Plymouth gunman

the black fox

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17,082
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
According to a contact in Plymouth ,there’s a man running round shooting random people with a automatic rifle ,several dead and/or injured ,massive police response ..ongoing
This is factual
 
Someone who lives that way and posts on a footie board I frequent reckons five dead plus the gunman shot by police marksman.
No idea if that's right, but awful tragedy whatever the figure
 
The BBC today also say 5 dead plus the gunman. No news yet on why he did it.

Tragic
 
His identity is now known. He is said to have had a "local reputation" and both the police and the NHS had been provided with a lot of info about him. He had a YouTube channel that contains a lot of very disturbing content that surely should have sounded warning bells.

It's very sad that this happened, no doubt there will now be the usual covering up from the people who ignored the warnings.
 
His identity is now known. He is said to have had a "local reputation" and both the police and the NHS had been provided with a lot of info about him. He had a YouTube channel that contains a lot of very disturbing content that surely should have sounded warning bells.

It's very sad that this happened, no doubt there will now be the usual covering up from the people who ignored the warnings.
Any idea how easily he could have accessed a firearm capable of that, given his background and reputation Garry?
 
Any idea how easily he could have accessed a firearm capable of that, given his background and reputation Garry?
I don't know and it would be wrong to speculate but apparently he was a shotgun certificate holder. If this is true then there will, as always in these sad circumstances, be questions for the police to answer.
But, in the past, the police have always investigated themselves, found that genuine and perfectly understandable mistakes have been made and that they couldn't possibly have done anything to avoid the tragedy.
 
According to a contact in Plymouth ,there’s a man running round shooting random people with a automatic rifle ,several dead and/or injured ,massive police response ..ongoing
This is factual
Not so factual as it turns out, his mother, her husband and sister/stepsister so not random people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Creepy losers blame their personality disorders on the women who find them abhorrent.
What a strange world we now live in.
 
Creepy losers blame their personality disorders on the women who find them abhorrent.
What a strange world we now live in.
I doubt whether the world has changed, what's different now is that these losers can find and interact with others who feel the same so easily, via social media, and form alliances with them. This can lead to them convincing themselves that it's everyone who doesn't have these strange views that are wrong. This happens in prisons too, with sex offenders housed together (usually for their own protection) and convincing themselves that their own behaviour is normal because just about everyone else that they talk to is also perverted.
not an automatic rifle either (assuming reports his gun was legally held are correct)
There may be something strange here, the Chief Constable rather cagily said that it was a pump-action shotgun but that he didn't know whether or not it was the shotgun that was in his lawful possession. As most pump-action shotguns can be very easily (illegally) modified to hold more than 3 cartridges, they can change from a legally certificated S.2 shotgun to an illegally held S.1 firearm. No doubt, the truth will out one day.
 
There may be something strange here, the Chief Constable rather cagily said that it was a pump-action shotgun but that he didn't know whether or not it was the shotgun that was in his lawful possession. As most pump-action shotguns can be very easily (illegally) modified to hold more than 3 cartridges, they can change from a legally certificated S.2 shotgun to an illegally held S.1 firearm. No doubt, the truth will out one day.

There is a report on the BBC which states his certificate was revoked and his gun confiscated last December. It was returned last month..

pump actions are rare in the UK. The very few I’ve seen I wouldn’t choose to spend time with the owners
 
There is a report on the BBC which states his certificate was revoked and his gun confiscated last December. It was returned last month..

pump actions are rare in the UK. The very few I’ve seen I wouldn’t choose to spend time with the owners
Seized, not revoked. I do find it strange that he was issued a certificate in the first place, as (according to someone who claims to have known him) he had a very poor local reputation and had been posting weird videos and making very strange comments on social media for a long time, and even more strange that he was then given back his gun just a few months after an allegation of assault.

In my experience, most police forces act quickly when an allegation is made against a certificate holder, and then take an extremely long time to investigate before returning guns, and often rightly so but not, it seems, on this occasion.

One of my clay shooting friends asked me for help a few years ago, he was going through a bad marriage breakup and felt that he was at risk of false accusations and, sure enough, a few weeks later the police arrested him because his wife alleged that he had threatened her with a shotgun.. They tried to seize his guns of course, but they weren't there because he had transferred them to me. The police then checked their own records and then 'phoned me and I was able to confirm that his guns were safely locked away in one of my cabinets at the time of the alleged incident. I suspect that the Devon & Cornwall police acted very wrongly but that's just based on what little is known at present and there may be things that we don't know about. What I do know, from experience, is that my own police force take a very different approach and, despite being very short-staffed and under-resourced, they do a great job of both supporting genuine shooters and protecting the public. They also work closely with the shooting community, which is able to provide them with a lot of background info, several of them are ex-police or ex-military and I actually shoot with one of them.

As for pump actions, I agree that they're the tool of choice for show-offs and criminals, but they are cheap, simple and reliable and I know several perfectly OK people who use them for clays and shoot extremely well with them, so we shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.

My view is that the licencing system in GB, one of the most stringent in the world, generally works well and that nothing needs to change, And, as experience shows, whenever something goes wrong it's because the police force involved has failed, rather than the system. The only aspect of the system that gives rise to concern is the links with medical doctors, who generally don't even know their patients and so can only tell the police what their computer says. And I think that there's a risk that a certificate holder who, for example, is showing signs of depression or who has developed an alcohol problem, won't seek help because it is no longer possible to speak to a doctor in confidence.
 
what I find strange is how he managed to shoot himself with it , unless he had sawn the barrel down ? effectively and as far as I'm aware its hard to reach the trigger of a pump action shotgun while holding it yourself ...
and before you ask ,yes many years ago I owned a savage 5 shot pump myself .
 
And I think that there's a risk that a certificate holder who, for example, is showing signs of depression or who has developed an alcohol problem, won't seek help because it is no longer possible to speak to a doctor in confidence.
In my opinion, the fact that someone would not seek assistance provides a prima facie case for revoking the certificate. Gun crimes are rare in Britain but they could be made rarer still by working entirely on the basis that anyone wanting to obtain or retain a certificate must be regularly interviewed by a psychologist with specialist training to detect risk factors.

Of course, there's also the question of illegal firearms. In this, our laws still need tightening. The problem is that the courts have messed about with Joint Enterprise and Parliament haven't addressed that.
 
There may be something strange here, the Chief Constable rather cagily said that it was a pump-action shotgun but that he didn't know whether or not it was the shotgun that was in his lawful possession. As most pump-action shotguns can be very easily (illegally) modified to hold more than 3 cartridges, they can change from a legally certificated S.2 shotgun to an illegally held S.1 firearm. No doubt, the truth will out one day.

Actually, in his statement on BBC local news he said 'the public have described it as a pump action shotgun', take from that what you will, but it wasn't an assertion from him, personally or on behalf of D&C Police, that they are confirming it was a pump action shotgun (at this stage).
 
Seized, not revoked. I do find it strange that he was issued a certificate in the first place, as (according to someone who claims to have known him) he had a very poor local reputation and had been posting weird videos and making very strange comments on social media for a long time, and even more strange that he was then given back his gun just a few months after an allegation of assault.

In my experience, most police forces act quickly when an allegation is made against a certificate holder, and then take an extremely long time to investigate before returning guns, and often rightly so but not, it seems, on this occasion.


That exactly matches my experience with them.

What I do know, from experience, is that my own police force take a very different approach and, despite being very short-staffed and under-resourced, they do a great job of both supporting genuine shooters and protecting the public. They also work closely with the shooting community, which is able to provide them with a lot of background info, several of them are ex-police or ex-military and I actually shoot with one of them.

Again that matches my experience. One of the chaps I regularly shoot with is on the met's firearms team. Surrey firearms team go as far as to host a completion every year. All comers (assuming a licence) are welcome. your certificate doesn't need to have been issued by Surrey not do you need to have ever been a serving police officer. Its one of the most enjoyable comps of the year.
 
One of my clay shooting friends asked me for help a few years ago, he was going through a bad marriage breakup and felt that he was at risk of false accusations and, sure enough, a few weeks later the police arrested him because his wife alleged that he had threatened her with a shotgun.. They tried to seize his guns of course, but they weren't there because he had transferred them to me. The police then checked their own records and then 'phoned me and I was able to confirm that his guns were safely locked away in one of my cabinets at the time of the alleged incident.
Did the wife face any charges for doing that?
 
Not as far as I know
I had a similar experience. 18 of my staff hold firearms licences as part of our bird control duties. When one split with his wife I received a call from the police that they were at his house and that he had threatened to shoot his wife with one of our guns. Strange that whilst he was cuffed to one of them and nowhere near his wife’s location (with her new bloke) they are unable to find the weapon. I assured them that all our guns were locked away. ( the licences require them to be left at our premises snd be signed in and out) and then they let him go, they didn’t take up my offer to come and check. But despite this there was no come back on her at all.
 
If you hold a firearms certificate and at anytime you have it revoked, then to me that’s it gone for good.
 
If you hold a firearms certificate and at anytime you have it revoked, then to me that’s it gone for good.
Thats a bit unclear! But his cert wasn’t revoked, his gun/s were “seized” pending investigation which is bound to happen while the police investigate any complaint and there’s no reason in principle why they shouldn’t be returned.
 
Gun crimes are rare in Britain but they could be made rarer still by working entirely on the basis that anyone wanting to obtain or retain a certificate must be regularly interviewed by a psychologist with specialist training to detect risk factors.
Ask yourself how many people this ”psychologist” is going to certify as ”safe” given it’s going to come back on him if someone goes bonkers down the line, no matter how much later etc. If it were me the answer would be “none”. :(.
 
If you hold a firearms certificate and at anytime you have it revoked, then to me that’s it gone for good.
When actually revoked, it usually is gone for good. There's an appeal process in the Crown Court and the Appellant normally has to pay both sets of costs, win or lose, which can amount to £80,000, and the judicial system tends to believe the police evidence even in the most surprising of circumstances. But, regardless of what the press are saying in this case, the certificate clearly wasn't revoked.
 
Police investigating the police !

Never cared for the sound of that.
 
I have a feeling you don’t mean the same thing as I did when I wrote it. :).
Damn! My mind reading helmet has conked out again! :naughty:
 
we need to stop people being able to store any guns in there houses except certain trades like farmers.
all guns should be stored at a gun club, also we need to seriously reduce sport shooting
 
we need to stop people being able to store any guns in there houses except certain trades like farmers.
all guns should be stored at a gun club, also we need to seriously reduce sport shooting
And cameras, they are too freely available to terrorists, child abusers and pornographers and general invaders of privacy! :(. Oh, and cats!
 
we need to stop people being able to store any guns in there houses except certain trades like farmers.
all guns should be stored at a gun club, also we need to seriously reduce sport shooting
Seriously? You don't know much about shooting, do you?

Firstly, why do you think that we need to reduce sport shooting? It's a group of sports disciplines that are available to the most respectable and most thoroughly checked-out members of society, and even old people and many people with disabilities can take part, almost on a level playing field. What gives you the right to want to change this?

Secondly, at least as far as shotguns are concerned, there are many reasons why your idea of storing guns at gun clubs couldn't work.
1. Every shooter needs a gun that fits properly, which means that every shooter needs his/her own gun, it's impossible to shoot well with a gun that doesn't fit - many of those who take sporting shooting seriously have our guns made to measure.
2. Most sports shooters shoot at a variety of different venues, which means that if our guns were stored at club premises we would need a lot of guns, stored in different places, which would be ridiculous and impracticable. Take me as an example, I shot at a club yesterday and at another one today, and next weekend I will be shooting at two different venues - so that would involve 4 guns instead of just one. And then on Wednesday, I will be shooting in a competition that involves travelling to 10 different venues throughout the summer, so 10 more guns, with 9 of them being used just once a year . . .
3. We keep them at home because that is where they need to be. We keep them in securely locked cabinets, many of us have additional alarms and CCTV for security. As most gun clubs have an average attendance of between 50 and 100 members, not all of which attend every shoot, Your bright idea would involve storing between 50-100 guns (at least) in remote rural locations where security would be a real issue, and where they would be a prime target for serious criminals.

No, there's nothing wrong with shooting sports, and there's nothing wrong with responsible people keeping their guns securely at home. It's a tragedy when, every 10 years or so, someone who should never have been allowed to have a gun in the first place goes on a killing spree, but that is the fault of the criminal, and in the previous three incidents that I know of, their possession of firearms was due to the police failures because there are good, effective procedures in place and the police let the public down by failing to follow them, and then mounted the usual cover-up.

As for the present case, right now it looks like more of the same, with the police failing to follow their own procedures, but time will tell because a version of the truth will eventually emerge.
 
Seriously? You don't know much about shooting, do you?
What Paul is enunciating is a view about the perceived dangers of firearms in the hands of private individuals. It is certainly the case that people having guns in their possession for other than essential purposes are regarded with suspicion by many people in Britain.

There have been four major incidents of "spree shootings" in Britain since 1987...

19th August 1987, Michael Ryan (16 dead, 15 injured)
13th March 1996, Thomas Hamilton (17 dead, 15 injured)
2nd June 2010, Derrick Bird (12 dead, 11 injured)
12th August 2021, Jake Davison (5 dead, 2 injured)

So far as I've been able to establish, each murderer had previously come to the attention of the police and each held a firearms certificate at the time of the attack. After each of the first three attacks, the then current governments moved to tighten the regulations still further without, it seems, attaining the intended result.

So it seems to me that Paul is advocating a not unreasonable opinion and one with which many others probably agree.
 
After each of the first three attacks, the then current governments moved to tighten the regulations still further without, it seems, attaining the intended result.

(My bold) Well exactly, so what conclusion would you draw from that?

So it seems to me that Paul is advocating a not unreasonable opinion and one with which many others probably agree.

Many people agree with many things, its not an argument fo correctness. Currently anti-vaxxers, and COVID conspiracy nuts etc etc. In any case I think Paul’s view is unreasonable :(.
 
What Paul is enunciating is a view about the perceived dangers of firearms in the hands of private individuals. It is certainly the case that people having guns in their possession for other than essential purposes are regarded with suspicion by many people in Britain.
Agreed. There probably are a lot of people who regard private individuals who have guns with suspicion, however that does not and cannot mean that his proposed "solutions" should be taken seriously.
So far as I've been able to establish, each murderer had previously come to the attention of the police and each held a firearms certificate at the time of the attack.
Correct. So, let's look at the known facts
19th August 1987, Michael Ryan (16 dead, 15 injured)
Police informer and known low-level criminal who should never have passed any form of vetting, the suggestion here was that it suited the police to give him what he wanted simply because he was useful to them.
He didn't have a good reason for being allowed to possess any of his firearms, because in order to possess them lawfully he needed to either belong to an approved gun club or to have land over which to shoot. He did join an approved gun club but the members were unhappy with his conduct and the club secretary wrote to the police, clearly stating that in his opinion he should not be allowed to possess guns, and they also terminated his club membership. The police chose to ignore this, Ryan came to their attention several times but they ignored this too. He then applied for even more dangerous guns and the police allowed him to have them. Following his spree killings, control of gun licencing was moved from the operational police (because they may have vested interests or there may be questions about their competence) and moved control to separate firearms licencing departments, which in my view was the right thing to do. The Government also (effectively) banned possession of self-loading rifles. Banning self-loading rifles did nothing to reduce crime.
13th March 1996, Thomas Hamilton (17 dead, 15 injured)
Known sex offender (paedophile), thief and fraudster. The police had a number of complaints about him, including from the Scouts (he had been a scout leader but following "incidents" with young boys the Scouts turfed him out and complained to the police about his conduct. He had pistols that he was only entitled to have if he was an active member of an approved club, and when his firearms certificate became due for renewal a police Sgt. wanted to refuse renewal based on the fact that Hamilton no longer belonged to a gun club, had not done so for many years and so had no good reason. He was overruled by a more senior officer. We will never know the true story because the government took the very unusual step of locking away the case files for 100 years -why did they do that? The government also (effectively) banned handguns in GB (but not in NI). Some of us are still allowed to have handguns, mainly for humane despatch of animals only. Banning handguns did nothing to reduce gun crime.
2nd June 2010, Derrick Bird (12 dead, 11 injured)
Bird used a legally-held .22 rimfire rifle and an illegally-held shotgun. Known thief who had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and who should never have been considered for any form of certificate. Once he had his certificates and had bought guns, he came to police notice several times, there were allegations of theft, allegations of assault and he was also arrested in Thailand for alleged sex offences, but the police ignored all this and, as in the earlier cases, left him able to go on his killing spree. The police investigated themselves and the investigating officer found a number of instances of strange police conduct, including the mysterious loss of many of the police paperwork, but the conclusion, as always, was that the actions of the police did not contribute to the killing spree. I happen to know a bit about this case because I gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committee, and still have their full report. The only change that followed this incident is that, before this, certificate holders had to give their medical GP written permission to provide information about their health conditions to the police, if asked, and this was changed in that the certificate holders had to pay for a GP report, if required.
12th August 2021, Jake Davison (5 dead, 2 injured)
We don't know yet, but the early indications are that this shooting was only possible because of the police actions.

Realistically, nothing can be done to totally safeguard the public from people who are either evil or insane. We've seen terrorist attacks where the terrorists couldn't get guns so killed people with knives or vehicles.

And, horrific those these attacks by people who have wrongly been issued with certificates are, the reality is that there have been just four in the last 31 years, with a total of 49 people dead. In the same period, about 20,000 other murders have been committed, very few with even illegally-held firearms. And a few of those murders will have been committed using vehicles, which nobody seems to want to ban, even though the total death toll from vehicles for the same period will be around 93,000. So, let's keep a sense of perspective here.
 
I doubt whether the world has changed, what's different now is that these losers can find and interact with others who feel the same so easily, via social media, and form alliances with them. This can lead to them convincing themselves that it's everyone who doesn't have these strange views that are wrong. This happens in prisons too, with sex offenders housed together (usually for their own protection) and convincing themselves that their own behaviour is normal because just about everyone else that they talk to is also perverted.

The fact that some see these losers as these losers is perhaps part of a wide and sad picture. If this young man had had a happier upbringing or the help, advice, guidance and care that I suspect he needed or professional help then just maybe all these lives could have been changed.

I've no doubt that a few are born beyond help no matter what people or professionals do but I do believe that some are not born bad and instead descend through experience and circumstance. Maybe if the signs that this young man was in trouble had been seen by people with enough time and skill to help he and his victims would still be alive.
 
Agreed. There probably are a lot of people who regard private individuals who have guns with suspicion, however that does not and cannot mean that his proposed "solutions" should be taken seriously.

Correct. So, let's look at the known facts

Police informer and known low-level criminal who should never have passed any form of vetting, the suggestion here was that it suited the police to give him what he wanted simply because he was useful to them.
He didn't have a good reason for being allowed to possess any of his firearms, because in order to possess them lawfully he needed to either belong to an approved gun club or to have land over which to shoot. He did join an approved gun club but the members were unhappy with his conduct and the club secretary wrote to the police, clearly stating that in his opinion he should not be allowed to possess guns, and they also terminated his club membership. The police chose to ignore this, Ryan came to their attention several times but they ignored this too. He then applied for even more dangerous guns and the police allowed him to have them. Following his spree killings, control of gun licencing was moved from the operational police (because they may have vested interests or there may be questions about their competence) and moved control to separate firearms licencing departments, which in my view was the right thing to do. The Government also (effectively) banned possession of self-loading rifles. Banning self-loading rifles did nothing to reduce crime.

Known sex offender (paedophile), thief and fraudster. The police had a number of complaints about him, including from the Scouts (he had been a scout leader but following "incidents" with young boys the Scouts turfed him out and complained to the police about his conduct. He had pistols that he was only entitled to have if he was an active member of an approved club, and when his firearms certificate became due for renewal a police Sgt. wanted to refuse renewal based on the fact that Hamilton no longer belonged to a gun club, had not done so for many years and so had no good reason. He was overruled by a more senior officer. We will never know the true story because the government took the very unusual step of locking away the case files for 100 years -why did they do that? The government also (effectively) banned handguns in GB (but not in NI). Some of us are still allowed to have handguns, mainly for humane despatch of animals only. Banning handguns did nothing to reduce gun crime.

Bird used a legally-held .22 rimfire rifle and an illegally-held shotgun. Known thief who had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and who should never have been considered for any form of certificate. Once he had his certificates and had bought guns, he came to police notice several times, there were allegations of theft, allegations of assault and he was also arrested in Thailand for alleged sex offences, but the police ignored all this and, as in the earlier cases, left him able to go on his killing spree. The police investigated themselves and the investigating officer found a number of instances of strange police conduct, including the mysterious loss of many of the police paperwork, but the conclusion, as always, was that the actions of the police did not contribute to the killing spree. I happen to know a bit about this case because I gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committee, and still have their full report. The only change that followed this incident is that, before this, certificate holders had to give their medical GP written permission to provide information about their health conditions to the police, if asked, and this was changed in that the certificate holders had to pay for a GP report, if required.

We don't know yet, but the early indications are that this shooting was only possible because of the police actions.

Realistically, nothing can be done to totally safeguard the public from people who are either evil or insane. We've seen terrorist attacks where the terrorists couldn't get guns so killed people with knives or vehicles.

And, horrific those these attacks by people who have wrongly been issued with certificates are, the reality is that there have been just four in the last 31 years, with a total of 49 people dead. In the same period, about 20,000 other murders have been committed, very few with even illegally-held firearms. And a few of those murders will have been committed using vehicles, which nobody seems to want to ban, even though the total death toll from vehicles for the same period will be around 93,000. So, let's keep a sense of perspective here.

Excellent summary!

I’d just add that tragically it’s been shown you can murder even more people with relatively easy to concoct explosive devices :(.
 
In case my last post sounds like police-bashing, it isn't. I have a very good relationship with my local Firearms Licensing Department, they are helpful, supportive and efficient. They know that I will contact them if I ever have concerns about the fitness of another certificate holder and they have contacted me twice when I've had contact with the police.

The first time was when I was first at the scene of a RTC, I phoned the police and ambulance and did what anyone else would have done in the same situation.
The second time was when I towed a police car (which had tried to chase a car offroad), they stopped me because I was driving and off-road car and fortunately I had a tow rope and snatch blocks, so could get them out easily.

The point is that the police firearms departments should always contact any certificate holder who has police contact for any reason, and they satisfy themselves that the contact does not affect the fitness of that person to hold firearms. The conduct of the various police forces described in these killing sprees is far from normal.
 
So, let's keep a sense of perspective here.
I agree. However your perspective is not my perspective, nor is my perspective the same as Paul's.

In my opinion, if taking away all private firearms will save 49 lives, I think it's worth serious consideration.
 
I agree. However your perspective is not my perspective, nor is my perspective the same as Paul's.

In my opinion, if taking away all private firearms will save 49 lives, I think it's worth serious consideration.

We're at a point at which anyone with half a brain and a modicum of aptitude with access to tools and the internet could make a gun of some sort plus there are many other ways of killing people, for example all those souls who died in the back of a lorry not so long back.

I do agree that removing all guns from society may well save some lives but how many will be very difficult to quantify and at least having controlled access gives those interested in guns a relatively safe and healthy outlet.
 
I agree. However your perspective is not my perspective, nor is my perspective the same as Paul's.

In my opinion, if taking away all private firearms will save 49 lives, I think it's worth serious consideration.
And you also seem to forget (or more likely don't know about) all the good that shooters do, assisting the police in ways that only they can.
 
Back
Top