As usual with this type of crime, singling out patterns or invoking further legislation is pointless. With Britain waking up to the worst firearms tragedy since Dunblane, the predictable finger-pointing begins.
And yet the police are still trying to piece the story together. It was unclear what exactly tipped 52-year-old Derrick Bird, the killer, over the edge. Was he having financial problems? Did he have a row with his fellow taxi drivers over queue-jumping and touting? Did he fall out with his relatives over a will? Did years of solitude and a broken marriage take their toll?
No-one will probably ever find out. The only certainty is that something made Bird lose the plot completely. Something flicked a switched that got him to embark on a deadly rampage, killing thirteen and injuring more in a mist of rage reminiscing of the worst horror films.
Derrick Bird was certainly angry and frustrated. But there are a lot of angry and frustrated people about. He was a bit of a loner. But luckily most quiet people don't usually pick up a gun and aim at random passers by.
Bird didn't fit the stereotypical Daily Mail and Sun profile of council-estate-dweller-turned-monster courtesy of New Labour and dole handouts and he wasn't, at least on the surface, a "victim of neo-liberalism" and the bankers' crisis either. He lived in a quiet town and he wasn't party to any rival gang.
Bird didn't fit the stereotypical Daily Mail and Sun profile of council-estate-dweller-turned-monster courtesy of New Labour and dole handouts and he wasn't, at least on the surface, a "victim of neo-liberalism" and the bankers' crisis either. He lived in a quiet town and he wasn't party to any rival gang.
The simple, terrifying, fact is that we can all suddenly lose it. Anyone, anytime. There is little point in trying to rationalise or establish visible patterns that would explain behaviour like the one seen yesterday in Cumbria.
Some commentators like Peter Squires in the Guardian wrote that better and stricter gun control "could have prevented [the] Cumbria shootings". And yet, without wishing for a second to play down the tragic nature of the events, this is only the third such incident in 23 years.
Like Richard Ford points out in the Times, both after Hungerford in 1987 and Dunblane ten years later, gun laws were significantly tightened with the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006 adding further restrictions.
Yes, 1.3 million shotguns in the UK are way too many. And, for the life of me, I can't think of anything good that's ever come out of gun-ownership and the intrinsic machism that come with it (incidentally, why is it always men who are responsible for mass shootings?). I agree that no guns would mean no gun violence and that knives, slingshots and baseball bats, however dangerous, can't be compared in terms of deadliness.
Yet -let's keep it within perspective and say something positive for once- 3 appalling incidents in 23 years from a total of 1.3m shotguns in the country means that 0,0002% of firearms in Britain have resulted in an incident like the one seen yesterday.
There is no point in passing further legislation just to impress public opinion. No law can do anything when a person loses it like Derrick Bird did.
Some commentators like Peter Squires in the Guardian wrote that better and stricter gun control "could have prevented [the] Cumbria shootings". And yet, without wishing for a second to play down the tragic nature of the events, this is only the third such incident in 23 years.
Like Richard Ford points out in the Times, both after Hungerford in 1987 and Dunblane ten years later, gun laws were significantly tightened with the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006 adding further restrictions.
Yes, 1.3 million shotguns in the UK are way too many. And, for the life of me, I can't think of anything good that's ever come out of gun-ownership and the intrinsic machism that come with it (incidentally, why is it always men who are responsible for mass shootings?). I agree that no guns would mean no gun violence and that knives, slingshots and baseball bats, however dangerous, can't be compared in terms of deadliness.
Yet -let's keep it within perspective and say something positive for once- 3 appalling incidents in 23 years from a total of 1.3m shotguns in the country means that 0,0002% of firearms in Britain have resulted in an incident like the one seen yesterday.
There is no point in passing further legislation just to impress public opinion. No law can do anything when a person loses it like Derrick Bird did.
2 comments:
Agree with the point that senseless acts of extreme violence as these are totally random. Gun control laws seem unlikely to do much to prevent them.
Whitehaven is my hometown and the region has taken a real battering in recent times. I just hope the area can pick itself up and carry on, as it's had to do countless times in recent history.
'let's keep it within perspective and say something positive for once- 3 appalling incidents in 23 years from a total of 1.3m shotguns in the country means that 0,0002% of firearms in Britain have resulted in an incident like the one seen yesterday.
There is no point in passing further legislation just to impress public opinion. No law can do anything when a person loses it like Derrick Bird did.'
I'm glad we agree here Claude. Gun control laws usually form the classic example of moral panic.
Interestingly the handgun ban of 1997 was not what was actually recommended by the report into Dunblane. Also had the existing laws (1968 Firearms Act) actually been properly enforced by the police then the tragedy could have been averted. The Act allowed for the police to suspend an individual's licence whilst they were under investigation. The handgun ban in my opinion curtailed the rights of people to enjoy one of the most egalitarian of sports. Also as a libertarian I believe that an individual of sound mind and without criminal record should be allowed to own a handgun. They could until 1997. Now the only guns are in the hands of criminals or police, not a good mixture.
http://amodernlibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/05/ban-paintball.html
Post a Comment