nothing wrong with responsibly owning a shotgun.

sounds like this chap never showed any signs he might do something like this, so very hard to legislate against.

He could have gone around with a knife, a car, poison, acid – he chose a gun. The real issue is that he flipped, for whatever, reason, picked up his guns and killed several people.

Sadly I think without robbing the entire population of it's freedom, tragedies like this will happen from time to time. No one/thing is to blame except the guy doing the killing.

Tighter gun controls will stop this kind of thing happening,

yup, in exactly the same way that drink driving legislation has stopped drunk people driving cars and having accidents, drug legislation has stopped the importation of drugs and the human tragedies caused there and 30/70 mph speed limits are totally obeyed.

Samuri

I'm not so sure. How many "killing sprees" have made the news carried out with a mallet or hammer for example? The only ones I can think of have been with a gun of some description or (coincidently) a samuri sword. Obvious lots of stabbing and one off killings with any object to hand but not killing sprees.

You could also say that these "moments of madness" overcome a (very) small percentage of the population at some point in their lives. Only the ones with access to do anything about it (i.e. access to weapons) actually carry out these terrible acts. The others anger festers and fizzles out, impotent to carry out their desires.

The more I think about the more the "guns are out there illegally so what is the point" argument holds no ground. Michael Ryan (Hungerford), Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) and now Derek Bird were the last 3 mass killers with firearms in this country and all 3 (seemingly in Bird's case) had legal access to their weapons but no professional need to own them. Obviously illegally held weapons are used all the time in criminal activity but it does seem like mass killers choose the legal path to their ownership.

I think I've come off the fence and down on the side of ownership restricted to those with a professional need (landowners etc). If that means my dad has to just drink whisky instead of drinking whisky whilst taking potshots at paper targets, and the economies of certain rural areas take a hit through no game keeping then so be it.

Mephadrone that was banned by Media hype now the police have stated that the people killed here had 'no mephadrone in there systems'.

Aren't Police more likely to kill someone with a gun than anyone else?

What if the next person who goes on a mass killing spree is a copper? High stress job some have access to firearms they seem more likely to flip………if we ban the public from owning guns then we should ban ALL guns.

I don't think taking your weapon home with you after a shift is actually a perk of the job when working in the armed response division 😀

Also, I would imagine the physiological testing and evaluation of your average armed copper is considerably higher than that given to a member of a gun club.

As said in a few posts.

People get killed by speeding drivers, drunk drivers and knives on a seemingly daily basis yet all of those are banned and against the law.

Banning guns would not alter anything.

This guy was clearly unhinged and had a plan to kill people, if he didn't own a gun he would have found an illegal one to use, and if he couldn't find a gun he would have a knife, poison………..

No matter what you do, you can't cater for the insane.

This guy was clearly unhinged and had a plan to kill people, if he didn't own a gun he would have found an illegal one to use, and if he couldn't find a gun he would have a knife, poison………..

No matter what you do, you can't cater for the insane.

but surely its a lot harder to kill 12 people and injur 11 more with a knife

guns make it easier to kill people than most other weapons

I'll say it again, name me a single mass killer in the UK on the scale of Bird, Ryan or Hamilton that has used anything other than a gun? I suppose you could say Shipman but that wasn't a spree and he had very unusually access to drugs and people's trust. I simply not believe these are the only 3 individually that have felt like doing such a terrible thing in the UK in the past 25 years. They were simply the only 3 that felt like that whilst having instant access to guns.

Also, very fortunately most normal folks in the UK would not have the first clue where to get hold of an illegal weapon and long may it stay that way. Give me a couple of hours and I could get hold of half a dozen legal guns (i.e. I know where they are but would have to "liberate" them from their owners). Certainly our last 3 mass murderers with guns were normal if slightly screwy members of the populous, not members of the criminal underworld, so access for them to illegal guns I would imagine would be as hard for them as it would be for me.

6 people are stabbed to death every week in the UK.
Thats over 300 people a year.

Mass murders like yesterday will happen whether you ban guns or not. People that intent on trying to kill people will get hold of a gun.

A silenced MAC10 makes a perfect squirrel control weapon. I hope they don't ban them.

I've done a lot of shooting in the past, indeed I was employed by a government agency controlling deer for some time, and the law specified the minimum calibre and power that is permitted to humanely kill them. (incidentally a lot more powerful that the rifle this bloke appears to have had, a .22RF)

Funnily enough after a few years out of it, I've got back into it again recently, and over the past few months my background and medical checks have been extensive, including a chat with my GP and a sit down interview with the local police FEO to justify good reason, security and experience. my FAC has just been issued with no conditions based upon my past experience and qualifications, if I didn't have this it would have been given supervision conditions or a probationary membership period at a club, and I should be picking up my rifle in the next couple of weeks.

I've never shot anyone, and I don't intend to!

Once again, we see a horrific tragedy here caused not by guns, but the combination of guns and mental health problems!

My biggest concern is this paragraph, from the telegraph:

It has been reported that Bird had initially armed himself with two guns on Tuesday night, but was disarmed by a friend.
Bird is then believed to have sought medical help at a local hospital for his fragile mental state, only to be turned away.

No, I do not know how true that is, but if it is, then its heartbreaking, as there seems to have been two occasions when it could have been prevented – I'm guessing the friend thought they were doing a favour, since if he had raised any concern the police reaction may well have been punitive rather than helpful, and that friend must now be mortified, and secondly It seems to indicate a failure in the mental health support services…

how / why he had a gun and what the laws should or shouldn't be aside –

why did it take the police 3 HOURS to stop a man with killing people with 2 guns? if i steal a car locally i could have police cars and a helicopter on me in 10 mins.

armed response units have reacted in much shorter spaces of time in the past. I know cumbria isn't like moss side but 3 hours seems like a very long time for him to be able to carry on killing like that.

James-o

Whils realising that it must have been chaotic and difficult, I do think thats a fair question, I also wonder if more people may have been saved or whether 'risk averseness' played its part, not dispatching ambulance crews for fear of putting them in potential danger despite members of the public being there and assuring them it was safe, its happened before:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4740688.stm

BigButSlimmerBloke – Member
Tighter gun controls will stop this kind of thing happening,
yup, in exactly the same way that drink driving legislation has stopped drunk people driving cars and having accidents, drug legislation has stopped the importation of drugs and the human tragedies caused there and 30/70 mph speed limits are totally obeyed.

Thats a very poor comparison. When banning something you reduce the supply dramatically. A better analogy would be is certain types of car were banned and/or only certain people could drive them.

BTW – does anyone know why farmers need shotguns?

that and the way it was spread over a large are i guess.. but the duration of it all is what seems so awful to me, whatever the reason.

I agree with Convert.

People that intent on trying to kill people will get hold of a gun.

But the important word is "instant"
Without the easy availability of firearms somebody with this tendency is more likely to come to the attentions of others/authorities before they act upon them.

People that intent on trying to kill people will get hold of a gun

someone above pointed out that the last three times in the UK all used their own legally owned guns can you cite an example with an illegally held gun being used in a similiar situation?
Apparently farmers need them to protect their animals from foxes ! I agree it is a BS reason.
ownership rates are surprisingly high

According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns.

Statistics for Scotland show that 70,839 firearms were held by 26,072 certificate holders at the end of last year. Some 50,000 people in Scotland are certificated to hold shotguns – and 137,768 weapons are covered by that scheme.

I agree it is a BS reason

Farmer are we?

If people "need" to own a gun for whatever perceived legitimate reason then (and the stats above appear to bear this out) why do they seem to own more than one? What is the rationale in owning more than one shotgun?

My thoughts on likely outcome of legislation changes:

restriction in .22RF to bolt action only
introduction of good reason clause for shotguns
shooting club FAC restricted to being kept at club premises not homes (nice terrorist target!)
renewal period reduced

to be honest, I see no major problem with that, but it still does not tackle the root cause.

Apparently farmers need them to protect their animals from foxes ! I agree it is a BS reason.
ownership rates are surprisingly high

OK, I laid out the example of deer above, the law states the minimum calibre and power I'm allowed to use for culling deer.

The number of human fatalities caused each year from motor accidents involving deer is likely to be in the range 12 – 36 for the UK (7 – 32 in England) and injuries in the range 1200 – 3600 (750 – 3200 in England). Records from the early 1990s suggest that the actual number of fatalities is typically around 14 – 15 per annum in the UK as a whole (Source, Natural England)

If people "need" to own a gun for whatever perceived legitimate reason then (and the stats above appear to bear this out) why do they seem to own more than one? What is the rationale in owning more than one shotgun?

why would anyone need more than one bike? You have to specifically prove to the police your need for every individual firearm (not SG)

why would anyone need more than one bike?

For lots of reasons however that is a pastime/interest/hobby whereas some proponents of gun ownership on here are arguing for gun use as a utilitarian and practical method of vermin control.
If that is the case its a bit like collecting yard brushes!
If its the case that some people like to collect them then thats a different argument but as a way on controlling foxes its largely innefective and this argument is largely put forward by people who simply like to kill things IMO.

So there are about 700 000 people how have legal access to a firearm and 3 people over 25yrs have gone nuts and used one…..more people have won a lottery jackpot than died at the hands of a mass murderer.

Media Hysteria they need an infill 'til the world cup starts.

While the deaths are very sad i don't think banning is the answer or will happen.

You have to specifically prove to the police your need for every individual firearm (not SG)

You edited this after my post.

but OK, it was a genuine question

sorry Surfer –

You use a different calibre and type of weapon for different species, it wouldn't be sensible (or indeed safe) to use a deer rifle for rabbits, different ones for different sized deer, different ones for birds etc – road bike/mountain bike/CX bike, the arguments identical, they're suited to purpose.

This bloke had two guns, not an armoury – one is a commonly used target and/or rabbiting round, the other is a shotgun, used for birds and/or clays.

it would be mere speculation to guess what his justification was, but it appears he'd been an FAC holder for 20 Years

Z-11 did you just try and use fear of terrorisits attacking gun clubs as a reason for people being allowed to keep guns in their homes??

aaahh the good old politics of fear, are you tony blair/ george w

No kimbers, I made a comment – I think you'll find that I also went on to say "I see no major problem with that, but it still does not tackle the root cause."

LHS – Member

I agree it is a BS reason

Farmer are we?

relevance?
I dont own a gun either should I just stop forming an opinion until I go and shoot something for fun with a variety of different calibre weaponry?

Yes!

relevance?

Well unless you are a farmer, who are you to say that it is BS that they require a gun?

Isn't it obvious LHS!

Foxes are cute cuddly darling little creatures that wear overcoats and hats and say Boom Boom, and will self regulate their populations if we stupid humans would leave them to it 🙄

Well unless you are a farmer, who are you to say that it is BS that they require a gun?

What sort of arse about face argumnet is that?

What sort of arse about face argumnet is that?

Keep things Civil.

My point is that its a complete sweeping generalisation from someone who has no experience of being in that position / job.

Boba Fatt – Member

"The tightening of the gun laws since Hungerford and Dunblane have not accomplished anything"

We're going in circles a wee bit, but what makes you think this? How do you know that it hasn't prevented further sprees? That's the catch 22 of taking action to prevent something from happening, if it doesn't happen people can say "Well what a waste of time that was, it didn't happen anyway"

Interesting point about farmers. Unfortunatley they seem to have a very high incidence of turning their own guns on themselves…

My point is that its a complete sweeping generalisation from someone who has no experience of being in that position / job.

You don't have to have been in a job to know roughly what it's about, you know!

youv'e just got to think… what percentage of people own guns and would never even think of harming anyone? just because would nutter has done something stupid it doesn't mean everyone gonna start

You don't have to have been in a job to know roughly what it's about, you know!

Another sweeping generalisation.

All i am trying to make you think about is that majority of farmers in the UK own guns, and have a reason for doing so. I am sure, as a forum member on a cycling website you will be able to convince a farmer otherwise with no experience of working, ownng or living on a farm though. This website is the fountain of all knowledge for sure.

Northwind – I'd not necessarily agree with boba fatts comment, I think its more accurate to say that:

"the tightening of the application and implementation of the gun laws since Hungerford and Dunblane have accomplished a lot"

IE – the laws for who can have a gun have remained pretty much unchanged, but the checks and investigation that go into issuing certificates have been tightened up a lot.

root and branch reform is needed, simply because the application of FA law in different areas is down to the local constabulary, and there can be huge differences in interpretation and application between forces, however at the same time one size does not fit all, and rural constabularies (rightly) don't necessarily view all firearms issues with the complete paranoia that the met would.

ok then z-11 we can only form opinions of things I have done I should be quiet about child abuse, mass murder and and a myriad of other issues with that sort of logic/principle at work
LHS I have lived on farms for about 25% of my life including adulthood so I am not a town dwelling ignoramus perhaps you should be carefull about making sweeping generalisations yourself or perhaps keep quiet about things not related to logging as per Z-11 view?
Anyone can form an opinion on gun ownership NOT just those people who do own/use them..that is ridiculous to suggest otherwise