Cumbria shootings.

[Free-Beings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shooting_sprees#See_also

US had 8 in the last 59 years, while the UK had 3, but 2 of the UK's are in the top 10 compared to 1 of the US's.

Your numbers are rather dodgy

Wiki's numbers are you mean.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Wiki's numbers are you mean.

True. The point, however, stands: The US has at least an order of magnitude more mass shootings than the UK (note that list is since Columbine). It's certainly not as narrow as 8-3 over the last 50 years -- probably closer to 80-3.

[Cyber Utopia]

So there, are several cases of local heros contributing towards stopping a mass murderer. More than I expected. But, does it justify implementing concealed carry laws in the UK? I don't think it does. A few isolated cases does not prove that concealed carry laws will end shooting sprees to the extent that their implementation is advisable. I originally asked for sources because the poster I had quoted as saying "Just One American with a Carry Concealed License would have ended the rampage very quickly." seemed to imply that most mass shootings in the US are ended by gun toting civvies. You have proved to me that this occasionally happens, however, I do not believe that these few cases prove that "Just One American with a Carry Concealed License would have ended the rampage very quickly."

[Fennijer]

Terrible shame. Any theories on why he allegedly did it?

In various of the early news reports, it was speculated that there had been a disagreement over a will. The first victim was the shooters twin brother. After a short drive, the second shooting was the family lawyer.
Then he went to a taxi rank, where he worked, and shot some of his colleagues. One man who was shot in the face but survived said in an interview that the shooter had grudges with other taxi drivers due to queue-jumping.
The folowing killing spree then appears to be random, although his route certainly seems to me to have had a purpose. I heard one report which claimed his last victim (or one of his last victims) was his mother. In the reports I have seen since, I have heard no mention of his mother, so I am curious about that.
It certainly 'appears' at first glance to be a dispute over some form of legal matter which triggered this incident.
However, until a proper investigation has been concluded, everything is mere speculation. (I tend to only believe things in the media if I have seen them from several sources)

I should add, the killer had a criminal record for minor theft incidents but had served no sentences. He had a gun licence, although it seems he should not have had one due to his criminal convictions.

I notice some people are claiming that British gun laws prevented civilians from carrying firearms and protecting themselves. I see this as a valid point. However, one victim was shot as he was talking to a farmer... and guess what farmers have! Yep, guns! I would be interested to see how many cases there are of 'have-a-go heroes' being killed or shooting an innocent bystander instead of saving the day.
As for 'Just One American with a Carry Concealed License would have ended the rampage very quickly.'... No, it would not have happened. I cannot see any americans having a carry concealed licence in Cumbria. Nor can I see a lone american being more efficient than a co-ordinated police force when dealing with an armed maniac who continually moved around. If it had been in a city, the police would have cornered him and ended his rampage very quickly indeed. In fact, quicker than an american can say "Ma, git me my gun. I got hero stuff to do.'

If Americans want guns, then fine... have guns. Britain has gun restrictions because it is something that works for us. Incidents like this are very rare, especially when compared to other countries. If a 'crazy' is going to go on a killing spree, they do not need a gun. They can quite easily use a car, a knife, petrol, a plane.... Its just that guns are designed to be more efficient at killing.