Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

[Darth Avlectus]

It was the Americans who started the argument about Britain's Gun Laws, but you've not presented any arguments which have in anyway answered the arguments presented against you.

 

Neither have you answered how banning guns in the USA is going to stop border hoppers from getting them on the black market and coming back over to the USA to use them on our citizens. With little to fear in the way of counterattack it will mean they get to stick up quite a few people before the cops actually take interest to find and arrest them--if they even care to do that at all. It seems like cops are more concerned with easy busts than actually getting up and hunting down aggressive criminals. Criminals prey upon others because they do not believe they will be harmed or defended against in the process. They get arrested? Well, many of these types don't care: they have already been in jail/prison.

 

It isn't the LEGAL availability of guns, it's either black market, or that which slips through the cracks. While over there the EU is quite effective, I'm afraid it just doesn't work the same over here in the USA.

 

i.e. the Statistics, for all your arguments against gun control, we still have a far lower homicide rate than you; indeed the place that has the highest regional homicide rate in the UK is Northern Ireland... The only place in the UK where the average citizen can own a gun; coincidence?

 

What? Whaat? I was jabbing back at a generalized jab by DI.

 

So far as schools, if it wasn't guns it'd be something else (albeit statistically less dangerous) in the schools, and quite often is. Knife brandishing or attempts at improvising explosives or other is under reported. Many times, these kids feel they have nowhere else to turn because the schools refuse to do anything about or look into problems of bullying, etc.

 

I can assure you, you even try to buy a gun without a firearms license from a legit store and you'll be sent out with your tail between your legs. Seen it.

 

People who sell them off the books or illegally are how the guns are obtained that end up used in schools or other. Guns don't kill nor can they act on their own, people kill other people.

 

That said I don't think any ban on guns would be effective in the US as there are so many in circulation, but sooner or later you need to tackle the fact your nation does have a gun problem related to violent crime.

 

True--but actually many of us *are* admitting it. However, people are primarily to blame, not instruments that never have and never will be able to act upon their own.

[jonathan7]

Neither have you answered how banning guns in the USA is going to stop border hoppers from getting them on the black market and coming back over to the USA to use them on our citizens.

 

Firstly I didn't state guns should be banned in the US. Secondly I didn't come marching into a thread saying that banning guns was bad or criticise the policy of doing such; indeed I've provided that statistics which indicate something entirely to the contrary and I've yet to hear any counter argument, so please feel free to argue why guns in the UK or Europe should be legal.

 

In an ideal world I think the policy of making guns illegal very sensible, however in any legislature you have to take into account many factors - and banning guns in the U.S. is not a practical to the solution there.

 

With little to fear in the way of counterattack it will mean they get to stick up quite a few people before the cops actually take interest to find and arrest them--if they even care to do that at all. It seems like cops are more concerned with easy busts than actually getting up and hunting down aggressive criminals. Criminals prey upon others because they do not believe they will be harmed or defended against in the process. They get arrested? Well, many of these types don't care: they have already been in jail/prison.

 

This argument holds no sway, seeing as the U.S. still has criminals, indeed you have more violent offenders per 100,000 than we do - and our citizens don't have arms to defend themselves.

 

It isn't the LEGAL availability of guns, it's either black market, or that which slips through the cracks. While over there the EU is quite effective, I'm afraid it just doesn't work the same over here in the USA.

 

I don't see why you couldn't be as efficient as we are several EU countries have borders with countries less desirable than Mexico. The reason guns couldn't practically be banned is you have so many legally already in circulation, so a ban wouldn't be effective.

 

So far as schools, if it wasn't guns it'd be something else (albeit statistically less dangerous) in the schools, and quite often is. Knife brandishing or attempts at improvising explosives or other is under reported. Many times, these kids feel they have nowhere else to turn because the schools refuse to do anything about or look into problems of bullying, etc.

 

Yes a kid could come into school with a knife, but he would kill considerably less individuals, and would be much easier to stop. An individual with a good proficiency in martial arts could stop an assailant armed with a knife considerably more easily than a gun. Improvising explosives is considerably hard, and homemade ones are not reliable, so I find this arguments poor at least; not least because please sight to me the number of schools blown up with victims, and the number of mass knife attacks at school, in comparison to gun wielding assailants. The gun, is clearly a far more efficient weapon for killing large amounts of people, over home made bombs and knifes.

 

I can assure you, you even try to buy a gun without a firearms license from a legit store and you'll be sent out with your tail between your legs. Seen it.

 

People who sell them off the books or illegally are how the guns are obtained that end up used in schools or other. Guns don't kill nor can they act on their own, people kill other people.

 

I seem to recall a number of parent owned legal guns being used in school shootings, so again while guns are available on the black market, they are easily obtainable through legal means in the US.

 

True--but actually many of us *are* admitting it. However, people are primarily to blame, not instruments that never have and never will be able to act upon their own.

 

If you take away the Nuclear bomb, then no-one can use it...

 

I re-iterate I don't think a gun ban in the U.S. is practical because of the number of fire arms that are in the country, but please stop pretending that many people having loaded weapons is a good idea!

[Totenkopf]

@J7--even if you take away the nuke, you still have to find a way to hide the science behind it from others determined to have one (eg Iran, NK).

 

As to guns in the hands of the populace, there are something like 200+million firearms floating around in America. Much of the violence is gang-banger on gang-banger (ie criminals killing criminals). While it might be nice to live in a world where everyone practices a variant of live and let live, that's simply not reality. If "loaded weapons in the hands of many people" were as bad as you seem to imply, our death rate should likely be a lot higher. By and large, Americans aren't irresponsible gun users.

[Q]

^Yup, the yearly death toll would most likely be in the hundreds of thousands instead of less than ten thousand.

The Pavlovian reaction of the Americans in this thread is simply astonishing.

YEEEEEHHHAAAAWWW!

 

Seriously, though, this is a touchy subject for many Americans like myself. To us, outlawing guns is a giant leap towards oligarchy.

[Trench]

Wait, you mean to say that a 14 year old is allowed to own a shotgun in the USA?

As far as you know, yes.

 

This argument is disingenuous as it fails to count for the fact that your 4 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a knife wound. And as you work your way down the list, the items are less and less efficient at killing people. UK gun law is aimed at "preserving as much life as possible" and in that aim it is very effective.

Having seen what gangs can and will do to get what they want, they could be fighting with stumps for arms and glazed over eyes. They will kill.

Take away the guns, they go at you with a knife until you're too dead to recognize.

Take away the knives, they beat you with a club until every bone in your body is shattered.

Take away the clubs, and they wouldn't bother fighting with fists. They'd just craft crude weapons to hack and beat you.

 

It may not be like that in the UK, but most Americans are willing to go too far to preserve their freedom. The rest of it aren't proud of it, but it takes more than a couple rednecks with shotguns to clean up gangs.:¬:

 

@Thread: I'll hold by my belief that he should be warned and let go. I don't see why they don't just throw this case out, or why the state would even want to take this guy to court.

 

YEEEEEHHHAAAAWWW!

 

Seriously, though, this is a touchy subject for many Americans like myself. To us, outlawing guns is a giant leap towards oligarchy.

Well there you go! Git yer gun 'an git 'er dun boy! What's say after this you and me go huntin!

 

Edit-- @below: Maybe, maybe not. But I'd like to see you try to get at a collector's stash. And most hunters wouldn't be too thrilled about they idea either.

[Ping]

I don't see it as a step towards oligarchy. I mean, it would be nice if everyone could have a gun and use it responsibly, but since that's not the case, the most practical thing to do is to limit or ban the firearms. It wouldn't be high on the popularity scale, but it would on the practicality.

[Darth Avlectus]

Firstly I didn't state guns should be banned in the US.

 

Nor I claim specifically you said that.

 

Secondly I didn't come marching into a thread saying that banning guns was bad or criticise the policy of doing such;

 

Nor I specifically criticize your policy: I'm not you so I don't know.

 

indeed I've provided that statistics which indicate something entirely to the contrary and I've yet to hear any counter argument, so please feel free to argue why guns in the UK or Europe should be legal.

 

I never criticized THAT you (not you specifically Jon, the EU as a whole I mean) have banned guns--it works for *you*. I'm not about to throw a sea crab into the pants of that. Do I think your laws are oppressive? Not for *you*; For me and the rest of Americans, YES.

 

In an ideal world I think the policy of making guns illegal very sensible, however in any legislature you have to take into account many factors - and banning guns in the U.S. is not a practical to the solution there.

 

Thank you.

 

I don't see why you couldn't be as efficient as we are several EU countries have borders with countries less desirable than Mexico. The reason guns couldn't practically be banned is you have so many legally already in circulation, so a ban wouldn't be effective.

 

Because even if USA entirely disarms, what you put into effect in USA has no sway over Mexico. Guns would still get in, even with a blanket ban. While individuals perpetrating the crimes might be found and dealt with, the source of the problem would still remain.

 

 

If you take away the Nuclear bomb, then no-one can use it...

 

If malevolent people still have information to make another, they will do that. And they won't be honest about it nor submit to a UN inspeciton without hiding or shuffling it so the nuke cannot be found. (Until it's too late!)

 

I re-iterate I don't think a gun ban in the U.S. is practical because of the number of fire arms that are in the country, but please stop pretending that many people having loaded weapons is a good idea!

 

I reiterate, I (specifically) never said it was a good idea. Good sir...

 

EDIT: It occurs to me I may have been a tad inconsiderate, however I meant no such disrespect.

[Q]

I don't see it as a step towards oligarchy.

I do. An unarmed populace is sooo much easier to push around.

I mean, it would be nice if everyone could have a gun and use it responsibly, but since that's not the case, the most practical thing to do is to limit or ban the firearms.

Sounds like curing the headache by cutting off the head to me.

It wouldn't be high on the popularity scale, but it would on the practicality.

I'd say that its not being popular is a gross understatement, and the armed revolt that would most likely occur would not be very high on the practicality scale.

[SW01]

the place that has the highest regional homicide rate in the UK is Northern Ireland... The only place in the UK where the average citizen can own a gun; coincidence?

 

Not if you assume that the paramilitaries are/were using perfectly legal firearms, no. Or that they were the only, or even principal weapon used.

 

so please feel free to argue why guns in the UK or Europe should be legal.

 

For the same reason shotguns, some rifles and air-rifles are still legal in England: sporting. I do not hold with extending a 'right to bear arms' to all citizens, but I equally dislike the notion of penalising those of us who use a firearm in the same manner as a person is free to use a bow - purely for sport.

 

I am, of course, rather heavily biased. However, I do not believe that any perceived success of gun law on the mainland can be readily applied to Northern Ireland - there are still reports of people attempting to smuggle weapons into the country from outside the UK, so I believe the impact would be rather less.

 

 

 

Regarding the main point of the topic:

 

Hopefully, given the motive behind Mr. Clarke's actions, the Judge will opt for the fine option rather than imprisonment as in Schedule 6, Part II, s.1(1)(b)(i) of the 1968 Act - possession of a firearm on indictment. Unfortunately it appears that it would be taken as 'aggravated' seeing the shotgun was shortened (even though not by him!), so it is seven years as the alternative.

[Jae Onasi]

What I'd really like to know is what the police expected this guy to do. Why was turning a gun that he'd found into the police station a criminal offense? The guy's trying to do the right thing and gets zapped with a criminal charge. That just makes no sense to me.

[Tobias Reiper]

Remind me if I decide to go to a bank and while I'm in there, if a man starts robbing the bank and turns around giving me the chance to tackle him, possibly take his gun, and shoot him NOT to do so, because despite doing a generally good thing, I still might get charged with murder, because the law is acting stupid.

[Darth InSidious]

Remind me if I decide to go to a bank and while I'm in there, if a man starts robbing the bank and turns around giving me the chance to tackle him, possibly take his gun, and shoot him NOT to do so, because despite doing a generally good thing, I still might get charged with murder, because the law is acting stupid.

 

No, you'll be charged with manslaughter, Because you killed someone.

[jonathan7]

Not if you assume that the paramilitaries are/were using perfectly legal firearms, no. Or that they were the only, or even principal weapon used.

 

When I made the statement I made it in expectation that the guns would be licensed; the IRA is, I think powerful enough to organise for it's gun to be legal - after all it is nothing but a glorified Mafia ring.

 

For the same reason shotguns, some rifles and air-rifles are still legal in England: sporting. I do not hold with extending a 'right to bear arms' to all citizens, but I equally dislike the notion of penalising those of us who use a firearm in the same manner as a person is free to use a bow - purely for sport.

 

UK legislation doesn't penalise those who use such guns for sport, as you can obtain a licence; however Northern Irish legislature is such that unlike the rest of the UK you are allowed a gun in Northern Ireland on the grounds for "personal defence" where as that is not an acceptable reason in the rest of the UK.

 

I am, of course, rather heavily biased. However, I do not believe that any perceived success of gun law on the mainland can be readily applied to Northern Ireland - there are still reports of people attempting to smuggle weapons into the country from outside the UK, so I believe the impact would be rather less.

 

Northern Ireland is free to make it's own mind with regards appropriate legislature with regards guns, I was merely commenting on statistics. But certainly I think if it were possible to confiscate all the guns in the entirety of Ireland, it would be a much safer place

 

Remind me if I decide to go to a bank and while I'm in there, if a man starts robbing the bank and turns around giving me the chance to tackle him, possibly take his gun, and shoot him NOT to do so, because despite doing a generally good thing, I still might get charged with murder, because the law is acting stupid.

 

Why on earth would you "tackle" him a foreign country? Especially when unarmed?

[mimartin]

He found a illegal “shorn-off” shotgun in his garden. Instead of calling the police, he waited until the next day and call the Chief Superintendent, but instead of telling what he had found, he just asked if he could “pop in and see him.” Then he took the gun to the police station? What was this guy thinking? How did he know the gun had not been used in a crime? How did he know his garden was not actually a crime scene?

 

I really don’t know what being a former soldier has to do with anything, but I would have thought such discipline required for the military would have taught him to think better. You find an illegal weapon on your property, you call the police. Let them handle removing and investigating the reasons that weapon is where it should not be. You do not take that weapon yourself to a police station. I can understand the rule and I can also understand why there is a zero tolerance for violating that law.

 

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law does not excuse. However in this case a little common sense could have saved Mr. Paul Clarke a lot of heartache.

[Totenkopf]

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law does not excuse. However in this case a little common sense could have saved Mr. Paul Clarke a lot of heartache.

 

True enough. Though ignorance of the law is frightfully easier when the laws keep coming in copious amounts and ever larger in size. Hopefully, if he's guilty of nothing more than injudiciuos behavior, he gets a slap on the wrist and that ends it.

[Darth Avlectus]

^ I second that notion.

 

He found a illegal “shorn-off” shotgun in his garden. Instead of calling the police, he waited until the next day and call the Chief Superintendent, but instead of telling what he had found, he just asked if he could “pop in and see him.” Then he took the gun to the police station? What was this guy thinking? How did he know the gun had not been used in a crime? How did he know his garden was not actually a crime scene?

Having once worked along side law enforcement as a Sargent once told me: "Unless you know *every* little thing about an item, you don't know jack squat; where it's been, what it was used for, or even who ELSE it belonged to."

 

I really don’t know what being a former soldier has to do with anything, but I would have thought such discipline required for the military would have taught him to think better.

You aren't the only one, my friend. This sounds like a mistake that no average citizen (with even moderate common sense) should make.

 

You find an illegal weapon on your property, you call the police. Let them handle removing and investigating the reasons that weapon is where it should not be. You do not take that weapon yourself to a police station. I can understand the rule and I can also understand why there is a zero tolerance for violating that law.

Well, now that is true. Least the guy could have done is taken measures to avoid getting handprints and fingerprints on it. :¬:

 

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law does not excuse. However in this case a little common sense could have saved Mr. Paul Clarke a lot of heartache.

 

EDIT: I still think the law is overblown and that the penalty is rather steep.

[vanir]

Darth Insidious,

Actually the Bill of Rights (1689) enshrines the right of Protestant citizens to bear firearms.

 

It is most definitely not related to any kind of militia but the right of relatively affluent citizens to defend themselves from thugs and highwaymen and for gentlemen to engage in duellling. The idea was a landowner could carry a small short range firearm if he should be walking the streets at night with a purse, which were finally lit in London in 1680 for similar reasoning.

By contemporary reasoning it is the right for stable, law abiding citizens to engage such sports as shooting, and keep shotguns on their estate without too much trouble, or for a wealthy gentleman to defend himself against a home intruder with a Webley in between hunting trips to Africa. It's nothing to do with shoe salesmen and auto mechanics running around on the street strapping 9-mils shooting up criminals for example.

You must understand the cool thing about the parliamentary system is you can't repeal their authority with say constitutional law for example, it doesn't work that way, you can't wave a document in their faces and tell them how it must be interpreted, they'll tell you how it is to be interpreted and generally speaking will do so by examining it "in context as to the reasonable mind."

 

But then, where examined as a historical document neither is the US constitutional ammendment relating to the "right to bear arms," as it was a State right by intention and for the formation of State controlled militias beyond the authority of the federal government and aside national militaries, it had nothing to do with individuals either defending themselves from criminal activity of any kind, nor running around on the street bearing arms for giggles and inherent stupidity.

Certainly it is used in modern times by lobbyists and individual citizens alike pertaining to individual self defence and vigilanteism however this was clearly never the intention of the document. But then American culture has evolved with ridiculous laws like justifiable homicide, where modern parliamentary legal systems and commonwealth culture observe that homicide is never justified, ever, but it is occasionally unavoidable. Big difference in perspective on the matter.

If the United States was governed by a parliamentary democracy there is no way on earth they would allow the constitutional ammendment in question to be interpreted as a common right for citizens to bear arms wontonly or whimsically, it would enshrine the right of individual States to form paramilitary militias for use by State government officials in the event of dictatorial and oppressive federal government (ie. inadvertant neo-Nazi national election) only. And they wouldn't be using concealed handguns, they'd be using F-16's. It was meant to be State controlled national guards.

 

It must be recognised that Americentric and Eurocentric views on the entire subject are culturally at odds. Entirely different perspectives on what a democracy entails are being practised and have been for hundreds of years.

The yank way is very bad in terms of proliferent deadly crime pro rata. The same guy that bottles a feller down the pub in the face in England shoots six dead in the US and then starts on a school.

[JuniorModder]

Yes, I'm in favour of Gun control, I don't see why it's oppressive? I imagine the students shot by those armed with guns might find that oppressive. I don't see how the above stupidity is an inevitability that accompanies the legislation; I think this was just laziness on the part of law makers; but I think that incompetence is an accurate description of the Labour government generally.

 

If the U.S. wants guns, and given how powerful the NRA is, I don't see any gun control legislation coming in to force in the U.S. so you needn't be concerned, but frankly the majority of the U.K. populace is more than happy with our "oppressive" gun control.

 

I dare say though, I'd rather have "oppressive" gun control than a lot of people dead, who would for the sake of people's right to bear arms be alive.

 

I'd personally take the chance of being murdered at a school shooting (I'm homeschooled, but I am going to high school next year) than not be able to protect my family or myself if it becomes necessary. Man the government's going down the tubes..

 

 

JuniorModder

[Sabretooth]

I'd personally take the chance of being murdered at a school shooting (I'm homeschooled, but I am going to high school next year) than not be able to protect my family or myself if it becomes necessary.

 

So you end up getting potentially killed regardless of whether gun control is strict or not. Note that as much as there is a 'chance' of a school shooting, there is a similar 'chance' of you or your family getting into mortal danger. Also note that when you are on the receiving end of a school shooting, you are in mortal danger yourself, and to protect yourself, you will need guns - in school. This will turn the school shooting into a two-way gang war, which will potentially put at risk dozens of other students. For their safety, they will require guns as well. This turns the scenario into an anarchist free-for-all war.

 

Hint: Somalia has very lax gun laws.

[JuniorModder]

Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

 

Everyone has guns.

No one has guns.

 

The answer is b.

 

I'll tell you why.

 

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

 

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

 

JuniorModder

 

EDIT Whoops meant b

[Trench]

Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

 

Everyone has guns.

No one has guns.

 

The answer is a.

 

I'll tell you why.

 

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

 

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

 

JuniorModder

 

That's pretty close to my logic. Either that, or all the good people in America can move out to Redneck territory (like me) and start farming. Because everyone knows that if you shoot at rednecks, we shoot back.

 

On-topic: After reading some of the posts here, and re-reading the OP, I agree that this guy used hardly any common sense. He should have called the police and had someone get it, or at least have told them he wanted to turn in a gun. Maybe he should do a few days of community service.

[ForeverNight]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. My issue with the ruling is the 5 years minimum that he's going to get for doing this. I think that a law is stupid if having the shotgun for ~a day makes it yours in the eyes of the law. Maybe Jury Nullification should've come into play?

 

@Junior: What? Are you saying that if everybody has guns more people are likely to die of gun violence? Or are you saying the opposite?

[JuniorModder]

@ForeverNight: Less people are going to die if everyone has guns.

 

I'll repeat what I said:

 

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

 

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

 

This is also another difference between European and American thinking about guns.

 

JuniorModder

[ForeverNight]

Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

 

Everyone has guns.

No one has guns.

 

The answer is a.

 

That threw me off, maybe go back and ninja-edit it?

 

@Your thought: I'm in almost total agreement with that.

[Darth Avlectus]

I'll let moderators do their job but maybe suggest another thread be opened on this off-topic but gun related discussion. This thread is about european laws (though maybe not without an implicit scoff, to and fro, Americans and Euros) and someone violating a law with a lack of common sense. Unless this is all part of the same discussion?

 

Whose to say the high society we appreciate today with no (apparent) practical need for firearms will last forever? It won't. Societies and all things eventually crumble, wither, or in some way cease over time. It may be seconds long or it may span millenia.

 

No guns means no gun violence, true. Once guns have been introduced into the equation, however, you'll never get rid of them. I am fairly certain if we got rid of all guns and all plans for them--one day another person would rediscover and reinvent them even given no evidence physically or historically.

 

At some point arms are involved with preserving and protecting society. We live in an age where threats are minor and docile. But that could all change. Hence my preference for preparedness. I do not share blind trust in government, so I am that of the self reliant, self preserving mind and someone other than military, law enforcement, or government has to keep up on it.

 

So you end up getting potentially killed regardless of whether gun control is strict or not. Note that as much as there is a 'chance' of a school shooting, there is a similar 'chance' of you or your family getting into mortal danger. Also note that when you are on the receiving end of a school shooting, you are in mortal danger yourself, and to protect yourself, you will need guns - in school. This will turn the school shooting into a two-way gang war, which will potentially put at risk dozens of other students. For their safety, they will require guns as well. This turns the scenario into an anarchist free-for-all war.

 

Hint: Somalia has very lax gun laws.

 

Ah Sabre, how did I know you'd say something like this?

 

I won't say the likelihoods are uniformly true all across the board and vanir is right: it really comes down to cultural differences and personal preference.