including weapons which are no longer legal to hold, such as semi-automatic rifles and pistols.

Realistically, the banning of shotguns and bolt-action rifles would have a negligible effect on murder statistics while denying an important use of weapons for the control of pigeons, deer, wild boars etc as well as leisure use in shooting and stalking.

You're right about ther not being a need for a ban or further controls, but the stats do present a slightly off balance view of the facts. The deaths from illegal fire arms is a grand total, not per gun or person. Your unhinged average joe (with a legally owned weapon), goes out and takes out 10+ people in one go. You average criminal is probably taking out between 1 - 3 people. From what I've read, alot of these shootings tend to involve taking out rivals (not generalising, I know there are other victims). In a twisted way, you're unhinged average joe is more of a risk than your criminal.

**Da Boss**

Was there any commentary on how it went on for 3 hours? Was it out in the countryside or something? I thought british police were pretty quick off the bat.

**Orlanth**

Its been confirmed by Downing Street:
There will be no knee-jerk reaction banning guns.

This is good news for common sense.

**Albatross**

Da Boss wrote:Was there any commentary on how it went on for 3 hours? Was it out in the countryside or something? I thought british police were pretty quick off the bat.

It was in the Lake District, wasn't it? He was driving around.

**H.B.M.C.**

Orlanth wrote:Its been confirmed by Downing Street:
There will be no knee-jerk reaction banning guns.

This is good news for common sense.

Quite odd, given how much the UK loves to wrap its citizens in bubble wrap to protect them from hurting themselves.

I would've thought it'd be illegal to even think about guns by now, or even use words that contain the letters 'g', 'u' and 'n'.

**Captain Roderick**

It was in rural England, armed response teams got to the shooter's location about half and hour after he shot himself. It doesn't make sense to have expensive, highly-trained armed response teams all over the place, and it was a small town. Think the film 'Hot Fuzz' (depressingly similar but totally opposite in sentiment).

The Rifle was a .22 scoped hunting rifle I heard on the BBC.

He was a taxi driver, as has been pointed out many times. He travelled 12 miles in those 3 hours.

And if many people in the UK had licenced, concealed handguns, there would be many many more deaths.

Rifles and Shotguns are legitimate tools for rural hunting, culling etc. Handguns just kill people.

**Kilkrazy**

Bookwrack wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Realistically, the banning of shotguns and bolt-action rifles would have a negligible effect on murder statistics while denying an important use of weapons for the control of pigeons, deer, wild boars etc as well as leisure use in shooting and stalking.

It would also do well to note that even if these guys all had firearm licenses, how many others who are also licensed have not gone out to shoot people? There will always be vile, mean, disturbed, or otherwise messed up people out there, but some of them do a good job of hiding it. It's not surprising that out of everyone who can have a weapon, a rare few will do harm with it, and as long as that number of rare few follows the pattern you'd expect for people flipping out (like the woman in Japan a long while back who put industrial pesticide into the food at a community picnic) tighter regulation is not going to provide you with any benefit in safety.

I researched this yesterday.

According to the BBC, who I assume researched their figures in a methodical way, England Wales and Scotland between them have issued 789,746 firearms certificates on which a total of 2,043,990 weapons (shotguns and bolt action rifles) have been registered.

The number of gunshot murders, excluding massacres, is currently running about about 40-60 per year (it has been declining recently). Most but not all of these are committed with illegal weapons.

There have been 43 deaths in gun massacres in the UK in modern times. Basically there have only been three massacres of this random mass killing type in the past century.

In summary, the number of crimes committed with legally held weapons is minute compared to the number of licences and weapons in public hands.

I haven't researched the change in the pattern of gun crime since the 1987 and 1993 massacres. These prompted introduction of more restrictive gun laws each time. You would expect gun crime to decline afterwards due to lower availability of weapons, but that is merely an assumption.

**reds8n**

Mass shootings are extremely rare in Britain and previous rampages have led to gun laws that are among the toughest in the world.

The incident in Cumbria is the third in 23 years in which a lone gunman has roamed an area seeking victims.

In spite of the tough gun laws, nearly 600,000 people legally own shotguns, which fire pellets only, and more than 100,000 own a firearm, usually a rifle or high-powered airgun.

Derrick Bird is believed to have used both a shotgun and a rifle with sights on his killing spree.

Regulations surrounding the possession of shotguns have been tightened in recent years. The stricter rules are said by the Home Office to be responsible for a fall of more than a third in the number of shotgun certificates, from a peak of 882,000 in 1988 to 574,946 in March last year, although this is 5 per cent higher than the previous year. The permits covered 1.3 million shotguns.

In Cumbria 9,868 certificates were in operation in March last year covering 22,476 shotguns, an average of 2.3 guns per certificate. Police there received 370 new applications for shotgun certificates, of which only two were refused.

Simon Clark, of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, said: “Most people have shotguns for clay-pigeon shooting, pest control such as dealing with rabbits and pigeons or game and duck shooting. The UK has some of the toughest gun licensing laws in the world.”

Shotguns can be single or doubled-barrelled and anyone who acquires or is in possession of one must have a certificate issued by a chief police officer in the area in which they live. The certificate allows the holder to possess any number of shotguns, including pump action and self-loading weapons with a magazine that cannot hold more than two cartridges. However, each time a new shotgun is purchased the police must be informed.

The officer must be satisfied that an applicant has “good reason” for wanting a shotgun, is fit to have it and that public safety will not be endangered.

Anyone who has served a jail term of more than three years cannot be issued with a certificate and is banned from touching a firearm for life.

Police must interview every applicant and visit them to check the gun is held in a secure locker. Applicants must give the police permission to obtain details of their medical history.

Licences are issued for five years and cost £50. Renewing a licence costs £40.

The process for obtaining a firearm certificate for a rifle or high-powered airgun is more stringent. The applicant must prove to police that he has a good reason to own and use each firearm, that he is fit to be entrusted with one, and that he can use it safely without danger to public safety or the peace.

Gun laws were tightened after the Hungerford massacre in 1987 and again in 1997 after the killings by Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane. Semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, weapons with explosive ammunition and self-loading rifles and short shotguns with magazines were banned.

The Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 made registration for shotguns mandatory. Shotguns were required to be kept in secure storage. Stricter laws in 1997 outlawed handguns.

The Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006 made it an offence to make, import or sell realistic imitation guns, doubled the maximum sentence for carrying an imitation gun and made it a crime to fire an air weapon beyond the boundary of any premises. It also increased the age limit for buying or possessing an air weapon from 17 to 18.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7142983.ece

So.. that's what... 3 appalling and tragic incidents in 23 years from a total of 1.3m (ish..legal anyway) shotguns in the country means that..what.... 0,0002% ( ish) of firearms in Britain have resulted in an incident like the one seen yesterday.

**filbert**

The figures sound about right - the BBC quoted a figure of about 1.5 million 'legal' weapons held yesterday.

**Kilkrazy**

The report I saw said just over 2 million.

It doesn't really matter though, it is the same order of magnitude.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think your 1.5 million is shotguns and my 2 million is shotguns plus hunting rifles.

**Da Boss**

One fella in a car in a rural area. Absolute nightmare for the police. My da was a Garda in a rural area for 25 years, and he always said the biggest problem was the distances you have to cover and the fact that backup is so hard to get. I'm sure the local police tried their best.

I'm glad no knee jerk laws are being passed too, the UK has pretty sensible gun laws for the most part.

**reds8n**

Kilkrazy wrote:The report I saw said just over 2 million.

It doesn't really matter though, it is the same order of magnitude.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think your 1.5 million is shotguns and my 2 million is shotguns plus hunting rifles.

Indeed, I'm sure the devil is in the detail, classification and the like.

I didn't actually think there would even be that many, live and learn I guess.

**filbert**

reds8n wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The report I saw said just over 2 million.

It doesn't really matter though, it is the same order of magnitude.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think your 1.5 million is shotguns and my 2 million is shotguns plus hunting rifles.

Indeed, I'm sure the devil is in the detail, classification and the like.

I didn't actually think there would even be that many, live and learn I guess.

What I did find amusing was a chap on the BBC arguing against banning guns and his argument was basically "don't ban guns otherwise we can't hold shooting events at the Olympics".

I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think banning guns totally is the answer here, but if you are going to go on national TV as a gun advocate, surely you can come up with a better reason than that?

**Kilkrazy**

We already can't hold pistol shooting events at the Olympics due to the existing gun laws on pistols.

**Frazzled**

Captain Roderick wrote:

And if many people in the UK had licenced, concealed handguns, there would be many many more deaths.

Or they would have shot the SOB.

You don't hear about mass shootings stopped here by people with firearms generally, becuase they never make it to mass shootings.

**Orlanth**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Its been confirmed by Downing Street:
There will be no knee-jerk reaction banning guns.

This is good news for common sense.

Quite odd, given how much the UK loves to wrap its citizens in bubble wrap to protect them from hurting themselves.

I would've thought it'd be illegal to even think about guns by now, or even use words that contain the letters 'g', 'u' and 'n'.

New Labour is gone now H'. It's ok for us to get out and enjoy the sunshine.

**Polonius**

You guys still can't eat beef though, can you?

**whatwhat**

America doesn't know what beef is.

**Kilkrazy**

I'm eating some right now.

It's quite nice.

I'm washing it down with a bottle of claret.

I shall have some Stilton too.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Captain Roderick wrote:

And if many people in the UK had licenced, concealed handguns, there would be many many more deaths.

Or they would have shot the SOB.

You don't hear about mass shootings stopped here by people with firearms generally, becuase they never make it to mass shootings.

That is absolutely true.

In Britain we suffer a lot of mass shootings because they aren't stopped by people with guns.

**Polonius**

Well played sir.

**Fateweaver**

Frazzled wrote:
Captain Roderick wrote:

And if many people in the UK had licenced, concealed handguns, there would be many many more deaths.

Or they would have shot the SOB.

You don't hear about mass shootings stopped here by people with firearms generally, becuase they never make it to mass shootings.

I want a front row seat to a mass shooting so I can shoot the SOB before he got his second shot off. Not that I want to see a mass shooting (I don't), I just hope if any occur I'm there when some SOB opens fire.

@H. Wow. You said something I laughed at and not wanted to make me hurl all over my laptop. Odd times indeed when I can laugh at H and not feel vile and dirty for doing so.

**Orlanth**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Captain Roderick wrote:

And if many people in the UK had licenced, concealed handguns, there would be many many more deaths.

Or they would have shot the SOB.

You don't hear about mass shootings stopped here by people with firearms generally, becuase they never make it to mass shootings.

That is absolutely true.

In Britain we suffer a lot of mass shootings because they aren't stopped by people with guns.

thats hardly a solution, and if people went around with guns and shot anyone who looked like they were going postal you would get a lot of unnecessary deaths. But officer he was murmering and had a gun....

In any case like with Hungerfvord and dunblane the police responded quickly. dispatched armed responce officers with FAS orders given early. This is how they cornered Ryan in 87, Hamilton did what he wanted to do then took his own life early. Bird went postal while mobile, other than his two premeditated priority target victims all the shooting were carried out over an hour but over a distance of 40 miles rather than in a village aschool mall or campus as is usual for a gone postal incident. Bird being a cabbie also knew the roads and thus was able to stay ahead of the police for much of that hour before being cornered. The police never got a chance to sniper him and darent follow him into close woodlands (they sent dogs into the woods). Bird was a good shot and had a long arm which he used from his car stopping and starting. its not the sort of scenario you can really prepare for as the killer can go in just about any direction and speed. I have no criticism of police handling of the incident and do not think more guns would have done much to end it sooner.
What people dont understand about British police is because they are unarmed when ordinary plod they do get a signal to arm up they are normally very heavily armed, the switch to no gun to gun is a big one bypassing the .38 pistol normally carried by ordinary police in fully armed police forces.