There was a lot of discussion at the time, and my recollection is he was already known to mental health services. The Sun et al had him painted as a rabid survivalist of course. Wiki seems to say it was retrospective diagnosis, so I'm not sure...
I can understand wanting to collect, or at least try, different types, but who in the world needs an assault rifle?
People interested in self defense. The term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" was made up by the media. An assault rifle is just your typical rifle that your great grandfather would have used for hunting back in the day. It is not what the media and politicians will lead you to believe.
I think what leads people to ask this question is an major misunderstanding that an "assault rifle" is a big scary machine gun. They are not. An AR15 or AK47 are not machine guns that spray bullets with a single trigger pull. (Those are fully automatic weapons that are already heavily restricted). Assault weapons account for, on average, 2% of all firearms used in crimes, with the highest estimate being 13%. [1]
The semi-automatic AR15 or AK47 are actually very effective and safe home defense firearms for a few reasons:
- The round they use is less likely to penetrate through walls compared to a standard handgun round. This has been ballistically tested numerous times but no one likes to mention it when talking about the issue.
- They are easier to shoot more accurately at close range and longer distances.
- They hold more rounds. Why do you need more rounds? Because one shot is unlikely to stop most threats. Shocking I know, this is also something that is not how it seems in the movies. Also unmentioned when talking about self defense is that there may be multiple attackers. It's not so uncommon to have more than one attacker in a home invasion.
It was wikipedia that describes the AK 47 as an assault rifle. I followed a link from the hungerford page wondering what a type 56 was.
Wouldn't you be better off with a semi auto pistol if wanting self defence in a house? Rifle seems a little, well, unwieldy and better suited for range. Clearly I'm not an expert. :)
> People interested in self defense
See that's always been a difference in UK / US gun use and ownership.
If I were to shoot an attacker with even a .22 rimfire target pistol I'd expect to go to prison for a considerable number of years. Somehow we've managed to avoid the use of firearms in self defence aside from the occasional farmer with shotgun. Even then it gets widely reported and discussed.
Even at the height of legal gun ownership using one against a person, or in pursuit of a crime has been relatively rare. For the longest time using a firearm against police (generally unarmed here) carried a very high stigma and until the 60s likelihood of being hanged. It's still newsworthy for the police to get out an armed response unit in many areas.
The only self-defence legislation permits the use of reasonable force, which generally means the bare minimum you can get away with. Legally you can kill someone in self defence, but it's almost unheard of. Woe betide you if you hit them a little too hard or often and badly injure the poor burglar.
We tend to view discussion of home invasions and wanting self-defence weapons as a quaint excess of our transatlantic cousins. We don't keep firearms in the home, there are very few baseball (or even cricket) bats kept by our beds. We don't expect, or prepare for, home invasions. Probably in some of the worst areas it's a little more common, and illegal gun use a little higher.
It's interesting our nations diverged so much given gun ownership was fairly common here in earlier years, and both wars lead to many old service weapons kept in drawers and attics, unlicensed of course.
In many US states there is a requirement to retreat - that its not self-defence if you could have avoided the incident. Sounds like the UK has a requirement like that too?
Depends on what one is defining an "assault rifle". The most common definition used by the news media can be a semi-automatic hunting rifle with aftermarket parts on it. The term "assault rifle" is a dishonest attempt by certain people to influence a certain reaction in people.
From wikipedia "Type 56 assault rifle". The title of the page that loaded when I followed a link from the wiki page on the Hungerford shooting. Far as I knew it was the correct name.
I am not attempting to influence any reaction. Are wikipedia?
I can understand the deep interest in guns, for instance I thoroughly enjoy FPS russia. But I do not think as a society we can manage the general public having guns, Australia and the UK are a very good example of how new laws have come into place.
> But I do not think as a society we can manage the general public having guns, Australia and the UK are a very good example of how new laws have come into place
There are numerous other developed/OECD countries with "high" rates of firearms ownership and use that do not have the same rate of violence seen in the US. Not to mention the millions of responsible gun owners who safely use firearms for hunting, sport, and self protection. Violent crime with firearms still occurs in both the UK and Australia - both countries have a seedy underbelly that occasionally spills over (e.g. the gang related shooting in Sydney yesterday or the drive by shooting in Brixton last month). Gun control is a spectrum - there are other other countries that have sensible gun control measures that help to limit violent crime without penalizing responsible gun owners. Personally I have no issue with sensible control measures, but I do wish society would also address many of the other associated issues (access to mental health services, inequality/poverty, the war on drugs).
I used to fly. I'd quite like to fly many different marques, Spitfire included. So I can understand someone with an interest in firearms wanting to shoot many calibers and types. In the UK target shooting and clay pigeon shooting were the commonest use of firearms, rather than doing damage. Unless you count the paper.
I'm well aware the Sun is just a comic, just sharing the recollection. :)
Overall I'm in favour of law abiding citizens being able to shoot if they wish to, but the experience of the likes of Hungerford and Cumbria tells us it's not worth the risk. I'm inclined to think that in the absence of firearms Ryan or Hamilton would have done something equally terrible with an axe or bread knife. We already had a school machete attack in the 90s. It's the mental state not the firearm per se that's the problem. So I don't find it as clear cut as maybe I'd like it to be.
Indeed. It would be great if everyone were responsible and it could be a harmless collector's hobby, but they aren't and we can't have nice things.
I was actually taught to shoot at school in the UK (cadet scheme), so it's not something entirely alien to me. But it's not something I can see as "necessary" either.
Ignoring the "assault rifle" part of this. Semi-automatic carbines are great fun to shoot, they have a lower recoil impulse than traditional larger rifles and military surplus ammunition and parts generally creates a cheap and easy way to enjoy firearms. You can get an AR-15 for $600 or so and spend an afternoon enjoying it without a hurt shoulder or a bloody nose.
Everything can be used in a destructive fashion, if a society is mature enough then it can enjoy them. Alcohol, private planes, cars, knives, food,etc all carry the same risk of abuse as guns.
More americans die of eating too much food each year than in all gun deaths ,let alone mass shootings.
I can understand wanting to collect, or at least try, different types, but who in the world needs an assault rifle?