Cumbria and the lessons we should all learn!

[mundaire]

Cumbria shooting rampage suspect's 'body found'

Twelve people have been killed and 25 injured by a gunman who opened fire in west Cumbria.

A body thought to be that of the suspect - taxi driver Derrick Bird - has been found in the Boot area.

The first fatality was in Whitehaven before the gunman drove south, apparently shooting people at random.

Witnesses said the suspect drove through the town with a gun hanging out of his car window, before heading south through Gosforth and Seascale.

A GP in the town of Seascale said he and a colleague had later certified two other people dead.

Dr Barrie Walker said: "The surgery was called and I went out. I've certified one of them dead. My colleague saw another," he said.

"At present there are two people dead and one seriously injured in Seascale. I know one of the victims. She was in the street.

"The second person was on a bicycle and was shot on the bike."

BBC Look North Chief Reporter Chris Stewart said a farmer is also believed to have been killed in the Gosforth area.

After the shootings, detectives said 52-year-old Mr Bird drove to the central Lakes in a Citroen Picasso, then abandoned it in the Boot area.

Before the body was discovered people living nearby were urged to stay indoors for their own protection.

Helicopters and armed officers from other police forces were brought in to help apprehend the gunman.

Soon afterwards, Deputy Chief Constable Stuart Hyde said: "I can confirm that we've found a body in a wooded area near Boot which we believe to be Mr Bird, together with a firearm.

"A formal identification will be made later."

Nuclear plant shut
Mr Hyde added: "Our focus now is to try and work out what has caused this and where Mr Bird has been over the last 24 hours and in particular the last few hours.

"I would plead to anyone who has seen him or has seen any of the incidents, please come forward, speak to us and help us piece together exactly was has happened in this very, very tragic set of circumstances.

"We have a number of crime scenes across the county, which are being staffed by police officers, and I would ask people to show a little bit of restraint and respect in regard to those scenes as we try and piece together exactly what has gone on."

A major incident has been declared at West Cumberland Hospital, in Whitehaven, where the NHS said all routine operations had been cancelled.

The Accident and Emergency department at the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle is also on full incident stand-by, the hospital trust said.

The Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in west Cumbria closed its gates as a safety precaution and afternoon shift workers were being told to stay away, though the site has since reopened.

The Whitehaven victim, believed to be a colleague of 52-year-old Mr Bird, was killed at 1035 BST.

A local taxi firm boss, Glenda Pears, said: "We just don't know what's happened.

"The lad that's been killed was friends with him. They used to stand together having a craic on the rank.

"He was friends with everybody and used to stand and joke on Duke Street."

Sue Matthews, a telephonist at A2B Taxis in Whitehaven, said the Mr Bird was self-employed and lived alone. She described him as a "quiet fellow".

At the start of Prime Minister's Questions David Cameron expressed his shock at the events which had unfolded.

He said: "The government will do everything it possibly can to help the local community and those affected.

"When lives and communities are suddenly shattered in this way, our thoughts should be with all those caught up with these tragic events."

[mundaire]

These came in via e-mail from a friend in UK:

Hello!
News of the multiple shootings in Cumbria, England yesterday, has probably reached you. I have agreed to be interviewed by Channel TV about the event and its implications. It will likely go out in their main "Channel Report" programme which airs at 18.00 to 18.30.

I do not know who else, if anybody, will be present and I cannot predict all the questions. What I can say is that, after 31 years of serious research into the costs and effects of gun control legislation on a world-wide basis, I am strongly against giving "easy" - but false - answers, e.g. Jersey is OK because we have strict gun control.

It is possible that that approach may bring temporarily reduced pressure. But it is totally false and only strengthens illusions that the greater the bureaucracy, the greater the safety of the public.

There is no known record of any gun control legislation, up to and including complete firearm bans, anywhere in the world, ever resulting in a reduced violent crime trend, or generating any other social benefits.

They consume resources and damage or destroy sport and trade, while ensuring that law-abiding victims will be unarmed if they ever have the misfortune to be caught up in one of these terrifying events.

There are no easy solutions to catastrophic mental breakdown.

Kind regards
Derek Bernard

AND

Hello!

What an unusual pleasure it is to read an article in a UK MSM newspaper in which the journalist does NOT confuse bureaucracy with effectiveness. Presumably because bureaucracy is the only output that governments and their agencies can reliably generate, it is usually an automatic presumption by journalists and politicians, as well as government agencies, that, in gun control

more bureaucracy = more effectiveness

Nothing could be further from the truth. Unless the bureaucracy is firmly based on research, measurement, analysis and monitoring, all it will do is consume resources, both public and private, restrict or crush sporting activities, generate prosecutions of people who have NOT done anything remotely anti-social and encourage the dangerous – but widely-held – illusion that inanimate objects are the problem.

If you are a professional medic, pharmacist, psychiatrist, or psychologist, I’d be especially interested in your views on the suggestion in the article below that there may be a link between the use of anti-depressants and mass-killings.

Clearly, if there is a link, it could be in either or both directions. Unstable and/or depressed people may be prescribed anti-depressants, which prove to be less effective than was hoped; or, maybe, unstable and/or depressed people are prescribed anti-depressants and the drug dangerously increases their detachment from reality.

Regards
Derek

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... e-all.html

[m24]

Well, aren't we the best example for

in gun control, more bureaucracy = more effectiveness

Regards

[mundaire]

More from Derek, please read carefully - there are many points pertinent to our own sorry situation in India!

Hello!

I have received a couple of suggestions that the job of trying to respond to the pressures and attacks on the British shooting community arising from the terrible Cumbria killings last week, is probably best left to the major shooting organisations.

I strongly disagree with this view and would like to explain why.

I have been a Member of numerous British shooting organisations over the past 40 years or so. I have retained my membership of some, despite moving to Jersey 33 years ago. For example, I remain a Life Member of both the UKPSA and NRA. The NRA website is certainly a useful source for press comments and coverage.

Sadly, in the 31 years that I have been a student of the costs and effects of gun control legislation, during which time I have come into contact with a great many of the senior officials in the various British shooting organisations, I have never met one who has given the impression of having studied the subject more than superficially.

As a somewhat exaggerated and sarcastic generalisation, they have all tended to fall into the category whose views on the subject are broadly along these lines:

"Guns are lethal weapons and the government and police are quite right to have stringent controls over those who may own them. But the type of sport shooting pursued by me and my Members and friends is safe, decent and honourable and shouldn't be trodden on too hard, as hardly any of us are killers. But all the gun uses that I and my friends don't personally pursue are very dubious and those who do enjoy them should be treated with grave suspicion and probably banned".

This is precisely the policy that has been substantially pursued by the UK "shooting establishment", hand-in-hand with government, from 1900 to the present day (with some very welcome indications of a wider perspective in the last few years). That policy has taken British sport shooting, as well as British gun design, manufacture and distribution, a long way down the road to extinction.

And, in parallel, it has helped take the UK from having the lowest crime rates in the developed world 100 years ago, to having one of the highest today.

The reality is that gun control legislation that is designed primarily to put obstacles in the path of gun-ownership by the general public and, especially, gun-use in self-defence and the defence of others, is seriously anti-social. It consumes resources, both public and private; damages or destroys sport shooting, as well as trade and technical development; encourages criminals by publicising that not only will their victims almost certainly be unarmed, but that those victims who attempt to use force against their assailants, will likely be prosecuted severely. Possibly worst of all, it encourages an irrational and perverse belief throughout society that the inanimate device is the problem.

Every possible method of gun “control” – up to and including total bans – has been tried, usually in several different countries and for long periods – but I have found it impossible to find any persuasive evidence of consequential social benefit anywhere, from any control procedure, whether examined individually or collectively. In contrast, evidence of perverse consequences, both individual and collective, are legion. For example, research discloses that the 40+ jurisdictions that have had genocidal events since WW2 in which over 50,000 people have died, had all already introduced strict gun control before the killing started. Armed victims tend to make the whole process much more messy and difficult.

The UK is a particularly glaring example of the unwillingness of the government, police, media and public to learn lessons from either the UK’s own legislative mistakes, or those of other jurisdictions. Or absorb the powerful lessons offered by those jurisdictions that have relaxed or even done away with controls. For over 100 years the UK has continued down the same destructive path, all the while cloaked in righteous indignation, extreme ignorance and even pride in having “one of the world’s toughest gun control regimes”.

As recent examples, the major UK legislative changes in 1967/8, 1988 and 1997/8 were all extremely expensive, all did huge damage to lawful shooting and all were promptly followed by a severe worsening in violent crime trends. No doubt the reduction in lawful gun-ownership and sport shooting were well worth the collateral damage.

The steadfast objective of the UK Home Office, ever since the late 19th century, appears to have been: “to reduce civilian gun ownership to the lowest possible level”. They are probably very proud of their consistently successful work towards that end. Perhaps they get large bonuses for it. The Home Office staff selection procedure is amazingly consistent - it has produced multiple generations of civil servants who are all so intelligent that they know that government knows best. The toll of avoidable dead and injured victims, raped women and very high burglary rates are probably seen as very small beer in their drive for a Britain in which only criminals and the State have guns.

So … I regard it as essential to attempt to publicise an alternative view, based on a considerable amount of work over many years, in many different countries; and to “say it like it is”, even if that usually feels like swimming against a powerful tide.

Kind regards
Derek

[m24]

"Guns are lethal weapons and the government and police are quite right to have stringent controls over those who may own them. But the type of sport shooting pursued by me and my Members and friends is safe, decent and honourable and shouldn't be trodden on too hard, as hardly any of us are killers. But all the gun uses that I and my friends don't personally pursue are very dubious and those who do enjoy them should be treated with grave suspicion and probably banned".

This is precisely the policy that has been substantially pursued by the UK "shooting establishment", hand-in-hand with government, from 1900 to the present day (with some very welcome indications of a wider perspective in the last few years). That policy has taken British sport shooting, as well as British gun design, manufacture and distribution, a long way down the road to extinction.

Aren't we the peas in the same pod??


Regards

[mundaire]

m24, we sure seem to be... I wonder if it has something to do with both countries having a firmly entrenched class system in place? Anyhow, it is disappointing to note that you seem to be the only other person who has taken the time to go through Derek's writings on this subject. He does make a lot of sense and it would have been interesting to see what others had to say.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[fantumfan2003]

How true for our country too. So many of our unarmed law abiding victims have indeed had the misfortune.

Will we ever act on our own will and determination or always depend on the word of the (British) Raj ?

M.

There is no known record of any gun control legislation, up to and including complete firearm bans, anywhere in the world, ever resulting in a reduced violent crime trend, or generating any other social benefits.

They consume resources and damage or destroy sport and trade, while ensuring that law-abiding victims will be unarmed if they ever have the misfortune to be caught up in one of these terrifying events.

There are no easy solutions to catastrophic mental breakdown.

Kind regards
Derek Bernard

[nagarifle]

i have read this once a day since posted. there is at the moment noting more to be said, until such time as there is a voice crying out for RKBA.

There will all ways be a crack pot in every society, either with arms or otherwise, since there is not a common voice not asking but demanding from the government for its rights.

[Vikram]

Derek Bernard makes a lot of sense and he got almost everything covered about the UK gun control. Not many know that the American 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms has its origins in the English Bill of Rights 1689. However,this right has been steadily eroded with the changing perception of owning firearms for self-protection or sport by the British public.I think this is one of the shortcomings of not having a written constitution that would at least make it difficult for an elected government to take away a right easily.

One needs to understand that, there is a large percentage of population within UK that thinks guns are not for self-protection.I just read a letter to the editor of a reputed newspaper in which the author said that she would not like to live in a society in which she needs to arm her self for self-protection.Sadly, a lot of people share similar sentiments.The most effective way is to educate people or at least make them aware.Politicians are not just pursuing an agenda but also responding to popular perception as the cultural outlook of a society changes over a period of time.

As Derek aptly notes, there is a lot of willing co-operation among the bureaucrats of the shooting organisations about the ownership of certain types of guns they or their friends do not own or shoot.For example:handguns or semi-autos.

What relevance does it have to India? Little I am afraid. The reason why Indian government does not want guns in the hands of people is it is afraid of people's anger or armed political movements given our historical and socio-political and economical background.It's even more aware of it's inability to provide good governance. The bureaucracy is unprofessional,undereducated,corrupt and ignorant.If basic services are not adequately delivered, how do you expect them to understand firearms and their relevance to human/civil rights and law and order?Forget about recreational shooting.

Best-
Vikram

[xl_target]

There is no known record of any gun control legislation, up to and including complete firearm bans, anywhere in the world, ever resulting in a reduced violent crime trend, or generating any other social benefits.

Amen!

[Subal das]

question is what for police having guns?

common misunderstanding is that police having guns to protect citizens from criminals, nothing of this sort, police are having guns to protect government and interest of large corporates from citizens. In that light it is very easy to answer a question do police/government want a citizens having guns?

Do guns any useful for protecting government, for some extend, but not much because mean of any conflict is always political. For example Hamas during Operation Cast Lead instructed their youths do not use weapons and do not trow Molotov cocktail to Israel tanks, because they need media reports on how Israeli killing Palestinian youths armed with stones.

there is no danger for government if citizens having guns. Indian government may need to refresh their sense of history little bit, insurgents never can be defeated by military means, it is 4GW or fourth generation warfare. In any armed insurgency case, starting from Mao, Ho Shi Min, Sandinistas insurgents where always destroyed military and despite of that they ultimately won political battle and gained total control of their respective country.

bad thing is that we are going to leave our all life in this mess.
I highly recommend to any one who interested to learn more on 4GW to read book THE SLING AND THE STONE

[m24]

Latest.

Source: http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/473 ... eview.html

The Prime Minister states that the Home Office will look at current gun laws to ensure they meet today’s requirements.

As funerals were held and the inquest opened for victims of the Cumbria shootings, Prime Minister David Cameron last week announced that the Home Office would be conducting a review of firearms legislation.

He also announced that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) would be conducting a separate review into Cumbria police’s response to the shootings and the licensing of the perpetrator Derrick Bird.

On Wednesday, 9 June, Harriet Harman MP, the leader of the Opposition, asked the Prime Minister if he was “in a position yet to tell the House if the Government has any plans to reconsider the regulation of guns”.

In response, David Cameron stated: “Specifically on the gun laws, we need to be clear first about the full facts of the case. We also need, I think, to determine the type and scope of reviews that will take place after this tragedy. Of course the Home Office will look again at the gun laws in light of that and I can announce today as well that the chief constable of Cumbria has already written to the ACPO president asking him to support a clear review, to be conducted by national police experts on firearms licensing, the police firearms response and firearms tactics. These reviews will all become publicly available documents. I do believe we shouldn’t leap to conclusions, I don’t believe in knee-jerk legislations. We do have some of the tightest gun laws in this country, but of course we should look again.”

The focus of the Home Office review on firearms law will be on mental health issues and the frequency of police visits to those who keep guns. During Prime Minister’s questions, David Cameron was asked specifically by John Woodcock MP whether he thought that “it is still worth the risk to allow guns used for sport to continue to be kept at home”.

Mr Cameron’s response was: “The honourable gentleman is right that everything has to be considered, including the mental health of people and police visits to their homes, but we have, because of previous tragedies, very strict rules on what people who keep guns at home have to do in terms of very strict security. I remember sitting on the Home Affairs Committee and asking the ACPO representative responsible for the issue how much leakage there was from legally held guns into the illegal black market.”

“The answer was virtually none, so if we are looking for what the problem is, it is clearly that in our society we have a huge number of guns that we need to get rid of. Clearly, there was an appalling problem in this case, where, as I have said, a switch flicked in someone’s head.”

“We cannot legislate against that, but let us look at every aspect and ensure that we have the robust laws that we need.”

[m24]

More fall out....

Source: http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/474 ... dquot.html

Doctors and police reach an agreement in principle to share information on gun-owning patients without their consent

After talks between the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the British Medical Association (BMA), GPs have agreed to breach their duty of confidentiality to gun-owning patients. Doctors have agreed to tell the police if they believe that a gun-owner’s mental health has deteriorated to the extent that they have become a danger to themselves or the public. In a statement, the BMA said: “Where doctors know that a patient has a firearm and, in their view, presents a risk of harm to themselves or others this information can be disclosed without consent.”

In another controversial move, all medical records of patients holding firearms licences could be “flagged” as part of the agreement. The BMA indicated that it did not want doctors to be made responsible for revoking firearms certificates. However, firearms guidance advises police to revoke a licence if a doctor declares the holder unsafe.

BASC’s Simon Clarke expressed concern that the agreement would lead to gun owners with a record of any mental health problem having their firearms certificate withdrawn. He said: “If it became a default position that any mental health issue causes your licence to be revoked, that would be a potential danger.” He went on to link the announcement with the recent killings by Derrick Bird, saying: “The issue of flagging medical records has become more prominent after the Cumbria murders.”

Regards

[ckkalyan]

Granted that both the pro and anti gun lobbies, have certain reasonable and valid points aside from, some paranoid, knee-jerk notions and blind beliefs. To me personally, it is quite apparent that strict / stricter gun control law is not the solution - anywhere in the world.

Strict gun control laws, in my opinion are a result of fear, unreasoning fear, sheer terror, which demands that the alleged source of fear be removed - immediately. The key word here is 'alleged'. Until the anti lobbies find another convenient scapegoat, and/or are educated not to fear the gun itself - we can only hope and keep trying.

It would be wonderful if there were to arise in the near future, some sensible leader in a country with strict gun laws, for instance India, who would implement complete / major deregulation, on a purely experimental basis! The exercise, could be well documented and monitored for a certain predetermined period.

The whole monitoring engine for such a deregulation would probably cost the Govt much less than current systems in place to prevent gun ownership. The results, I am confident, would see a huge reduction in the positively humongous numbers of illegal weapons in the country. This would also not doubt, cause a completely unforeseen side effect, viz drastic improvement in the walking postures of the citizens of our great nation. We would all be able to walk tall, again!

I am sure there is someone out there, a bright spark, a brilliant innovator and administrator who will finally and eventually be positioned to make a well thought out decision and carry it forward to the stage of a law.

[MoA]

The UK is a Nanny state with very little common sense left in it.
Contrast with a lethal shootout using autmatic weapons in Paris last week. It was reported in the press and that was it. Article here
Two people were killed, in the XVIIIth district.

Here is a link to a shootout on the highway near Paris about a month ago where even a cop was killed and several people were hurt.

How much hue and cry has there been over gun ownership in its wake? ZERO! Why becuase the cops and people understand this was with illegal guns, and the criminals will always get their guns irrespective of the law.
Moreover there have been a couple of random shootings like Crumbria in the last month or so.. again no hue and cry. A crazy person hell bent on hurting others will do so, irrespective of having a gun or not.