June mass murder in England could broaden old gun debate
July 1, 2010

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

What are touted as the toughest laws in the world could not stop the tragic June 2 shooting spree in the Cumbria district of northwest England.

A 52-year-old taxi driver, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured at least 11 more before killing himself, according to news sources in the United Kingdom (UK).

His body was found in a wooded area near the Lake District village of Boot and two guns were recovered, a shotgun and a .22-cal. rimfire rifle. Bird was self-employed and lived alone.

Police said they were investigating 30 separate crime scenes including the first shooting site in the town of Whitehaven, from where Bird embarked upon an apparently random shooting spree.

Unarmed Cumbrian police officers actually chased Bird after he began his 45-mile killing tour, but lost him after he pointed a gun at two of them, forcing them to hide. Police also reported that a member of the public found himself pursuing the gunman when another unarmed police officer jumped into his car.

That unorthodox pursuit was just one of the springboards for the many post-incident investigations launched into the Cumbria constabulary’s handling of Bird’s shooting spree. Police have been criticized for failing to stop Bird. The fact that three unarmed policemen where at various times shadowing Bird, while fully aware of his shooting of random citizens, but unequipped or untrained for any confrontation should give everyone in Great Britain a reason to reconsider that issue.

Still they pursued Bird, and at one traffic light, observed Bird shooting a man who had just walked around the corner, later identified as taxi driver Paul Wilson. As they continued their pursuit, another taxi came over a hill. Bird pulled level with the oncoming cab, and shot at the driver. The police stopped to help the wounded, one of whom was a friend of Bird’s.

Police firearms experts are to launch at least three investigations into the performance of the Cumbria police. And inquiries organized by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) will look into details of how Bird was awarded licenses to own the shotgun and the .22 rifle he used in the shootings, as well as the police response and whether any changes are needed to national police firearms procedures and tactics, according to British media.

As might be expected, many in Parliament have called for even more restrictive gun laws to be enacted. However, Prime Minister David Cameron, who urged more study before any new laws are proposed, gave the first indication of what will be involved in the official Home Office gun law review in the wake of the shootings. He expected it to include mental health issues such as “follow-up checks” for licensed gunowners and police visits to people who keep guns and ammunition at home. But he said he recalled police evidence from when he served on the Commons home affairs select committee that there was “virtually no leakage” of legally held guns into the illegal black market.

The government has promised to lead a national debate on the gun laws with MPs debating the issue before the end of July.

“Perhaps Derrick Bird’s deadly rampages aren’t so ‘inexplicable’ after all,” Peter Hitchens wrote in The Daily Mail on June 5.

“Yet another gun massacre is followed by yet another typhoon of psychobabble, sentiment and bogus declarations that ‘this must never happen again’, when everyone knows that it will,” Hitchens began.

“It’s difficult to argue for tighter gun laws, since they’re already so tight, though I’m sure the authorities will think of something suitably irrelevant and futile, as they did after Hungerford and Dunblane.

“They are determined to make sure nobody in this country is armed, apart from criminals and terrorists, the invariable effect of ‘tough’ gun laws that trouble only the law-abiding and have no impact on illegally held weapons at all.

“The truth is that until 1920, Britain’s gun laws were so relaxed they made Texas look effeminate, but we had virtually no gun crime,” Hitchens reminded his readers. “That only really began to increase here after we abolished hanging.

“But that truth doesn’t fit the Leftist dogma which has everyone, including the Tories (Conservative Party), the media and the police, in its grip, so the facts will be ignored.

“What can we learn from the Cumberland murders? Well, first of all that the police are no use to anyone once a crime has been committed. They never were and they never will be, except if they can do first aid,” Hitchens noted.

Then he later said, “But I’d also like to urge another line of investigation.”

“Was Bird taking the anti-depressant pills that are now prescribed so readily by NHS (National Health Service) doctors to so many people whose lives—like Bird’s—have gone down the drain?

“Look carefully at the reports of many of the big US shootings—for example Eric Harris at Columbine in 1999—and you will find that the shooter is described as having been ‘depressed’ and ‘on medication’.

“Here is a partial list of other incidents (there are several more, including some where it is likely, but not proven, anti-depressants were involved) which must surely suggest that this possible link badly needs investigating.

“Patrick Purdy, culprit of the 1989 Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, California, had been on anti-depressants. Jeff Weise, perpetrator of the March 2005 Red Lake High School massacre, was on anti-depressants.

“Anti-depressants were found in the cabin of the ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski. Michael McDermott, culprit of the 2000 ‘Wakefield massacre’ in Massachusetts, was on anti-depressants.

“Kip Kinkel, culprit of a 1998 murder spree in Oregon, was on anti-depressants. John Hinckley, who tried to kill Ronald Reagan in 1981, was on anti-depressants.

“It is both interesting and worrying that, with so many such unhinged and otherwise inexplicable killings perpetrated by people taking legal medication, the official world has been so slow to look into the matter.

“It’s so much easier to pass a pointless, populist gun ban,” Hitchens concluded.

Actually, Hitchens is far from the first to call for a thorough examination of the link between psychotropic prescription drugs and a series of relatively rare but highly dramatic mass murder sprees occurring around the world. These horrendous events appear to take place worldwide, contrary to the claims of some in the media who ingest the swill served up by the anti-gun crowd. It doesn’t matter whether the host country has gun control or not. In China, where there have been several such attacks on children just in recent months, the current weapon of choice seems to be a knife. Guns or no guns, such violent attacks do occur.

However, in spite of anecdotal evidence linking the drugs, whether the patient is using or has suddenly stopped taking the prescribed drugs, demands for such a study have been stonewalled. Even when I have raised that question with some thoughtful pro-gun physicians, I have been told that anti-depressants and related drugs have helped so many people in their own practices that they don’t think that’s the link to mass mayhem we are searching for.

Maybe not. But then again, one has to wonder how closely some physicians are monitoring the patients for whom they have prescribed such drugs.

Judging from some of the drug commercials on television, most of these drugs do have serious side effects. Although the drug company ads stress that the benefits outweigh the dangerous side effects, only one or two patients on the danger side can cause a lot of harm to others.
Return to Archive Index