A shooting spree in the UK,that happend today.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting read. The Development of the British Faith in Strict Gun Control
by Derek Bernard.

Derek Bernard is a businessman based in the Island of Jersey. Although interested and active in target shooting from 1948 to 1979, he assumed that the constant refrain that""strict gun control" was a civilised necessity, must be substantially true. Surely the government, police and media would not repeat it so often if it were not true?

In 1979, however, he decided to try and understand the complex firearm laws (which he had never even read up to that point) and, further, attempt to determine which of the many control mechanisms in the law, actually produced the social benefits.

After 3 years of reading, writing and research he was forced -- with a considerable sense of shock -- to the conclusion that there were no measurable benefits to any of the control mechanisms, either individually or collectively. A further 27 years of amateur work in the field has greatly reinforced those conclusions.
Click to expand...

That was the same conclusion reached by academic panels of US Centers for Disease Control CDC 2003 and National Academy of Sciences NAS 2004: that there were no measurable benefits from any of the gun control policies of the past several decades.
 
My friendly wager?


He was off his antidepressents...and, had been under the psychiatric 'care' of a practioner or practioners who have heavy long term ties to intel, and or who subcontract from contractors who do.


This has been so in almost every instance of similar middemeanors and alledged assasins of famous persons for 40 odd years now.


Not what I would have expected, but then, I am just another naive Pilgrim.
 
Well it seems so far that we are going to get off fairly lightly.

The good news is, our new Prime Minister is himself a shooter and has a Shotgun Licence so he will be familiar with the process of obtaining licenses on a 1st hand basis. He is well aware that we have some of the strictest firearms laws in Europe if not the world.

He has spoken out saying that there will not be any knee-jerk legislation put in place because of this. He also said 'you cannot legislate against a switch going off in someones head'. Very sensible!!

The Conservatives are probably the most pro-gun of the main parties (excluding the BNP). They won't publically say it. A lot of the areas of the country that are Conservative strongholds are the more rural areas where firearms are still very much a part of every day life.

I live in such an area. I was in my garden the other day and my neighbour walked out and shot a crow off the telphone pole with a shotgun. Made me jump but its refreshing to know that parts of the country still have a more reasonable attitude to firearms. Until fairly recently I have always lived in and around cities.

I think the worst that will happen in terms of firearms law is that they may look to change it so that licenses are renewed more frequently than the current 5 years and possibly there will be further checks into applicants medical history at renewal time. At present though, you do have to grant access to your medical records when applying for a license so they can check for a history of depression or mental illness.

Could have been a lot worse..
 
The other sad thing about this that has just emerged:

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

Is that officers were present at the time of him shooting his first victim. However, because they were unarmed, they were not able to do anything. Several officers followed him in a van but after he pointed a weapon at them, they had to discontinue the persuit.

If those officers had been armed there might have only been 1 victim here :(
 
Sad is not the word I would use for it. Multiple uniformed officers following a man on a shooting rampage and being unable to do anything about it because they're not armed.

Profound depths of hitherto uncharted idiocy.
 
They absolutely will not arm the police here. We'd rather see this sort of thing happen occasionally than tolerate an armed police force.
 
Sad is not the word I would use for it. Multiple uniformed officers following a man on a shooting rampage and being unable to do anything about it because they're not armed.
Click to expand...
Too many do-gooders who live in the past,but then again the attitude of an unarmed police force,came from Sir Robert Peels legacy.If Peel had said 'yes,the police must have arms' then perhaps the British Bobby might of permanently have had his trusty 'comforter' in his holster,even today.From the percussion Colt&Adams revolver,throught to the Webley,then to the S&W .38&Brownings,then to the Glocks,H&K USPs,Berettas,etc.The Cheif Constable might of packed a Cheif's Special revolver,like his US counterpart..lol.
Going off topic here:The bobby could carry a handgun,if he chose to from the 19th Century,until 1936.This was the nearest to a fully armed police force.After that 'good reason' had to be demonstrated,by means of form filling,to the armoury sgt or Inspector.
Yes you are right&thank god that we have not succombed to any more negative legislation,in the form of bans,unlike after Dunblane.At least the cops aren't calling for our guns to be banned,like they did,after Hungerford too.No more bans please,just common sense.
 
The Peelian principles referred to above, to which frequently only lip service is paid these days, were:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
 
Is that officers were present at the time of him shooting his first victim. However, because they were unarmed, they were not able to do anything. Several officers followed him in a van but after he pointed a weapon at them, they had to discontinue the persuit.

If those officers had been armed there might have only been 1 victim here
Click to expand...
You know whats interesting about this:One officer who was killed during the Hungerford massacre,was discussing with his partner,on whether or not the police should be routinely-armed& this cop agreed that he should of been entitled to carry a S&W M10 .38 revolver(Standard issue then,for many police forces,in the UK:)Unfortunately this man was ambushed by Micheal Ryan,who I think set a trap for him&the PC drove into a hail of bullets from Ryans AK47,which made swiss-cheese of that guys Vauxhall Senator.Ryan finished him off with multiple shots,from his Beretta 9mm,.His partner was shot at by Ryan,as he went near to the crahed Senator.If this officer had a .38 or a HI-Power,then Ryan might of been taken out&thus saving more lives in Hungerford,by preventing him from killing more people.
 
I'll just say that if England was on the track to remaining English, then a lot of problems wouldn't be happening. I'm sure Europe was a much safer place when it was actually European.
 
I'll just say that if England was on the track to remaining English, then a lot of problems wouldn't be happening. I'm sure Europe was a much safer place when it was actually European.
Click to expand...
:Not sure what you're getting at.Do you mean on the road to being an ultra-socialist state &the same for Europe?I wish we had European gun laws,as we'd regainour fullbore semi-autos&pistols.:):)
 
Last edited:
Im now hoping that there aren't anymore restrictions,as a result of this idiot&that we can at least regain handguns,if camerons a real man of substance.He should be,as he's entitled to a pistol or a fullbore semi-auto,if he reverses one of the bans.
 
He's not going to lighten the laws after this shooting spree. The best we can hope for is that they don't further tighten them. So far, it looks promising.
 
:Not sure what you're getting at.Do you mean on the road to being an ultra-socialist state &the same for Europe?I wish we had European gun laws,as we'd regainour fullbore semi-autos&pistols
Click to expand...

That, and the fact that Western Europe is now just a colony for the rest of the world. Nothing more than lines on map, with no cultural or ethnic meaning. It brings problems.


It's like a combination of the books The Camp of the Saints and Nineteen Eighty-Four, except real.


To bring the topic back on track... gun control does not work. If someone can get sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate, a pipe and a projectile, then you can make a gun. I suppose machine shops are still legal in Britain? If so, any intelligent man can buy a small milling machine and lathe... and can produce their own semi-automatic weapon. An AK receiver can be made out of sheet metal in a garage! I don't know if one can buy non-serial numbered gun parts like the bolt and trigger group... but using your own design one can make a decent gun in a simple shop. If you have no shop, a single shot, terribly inaccurate and crude firearm can be made in a garage in a day by a 13 year old. If they plan to kill someone point blank, it gets easier. A simple spike with a powerful spring in a tube is much easier to make and just as deadly point blank. Gun control just keeps weapons away from lazy idiots.

How do they think people hunted before firearms? One can easily make a bow and arrow. It is simple, has decent range, and can fire pretty quickly. Better outlaw elastic cord and wood. Better yet, outlaw cars... maybe even outlaw birth... it is proven that the number one cause of death is being born in the first place.
 
Last edited:
With a police force that is unarmed and a populace that is unarmed, how can they feel like anything but sitting ducks? How can they be satisfied with this? Civility over safety?

I believe that the people of England can turn their situation around. With enough factual proof that England is less safe with an unarmed populace and police force and support of political candidates that support gun rights, as well as a rebuke of those who don't, things can change.
 
Ben86 said:
I believe that the people of England can turn their situation around. With enough factual proof that England is less safe with an unarmed populace and police force and support of political candidates that support gun rights, as well as a rebuke of those who don't, things can change.
Click to expand...
How would you ever prove that gun control in England has decreased safety? It may be the case but very difficult to "prove". And i doubt that there are many political candidates who would be brave enough to argue for reversal of the existing regulations -- it would not be a vote catcher in England IMO as there has not been a culture of gun ownership in living memory.
 
The first cause for gun control in the UK,as portrayed in this Crime&Investaigation Network,documentary re-construction of the Hungerford massacre,on August 19th 1987.Yes,he used assault weapons,yes he never came to police attention,but wouldn't he of used traditional sporting arms,if say,what he wanted to use was banned,much in the same way,that Derreck Bird used sporting arms,in his rampage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf9-MkLXxfs
A French farmer used a double-barrelled,on a rampage in 1989,so whats the difference between this and a fullbore semi-auto?
 
He's not going to lighten the laws after this shooting spree. The best we can hope for is that they don't further tighten them. So far, it looks promising.
Click to expand...
I think I haven't made my point properly..ooops.I actually meant it as an afterthought,for he and that weasel Clegg to ponder on ,as our previous bans haven't benefitted anyone,other than these trouble-making,do-gooders.As Ive stated in the post above,if one things banned,then something else would be used instead.Also a direct point for Cameron to think about,as he's a gun license holder,himself& hunts&target shoots with his guns&that,one day he might look at a Glock 17,in a cops holster and say to himself&the officer:'That looks like alot of fun to shoot,at the range' shame I can't own one myself.Why can't I?Thats what I'd be asking myself,if I was a politition,in the House Of Commons.
Also,like you I know that its a major setback for handguns returning,for 2012,as the BASC suspects now,in definate.The trouble is that these polititions&these do-gooding members of the public are so 2-Dimensional about guns&the problem with this coalition,I think is,that they are two-faced,if they had to make a legislative law change.I couldn't believe that the Liberal-Democrats,would come out&support the cause of shooting.Although more party members were more anti than Labour,they aren't allied with the Gun Control Network.Ive researched these bans&my theories of why these polititions impose them&its about apeasement&the ballot box,as after the N02 clause of the pistol ban,was really absurd.
 
Last edited:
How would you ever prove that gun control in England has decreased safety? It may be the case but very difficult to "prove". And i doubt that there are many political candidates who would be brave enough to argue for reversal of the existing regulations -- it would not be a vote catcher in England IMO as there has not been a culture of gun ownership in living memory.
Click to expand...

Some pre-gun ban statistics versus some post-gun ban statistics concerning violent crime rates might do the trick. Concerning arming police, how many died in the line of duty because they did not have an effective means to fight back, meaning a gun? How many violent crimes could have been brought to a swift end had the police been armed with firearms (public massacres)?

As far as political candidates that will support gun rights, if the popular support is strong enough they will. That's how they get elected in the first place, supporting (or at least acting as if they support) the will of the people.

Forgive me if this offends you British members of this forum. Throughout the years it has been my observation that the English people seem to be especially complacent when it comes to politics. There seems to be this overwhelming feeling on issues of dislike that goes something like: "Well I don't like it, but what can you do?" Then everyone just goes about their business, letting the elected officials do what they do, even if they don't like what they are doing.
 
Forgive me if this offends you British members of this forum. Throughout the years it has been my observation that the English people seem to be especially complacent when it comes to politics.
Click to expand...

It's not the peoples fault, it's the political system. Our charter is designed around the limitations of government power. That's why so many federal laws are based on rather obscure premises like the commerce clause. In effect, politicians have to use subterfuge to invoke power over the states or peoples powers and rights. They often get away with it, but it's much more difficult to do without the law being struck down by the courts.

There is no such constitutional protections in the British charter since it's more like a starting point than an end point for government powers. The government can (mostly) do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top