Guns n Stuff

I flicked through the news channels the other day and got briefly distracted by a Fox News Report on the Cumbrian killings last week.

As you'd expect from the Murdoch subsidiary, it was packed with hyperbole and low on fact or context, and, as is their wont, they discussed with an "expert" the ramifications had the incident occurred in the U.S. instead of the Lake District.

The expert, named Bob, was dressed partially in camoflage and had a beard and sunglasses. And a cap. His qualification for comment was that he ran a local National Rifle Association branch. He postulated that the incident would never have happened in the States because, and I quote, "somebody woulda hadda gun and somebody woulda put the guy down."

To be fair to Bob, he is undoubtedly correct. In America, spree killings (outside of high schools) whilst not-uncommon, are almost always short-lived, precisely because there is always someone to stop the perpetrator. Derek Bird was so deadly because he possessed a weapon that nobody else did. 12 people died here and in the U.S. the probability is that far fewer would.

What Bob, and of course, Fox News, failed to do is address the realities and motives behind the attack, and indeed, spree killings in general. Spree Killings are catagorised as random attacks where the killer acts out of anger and without premeditation and has little thought for the victims identities. The killer traditionally has a mental breakdown or episode and then their anger or rage explodes in a violent, destructive and short-lived burst, which is what appears to have happened here. Certainly the initial victims of Derek Bird were targetted, as he had rowed with his brother over a will dispute and after killing him, he went to the solicitor handling the will and killed him as well. After this however, everything points to randomness. He'd snapped, killed and just killed again, his anger and life imploding upon himself.

The fact is that people have breakdowns of various types and severities all the time, whichever country they live in. A proportion of those will react violently. The difference is that in England, when people have said breakdown and react violently they reach for a knife because only 5% of the population have access to a firearm. Knives, whilst deadly, are less effective because of the physics of having to attack someone up close where they will be able to fight back. In the U.S. where 85% have access to a firearm, when people have a violent breakdown they're far more likely to use a gun, an entirely more lethal, efficient and repetative alternative.

Bob and Fox were postulating for the relaxation of gun laws in our country in the interests of protection. I'd argue that the fact that we only seem to suffer one gun-based spree killing every decade or so (Hungerford and Dunblane being the obvious examples) points to the fact that we've got the balance right, and if anything a tightening of gun laws seems more appropriate. More people may die per spree-killing incident in the UK, but in terms of where you would feel safer to live it is apparantly 1,200x more likely that you will die from a firearms related incident in the U.S. than here. I'll take those odds and leave the guns away from the general population if it's all the same to you.