UK Gunman kills at least 12, then himself.

[Mr. Tickle]

Latest from the BBC News website here

Twelve people have been killed by a gunman who went on the rampage across Cumbria in north-west England.

Taxi driver Derrick Bird shot dead a colleague in the town of Whitehaven before driving through the countryside apparently targeting people at random.

Twenty-five others have been injured, three critically. Police say they are dealing with 30 separate crime scenes.

Mr Bird's body was found in a wooded area in Boot in the Lake District and two weapons have been recovered.

Cumbria Police's Deputy Chief Constable said: "We are still at a very early stage in our investigation and we are not able to really understand the motivation behind it - or establish whether this was a premeditated or random attack.

"Current indications are that 12 people have died, plus Derrick Bird. And a number of people are also receiving treatment in hospital.

"We are working hard to support the families of those involved and our focus is now on gathering as much evidence as possible to build up a clear picture of what happened this morning."

After the first shooting, witnesses said Mr Bird drove through Whitehaven with a gun hanging out of his car window, then headed south through Gosforth and Seascale before turning inland.

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

A farmer's son 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 his 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.
Nuclear plant shut

Mr Hyde added: "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".

Very glad to say this is an extremely rare event in the UK, but this certainly seems to be ticking all the normal cliches boxes for something like this.

[Edward Yee]

Will be interested in hearing what firearm type was used and its legal status... although I expect "already illegal as shit."

[Bluewolf]

Will be interested in hearing what firearm type was used and its legal status... although I expect "already illegal as shit."

Well going by one witness statement:

"He turned around and stared at me and he had this absolutely huge sniper rifle," said Mr Moss.

"It was almost touching the floor, massive scope and everything.

Not sure if it is true or not but it does give you an idea.

[Korgeta]

Good riddance, the tragedy is that he turned against one of his own best friends and killed him before others, and for what so he can kill himself? People like him should do the decent thing and blow out their own brains on the first bullet out if they intend to kill themselves rather than the whole 'my life sucks so I’ll kill everyone and then me' If he wants some legacy of sympathy then it's in short order, I made repeated calls who had taken a trip to Cumbria and was in one of the areas he had struck, so I was concerned for a time. Gunmen like this guy should know by now that whenever this happens, they'll never be remembered but their victims instead. Makes you wonder why they even bother. Well whatever he's dead and again good riddance to that.

[Mr. Tickle]

Quote:
"He turned around and stared at me and he had this absolutely huge sniper rifle," said Mr Moss.

"It was almost touching the floor, massive scope and everything.

Well that is surprising, beyond shotguns for hunting etc I wasn't really aware of anything else being legal in the UK.

[Bluewolf]

Rifles are also allowed if I remember correctly but they must be single shot and I am not sure if any attachments are permitted on them. Technically though, it can be legal to have an AK 47 as long it was no longer semi automatic iirc. I doubt this is totally legal though.

[Mr. Tickle]

Learn something new everyday, although in my job we have to do some checks on the PNC (police national computer), you see shotgun licenses come up quite often, not seen a rifle one yet, then I can't imagine many people have one.

[Bluewolf]

I'd assume that most people who own a shotgun would be farmers. Really ,the sad thing is that people who own a gun and..well don't go around murdering hapless civilians will once again be punished as the government squeezes people on gun laws. As if they weren't draconian enough already.

[Edward Yee]

I'd rather wait to see photos of the weapon -- "absolutely huge sniper rifle" is incredibly generic, considering that for most laypeople "sniper rifle" will mean "it has an optic on top."

[The Spartan]

the tragedy is that he turned against one of his own best friends and killed him before others, and for what so he can kill himself?

I've never quite been able to wrap my head around it either. I understand people, after a fashion, who do it so that they can suicide-by-cop or if they're targeting a particular person or group of people (often for the 'sin' of belonging to/working for a particular organization), but when they start executing random strangers I just can't see what's driving them.

Learn something new everyday, although in my job we have to do some checks on the PNC (police national computer), you see shotgun licenses come up quite often, not seen a rifle one yet, then I can't imagine many people have one.

I saw Pierre Marco White on No Reservations hunting with a rifle (he actually had two; one for him, one for the host) and both had scopes and I recall at least one had a bipod attachment. Not sure how many shots they held though. They were similar to my bolt action rifle, which holds five rounds, but they could easily have had a block where the magazine would be.

I've seen similar with Gordon Ramsay on The F Word.

I'd rather wait to see photos of the weapon -- "absolutely huge sniper rifle" is incredibly generic, considering that for most laypeople "sniper rifle" will mean "it has an optic on top."

It's pretty easy to see how someone who was just terrified by a rampaging gunman would remember the gun being larger than life. Also, as you noted, having a scope on top is enough for many people to call it a sniper rifle, but that's understandable given that the first modern sniper rifles were hunting rifles with a scope on top. Even now a good number of sniper rifles are heavily customized hunting rifles.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

I'd rather wait to see photos of the weapon -- "absolutely huge sniper rifle" is incredibly generic, considering that for most laypeople "sniper rifle" will mean "it has an optic on top."

They were talking about a shotgun on the six o'clock news, which if accurate, just goes to show that most people know nothing about guns. It seems he might have had two weapons, though.

[Coyote]

...it can be legal to have an AK 47 as long it was no longer semi automatic iirc....

How could there be such a thing? To modify an AK so much that it is no longer semi-automatic would really mean reinventing it as a whole new rifle entirely.

Unless you're mixing up "semi" automatic with "automatic"?

As for this killer, could it have been a shotgun firing slugs? Are shotgun slugs legal in the UK?

[Psychic_Sandwich]

As for this killer, could it have been a shotgun firing slugs? Are shotgun slugs legal in the UK?

Yes. Shotguns are pretty much the only 'easily' available guns you can get. The only others are single shot target rifles used for competition shooting, which you need to keep locked up all the time except when training or at a competition, but shotguns are treated as tools. You need to prove that you have a reason to own one, but once you do, the limitations on what you do with it aren't terribly restrictive compared to rifles.

Not sure about the ammo, though.

[ShadowDragon8685]

...it can be legal to have an AK 47 as long it was no longer semi automatic iirc....

How could there be such a thing? To modify an AK so much that it is no longer semi-automatic would really mean reinventing it as a whole new rifle entirely.

The theory behind it's not that hard. All you'd really need to do would be to weld a piece of plate into the magazine well so that a magazine cannot be fitted; the rifle could still be operated as a single-shot breachloader by opening the breach with the charging handle, inserting a cartridge and closing the breach. For added security, I imagine they'd turn the rifle upside down and pour molten lead into the magazine well on top of (actually on the bottom of,) the plate, so it cools and hardens, effectively preventing it from ever being used again except as a single-shot rifle.

Why you would do such a thing is beyond me, but you could in theory effectively sabotage a Kalashnikov in such a manner. (Well, in theory, any rifle.) But again, that's just the theoretical.

Unless you're mixing up "semi" automatic with "automatic"?

Most likely, but I imagine that the UK would be gunshy about even semiauto AK-family rifles like an AK with a semiauto only selector or an SKS.

As for this killer, could it have been a shotgun firing slugs? Are shotgun slugs legal in the UK?

It they are, they probably won't be for long; if they aren't, then they'll probably make something entirely unrelated which is still legal criminal in the mass hysteria demanding that the government do something.

[Big Orange]

Cumbria has had it pretty rough in the last 12 months, with terrible flooding and a recent coach crash claiming the lives of two teenage girls. And while a terrible incident, I increasingly don't think much of wall to wall coverage about spree killings blanking everything out and encouraging other would be nutters.

I'm not keen about firearm ownership, however the countermeasures seem impractical, in Germany they almost banned paintballing and gun control has little effect on illegal gun usage: professional criminals don't care and when spree killings happen, they happen. Police officers can (and have) gone nuts, while other loonies with no access to firearms would use knifes, vehicles, or Molotov cocktails instead.

[Mr. Tickle]

Cumbria has had it pretty rough in the last 12 months, with terrible flooding and a recent coach crash claiming the lives of two teenage girls. And while a terrible incident, I increasingly don't think much of wall to wall coverage about spree killings blanking everything out and encouraging other would be nutters.

Charlie Brooker on newswipe went over that point very effectively I thought, clip below:




Sums it all up really.

[Plekhanov]

I'm not keen about firearm ownership, however the countermeasures seem impractical, in Germany they almost banned paintballing and gun control has little effect on illegal gun usage: professional criminals don't care and when spree killings happen, they happen. Police officers can (and have) gone nuts, while other loonies with no access to firearms would use knifes, vehicles, or Molotov cocktails instead.

Which to me atleast is rather the point of gun control, if you lose it here you almost certainly won't have access to a firearm so you either need to get creative or try and hold it together for however long it takes to get one on the black market.

Clearly you're never going to stop all sufficiently determined hardened criminals from getting guns but atleast gun control keeps horribly efficient ranged weapons out of easy access to every nutter who loses it. Chances are any given number of "loonies" with firearms are going to be able to take more people with them than they could without firearms.

[Alyeska]

I'm not keen about firearm ownership, however the countermeasures seem impractical, in Germany they almost banned paintballing and gun control has little effect on illegal gun usage: professional criminals don't care and when spree killings happen, they happen. Police officers can (and have) gone nuts, while other loonies with no access to firearms would use knifes, vehicles, or Molotov cocktails instead.

Which to me atleast is rather the point of gun control, if you lose it here you almost certainly won't have access to a firearm so you either need to get creative or try and hold it together for however long it takes to get one on the black market.

Clearly you're never going to stop all sufficiently determined hardened criminals from getting guns but atleast gun control keeps horribly efficient ranged weapons out of easy access to every nutter who loses it. Chances are any given number of "loonies" with firearms are going to be able to take more people with them than they could without firearms.

Such killing sprees are actually rather rare. Gun crime is a much bigger problem. When you ban 90% of gun ownership because of a killing spree once a decade, well I disagree. There are some inherent risks to freedom and liberty. We allow alcohol. We allow cars. Tens of thousands of people are killed as a result. How many killing sprees with guns have ocurred in the UK in the last 10 years? Now how many people have been killed as a result of drunk driving?

If society decides they believe guns are not worth the cost, so be it. I don't happen to agree with that general idea. I believe they should be regulated and restricted, but not blanket banned because of what the random and rare crazy might do.

[Starglider]

Shotguns are pretty much the only 'easily' available guns you can get. Not sure about the ammo, though.

A standard shotgun license only allows purchase of birdshot and buckshot. If you want slugs or exotic ammo you need a full firearms license similar to what is needed for a rifle.

[Plekhanov]

Such killing sprees are actually rather rare. Gun crime is a much bigger problem. When you ban 90% of gun ownership because of a killing spree once a decade, well I disagree. There are some inherent risks to freedom and liberty. We allow alcohol. We allow cars. Tens of thousands of people are killed as a result. How many killing sprees with guns have ocurred in the UK in the last 10 years? Now how many people have been killed as a result of drunk driving?

If society decides they believe guns are not worth the cost, so be it. I don't happen to agree with that general idea. I believe they should be regulated and restricted, but not blanket banned because of what the random and rare crazy might do.

People losing it to the extent they go on killing sprees is rare, people losing it to the extent they try and kill a small number of people is rather more common the lack of guns here makes it harder for them to do so. Our murder rate from firearms is a tiny fraction of yours, whilst there are obviously many variables involved in that I happen the think the lack of a gun within easy reach every-time someone finds their girlfriend cheating upon them has something to do with that.

Your attempted comparisons to cars, alcohol... just don't cut it. Cars have obviously useful/essential functions in our society, prohibition of alcohol is worse than the alternative i contrast guns have no use for any but a tiny proportion of people & tight controls on firearms have hardly led to the rise of a British Capone.

I'm a very "freedom and liberty" minded guy, I care passionately about freedom of conscience, expressions, assembly, travel, habeas corpus... and I work my arse off trying to defend & extend such rights because I believe all those things are essential for a tolerable society to survive and flourish. The "right" to own and carry lethal weapons which serve no useful purpose at all however... I've never had anyone convincingly explain to me why that's supposed to be a right at all.

[Alyeska]

People losing it to the extent they go on killing sprees is rare, people losing it to the extent they try and kill a small number of people is rather more common the lack of guns here makes it harder for them to do so. Our murder rate from firearms is a tiny fraction of yours, whilst there are obviously many variables involved in that I happen the think the lack of a gun within easy reach every-time someone finds their girlfriend cheating upon them has something to do with that.

How often does it actually happen? 1% of the time? 5% of the time? 25% of the time? I would argue that criminal intended use of firearms and their associated killings make up the significant majority of victims.

Your attempted comparisons to cars, alcohol... just don't cut it. Cars have obviously useful/essential functions in our society, prohibition of alcohol is worse than the alternative i contrast guns have no use for any but a tiny proportion of people & tight controls on firearms have hardly led to the rise of a British Capone.

Its not intended as a direct comparison. Its merely to show that a degree of risk is considered acceptable by society. If we as society accept that there are risks behind a freedom, then banning something entirely to reduce a comparably tiny number of deaths becomes irrational.

I'm a very "freedom and liberty" minded guy, I care passionately about freedom of conscience, expressions, assembly, travel, habeas corpus... and I work my arse off trying to defend & extend such rights because I believe all those things are essential for a tolerable society to survive and flourish. The "right" to own and carry lethal weapons which serve no useful purpose at all however... I've never had anyone convincingly explain to me why that's supposed to be a right at all.

What is not useful to you can be useful to me. I find guns to be useful for entertainment. Target shooting. Competition shooting. Hunting. Plinking. Even collecting in itself is entertaining. I carry a pistol when I hike in the wilderness. There are very dangerous predators that live in my part of the continent.

You just argued that guns are wrong, period. You said "I've never had anyone convincingly explain to me why that's supposed to be a right at all.". If they are never right, at all, that implies they are wrong in every possible sense and serve no purpose other than wrong. Is that a little stronger than you intended? Even with the US having higher rates of gun crime, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. As a liberty minded individual, I prefer to explore other alternatives before considering an outright ban. Examine the root causes of problem. What is the background surrounding most gun crime? If you consider spree crimes paramount to reduce (I will not deny some could consider this important), would you consider other alternatives before an outright ban? Wouldn't a supervised gun club serve many purposes to reduce spree crimes? Spree and rampage crimes can be broken down to two categories. Spur of the moment. Planned out. And when someone plans a rampage, the legality of guns becomes less of an issue. They can still acquire them. Spur of the moment can occur due to availability. Remove them from the home (but don't necessarily ban them), availability issues greatly reduce spur of the moment.

Don't get yourself stuck inside a box on the issue. Consider alternatives. Try to examine the issue from the other side. I can relate to your position. But you've admitted no common ground to begin to relate to my concerns. You have outright stated guns have no value outside of negative aspects.

[Plekhanov]

People losing it to the extent they go on killing sprees is rare, people losing it to the extent they try and kill a small number of people is rather more common the lack of guns here makes it harder for them to do so. Our murder rate from firearms is a tiny fraction of yours, whilst there are obviously many variables involved in that I happen the think the lack of a gun within easy reach every-time someone finds their girlfriend cheating upon them has something to do with that.

How often does it actually happen? 1% of the time? 5% of the time? 25% of the time? I would argue that criminal intended use of firearms and their associated killings make up the significant majority of victims.

If that's truly the case I guess there must be vastly fewer criminals who intend to use firearms here than in the US then.

Your attempted comparisons to cars, alcohol... just don't cut it. Cars have obviously useful/essential functions in our society, prohibition of alcohol is worse than the alternative i contrast guns have no use for any but a tiny proportion of people & tight controls on firearms have hardly led to the rise of a British Capone.

Its not intended as a direct comparison. Its merely to show that a degree of risk is considered acceptable by society. If we as society accept that there are risks behind a freedom, then banning something entirely to reduce a comparably tiny number of deaths becomes irrational.

Is the number of deaths really that "tiny"? I was under the impression guns are a not insignificant cause of death for the young in the US.

I'm a very "freedom and liberty" minded guy, I care passionately about freedom of conscience, expressions, assembly, travel, habeas corpus... and I work my arse off trying to defend & extend such rights because I believe all those things are essential for a tolerable society to survive and flourish. The "right" to own and carry lethal weapons which serve no useful purpose at all however... I've never had anyone convincingly explain to me why that's supposed to be a right at all.

What is not useful to you can be useful to me. I find guns to be useful for entertainment. Target shooting. Competition shooting. Hunting. Plinking. Even collecting in itself is entertaining. I carry a pistol when I hike in the wilderness. There are very dangerous predators that live in my part of the continent.

How exactly do you figure mere leisure anything like important enough to balance the deaths wide access to firearms is likely to cause? The most dangerous predator here is the badger.

You just argued that guns are wrong, period. You said "I've never had anyone convincingly explain to me why that's supposed to be a right at all.". If they are never right, at all, that implies they are wrong in every possible sense and serve no purpose other than wrong. Is that a little stronger than you intended? Even with the US having higher rates of gun crime, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. As a liberty minded individual, I prefer to explore other alternatives before considering an outright ban. Examine the root causes of problem. What is the background surrounding most gun crime? If you consider spree crimes paramount to reduce (I will not deny some could consider this important), would you consider other alternatives before an outright ban? Wouldn't a supervised gun club serve many purposes to reduce spree crimes? Spree and rampage crimes can be broken down to two categories. Spur of the moment. Planned out. And when someone plans a rampage, the legality of guns becomes less of an issue. They can still acquire them. Spur of the moment can occur due to availability. Remove them from the home (but don't necessarily ban them), availability issues greatly reduce spur of the moment.

Don't get yourself stuck inside a box on the issue. Consider alternatives. Try to examine the issue from the other side. I can relate to your position. But you've admitted no common ground to begin to relate to my concerns. You have outright stated guns have no value outside of negative aspects.

Oh please I said that I don't consider access to firearms to be "a right" that is massively different to saying "guns are wrong, period.". Nor have I "stated guns have no value outside of negative aspects" I've simply said I don't think the positives even come close to balancing the negatives for your average citizen to be given access to them as a right.

I've also been clear I don't consider spree killers to be a significant issue to please don't pretend I have.

If someone can show a good reason why they need a firearm as it would serve a truly "useful purpose" to them (mere fun doesn't cut it) and that they're reasonably trustworthy I think they should they should have access to one. Not as a right though as a rare privilege granted to those who can demonstrate both need & responsibility.

You very patronisingly tell me to "Consider alternatives. Try to examine the issue from the other side." well help me do so then and explain to me why I should view access to firearms as a basic right rather than a privilege. I'm aware of strong arguments why freedom of expressions, movement, assembly... are all essential rights necessary for any democracy to function why should I view "bearing arms" as belonging on that list of essential rights?

[His Divine Shadow]

Er you know what, fuck it. I'm chickening out, don't have the nerves for gun control debates anymore.

[adam_grif]

Er you know what, fuck it. I'm chickening out, don't have the nerves for gun control debates anymore.

I haven't had the nerve for years. Same old shit over and over again. When it's Americans vs Europeans it gets even worse because one thinks that gun ownership should be a right and the other doesn't. All you ever see is "YEAH WELL _____ HAS STRICT GUN CONTROL AND ITS CRIME RATE IS WAY LOWER THAN USA!" Nobody ever bothers controlling for other variables, or detailed, well thought out comparisons.

All I'll say is that I get fucking pissed off that douchebag mass murderers prevent me from getting access to the kinds of awesome guns I want to collect. Some of the measures to prevent gun crime are wierd as shit as well, like banning >9mm rounds in Australia, when 9mm and .22 LR are the most widespread calibers (and thus most used in crimes). Nobody ever kills anybody with an antique machine gun or a .50 rifle, because they're expensive as fuck and impossible to conceal. But they're banned while 9mm handguns aren't? And everytime I see the youtube clip of the fucking moron US politician when she's asked why she wants Barrel shrouds to be banned I get this big stupid grin on my face. Some people...

[Stofsk]

The biggest absurdity is paintball being banned in Tasmania. I don't know if that's been repealed yet. In Victoria you used to need to have a goddamn shooter's licence to play paint ball for fuck's sake. That changed 4 years ago, but still.