Knee jerk reaction? Check!

Discussion in 'Shooting, Hunting and Fishing' started by Cuddles, Jun 3, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. There is no question that the Cumbrian shootings were a very sad occurrence. No doubt in due course we may find out what was passing through Mr Bird's mind that caused him to go "postal". Healing will also take time.

    However it didn't take James Naughtie and John Humphries very long indeed to fire up their "How could someone come to own so many lethal firearms legally?" outrage bus. Their pseeudo-concern and suggestions that it was too easy to own firearms and why would any right-thinking person need to own "so many" was entirely predictable. In a countryside location forsooth?!

    They used the analogy of Dunblane which was completely wrong, they talked about contrasts with Mossside and illegally owned firearms incidents, they asked if the government knew how many firearms were in circulation and all the time, the drip-drip-drip that "something needed to be done" to make legal gun ownership less possible.

    Now Humphries and Naughtie are a well known firm of intellectual wannabes, with their posh people's "Who wants to be a millionaire" Mastermind and Book Clubs for impenetrable literature on the radio. Yet for all their pseudo-intellectual affectations, these cnuts would be spiritually more at home writing for the red-tops, with their prurience and "ooh look a turd!" fairy-dancing.

    Well Jim and John, if you feel that strongly about legally owned firearms, perhaps you might consider not stuffing your fat chops with venison or pheasant. Oh and best leave the salmon alone, you could have somebody's eye out with that fishing fly!

    As if The Sheffield Cannibal hadn't done enough damage to the cause of legally owned crossbows this week...
  2. The Media run the country, they say what they think the public want to hear rather than what they actually want to hear.

    Things like this should require a referendum, should firearms be further restricted yes or no?

    I'm sick of nannying, big government reacting to the press.
  3. Why are these twats reporting and commenting on matters that are still being discovered. The first broadcasts this morning were almost sick, with Bill Turnbull saying things like " well nothing is happening here now" - no shit sherlock! So why report from the scene at great expewnse and why comment on nothing? Pathetic creative journalism at its' worst.

    As for the lets ban all guns issue, they really don't think it through do they. Again pathetic lack of awareness of how rural Britain actually does business.

  4. Because rural Britain is where junior journalists get sent to report on bad weather. Let's be honest, if you never move outside Central London, except on holidays, there is little reason to own a firearm and those who sports shoot will probably only need one or two and a relatively small amount of ammunition.

    And those people form both the commentariat and the governing class (CS as well as pols.)
  5. At the moment the BBC web site is being reasonably sensible; pointing out how difficult it is to own a firearm in the UK etc.

    I suspect we will get a 'kicking' however because 'something must be done' but maybe not as bad as it would have been if it had happened during the run up to the election.

    Doesn't mean that it wasn't an awful thing for the real victims; the dead, bereaved and injured.
  6. The awfulness sadly must be taken as a given. Most of these were ordinary rural folk going about their business.

    We should indeed be glad this didn't occur in the run up to the election but perhaps gladder yet that it wasn't Broon & Co, Undertakers to the British Economy by appointment, who are presiding over this. They would have jumped at the chance to take guns away from a)middle class people and b)country people. I still confidently expect there to be a reaction along the lines of - if you don't own land, why do you need a gun? Which is fine but I shoot vermin on two or three farms because the farmers either can't be arrsed to do it themselves or in one case is a bit squeamish about deading beasties. He was exposed to too much of it as a kiddy by his frankly besticidal maniac father!
  7. I am starting to sense something not quite right about the stories being put out, perhaps no more than a bit of foot shuffling by Cumbria police, but perhaps some may want a "knee jerk" to gloss over some uncomfortable facts.

    This is why:

    "Two weapons have been seized by police and are being examined by forensic experts. These are a shotgun and a .22 rifle fitted with a telescopic sight. It is understood that Derrick Bird was a licenced firearms holder for twenty years and police are now investigating whether the license covers the firearms which were seized."

    Now if Bird had an SGC/FAC for 20 years, you do not need to be a "forensic expert" to work out if the serial numbers are on his tickets or not. Possible outcomes:


    Either was on his SGC or it was not.

    No "good reason" test, so was either held legal ot illegal


    Shotgun: Always possible that a shotgun was held on an FAC of course and thus treated as a firearm, so listed on his FAC or not.

    Rifle: Listed on FAC or not

    So for one or both did he have "good reason" to hold them and on what grounds? Or is it possible that, having inherited these from his father 20 years ago and put them on ticket , a slack renewal process just rolled along?

    If the latter a lot of people should be sh1tting themselves because that is getting very close to Dunblane territory
  8. I too noted the "will have to check what he was entitled to" comment from the ACO on the telly. I couldn't help thinking that a central firearms database run by an organisation other than the police as recommended after Dunblane might have made it a little easier to establish these facts.
  9. Now the news is reporting that at least two of the murders were premeditated: twin brother and his own solicitor - all to do with family spat over inheritance, apparently. Looks like all the other poor souls were collateral damage.

    That makes most of the arguments about "was the licensing system working properly" a bit moot - clearly he was a suitable gun owner for at least 20 years, but then made a concious decision to carry out this act. No system can filter out that sort of thing.
  10. ancienturion

    ancienturion LE Book Reviewer

    FAC holders now have a fancy number to their FAC because there is supposed to exist a national database whereby any firearm can immediately be checked for its legality. This was at the instigation of the previous government.

    However, do not hold your breath in the hope that common sense will prevail because the present crowd seem to have the same idea that only towns exist and the rest of the country is a playground for the urban chattering classes.
  11. In what way? Have you considered a career in leading edge Radio 4 journalism?
  12. It seems the BBC are finding ever anti gun "Expert" Lord McKenzie former police chief for one, and the" Witness "Barry Moss who should be gatting help for PTSD not trying to get his 15 minutes of fame by his Hystirical outpourings, stand by for massive insurance claims and selling stories to the tabloids
  13. Precisely. Which is why any form of knee jerk meddling with a creaky but accurate system should be avoided.

    As for central databases of firearms - how would that help in this case? Cumbrian fire arms enforcement blokey goes to filing cabinet, opens drawer with "Bs" in it. Takes out copy of FAC/SGC. Checks against description provided by SOCO...numbers check? Job done. Local or national database doesn't affect this one. The national argument works if the weapon used in Cornwall, actually belongs in Aberdeen!
  14. So judging from the police statement, they can't even be clear as to whether, at the time of his demise, he was in possession of an FAC or an SGC, and as to whether the firearms used in the incident were listed thereupon.

    "Was a licence holder for 20 years" could mean e.g. 1980-2000.

    Why is this difficult? 24 hours on during the working week and they can't be clear on the issue? It should take someone from licensing all of 30 seconds to get the relevant details.
  15. Because at Dunblane there was a clear failure to operate an existing system, so we had an individual being granted renewals for six weapons that he had no good reason to hold.

    Hence one of the outputs of the Cullen report:

    "The Guidance to the Police should advise that good reason implies intention; and that lack of past use prima facie indicates the lack of it "

    So my point is nothing more than this: if (and that remains an open question) he had a legally held firearm or firearms, during the renewal processes did (i) he have good reason and (ii) was that properly tested?

    If the answer to (i) or (ii) is no, then life should become quite miserable for somebody in Cumbria plod.