Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

[mimartin]

Back on topic please.

 

Also please leave the moderating to those of us trained in such humble arts.

 

There are already threads on gun control, but per forum rules do not resurrect unless you have something to actually contribute to the discussion.

[Ping]

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

 

I'm a realist, and that seems like the most practical and best way to go. Not all gun violence will be stopped, but crime rates should go down. I'd love it if guns were legal and people can use them correctly, but, since people can't (school shootings and some murders are evidence of this), then the most practical way to go is to get rid of firearms. I may have read a bit too much of Machiavelli's Prince, but hey, what works, works.

[Q]

And "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[jonathan7]

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

 

I'll repeat what I said:

 

 

 

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

 

JuniorModder

 

Yeah which entirely ignores the statistics I posted earlier which prove quite the opposite; that a ban on guns reduces the number of fatalities; America has the highest murder rate of any MEDC.

 

Now I really don't care if America wants guns or not, that's your call. However don't ignore things and post things which are false - A statistical fact, I posted earlier in this thread that the more widespread gun ownership is, the more people die from gun related injuries. Furthermore I really fail to see how anything else would be the "logical" conclusion of this!

 

Guns don't kill people, rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2!

[mimartin]

Strange, is post 51 showing up for anyone else, or does this color make it harder to read?

Hey--you know how it can be with things disappearing in Area 51. --Jae

 

Back on topic or suffer the consequences.

 

You too J7, don't make me call Lynk or Jeff.

 

Who ya gonna call??? I shall refrain from posting in the rest of the thread -- j7

[Sabretooth]

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.

What is this supposed to mean? You say yourself that more people will die if everyone has guns. That's my side of the argument.

 

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

To prevent that, we implement a little something called gun control.

 

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."

What if the criminal decides to shoot someone in their sleep, when they can't heroically defend themselves with a gun? Or maybe they'll pick on the handicapped, the ones with poor aim, or on children. Would you rather that we give our children guns in the interest of personal security?

[El Sitherino]

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

So when the enforcers show up they'll just have to shoot everyone in the school, good idea.

Learning self-defense would seem like a more sensible option.

 

As for criminals thinking twice about shooting, wrong, as criminals tend to live by a do or die ideal. Not to mention they'll have less hesitation in killing someone than the average citizen. Nearly 68% of all US Military serving in Vietnam shot high of their target, not including the additional 14% who didn't fire their weapon at all. Clearly even trained killers aren't too willing to outright shoot a lifethreatening target.

[JuniorModder]

I meant that more people will die if b was the scenario.

 

But anyways, I still don't think that this dude should go to jail. I mean, he told the police didn't he? There are a lot worse things he could have done with the gun. I mean I didn't even know that turning in a gun so that no one else will get hurt was illegal either.

 

JuniorModder

[jonathan7]

I meant that more people will die if b was the scenario.

 

But anyways, I still don't think that this dude should go to jail. I mean, he told the police didn't he? There are a lot worse things he could have done with the gun. I mean I didn't even know that turning in a gun so that no one else will get hurt was illegal either.

 

JuniorModder

 

I would very much doubt in the U.S. it is illegal to hand them in; guns are however far more frequent there

[JuniorModder]

I would very much doubt in the U.S. it is illegal to hand them in; guns are however far more frequent there

 

 

 

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

 

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

 

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

 

Then am I missing something? Why was he arrested then?

 

JuniorModder

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

And "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

There are a lot of things that couldn't have been predicted 200 years ago. Like automatic weapons that can fit in your pocket and that are more accurate than rifles from 200 years ago.

[El Sitherino]

Guns aren't the only arms. In fact it's illegal in 3 states to purchase, own, or "operate" nunchaku.

 

Where's the NNA for my nunchaku rights? To be honest we don't need guns for anything other than hunting. Want a gun otherwise, join the military or police (hence the well regulated militia part). If you're afraid the military is going to come into your house and take it over, then you should probably learn how to disarm.

[jonathan7]

Then am I missing something? Why was he arrested then?

 

JuniorModder

 

It is against UK law, which is where this happened.

[mimartin]

It is against UK law, which is where this happened.

Carry an illegal weapon and shells unannounced into an American police station and see what happens. I have no doubt that you would not get 5 years, but I have even less doubt that you will have wished you used some common sense before doing something so stupid.

[HK-42]

Wait he got all the way to the chief's office? Do they not stick him through a metal detector first? But yeah, he deserves no more than a small investigation of the gun to make sure he wasnt lying then be let off.

[Q]

There are a lot of things that couldn't have been predicted 200 years ago. Like automatic weapons that can fit in your pocket and that are more accurate than rifles from 200 years ago.

And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.

 

As to the accuracy statement; well, inherent accuracy is directly proportional to barrel length, rifling twist rate and projectile weight, now as it was back then, so I'm rather skeptical of that statement, as the laws of physics do not change. In the end, any projectile weapon is only as accurate as its wielder anyway.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.

 

As to the accuracy statement; well, inherent accuracy is directly proportional to barrel length, rifling twist rate and projectile weight, now as it was back then, so I'm rather skeptical of that statement, as the laws of physics do not change. In the end, any projectile weapon is only as accurate as its wielder anyway.

 

I believe you forgot projectile shape, speed, and material, as well as the fact that musket barrels weren't rifled. Plus, when you can fire 50 rounds in the time it takes another weapon to fire one, your chances of hitting your target go up quite a bit.

[El Sitherino]

And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.

 

Not entirely true. First we must face the fact that other than quality of material there wasn't any real distinct difference in the weapons, after that it was merely a matter of what style of weapon. Today we've finely tuned firearms, such as the rifle. There are automatic rifles and bolt-action, these have increased the range of a shot 4x over that 200 years ago, as well as the number of shots per minute even more so than distance.

 

Second you have to recognize that 200 years ago the average citizen was fully capable of utilizing a firearm properly and people were taught to use them with reasonable efficiency. They were required commonly for defense of animal attack as well as hunting. During the time there was also a very definite fear of home invasion after foreign invasion.

We have since formed a well regulated national army as well as National Guard to defend our homeland and established ourselves as a top-notch military force. The defense used by the NRA of the second ammendment is obsolete and doesn't really have much of a standing in the present day. We also have other means to defend ourselves without presenting more danger to the situation; security systems, self-defense courses, etc.

 

A quick review over gun crime and crime prevention will show that the possession of a firearm does nothing to actually prevent a crime and often presents only more of a threat. Sure there are instances where a person is shot and a situation is ended, however in these incidents it's an element of surprise and the gun could easily be replaced with a knife or bat.

 

Now, I'm not against the right of citizens to own guns, but I do think it's pointless for anyone other than active military to possess an automatic weapon. The more we work to prevent them from flowing around the market, the more we'll remove them from the illegal trade. When guns are confiscated they need to be destroyed.

[Darth Avlectus]

Guns don't kill people, rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2!

 

This has been said about the rapper culture for years in America. Interesting.

 

@ below: Good point. Same goes with even a sword or a guan'dao. Where an attacker is out of range of melee weapons but well within good accuracy range, you try to make a move and they'll just shoot. If he's a scrapper too, you are in for a nasty fight at least. Most average people don't know enough martial arts to effectively disarm and fight off an armed criminal.

 

Also, greater numbers: if there are two or more and not clustered together which they rarely are. You might KO/whack one guy but the other turns and shoots or beats you down while you're preoccupied. You're no match for the gun out of range, especially if you can't see it. You might be able to fight it out if he is unarmed, and this is a big IF.

 

Secrecy/element of surprise only works for the stealth. Out in the open, this dies quickly for most.

[Web Rider]

A quick review over gun crime and crime prevention will show that the possession of a firearm does nothing to actually prevent a crime and often presents only more of a threat. Sure there are instances where a person is shot and a situation is ended, however in these incidents it's an element of surprise and the gun could easily be replaced with a knife or bat.

 

While I would tend to agree, you can produce some evidence to support this yes? Though I disagree with your point about a knife or a bat. For a bat or a knife to work, you have to be within arms reach of the guy. Say, 3-4 feet, less to really get use out of knife-force. With a gun however, you could be down the hallway, or heck, on the other side of a door. With a bat or a knife, you have to risk a physical confrontation with the attacker, which means if the person can overpower you, or you stab/hit them in a less-than-knocking-out or killing manner, you're gonna be SOL.

 

Beyond that, there are as well, far too many lawyers who would run a person through the wringer over injuring a person breaking into their home. As the pirates used to say "Dead men tell no tales." And there are actual cases with burglars breaking into a home, being injured or injuring themselves, and winning against the homeowner. I've yet to see a dead robber win a case much less sue.

[Jae Onasi]

@ below: Good point. Same goes with even a sword or a guan'dao.

 

How many average citizens have either one of those weapons?

 

And yes, I do have a sword, a foil, and a rapier, but I'm not exactly an average person.

[El Sitherino]

While I would tend to agree, you can produce some evidence to support this yes?

To be honest, I can't think of any particular instances off the top of my head that can be linked to online, however I know of several anecdotal incidents. As well, while I do dislike police for the most part, I have frequently spoken to detectives. Many of which will tell you the chances of the average citizen getting off a reasonable shot.

 

Though I disagree with your point about a knife or a bat. For a bat or a knife to work, you have to be within arms reach of the guy. Say, 3-4 feet, less to really get use out of knife-force. With a gun however, you could be down the hallway, or heck, on the other side of a door.

And how many first time people shooters have the skill or nerve to shoot from down a hallway?

 

With a bat or a knife, you have to risk a physical confrontation with the attacker, which means if the person can overpower you, or you stab/hit them in a less-than-knocking-out or killing manner, you're gonna be SOL.

Which is where the whole surprise attack part comes in to play. Not saying it's a matter of every time, but then neither is reacting to gun violence with more gun violence.

 

Beyond that, there are as well, far too many lawyers who would run a person through the wringer over injuring a person breaking into their home. As the pirates used to say "Dead men tell no tales." And there are actual cases with burglars breaking into a home, being injured or injuring themselves, and winning against the homeowner. I've yet to see a dead robber win a case much less sue.

True, but I don't believe that was the argument here. Besides, there are few people who receive articles written about them that shoot to kill and are not former/current military or police.

 

 

Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.

[Tommycat]

How many average citizens have either one of those weapons?

 

And yes, I do have a sword, a foil, and a rapier, but I'm not exactly an average person.

 

I have quite a collection of edged weapons. Some of which are not exactly inexpensive. I even have my great great grandfather's civil war sword. But like you, I could HARDLY be classified as the average person(I also happen to have a couple of .50 cal rifles). BUT the average person IS likely to have a farther reaching cutting weapon. I mean a machette is cheap, durable and easy to get. As is a fire axe.

 

Granted none match the stopping power or range of a shotgun(personal preference for home defense), which requires less skill to use than any edged weapon for effective defense(WAAAAAAY better than a 50 cal... cheaper too haha).

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

no gun will stand against my hanzo steel *caresses katana*

[Tommycat]

no gun will stand against my hanzo steel *caresses katana*

 

Better be pretty quick with that blade to stop 00 buck shot.