Report into Cumbria shootings now published

[Garry Edwards]

The long awaited report has now been published and basically just confirms that the police acted entirely properly in issuing Derrick Bird with both a shotgun certificate and a firearms certificate. They were entitled to issue him with his certificates even though he had a criminal record, so they did nothing wrong.

In other words, the usual whitewash - personally I can't understand how he managed to get a license to drive a taxi, let alone to get and hold shotguns and a rifle

The report goes on to hint that even more controls on firearms should be introduced, even though there have been only 3 of these horrific cases involving legally held firearms in living memory, and even though the number of criminal acts involving legally held firearms is too small to actually count...

Of course, as someone who has both shotguns and rifles legally and for legitimate reasons, I'm a bit biased - how do YOU feel about this subject?

 

[DonnaM]

I vividly remember the day as I live where it all happened.
I agree that there ought to be some medical assessment and that "prevoius" should be taken into account but whatever the legislation we will never eradicate the risk. I can just imagine the uproar from the farming community who are on the edge as it is if they are refused a shotgun licence for pest control because of a medical assessment.

 

[neil_g]

short of regular mental checkups for gun owners i dont see how this could have been avoided?

 

[Garry Edwards]

short of regular mental checkups for gun owners i dont see how this could have been avoided?

Nor do I, and in this particular case he seems to have been normal on the previous day, so unless there is a daily checkup...

What's bothering me about this report is the possibility that even more gun controls will be introduced on the back of this tragic but isolated incident - and this in one of the most regulated countries in the world, where the number of crimes committed by people using legally held guns is too small to count...

It seems to me that if we (the public) don't do something to stop them, 'our' politicians will just keep chipping away at our rights until we have none left.

 

[cambsno]

Illegal guns and knives do far more damage... so responsible gun owners get shafted again, yet the town yob will probably get a slap on the wrist for walking round with a 8" blade.

Seeing as a percentage of peados use DSLRS, surely we should ban them to protect children?

 

[Islander]

What form would that medical assessment take though? Most GPs aren't really qualified to do full mental health assessments, and what's to stop them from using the assessment process to impose their own pro/anti stance on gun ownership?

As for criminal records, where do we set the bar? Currently, you're excluded from holding a shotgun certificate or FAC if you've been given a sentence of 3 years or more, and excluded for 5 years if it's less than 3 years. If you've got a history of convictions for violent, aggressive or drunken behaviour then you're unlikely to get one as well. A single offence can also result in a holder losing their FAC or shotgun certificate and having their guns seized.

Many people have spent convictions for relatively minor offences in their youth - that doesn't automatically mean that they're likely to reoffend but they do have to declare these on applications and the police do check records for honesty as a part of the process. It's patterns of behaviour that they look for rather than single acts of stupidity.

The rules are about as tight as they need to be IMO.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I agree. According to the news, Derek Bird was:

Caught Drink Driving in 1982
Convicted of theft in 1990 and given a suspended prison sentance
Arrested over claims he demanded money with menaces in 1999.

I am not sure I would have issued him with, or renewed his certificates with that record.

I know people deserve a second chance, but I do believe that license holders should be above any suspicion in their judgement and behaviour. In my view, Mr Bird did not meet those criteria.

 

[onomatopoeia]

It seems to me that if we (the public) don't do something to stop them, 'our' politicians will just keep chipping away at our rights until we have none left.

Supporting an organisation which campaigns on human rights issues is one thing that can be done.

However, there is a stupid majority in this country who seem to think that campaigning for human rights & civil liberties means you think that criminals shouldn't be punished when found guilty.

 

[Photo Plod]

Garry,

Only two of those are convictions - DD is completely unrelated (and 28 years old), so the only thing significantly against him was the theft from 20 years ago. It would be difficult to refuse a licence on that basis without the personal intervention of the Chief Constable. However, any appeal would quite easily pass through - the main disqualifiers for firearms possession are violence-based offences, weapon possession in public and serious public order offences. Unfortunately, Bird's arrest for Blackmail in 1999 isn't a conviction - he was under no obligation to disclose it, and it couldn't be used as evidence against him.

The only total disqualification criteria are sentences of imprisonment - 3 months+ prohibits a user from obtaining a certificate for 5 years. Imprisonment of 3 years+ prohibits a user for life.

On that basis, Bird would easily have qualified for a firearms certificate. I know you say that you do not believe Bird met the criteria, but that is a view taken with hindsight. If *any* conviction (or even arrest) was a barrier to firearms possession, then there would be a very significant drop in the number of legitimate owners. If you're a member of a gun club, I can guarantee that you'd lose several members - people you know who are perfectly responsible with their firearms.

I agree with your first post - no amount of legislating could have prevented what happened, and our firearms laws (while very messy) are already the strictest in the world. We cannot legislate risk out of existence, and we do not make the country a safer place by coming down even harder on legitimate, responsible gun owners.

 

[Islander]

The DD conviction in 1982 on its own may have been a one-off and attitudes were different then even if the law wasn't. It was 28 years ago and long spent.

Theft and a suspended sentence, hmmm. Doesn't necessarily preclude the issue given that it was 20 years ago but maybe it should have raised an eyebrow and maybe it did. But it's spent and there was no further offending in the intervening time.

Arrested over claims doesn't mean he did it - I assume there was no charge or conviction involved and unless a caution was issued (i.e. he admitted guilt) this wouldn't have had to be declared and nor should it have been. It may have been a complete fabrication.

So the majority of his bad behaviour was over 20 years ago and then an arrest without charge or conviction by the sound of it. I can see why the FEO issued his certs and he was correct to do so.

People do change and nobody should be judged on spent convictions unless there are clear patterns of behaviour indicated. There obviously weren't in Bird's case and cases like his are fortunately, rare.

 

[Islander]

Ah, Photo Plod beat me to it

 

[Davec223]

I have given up both my licenses and I used to be a shop manager at an RFD. More restrictions will not change anything, you only have to look at Japan, very high gun crime and very low legal gun ownership, virtually zero iirc.

With the list of convictions I would not have renewed his tickets.

I also seem to remember that doctors and police officers are no longer able to counter sign renewals and applications, why, because doctors do not want to say someone is mentally fit to have a licence in case something happens like Bird, Hamilton or Ryan.

The other thing to remember is that both Ryan and Hamilton had lied on they applications to either get or renew their licence. So although they had licences and held the gun legally, they had acquired their licences by lying which is illegal.

The trouble that FAC and shotgun certificate holders have is that they are easy targets as the police know who has them and what they have, which makes them an easy scapegoat.

 

[Davec223]

Garry,

Only two of those are convictions - DD is completely unrelated (and 28 years old), so the only thing significantly against him was the theft from 20 years ago. It would be difficult to refuse a licence on that basis without the personal intervention of the Chief Constable. However, any appeal would quite easily pass through - the main disqualifiers for firearms possession are violence-based offences, weapon possession in public and serious public order offences. Unfortunately, Bird's arrest for Blackmail in 1999 isn't a conviction - he was under no obligation to disclose it, and it couldn't be used as evidence against him.

The only total disqualification criteria are sentences of imprisonment - 3 months+ prohibits a user from obtaining a certificate for 5 years. Imprisonment of 3 years+ prohibits a user for life.

On that basis, Bird would easily have qualified for a firearms certificate. I know you say that you do not believe Bird met the criteria, but that is a view taken with hindsight. If *any* conviction (or even arrest) was a barrier to firearms possession, then there would be a very significant drop in the number of legitimate owners. If you're a member of a gun club, I can guarantee that you'd lose several members - people you know who are perfectly responsible with their firearms.

I agree with your first post - no amount of legislating could have prevented what happened, and our firearms laws (while very messy) are already the strictest in the world. We cannot legislate risk out of existence, and we do not make the country a safer place by coming down even harder on legitimate, responsible gun owners.

I do know of people who have been done for DD and had their renewals refused, So prior should be taken into account

 

[Garry Edwards]

Photo Plod, many thanks for that. I always value your contributions.

Is DD totally unrelated though? Surely it indicates lack of self control and lack of social responsibility, at the very least, regardless of when the offence was committed. I used to know a guy who pleaded guilty to DD, and to their credit the police were waiting on his doorstep when he got back from the Court, they told him that his certicate had been revoked and removed his firearms. And rightly so.

And what does theft say about someone's character, regardless of when that theft took place? You know better than I, that a conviction usually indicates that the person has got away with many previous offences. Demanding money with menaces? Fair enough on that one, innocent until proven guilty.

Spent convictions? No, there is no such thing as a spent conviction when it comes to firearms certificate applications, and in my opinion rightly so.

I can see that it might have been difficult to have refused him a shotgun certificate simply because there is an underlying right to have one and the onus is on the police to show good reason to refuse one (although I'm surprised that, having got it he managed to keep it when he was convicted of DD and then theft) but S1 (firearms) certificates are different and the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the licensing authority (police) that it should be granted, not on the police to show that it shouldn't.

Whether or not Bird should have been allowed to have guns or not is one question, what really bothers me is the ill informed, knee jerk reaction from the press and some members of the public. The daughter of one of the victims said that guns should only be allowed in outhouses on farms and that nobody should be allowed to have anything that could destroy life in their own home - now, like everyone else I have enormous sympathy for her, but does she really believe that her kitchen knives and her car should be taken away from her? Both of these cause far more deaths than guns. In fact, even in America, where in many states gun laws are virtually non-existant, the chances of being killed by your own doctor is 9,000 times higher than the chance of being killed by a gun...

 

[Photo Plod]

I take your point with DD - I agree it does show a lack of judgment, and could well be a factor in refusing a firearms certificate. Maybe I'm just too used to dealing with regular criminals (which Bird would not be classified as if it weren't for the twelve murders he committed) where someone with "only" two convictions for Drink Drive and Theft - historic ones at that - would be virtually regarded as being someone of good character. Criminal courts would certainly disregard such old convictions for such offences. I deal with so many people who are usually into double figures (sometimes even three) for convictions that I forget that most people don't have any at all. The last chap I packed off to jail a couple of weeks ago was up before the judge for the 146th time for Fraud. We (the fuzz) tend to separate traffic offences from other crimes, so I plead guilty to undermining its seriousness to the general public, which it most certainly is. My daily business at the moment now concerns drug supply, firearms matters, sexual offences, large-scale fraud and other "major" crimes, so apologies for seeming a bit blinkered.

However, back to the matter at hand, Bird only had a shotgun certificate from 1995 onwards, and his s1 certificate from 2005 onwards. In his favour, in 2005, he would have been able to show 10 years of responsible shotgun ownership with no convictions to his name in that time - though I would love to know more about the arrest for blackmail. I can only presume that it didn't involve the use of a firearm, else that certainly would have given grounds for refusal, even if no charge was forthcoming. Nevertheless, if Bird's application had been refused, I think he would have had very solid grounds for appeal, which, even with the best will in the world, experience tells me he would have won.

Bird's mad killing spree wasn't related to any other crime in progress - it wasn't during a bank robbery or anything like that - and there is nothing in his criminal history to indicate a record of violence. Had he not flipped out that day - for which I can only say that there was no indication that he was going to do so - people would not be poring over his licence back at Cumbria HQ.

Until we get the Department of Pre-Crime, a la Minority Report, there is nothing we can do to stop people like Derek Bird.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Full details are in the report, part 1 and part 2. These reports seem to me to be fair and to deal with the terms of reference pretty well.

The question now seems to be whether the Daily Fail, the BBC and other media + pressure groups that seems to have its own agenda will carry on with their anti-shooting propaganda and try to influence our political masters to further restrict our rights.

My own view is that there is nothing to be gained from further legislation, what actually needs to be done is to reduce the number of illegally held firearms, and that will involve upsetting people who import perishable goods into the UK by checking the contents of every single container that lands here...

 

[arclight]

Bird was properly granted a FAC and properly submitted a written statement from a landowner showing that he had permission to shoot vermin on his land.
That is fine, but unless I have missed something there is no mention whether Bird actually did shoot vermin.
In other words was the vermin reason for having a firearm just a ruse so that he could possess weapons (for whatever reason).
If Bird was not engaged in the activity he put forward as his reason for having a firearm then he did not have good cause to possess one.

 

[ConfusedChicca]

Of course the media will change this story somewhat. Bird's "convictions" were very old and not violence-related, which makes a big difference IMO. If he was known for being aggressive then giving him a gun licence would have been idiotic, but as he had no such history no-one could've known he'd go on a shooting spree.

 

[Photo Plod]

Bird was properly granted a FAC and properly submitted a written statement from a landowner showing that he had permission to shoot vermin on his land.
That is fine, but unless I have missed something there is no mention whether Bird actually did shoot vermin.
In other words was the vermin reason for having a firearm just a ruse so that he could possess weapons (for whatever reason).
If Bird was not engaged in the activity he put forward as his reason for having a firearm then he did not have good cause to possess one.

Like so many things, the only answer you can give that is "it could have been".

However, the only evidence available says that - until he went on his killing spree - Derek Bird had owned firearms, lawfully, for 15 years without any incidents relating to his possession of them.

 

[arclight]

Like so many things, the only answer you can give that is "it could have been".

However, the only evidence available says that - until he went on his killing spree - Derek Bird had owned firearms, lawfully, for 15 years without any incidents relating to his possession of them.

Quite agree with that. I think we know that there are people who get a dubious kick out of having and handling firearms. Gun nuts is the term I think.
On the other hand there are dedicated field sports enthusiasts who don't fall into that category and don't pose a risk to anyone.

 

[cambsno]

Supporting an organisation which campaigns on human rights issues is one thing that can be done.

However, there is a stupid majority in this country who seem to think that campaigning for human rights & civil liberties means you think that criminals shouldn't be punished when found guilty.

I am one of that 'stupid majority' as unfortunately, civil liberties do want to make things nicer for criminals and dont forget that due to the EU Court of human rights, criminals can now vote. If I find someone breaking into my house, I will NOT be thinking of his human rights while I batter him!

 

[onomatopoeia]

I am one of that 'stupid majority' as unfortunately, civil liberties do want to make things nicer for criminals and dont forget that due to the EU Court of human rights, criminals can now vote.

The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU :bang:.

I'm not going to argue about the right to vote here, this topic is about the report into the Cumbria shootings and its possible consequences.

 

[Photo Plod]

Much as I don't agree with it, I think we may see proposals regarding the storage of ammunition, and perhaps even further restrictions around the possession of firearms in the home. I have no idea exactly what, and (as always) they will only affect legitimate, law-abiding folk rather than criminals.

It only takes 12 rounds of ammunition for a repeat performance of Cumbria, so I doubt any restrictions will do anything for public safety at all.

 

[cambsno]

If you know the right people, guns are pretty easy to come by. So if anyone here wanted to go on a spree like this they probably could. So even a ban on gun ownership would do little. Also, I would rather a bloke was wandering about with a shotgun that he has to load, than a machine gun he could easily buy (Uzi type thing).

 

[Garry Edwards]

Much as I don't agree with it, I think we may see proposals regarding the storage of ammunition, and perhaps even further restrictions around the possession of firearms in the home. I have no idea exactly what, and (as always) they will only affect legitimate, law-abiding folk rather than criminals.

It only takes 12 rounds of ammunition for a repeat performance of Cumbria, so I doubt any restrictions will do anything for public safety at all.

I'm afraid you may be right. The sad fact of the matter is that politicians (of all parties) like to be seen to be doing something, even if it causes more problems than it solves. They see no new law as worse than bad new law, because making new laws is the reason for their existance.

And of course the gutter press love to quote idiots to whip up public opinion - there was the woman who said that a gun owner can buy ammunition without even having to sign for it (strictly speaking that's true, but s/he needs to have a firearms certificate for that particular calibre and type of ammo in the first place, and there is a full record of the purchase entered onto the certificate) and then there's the MP who said "“As a parent, it’s harder to buy more than two bottles of Calpol from a supermarket than it is for a rifle owner to buy 1,500 rounds of ammunition. That cannot be right.” In fact, even with the smallest and most common round, the humble .22, most certificate holders are limited to around 600 rounds, which means that they are allowed to buy 500 when they have no more than 100 rounds left in the safe.

Every time there is a tragedy, and regardless of the type of weapons involved and regardless of whether or not the person responsible met the criteria for owning weapons, governments introduce even more restrictions, although those restrictions only ever have an effect on the law abiding members of our society - and gun owners, by definition, are among the most respectable and law abiding people there are. These restrictions are pointless because the people who should never have access to guns are the criminals, and criminals always find a way around the rules.

If the government really want to reduce the number of guns in circulation then they need to take them away from the criminals - that means giving more resources to the police, customs officers etc instead of taking those resources away.

 

[magicaxeman]

In fact, even with the smallest and most common round, the humble .22

Try .17 hmr that'd be the smallest, though not the most common.

Nice to see common sense prevailing in here.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Try .17 hmr that'd be the smallest, though not the most common.

Nice to see common sense prevailing in here.

OK, the .22 is smallest in terms of powder charge, the .17 is smallest in terms of actual calibre. FWIW, my ammo allocation for .17 HMR is even lower than for .22.

I still have more than enough ammo available for a massacre, but that's my whole point - it isn't guns and ammo that kills people, it's people, and as long as firearm certificate/shotgun certificate holders are checked out properly, there's no point in any more controls on guns or ammo.

 

[magicaxeman]

OK, the .22 is smallest in terms of powder charge, the .17 is smallest in terms of actual calibre. FWIW, my ammo allocation for .17 HMR is even lower than for .22.

I still have more than enough ammo available for a massacre, but that's my whole point - it isn't guns and ammo that kills people, it's people, and as long as firearm certificate/shotgun certificate holders are checked out properly, there's no point in any more controls on guns or ammo.

Yep.. I agree Gary, Plus most here who don't shoot will wonder why on earth a smaller calibre has a larger powder charge,and you are more restricted on them, well for those people who don't know the .17 though a smaller calibre round is a supersonic round, where as most .22 rounds such as a .22LR are subsonic

 

[Natalie_B]

Is DD totally unrelated though? Surely it indicates lack of self control and lack of social responsibility, at the very least, regardless of when the offence was committed. I used to know a guy who pleaded guilty to DD, and to their credit the police were waiting on his doorstep when he got back from the Court, they told him that his certicate had been revoked and removed his firearms. And rightly so.

And what does theft say about someone's character, regardless of when that theft took place? You know better than I, that a conviction usually indicates that the person has got away with many previous offences. Demanding money with menaces? Fair enough on that one, innocent until proven guilty.......

I totally agree with the above!! It definately indicates a lack of something - Who in their right mind knowingly drink drives without a care ? DD outrages me i'm afraid and i have no sympathy, just with the people that Drink drivers kill !



Being a shotgun owner and shooter myself I personally would be quite happy to have a compulsary medical / mental check (as long as its not a huge amount of money to spend) in order to review
IMO it can only be a good thing, even if it only stops one more madman from going on a rampage - although I can understand why many would get pee'd off with new laws

 

[Photo Plod]

Being a shotgun owner and shooter myself I personally would be quite happy to have a compulsary medical / mental check (as long as its not a huge amount of money to spend) in order to review
IMO it can only be a good thing, even if it only stops one more madman from going on a rampage - although I can understand why many would get pee'd off with new laws

But even that wouldn't have stopped Derek Bird. He was medically fit, had no convictions during the period of his gun ownership, and - until the day he snapped - was mentally stable as well, holding down a regular job and being the all-round village "normal chap".

Particular circumstances seem to have pushed him over the edge, and you're not going to be able to test for them or predict when they will happen.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yep.. I agree Gary, Plus most here who don't shoot will wonder why on earth a smaller calibre has a larger powder charge,and you are more restricted on them, well for those people who don't know the .17 though a smaller calibre round is a supersonic round, where as most .22 rounds such as a .22LR are subsonic

Yes, I should have explained that.
A typical .22 bullet leaves the rifle at around 1000 feet per second and has about 100 ft pounds of energy.
A .17 HMR leaves the rifle at 2550 feet per second and has 255 ft pounds of energy. It cannot be used for target shooting, it's only suitable for humane destruction of pests.

For comparison, an unrestricted air rifle (the type that anyone can buy) has a maximum energy of 12 foot pounds, although 10 ft pounds is most common.

Any of these can kill vermin at short ranges but the more powerful the rifle the more humane the kill, the less important it is to hit in a vital place and the easier it is to hit the target. That's why people who have a need to control vermin tend to go for more powerful rifles.

People who have to control pests shoot without supervison and need to make judgements about when it is and isn't safe to shoot, so have to satisfy the police that their skills and judgement are sound.

Those of us who have pest control firearms certifictes are allowed to buy small quantities of special ammunition that kills humanely. We are also allowed to shoot at rifle ranges, using ordinary ammunition. People who only hold a certificate for target shooting aren't allowed to shoot pests and aren't allowed to buy the ammunition used for pests. Shooters at ranges are supervised at all times by a qualified range safety officer. The diffference is similar to manual & automatic driving licences - if you pass your test on a manual car you're also qualified to drive an automatic, but not the other way round.

The controls on shooters are very, very tight and rightly so. As Photo Plod rightly says, more controls wouldn't avoid these very occasional tragedies. Politicians need to accept that making life even more difficult for the people who shoot would be a total waste of time.

What they need to do is to help the police and customs to get illegally held firearms off the streets, and that means making more money available for this purpose. And judges should be 'advised' to treat criminals found in possession of guns much more harshly.