An SAS Soldier who kept a pistol from Falklands War as a trophy gets 15 months in prison - Polidicks

[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;50145732]Yeah but you have to understand we don't have the same gun culture that the US has. It might seem absurd to you but makes sense to me and our laws.[/QUOTE] Yeah I understand that though, but you guys surely see that this guy was in the S.A.S right? This guy knew how to use and treat firearms with respect. It isn't some tweaker with a strap. I am not saying he is above the law, but surely he is not a threat to public safety. Maybe they should've just taken the guns/deactivated them and throw away the ammunition and slap a fine. 15 months is fucking harsh.

[QUOTE=Govna;50145710]Generalizing every unique individual's case and its respective circumstances with this mentality is what's dumb. We [i]can[/i] actually pick and choose who the law applies to based on their specific situation, the details of their case, etc. Justice should not be blind; that's what allows absurdities like this to occur in the first place when they shouldn't.[/QUOTE] We don't pick and choose who the law applies to. That creates one rule for some and another for others, that isn't exactly fair. We do however decide how to punish someone who breaks that law based on their circumstances. He got 15 months for this, likely due to the fact having a live firearm around without it being registered is pretty negligent. If there were indications he was intending to use it or sell it in ways not permitted he would have gotten more time easily.

[QUOTE=Govna;50145710]Generalizing every unique individual's case and its respective circumstances with this mentality is what's dumb. We [i]can[/i] actually pick and choose who the law applies to based on their specific situation, the details of their case, etc. Justice should not be blind; that's what allows absurdities like this to occur in the first place when they shouldn't.[/QUOTE] People like hexpunK forget that the law is not a merciless wordless monster. We use the law as guidelines. How many of you forget about shit like lawyers? People getting cases reduced from "voluntary" to "involuntary", all kinds of shit. He is not above the law, but the law is a tool and should be used accordingly. Give him a fine, perhaps take the guns away if you must, but I don't think over a year of prison service is right nor moral.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145737]Yeah I understand that though, but you guys surely see that this guy was in the S.A.S right? This guy knew how to use and treat firearms with respect. It isn't some tweaker with a strap. I am not saying he is above the law, but surely he is not a threat to public safety. Maybe they should've just taken the guns/deactivated them and throw away the ammunition and slap a fine. 15 months is fucking harsh.[/QUOTE] Being in the SAS doesn't mean shit. It doesn't prevent you from coming home and returning to your comparatively boring life and struggling to settle down again. It doesn't prevent you from suffering hardship and resorting to extreme measures. That is likely the largest reason he was given 15 months, having ammo compatible with the firearm makes it a potential threat. Especially one that nobody knew was even there.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50145739]We don't pick and choose who the law applies to. That creates one rule for some and another for others, that isn't exactly fair. We do however decide how to punish someone who breaks that law based on their circumstances. He got 15 months for this, likely due to the fact having a live firearm around without it being registered is pretty negligent. If there were indications he was intending to use it or sell it in ways not permitted he would have gotten more time easily.[/QUOTE] Well fuck it, you replied to his comment which is basically the same as mine. :speechless:

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50145523]The fact that English law forced this situation on this man is atrocious. This is the kind of thing that gun control ends up doing, not stopping real criminals.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure that the fact he had loads of guns (half a dozen separate firearms) and ammo as well makes this more nuanced than what you're trying to portray here. remember he had expanding rounds as well, which i'm pretty sure are not things that soldiers should be using if he had a single gun and no ammo, then he'd would have been let off (like in other similar cases). the fact he had a small arsenal is why he went to prison

[QUOTE=doommarine23;50145748]People like hexpunK forget that the law is not a merciless wordless monster.[/QUOTE] I didn't forget shit though. As explained in the post above you, the law applies to everyone. The way we deal with infractions of that law however? They can be circumstantial. [editline]17th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=doommarine23;50145751]Well fuck it, you replied to his comment which is basically the same as mine. :speechless:[/QUOTE] Eyyyy lad.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50145750]Being in the SAS doesn't mean shit. It doesn't prevent you from coming home and returning to your comparatively boring life and struggling to settle down again. It doesn't prevent you from suffering hardship and resorting to extreme measures. That is likely the largest reason he was given 15 months, having ammo compatible with the firearm makes it a potential threat. Especially one that nobody knew was even there.[/QUOTE] Its not about him being above the law, its about seeing the circumstances he is in. Yet again, there is a reason why we have all kinds of different cases of violation, why we have court hearings, why we have lawyers, why we have judges, why we have a slow moving system (at least in the US, I assume UK is the same) I assume he is a stable man as the article made no mention of it. He fucked up and yes the law needs to be enacted, but he is not a threat at least according to the info you and I both share. He is just someone who made a mistake, but a mistake that hurt no one at this current time, and of which he had no malicious intent. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;50145757]I didn't forget shit though. As explained in the post above you, the law applies to everyone. The way we deal with infractions of that law however? They can be circumstantial. [editline]17th April 2016[/editline] Eyyyy lad.[/QUOTE] Eyyy lad.:smug:

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50145750]Being in the SAS doesn't mean shit. It doesn't prevent you from coming home and returning to your comparatively boring life and struggling to settle down again. It doesn't prevent you from suffering hardship and resorting to extreme measures. That is likely the largest reason he was given 15 months, having ammo compatible with the firearm makes it a potential threat. Especially one that nobody knew was even there.[/QUOTE] I guess that means 80,000,000 Americans are a potential threat to everyone around them for having a firearm in the house. Being in the SAS actually does mean shit, because it shows he has proven how to be responsible around firearms. 15 months is way too much. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145755]i'm pretty sure that the fact he had loads of guns (half a dozen separate firearms) and ammo as well makes this more nuanced than what you're trying to portray here. remember he had expanding rounds as well, which i'm pretty sure are not things that soldiers should be using if he had a single gun and no ammo, then he'd would have been let off (like in other similar cases). the fact he had a small arsenal is why he went to prison[/QUOTE] "A small arsenal" I don't think a few pistols and hundred rounds of ammo is an arsenal, not by any means. Expanding rounds, at least in the US, are used by civilians who are concealed carrying.

Would've been okay with it but he had the ammo so he was asking for it really. Working guns and ammunition have no part being here without a licence. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;50145523]The fact that English law forced this situation on this man is atrocious. This is the kind of thing that gun control ends up doing, not stopping real criminals.[/QUOTE] This is one of many things that contributes to our considerably lower murder rate.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50145778]Would've been okay with it but he had the ammo so he was asking for it really. Working guns and ammunition have no part being here without a licence. This is one of many things that contributes to our considerably lower murder rate.[/QUOTE] Do you really think this guy was a threat to public safety just by having a pistol with ammunition?

[QUOTE=Morgen;50145778]Would've been okay with it but he had the ammo so he was asking for it really. Working guns and ammunition have no part being here without a licence. This is one of many things that contributes to our considerably lower murder rate.[/QUOTE] Your murder rate has always been lower, and was lower before the 1997 laws.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50145572]North Ireland is the only place you can own a pistol in the UK, everywhere else it is next to impossible. So impossible, in fact, that the English Olympic pistol team has to practise in France. The only exception is antiques.[/QUOTE] You can get rifles and pistol carbines in 9mm on a regular firearms license. [url]http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/9mm-Lever-Release-Gun[/url] Also 177 rounds is a pittance of ammo.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145737]Yeah I understand that though, but you guys surely see that this guy was in the S.A.S right? This guy knew how to use and treat firearms with respect. It isn't some tweaker with a strap. I am not saying he is above the law, but surely he is not a threat to public safety. Maybe they should've just taken the guns/deactivated them and throw away the ammunition and slap a fine. 15 months is fucking harsh.[/QUOTE] would we see this much outrage if this was a doctor with a supply of illegal drugs

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145770]"A small arsenal" I don't think a few pistols and hundred rounds of ammo is an arsenal, not by any means. Expanding rounds, at least in the US, are used by civilians who are concealed carrying.[/QUOTE] uh yes he did own a considerable number. he had not only 180 rounds of ammo, but half a dozen guns. why did he need all of those bullets? expanding rounds are banned in warfare. the fact that a soldier had a bunch of them lying around really begs some questions

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145770]I guess that means 80,000,000 Americans are a potential threat to everyone around them for having a firearm in the house. Being in the SAS actually does mean shit, because it shows he has proven how to be responsible around firearms. 15 months is way too much.[/QUOTE] It uhh...doesn't really mean much. Being sane and stable at one point in your life doesn't mean you are sane or stable at another given point. I'm not claiming he was actually a murderer waiting to happen. But when looking at the case, a dude having an unregistered firearm, with ammo for said firearm, just around his house is considerable as a threat. Should he snap at a later date, or should someone manage to steal it from him, it's a problem. And being unregistered we'd have no method of actually finding out where the fuck it ends up if it got stolen anyway, kinda not useful if it's got some sentimental value really. You've got to register or deactivate shit here, that's the law. For someone apparently well versed in firearms, I'd hope they would know that keeping an unregistered active firearm around is going to land them in some shit.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50145801]would we see this much outrage if this was a doctor with a supply of illegal drugs[/QUOTE] Depends on the reason he had the illegal drugs. Is he selling/distributing/using them? No problem. Is the SAS guy Selling/Distributing/using the gun? No? No problem. EDIT: Sidenote, imo all drugs should be completely legal, same with guns. Use both of them responsibly and I have no problem with you owning anything like that.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145784]Do you really think this guy was a threat to public safety just by having a pistol with ammunition?[/QUOTE] Again, gun culture is [I]completely[/I] different here.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145808]uh yes he did own a considerable number. he had not only 180 rounds of ammo, but half a dozen guns. why did he need all of those bullets? expanding rounds are banned in warfare. the fact that a soldier had a bunch of them lying around really begs some questions[/QUOTE] I know it is a different scenario, but I have about half a dozen guns as well with around 3000 rounds of ammo per gun. Why? Because when I go to the range I am not just going to shoot one round, I am going to shoot 400-500. Now in this case I guess it is different as the gun is illegal so he couldn't really go to a range and use the firearm. I guarantee when he brought the gun back to England he also brought the ammunition he found with the firearms.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;50145730]Honestly, this is why I'm not gonna bother posting a big counter-argument. What kind of bullshit is this? Yeah, its illegal, like many things, but illegal does not automatically mean bad, and it does not mean automatically a bad person. Really? He's a shitbag? You know this for a fact, because he wanted to keep a gun in a war he fought in and had friends die in? He could be a fucking saint and the only reason your ignorant ass wants to peg him as a shitbag, is because of a singular isolated thing you know about his entire existence that spans far beyond yours and mine. [I]After leaving the elite regiment he worked abroad for non-government organisations in Iraq and Afghanistan and now lives in Thailand. [/I] I hate to use you as an example but your post really just sums up the shitty attitude in this thread. He did something stupid, he did something illegal in his country, and he isn't above the law and I'm not gonna argue it. But the judgmental attitude is appalling.[/QUOTE] I don't give a fuck if he was the reincarnation of Smedley Butler, Daniel Inouye and Audie Murphy rolled into one. The regulations regarding captured enemy weapons are clear. They are to be destroyed. NOT taken home as illicit trophies. If he really wanted to keep it, he should have gone through his chain of command. I don't understand what's so goddamn hard about this.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145808]uh yes he did own a considerable number. he had not only 180 rounds of ammo, but half a dozen guns. why did he need all of those bullets? expanding rounds are banned in warfare. the fact that a soldier had a bunch of them lying around really begs some questions[/QUOTE] Holy shit [I]six guns[/I]? It's a fucking pittance. Not only that but you guys do realize when he got the pistol it was legal in the United Kingdom? The handgun ban only came in 1997 and you had no option to save any handgun beyond one extremely retarded conversion.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50145790]Your murder rate has always been lower, and was lower before the 1997 laws.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384"]What?[/URL] Looks like it has dropped fairly notably since the 90s. [QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145784]Do you really think this guy was a threat to public safety just by having a pistol with ammunition?[/QUOTE] It's possible. The police found it, why couldn't burglars? Maybe the guy could of had a mental breakdown or whatever. If he really wanted to keep it as a war trophy he had plenty of time to dispose of the ammunition.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145829]I know it is a different scenario, but I have about half a dozen guns as well with around 3000 rounds of ammo per gun. Why? Because when I go to the range I am not just going to shoot one round, I am going to shoot 400-500. Now in this case I guess it is different as the gun is illegal so he couldn't really go to a range and use the firearm. I guarantee when he brought the gun back to England he also brought the ammunition he found with the firearms.[/QUOTE] but this is britain not america it really looks dodgy that a soldier takes back a gun and 180 rounds of ammo illegally (while being fully aware of this) and maintains a small arsenal of it the reason that the police found out in the first place is because some burglars went into his house. does it not strike you as very irresponsible that this man had illegal firearms and munitions hidden in his home that could have been stolen and misused (when very obviously he was not shooting with them?) [quote]Not only that but you guys do realize when he got the pistol it was legal in the United Kingdom? The handgun ban only came in 1997 and you had no option to save any handgun beyond one extremely retarded conversion.[/QUOTE] uh he stole it as a war trophy i'm pretty sure that's illegal

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50145831]I don't give a fuck if he was the reincarnation of Smedley Butler, Daniel Inouye and Audie Murphy rolled into one. The regulations regarding captured enemy weapons are clear. They are to be destroyed. NOT taken home as illicit trophies. If he really wanted to keep it, he should have gone through his chain of command. I don't understand what's so goddamn hard about this.[/QUOTE] Yeah fuck him for wanting to bring a souvenir home, fucking criminal piece of shit. Rules are rules! Imo, I wish they would change the rules on captured enemy weapons, you should be able to bring one or two home if you so wish. It pains my heart when I see captured STG-44s in Syria or wherever get fucking melted down because "RULES ARE RULES!"

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145784]Do you really think this guy was a threat to public safety just by having a pistol with ammunition?[/QUOTE] British law does Don't like the law? Do what you can to change it. Don't pressure the government into bending it in the court of public opinion and undermine the entire system

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50145685]If the British do it anything like us Americans, captured weapons are supposed to be destroyed on the spot, not kept as souvenirs. This guy's a shitbag. If he wanted something to remember his dead comrades by, he could have easily commissioned a plaque or something. This wasn't World War Two, when everyone and their Grandmother was coming home with captured Lugers and MP-40s. Lock his ass up.[/QUOTE] As for you, you don't know anything; You're allowed Throphy guns provided your Commanding officer signs off on the paperwork; In fact an Ex-CIA officer auctioned off Saddam's personal rifle last year.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50145836][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384"]What?[/URL] Looks like it has dropped fairly notably since the 90s. It's possible. The police found it, why couldn't burglars? Maybe the guy could of had a mental breakdown or whatever. If he really wanted to keep it as a war trophy he had plenty of time to dispose of the ammunition.[/QUOTE] My next door neighbor has a car with a V8 engine, it is a threat to public safety because he COULD go much more faster than other cars on the highway and crash and kill himself and another driver. My next door neighbor also has pressure cooker, he COULD go crazy and blow up a building.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145808]uh yes he did own a considerable number. he had not only 180 rounds of ammo, but half a dozen guns. why did he need all of those bullets? expanding rounds are banned in warfare. the fact that a soldier had a bunch of them lying around really begs some questions[/QUOTE] 177 rounds of ammo is about four small boxes. You can burn it off in less than an hour of range-time. A large amount would be around 10,000 rounds. That being said, I wouldn't bat an eye at a number like that anyway. Some people go to the range a lot.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50145836][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384"]What?[/URL] Looks like it has dropped fairly notably since the 90s.[/QUOTE] [img]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/61680000/gif/_61680099_homicides624x419.gif[/img] it looks like it rose sharply then dropped to normal levels

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145859]My next door neighbor has a car with a V8 engine, it is a threat to public safety because he COULD go much more faster than other cars on the highway and crash and kill himself and another driver. My next door neighbor also has pressure cooker, he COULD go crazy and blow up a building.[/QUOTE] Both of those are legal and aren't designed to kill. Not even remotely the same.