Gun Ownership Up in England & Wales

At least that's what they're reporting.

Gun ownership is always thought of as a rarity in the UK. We may like to think that this country has lower levels of gun crime than the US, and that we don't have the same problems of US gun control - especially after the Tucson shooting last year.

Forgotten Derrick Bird so soon?

But there are still plenty of firearms around here, all held legally. These latest figures from the Home Office have just been released and they show that more guns have been licensed than ever before.

How many?

• There were 141,775 firearm certificates on issue on 31 March 2010, an increase of 2% compared with the end of March 2009
• 580,653 shotgun certificates were on issue on 31 March 2010, 1% up
• Those certificates cover a total of 1.8m guns

This is exclusively England and Wales.  It does not include Scotland nor Northern Ireland.

So we have a grand total of 722,428 licenses covering 1.8 million rifles and shotguns.  Surely there is a large overlap between the group of people who possess firearm certificates (rifles and certain shotguns) and shotgun certificates (single- and double-barreled shotguns only), so the total number of individuals possessing licenses is going to be well under 722,000. 

The article states that the ratio is about 3,323 shotguns and rifles combined per 100,000 population, and that much is true, but what's the license ratio?  The population of England and Wales is a bit over 62 55 million (correction pointed out by James Kelly, mea culpa), meaning that perhaps one in eighty-five seventy-six people is licensed to have a firearm of any kind.

I can't help but recall the words of St. George Tucker from his 1803 Blackstone's Commentaries on American law:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep,(sic) and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Well, I guess they can count themselves lucky that they're doing better than one in five hundred.

Legally.

The estimate on illegally possessed firearms?  Well, in 2000 the Sunday Times reported:

UP TO 3m illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions, new figures have revealed.

That dwarfs the 1.8 million currently legally owned, doesn't it?  And in 2008 The Guardian reported:

The gun shown here, a Webley, is up for sale in London for £150, one of hundreds of such weapons that are easily and cheaply available on the streets of the UK's big cities, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

The variety of weapons on offer in Britain is extensive and includes machine guns and shotguns, as well as pistols and converted replicas. A source close to the trade in illegal weapons contacted by the Guardian listed a menu of firearms that are available on the streets of the capital.

"You can get a clean [unused] 9mm automatic for £1,500, a Glock for a couple of grand and you can even make an order for a couple of MAC-10s," he said. "Or you can get a little sawn-off for £150. They're easy enough to get hold of. You'll find one in any poverty area, every estate in London, and it's even easier in Manchester, where there are areas where the police don't go.

"People who use shotguns tend to be lower down the pecking order. There is less use of sawn-off or full length shotguns, and if a criminal wants street cred, he wants a self-loading pistol, a MAC-10 or an Uzi submachine gun."

--

But it is the arrival of eastern European weapons that, alongside a homegrown industry in converting them, has contributed to the firearms glut. "There has been an influx from eastern Europe and particularly from Poland, and there are also a lot coming in from people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq," said the source. "In Liverpool docks, you can put in an order for 10 guns and some grenades and they'll say OK and two weeks later, they will be there - and they are straight goers."

Grenades!

There have been grenade attacks in the UK.  In 2003 a 63 year-old woman lost a leg when a grenade was tossed into her Liverpool home, for example.

But if this information is even close to accurate, it means that you have a greater chance of meeting someone who possesses a firearm illegally  in Britain than someone who possesses a firearm legally.

And the person who possesses one illegally is far more likely to stick it in your face by way of letting you know.  So you can hopefully forgive me when I dismiss the idea that the UK's "strictest gun laws in the world" has done much of anything to disarm its criminal element or prevent spree-shootings.

THIS!

From Walter Russell Mead, The Progressive Crisis:

The progressive state has never seen its job as simply to check the excesses of the rich. It has also sought to correct the vices of the poor and to uplift the masses. From the Prohibition and eugenics movements of the early twentieth century to various improvement and uplift projects in our own day, well educated people have seen it as their simple duty to use the powers of government to make the people do what is right: to express the correct racial ideas, to eschew bad child rearing technique like corporal punishment, to eat nutritionally appropriate foods, to quit smoking, to use the right light bulbs and so on and so on.


Progressives want and need to believe that the voters are tuning them out because they aren't progressive enough. But it's impossible to grasp the crisis of the progressive enterprise unless one grasps the degree to which voters resent the condescension and arrogance of know-it-all progressive intellectuals and administrators. They don't just distrust and fear the bureaucratic state because of its failure to live up to progressive ideals (thanks to the power of corporate special interests); they fear and resent upper middle class ideology.

RTWT

And I want to add this as an aside:

The progressive ideal of administrative cadres leading the masses toward the light has its roots in a time when many Americans had an eighth grade education or less.

And, I would argue, this goes a long way to explain the destruction of the public education system here. As mentioned a couple of posts down, the estimate is that one in seven adults in America is functionally illiterate - i.e.: has a less than eighth-grade education. If one in seven can't read, what percentage of today's population meets that "eighth-grade education" criteria? How many colleges offer basic mathematics and english courses to incoming freshmen because they lack the necessary skills a high school diploma used to ensure?

A "progressive ideal of administrative cadres leading the masses toward the light" depends on those ignorant masses. EDUCATED masses tend to think for themselves, and in quite un-masslike ways.

I Can Think of a Few More . . .

Via Mostly Cajun:




Can you?

From Where Great Britain Used to Be

How's that gun control working out again?

Terrifying arsenal of weapons found in teaching assistant's Newall Green home

Terrifying. Their word. Another Glock 18?  No. 

The weapons – described by police as some of the most destructive they have ever seized - were linked to a series of shootings in Manchester and the north west, including one incident where a bullet narrowly missed a baby.

In a raid at the house in Burbage Road, Newall Green, police found a frightening array of firearms and ammunition, including two 9mm pistols, a 12-bore shotgun for use in combat, a Skorpion sub-machine gun, and lethal hollow-point and soft-tip bullets.

Terrifying or frightening?  Make your mind up.  There's about an order of magnitude difference.  And you know, not one of those is legal to possess in the UK. Let's see:




A compact Glock. Must've purchased that at an American gun show.




That's a "Tariq 9mm believed to have been smuggled from Iraq" that "has been linked to three shootings in Greater Manchester, including a 2009 incident where a bullet narrowly missed a sleeping baby." Wow. Don't they know that handguns are illegal in the UK?




That's your generic 12 gauge semi-auto short-barreled shotgun. I can't tell from the photo make or model, but quite effective.  Benelli, maybe? And with the extended magazine tube, quite illegal. Not that it matters, obviously.

The pièce de résistance:




A Czech Skorpion submachinegun, probably chambered in .32ACP, but it might be .380. With one magazine.  That's unpossible! Full-auto weapons have been banned in the UK since 1937!

Four guns. Four guns described as a "terrifying arsenal." Kinda reminds me of Tams snark:

It's good to have goals. Mine is that, when they finally come after me for felony jaywalking or confuse my address with the crack house two blocks down, and in the aftermath spread all my stuff on bedsheets in the front yard, I want the kids on the intarw3bz gun boards to look at that junk-on-the-bunk display and say "Wow, that is an arsenal."

If they saw what I have in my safe, they'd wet themselves. And I don't own anything full-auto.  I haven't seen it, but I doubt my collection is but a shadow of hers.  She probably owns more Smith & Wesson revolvers than I own guns.

Nuke the Site from Orbit, Part Who-the-Hell-Knows

More evidence that the public school systems are working about like you'd expect from a .gov system, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars "invested" in it over decades, despite the creation of the Dept. of Education ($1.2 trillion alone - not inflation adjusted - since its establishment in 1980):

Literacy study: 1 in 7 U.S. adults are unable to read this story

Key grafs:

A long-awaited federal study finds that an estimated 32 million adults in the USA — about one in seven — are saddled with such low literacy skills that it would be tough for them to read anything more challenging than a children's picture book or to understand a medication's side effects listed on a pill bottle.

--

How low? It would be a challenge to read this newspaper article or deconstruct a fuel bill.

"They really cannot read … paragraphs (or) sentences that are connected," says Sheida White, a researcher at the U.S. Education Department.

Well, good to know we spent $1.2 trillion to find that out!

But all is not bleak!

In many cases, states made sizable gains. In Mississippi, the percentage of adults with low skills dropped 9 percentage points, from 25% to 16%. In every one of its 82 counties, low-skill rates dropped — in a few cases by 20 percentage points or more.

Still, there's more bad news:

By contrast, in several large states — California, New York, Florida and Nevada, for instance — the number of adults with low skills rose.

Why, you might ask did Mississippi improve so remarkably? Need you even ask?

David Harvey, president and CEO of ProLiteracy, an adult-literacy organization, says Mississippi "invested more in education … and they have done innovative programming. We need much more of that."

We need more money! MUCH more money!

I swear, it's the only play in the playbook. WE NEED TO SPEND MORE (of other people's) MONEY!

The Entitlement Mentality

I found this today courtesy of a Facebook friend.  You HAVE to watch it all the way to the end (seven minutes worth).  I wish I could say "Unbelievable," but I'd be lying.




Our tax dollars at work.

Hey!  I know!  Let's raise taxes on the wealthy!  They don't pay their fair share!

Would you hire this guy?

Quote of the Day - Adaptive Curmudgeon Edition

Each digital book format will be oh so much cooler than the last.  Right up until you've bought the same book six times and decide you’d prefer to stare at the sun until you're blind than do it again.

It has happened before.  Somewhere there is a person who has purchased the same rendition of Up And Away on 33 RPM LP, 8 track, cassette, CD, and now he has it on iTunes.  The day when he loses his iPod in a Dubai airport is the day he’ll start fondly dreaming of that big cabinet full of LPs he lugged around in college.  Then, ever so slowly, like the setting of the sun, the realization that he's spent the better part of a car payment on just one song will seep into his bones and kill his soul. -- My Theory Has a Hole In It

Another case of no original ideas, but I'll tell you about the one I found. I think I'm becoming Say Uncle!

What Kind of Budget Cuts Do You Get Around Here?

Both kinds!  Insignificant and imaginary!

It's just like that scene from The Blues Brothers:

Even Scott Adams Gets It

Beans, bandages and bullets. Trade goods for the coming zombocalypse!

Government Mandated Light Bulbs,

...government mandated clean-up.




Your .gov at work. Inspiring, ain't it?

From Black&Right.

Well, Limbaugh Got What he Wanted

A while back, Rush Limbaugh was excoriated for saying "I hope Obama fails."

Looks like he got it:

Singer Harry Belafonte, subject of an upcoming HBO documentary about his political activism, was asked what he would say to the White House and Congress about the gamesmanship in which they are engaged over the national debt.

“My question would be, to Congress and the president: What happened to moral truth? What happened to moral courage?” Belafonte said.

He’d also like to tell them: “Politics without moral purpose, really more often than not, winds up as tyranny.”

“Barack Obama and his mission has failed because it lacked a certain kind of moral courage, a kind of moral vision . . . a kind of courage we are in need of,” said the King of Calypso.

When you've lost Harry Belafonte . . . .

Quote of the Day - Thomas Sowell Edition

All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax "millionaires and billionaires" is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric. -- Ideals Versus Realities, Townhall

For the first time I don't agree with Sowell's conclusions, but on this he's still correct.  Incomplete, but correct.  It's also about "fairness" as defined by President Obama - in other words, "redistribution of wealth."  Bringing in more votes is the byproduct, not the goal.

A Repeat

This is all I've got to say about the current budget / debt ceiling debate, and it was already said in February.  Remember this?




Well, Chris Muir took the the meme and ran with it:




Really, it's not an unreasonable question: If Obama actually was intent on the destruction of the Republic, how could you tell the difference?

I'm wondering if I should cash in my 401(k) that has finally recovered to what it was in 2001 before that crash.  The kleptocrats in Washington will be coming after that pot-o'cash soon, I'm sure.  You know, in the interest of "fairness."

Here We Go Again

So earlier this week I write my post Defending the Weak, and it drew a link from my old friend James Kelly at Scot Goes Pop. Apparently I offended his sense of propriety. So, in my usual style, I left a comment which has inspired yet another post by Mr. Kelly.

As I've noted before, we don't have discussions. Our worldviews are so divergent we simply talk past each other.

Now, James has commented on my emphasis on statistics and their meaning before, yet I note that this time James goes straight to statistics which, I am forced to assume, he believes proves his point. You see, in Scotland, they don't kill each other as often as we here in Arizona do. And when they do, they hardly ever do it with firearms, whereas here firearms are the preferred method.

I think what you're supposed to gather from this (remember, I've been doing this sort of thing for years now, so I have experience at it) is that, since they don't have guns, they can't kill each other as much.

And this is based on one year's data - 2009.

The logic is staggering.

His source states that in 2009 there were 79 homicides in Scotland, versus 324 in Arizona. Scotland and Arizona have roughly equivalent populations. I believe we've danced this dance before, however.

Once again, here's a graph of Scotland's homicide statistics from 1945 through 1997:




And here's a homicide rate comparison table (in deaths per 100,000 population) I worked up using that data, along with data for the entire U.S. and also England & Wales (a separate single political entity):

Year	US	England & Wales	Scotland
1946	6.4	0.81	0.72
1947	6.1	0.86	0.59
1948	6.1	0.78	0.66
1949	5.4	0.68	0.47
1950	5.3	0.79	0.68
1951	4.9	0.75	0.41
1952	5.2	0.91	0.53
1953	4.8	0.74	0.80
1954	4.8	0.70	0.63
1955	4.5	0.63	0.68
1956	4.6	0.71	0.57
1957	4.5	0.71	0.51
1958	4.5	0.58	0.82
1959	4.6	0.59	0.66
1960	4.7	0.62	0.68
1961	4.7	0.57	0.71
1962	4.8	0.64	1.12
1963	4.9	0.65	0.88
1964	5.1	0.63	0.98
1965	5.5	0.68	1.21
1966	5.9	0.76	1.65
1967	6.8	0.86	1.35
1968	7.3	0.87	1.40
1969	7.7	0.81	1.57
1970	8.3	0.81	1.59
1971	9.1	0.93	1.38
1972	9.4	0.97	1.62
1973	9.7	0.94	1.47
1974	10.1	1.21	1.49
1975	9.9	1.03	1.49
1976	9.0	1.14	2.03
1977	9.1	0.98	2.03
1978	9.2	1.08	1.59
1979	10.0	1.27	1.56
1980	10.7	1.25	1.73
1981	10.3	1.12	1.70
1982	9.6	1.25	1.70
1983	8.6	1.32	1.86
1984	8.4	1.37	1.77
1985	8.4	1.28	1.64
1986	9.0	1.24	1.62
1987	8.7	1.31	2.08
1988	9.0	1.42	1.73
1989	9.3	1.33	1.98
1990	10.0	1.31	1.68
1991	10.5	1.42	1.72
1992	10.0	1.33	2.68
1993	10.1	1.31	2.22
1994	9.6	1.41	2.18
1995	8.7	1.45	2.67
1996	7.9	1.31	2.30
1997	7.4	1.41	1.72

You can go to the old post and get the later data, I'm not really interested in reproducing all that here, nor in updating it, really, but the point I want to make - again, since James seems incapable of understanding it - is that as far back as 1945, when neither country had much in the way of firearms laws, the homicide rate in the U.S. was 8.8 times the rate in Scotland.  As time has progressed, and the UK has instituted stricter and stricter laws against firearm possession (promoted in every case to make the UK "safer"), the homicide rate trend has been converging. 

James likes to point out that the U.S. - with all of its privately possessed firearms, spreading "right to carry" laws and all - has a homicide rate that is - let me find his number, oh yes - "more than two-and-a-half times greater" than Scotland's. But sixty-five years ago, it was eight point eight times greater. Scotland's homicide rate in 2009 was 1.52/100,000, (down from 1.9 in 2008). The U.S. homicide rate that year was 5.0/100,000. The ratio was therefore 3.2 to 1.

Now, I ask you - what does a trend from 8.8:1 to 3.2:1 indicate to you? Especially bearing in mind that gun laws here are "lax" and in the UK are "the strictest in the world" by their own admission?

But hey!  At least they're not killing each other with GUNS!  Because somehow that makes a difference.

And lastly, there's this:  Scotland has been called "the most violent country in the developed world." The UN said it in 2005, and yes, that includes the U.S. They might not kill each other at anywhere near our rates, but they violently victimize each other far more often. In 2010 the Scottish Labour party bemoaned the fact that the violent crime rate in Scotland is "four times the rate of England and Wales." That polity ranks #2 in the world.

And remember, the crime statistics in the UK aren't exactly reliable.

Back when I wrote What We Got Here is ... Failure to Communicate, I noted that Thomas Sowell pointed out one major difference between those who believe humans are perfectible and those like me who believe human nature doesn't change.  Those who believe in human perfectibility believe in solutions.  Those like me see trade-offs.  James believes the solution is to disarm everyone.  I believe otherwise.

Hey, maybe he's right.  Maybe if the Scots had guns they would kill each other at astronomical rates.  Given their obviously hyper-violent culture ....

Then again, there might be a few more deaths but a lot fewer Glasgow smiles.  And if the potential victims are armed ....

It's an Honor Just to be Nominated

I knew my NRA Patron membership would be good for something!

Sean Sorrentino suggests that perhaps the NRA needs another "Cincinnati revolution" where the hoary old-guard is thrown out in favor of more fire-breathing rights-defenders. He lists 14 possible nominees, of which I am one. I had to laugh out loud at his description of me:

Kevin will be prepared at any time to drop 100,000 words of extensively footnoted explanations on one of two subjects. How gun control is racist, sexist, immoral, and fattening. And how American schooling is designed by socialists to teach conformism and government control to kids in an effort to demoralize future generations and make them less likely to try to control their own destiny.

Yeah, that about covers it.

The others are just as amusing.

More Panem et Circenses

I received an email yesterday.  Season three of Top Shot (aka:  As the Cartridge Turns) will premiere on August 9. 

The new season of Sons of Guns has already started.

Look, I'm a gun-nut. I like the fact that television has discovered that guns are fun and the people who like them are not all knuckle-dragging neanderthals with the IQ of a rotting rutabaga. I get the fact that those of us who collect guns and/or shoot a (relatively) lot are a pretty small minority of the total national population. (There very well may be 80+ million gun owners in America, but I'm willing to bet that 70 million of them don't take their rifle or shotgun out of the closet more than twice a year, if that.) I just wish Top Shot focused more on shooting than on drama-llamas. And I wish Sons of Guns didn't have a cast of rutabagas.

OK, that's not fair. They're not really that bad, but as representatives of the "gun culture" I enthusiastically belong to, I can and do wish they were better than The Discovery Channel portrays them.

So a new season of gun-centric television is starting up. Hooray for the re-normalization of the good "gun culture."

Discuss.

Oh, and BTW, here's a link for the new cast for Top Shot.

"We could try liberty."

Jerry Pournelle points out what we all know:

Budget Cuts: we will increase spending, but we will reduce the rate of increase. We just spent $9 Trillion we didn’t have, but we will make a $1.1 Trillion cut – over ten years. Which is to say we will cut $100 Billion a year, having spent $9 Trillion. The deficit will continue to grow. So the only choice is to raise taxes or the nation is finished, the elderly will not get their Social Security checks, the Veterans will not get their benefits. Inspectors in the Department of Agriculture will continue to get “cost of living” raises and step increases in their civil service ratings. Department of Education SWAT teams will get their raises including full health and pensions. The deficit will grow, and there will be another financial crisis. The EPA will continue to impose regulations, the courts will continue to accept lawsuits to harass anyone who intends to open a mine, drill an oil well, or create a business.

The only remedy will be to raise taxes. We must have shared sacrifices so that the Washington elites can go about business as usual. Washington public schools will continue to deteriorate but none of the elites will send their children to those public schools so that won’t be a problem.

In other words, the Dance goes on, and we are being played.

The Geek with a .45 said it best some time back:

"Entire Societies Can and Have Gone Stark Raving Batshit Fucking Insane."

The raving hasn't really started yet, but it's coming.  The wheels are coming off the trolley, and the trolley off the tracks, and We the People are powerless to stop it.

Where's my soma?

Monster Hunter: Alpha

I finished Larry Correia's latest, Monster Hunter: Alpha last night about 10:20.  I picked it up from Barnes & Noble on my way home from work Monday evening.  I read from the time I got home until about 10:45, taking just enough time out to post yesterday's car/gun porn.  I dog-eared the book at Chapter 14, page 223 (do you think he planned that?) and went to sleep.  When I got home last night, I picked it up again and read until it was finished.

Larry's Best.  Book.  Yet.

Non-stop action, great characters, rollicking storyline . . . just, DAMN!

No spoilers, but I will say one line from the book had me laughing until I hurt: 


"Love what you've done with the place.  Very industrial."

You have to read it to understand.

And yes, I'm a sick puppy.

Two thumbs WAY up.  Go get it.  Today.

Smedley, Bring Me My Four-Bore

OK, I haven't seen this elsewhere on the gunblogs, and it's kinda unique for Wired, but how would you like to own your very own Rolls-Royce set up for hunting tiger and elephant?

A vintage Rolls-Royce festooned with weaponry and upfitted for off-roading to hunt tigers and elephants may be the definition of automotive grandiosity, but it also could be yours for a mere $1 million.

This preposterous 1925 New Phantom was built as a dedicated hunting car by Rolls-Royce with coachwork by Barker & Company in 1925 at the request of Umed Singh II, Maharaja of Kotah. Apparently Raj-era Kotah was similar to modern day Wasilla, overrun with both wild animals and politicians who like to shoot them from moving vehicles.

On board is enough firepower to blow away the Bronx Zoo including a double-barrel howdah pistol and a mountable Lantaka cannon used for hunting elephants. There’s also a rifle stand in the rear seat and, especially for Bengal tigers, a machine gun that can be trailered from the rear of the car. Rifles and bird guns are stored in the rear of the car.

Here's the towed machinegun:




And here's the auction video:




I don't think it has air-conditioning, though.

And I see that Sean Sorrentino beat me to it.

Now I'm going back to reading Monster Hunter Alpha.

Defending the Weak

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the "Grim" who penned the recent Blackfive piece, Defending the Weak is the very same Grim who said "It's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can."

Commenting on the recent mass-murder in Norway, Grim reiterates:

When (the shooter) began shooting, everyone ran.
 
That last factor alone is responsible for almost all of the dead.  A tight group of young men taught to run at danger instead of away from it could have overpowered him almost at once.

As that did not happen, he had a clear field of fire and a target rich environment.  As that started a panic, probably some were trampled and others drowned.  The police did not arrive for a long time, giving him time to finish what he had begun -- but the police will never be around when one of these mass killings happens, unless it is targeted at them specifically.  It is always easy to find a soft target if you want one, even in a police state.

The key lesson to mass shootings is that the whole of our societies must remember their duty to fight for the common peace and lawful order.  We must all do it.  We must train for it, and we must equip ourselves as well as the law and our natural abilities permit.  This is the duty of a citizen.  It is a duty that cannot be delegated to the police or to the military.  It must be borne by all of us.  We must train our sons for this duty also.  In a dangerous world, this alone is what makes civilization possible.

I refer once again to Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Modern Policing, specifically Rule 7:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Western civilization has abandoned the idea that the safety of the public is incumbent on the public itself.  It's not just the police who should maintain that relationship.  Relationships go both ways.

Yes, had a group of young men charged the shooter, some of them would have been wounded or killed.  But no one charged the shooter, and literally dozens are dead.

Edit:  It would appear that I've disturbed James Kelly again.   Good.