Plymouth

[Syd]

I'm sure we'd all like to say "not me!" but do we really believe deep down that we couldn't?

I believe almost everyone is capable of causing serious injury, or worse, given the right triggers. I certainly wouldn’t trust myself with ready access to a firearm / shotgun.

I knew someone, who had a firearm license, that found out his daughter had been abused by a family friend. Fearing for what he would/ could do he voluntarily surrendered his firearms and license.

He subsequently paid a visit to the abusers home and beat the living daylight out of him and went home, happy he’d had no access to a gun.

Surprisingly the abuser didn’t name him as the attacker in the following police investigation.

[simonineaston]

I’m rather concerned by a number of elements of this event and the reactions to it. My natural inclination would be to leave well alone, and keep my peace, while the authorities respond in the necessary manner. After-all, I don’t know any of the individuals involved and have no direct connection to the City.
But I think this incident may display some elements that are both novel and disconcerting.
First, I note that newspapers are starting to report that posters online are reacting positively to some of the details of the event. If that turns out to be the case, that is an unpleasant and dispiriting development.
Second, I’ve seen several commentators in both the media and from government discussing the possibility of the event being characterised as a terrorist act. Given that terrorism is defined as acts of violence against civilians in pursuit of political aims, I think we are a long way from concluding this was the case with respect to this event. To make that leap without a careful and considered investigation would be unwise. I think too, that it’s disconcerting that third-parties are pushing for this characterisation. A more measured approach seems warranted.
Third, we’re starting to hear that the individual concerned had a difficult time growing up and was struggling with a number of personal issues. Hopefully, in time the relevant details will emerge in an accurate & balanced form. I imagine, these details will be taken into consideration when the review of his gun ownership is carried out. However, as I’ve already suggested, I wonder whether the stresses applied to the associated agencies by steadily reduced funding will be taken into account - this factor may turn out to be key. The same pressure from reduced funding is of course wide-spread and continues. If I’m right, the same factor will crop up again and again as more and more mistakes are inevitably made by over-worked and under-skilled staff, across all sorts of government agencies. The difficulties with DVLA, for example have been discussed recently on this forum.
Hopefully, this sad and awful event will turn out to be as rare as other infamous UK mass shootings, but I am anxious that the stresses that formed part of the lead-up to this one might become more common in the future.

[thirdcrank]

One of the things I was trying to say about social media is that it's solitary - sometimes lonely - activity. Now, I think that in general, people are in better spirits in company with others. This can mean that the Lord of the Flies tendency leads to acting in a gang in a way the individuals would not act individually, but in general, I think having friendly people around is positive. In particular, if somebody is having dark thoughts, then informal counselling can be invaluable. I wonder if being down and alone in front of a screen leaves somebody vulnerable to acting on whatever they look at. Extreme cases like the one we are discussing are, thankfully, rare.

[simonineaston]

Although I take your point about conversation, whether face-to-face or online, being helpful in moderating difficulties, either well-known in our case (What'll happen if I change my gears from X to Y?!) and forms mostly a postive and uplifting experience as well as helping to prevent the worst of mistakes I'm not so sure that the effect is reliable across the board. Take cycling.uk as an example. We are on this forum mostly literate, balanced, communicative and open-minded - almost by self selection! Posters who are frequenty difficult, wrong or inconsistant tend to be gently-but-firmly edged out.
There are plenty of more marginal bulletin boards and their offspring, jam-packed-full of posters who possess none of the redeeming features, I can tell you. Without wishing to go into details obs, I've had several conversations with IT professionals over the years, who've persuaded me that the 'net is a very busy, dark and very disturbing place. One example was the sister of a friend who we went away with on a walking trip to Snowdonia one winter and you know what it's like when you're out on a long walk or cycle - you strike up a friendship for a day with relative strangers. Anyway she, this quite unassuming bespectacled individual, worked for the police in their unit searching for child pornography and what she told me about on that winter walk, I've never really been able to shake from my mind. I simply do not know how she was able to do the work she did on a daily basis...

[thirdcrank]

That was what I meant by "whatever they look at."

[al_yrpal]

However hard one tries I dont believe its possible to rationalise the minds of people like this, they exist everywhere, a tiny extreme fraction of the population, mad as a box of frogs. Often impossible to help and sometimes impossible to identify before a tragic event like this.
As observed frequently in the US similar tragic events have terrible consequences due to the easy access to guns especially automatic weapons.
Lets be thankful that our laws here usually prevent the mentally ill carrying out such atrocities.
He needed help he never got it.

Al

[Oldjohnw]

It’s probably worth noting that the often knee jerk reaction to a mass shooting is “they must have mental problems”;the reality is that only a small number have such a link. Most American academic studies tell us that only a very small number can be attributed his way.nFurthermore, this assumptions often merely serves to further stigmatise people who do suffer mental health problems. As others have said, best wait for the evidence. A loner wanting revenge may not have identifiable mental health issues. Most people with mental health problems do not commit any crimes let alone serial or mass murder.

Here is a link to such studies: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2018 ... al-illness

[Jdsk]

It’s probably worth noting that the often knee jerk reaction to a mass shooting is “they must have mental problems” the reality is that only a small number have such a link. Furthermore, this assumptions often merely serves to further stigmatise people who do suffer mental health problems. As others have said, best wait for the evidence.

Yes x3.

But unfortunately there's a more troubling reason as well. It gives permission to stop looking for other reasons.

The clearest example of this is in the murder of Jo Cox. The court did not find a contribution from mental illness. But that is still commonly asserted. My conclusion is that it acts as a way of avoiding what was uncovered in the investigation and trial.

Jonathan

[Tangled Metal]

I've not said much on this thread I started.
My thoughts are of terrible sadness for what's happened.
Almost in tears tying this.

One hears/reads about shootings in many places round the world and in this country too, but in Plymouth for God's sake?
Lovely city, and down here in the Far Southwest, and a city of only a couple of hundred thousand population. It's not as though it's a throbbing massive metropolis.

Is no-one safe?

Cockermouth was 8000 odd population when it had its shooting incident. IMHO the Lake District is the most beautiful part of the UK yet a reign of terror from a lone gunman happened there. I think I probably had similar feelings you have now. Localish to me and too lovely and small to have big city/town shootings.

Plymouth isn't a small town though. It is 200k plus. It's likely to have more issues brewing under the surface veneer of normality because of the higher number of people. Chance of producing the lone nutter possibly increases eh increasing population and its pressures. I'm guessing of course. However Dunblane, Hungerford and Cockermouth were all about 8000 to 10,000 population so perhaps smaller places are more likely to have these incidents of spree killings.

It's sad and shocking but inevitable it'll happen again sooner or later. Gun control can only be behind the curve with mental health issues or other issues capable of causing a risk of this happening. Perhaps the issues to look at are wider mental health issues with care, testament and detection. Perhaps social media could help more with this but above all we need mental health care in the NHS to be more than just anxiety and depression. Which IMO seems to be better dealt with by the NHS provision.

[Mick F]

Thanks for that post TM.
Well put.

[simonineaston]

But unfortunately there's a more troubling reason as well. It gives permission to stop looking for other reasons.

Agreed. To blame mental health issues is a way of saying, "It was beyond our control and owned by the aggressor. There was nothing we could have done."
Another way of looking at it is to ask if enough is being done to help individuals with mental health issues. I'm being disengenuous, as it's a matter of public record that mental health is colossally under-resourced. I'm trying to imagine a fantasy UK where mental health (bearing in mind 1:4 of us will suffer from some sort of mental health issue every year) was as well funded as say formula 1 and government agencies such as the gun licencing authority was part of a system that was substantially funded from levels of taxation that allowed generous provision for all important public services...

[Oldjohnw]

I don’t know if anyone read the research referred to above but current knowledge is that between 1% and 4% of multi-homicides involve recognised mental health problems. 96% must have causes elsewhere.

[Mike Sales]

I don’t know if anyone read the research referred to above but current knowledge is that between 1% and 4% of multi-homicides involve recognised mental health problems. 96% must have causes elsewhere.

Or perhaps unrecognised mental health problems?

[al_yrpal]

Not all mental health issues are a continuous evenly expressed recognisable state. Moments of madness arent uncommon but an outcome like Plymouth is.

Al

[ossie]

If the Home Office guidelines do not provide clear and comprehensive guidance, police officers taking these decisions are frequently going to be put in a difficult position where they are forced to exercise far too much personal judgement and discretion. If their decisions are often challenged by those who are refused a licence, especially if the appeals go to court and are successful, the officers will be criticised by their senior officer(s), given the time and money they would spend defending an appeal.

Police Officers aren't usually involved in these decisions. It's a role and department that was civilianised many years ago although of course it still comes under the responsibility of the Chief Constable.

As an example here is an advert for a civilian post with Wiltshire Police as a Firearms Licensing Officer

The post holder will work towards decision making with regards to the granting of firearm and shot gun


https://www.google.com/search?q=Firearm ... AAAA%3D%3D

Even G4S employ firearms licensing staff working with Lincolnshire Police.