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

[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] You cannot apply American gun logic and law to the UK period. Anyway The gun was not registered The gun was live The gun had a bunch of ammunition The ammunition is also illegal Being SAS does not stop you from being a fallible human being capable of just snapping one day and shooting someone and don't tell me he won't because no one knows the guy as he has not gone through whatever analysis process since leaving the millitary. If he went through the legal process of declaring the ownership of the pistol through the correct channels then the guy might have been cleared to own it legally but in actuality it would have been deactivated and proofed. Instead he did not declare the ownership of a firearm, he kept illegal ammunition for it and got caught. The argument here is not wither he's guilty or not because he is, it's wither 15 months is too long. IMO it is. But then at what point do you cut it off? SAS gets leeway for owning illegal firearms, what about regular soldiers? if you give them a pass then what about armed police? what about farmers, pest controllers, regular police? Would a known gang member get 15 months while an upstanding banker gets only 10?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50145858]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] Which, in this case, didn't happen. He was not authorized to have that weapon. The law is the law. Don't like the law? Stop whining, get off your ass and do something about it.

[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] is this really what it's come to really

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50145864]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] yes but we're talking about a country where only the military tends to have ammo in those numbers like practically the only people i can think of who use firearms in any significant capacity amongst civilians are those armed with shotguns who go out shooting animals

[QUOTE=Morgen;50145875]Both of those are legal and aren't designed to kill. Not even remotely the same.[/QUOTE] If someone goes crazy, and they don't have a gun, they can use other means to kill. Things can be re-purposed.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145884]If someone goes crazy, and they don't have a gun, they can use other means to kill. Things can be re-purposed.[/QUOTE] this is more of an argument for gun control than otherwise

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;50145877]You cannot apply American gun logic and law to the UK period. Anyway The gun was not registered The gun was live The gun had a bunch of ammunition The ammunition is also illegal Being SAS does not stop you from being a fallible human being capable of just snapping one day and shooting someone and don't tell me he won't because no one knows the guy as he has not gone through the process since leaving the millitary. If he went through the legal process of declaring the ownership of the pistol through the correct channels then the guy might have been cleared to own it legally but in actuality it would have been deactivated and proofed. Instead he did not delcare the ownership of a firearm, he kept illegal ammunition for it and got caught. The argument here is not wither he's guilty or not because he is, it's wither 15 months is too long. IMO it is. But then at what point do you cut it off? SAS gets leeway for owning illegal firearms, what about regular soldiers? if you give them a pass then what about armed police? what about farmers, pest controllers, regular police? Would a known gang member get 15 months while an upstanding banker gets only 10?[/QUOTE] I agree he did break the law and should be punished, we can agree on that, but yes, why wouldn't the gang member get 15 months and the banker gets 10? A gang member is a hell of a lot more likely to actually use that gun for illegal purposes than some rich banker who probably has it for some other reason.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145882]yes but we're talking about a country where only the military tends to have ammo in those numbers[/QUOTE] You guys have rifle and pistol clubs over there, right? How many rounds does the average member burn through on a typical range-day? How many over the course of their time with the club? You might not need a lot of ammo when it comes time to use a weapon in deadly earnest, but it takes months and thousands of rounds of ammo to reach any kind of proficiency.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50145879]Which, in this case, didn't happen. He was not authorized to have that weapon. The law is the law. Don't like the law? Stop whining, get off your ass and do something about it.[/QUOTE] Handguns were still legal in the United Kingdom when he brought it back.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50145901]Handguns were still legal in the United Kingdom when he brought it back.[/QUOTE] He wasn't authorized to bring it back in the first place though. If he were, it ought to have been grandfathered in.

At this point I don't think it is possible for most Americans and Brits to reach a consensus when it comes to guns, we have completely different perspective when it comes to firearms.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145884]If someone goes crazy, and they don't have a gun, they can use other means to kill. Things can be re-purposed.[/QUOTE] Yes they can use other things and they do but it requires a lot more effort and will more often than not have a much lower impact than what he could of done with a gun. Just because I have the ability to use some household item as a weapon that wasn't designed to be used as such doesn't mean all weapons should be legal does it?

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145893]I agree he did break the law and should be punished, we can agree on that, but yes, why wouldn't the gang member get 15 months and the banker gets 10? A gang member is a hell of a lot more likely to actually use that gun for illegal purposes than some rich banker who probably has it for some other reason.[/QUOTE] Oh so if said banker took that gun and maybe shot up a family of 4, he'd get only 10 years as opposed to the gang member who would get 15.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50145914]Yes they can use other things and they do but it requires a lot more effort and will more often than not have a much lower impact than what he could of done with a gun. Just because I have the ability to use some household item as a weapon that wasn't designed to be used as such doesn't mean all weapons should be legal does it?[/QUOTE] I would argue that a bomb or an airplane will kill a lot more people than a gun. Takes longer to prepare, but a lot more people will die. Anyways it is obvious we disagree and probably wont come to a consensus, lets leave it as is. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=KennyAwsum;50145921]Oh so if said banker took that gun and maybe shot up a family of 4, he'd get only 10 years as opposed to the gang member who would get life.[/QUOTE] Both should get life if they actually use the weapon illegally and kill someone. I am talking about just having one in your possession.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145912]At this point I don't think it is possible for most Americans and Brits to reach a consensus when it comes to guns, we have completely different perspective when it comes to firearms.[/QUOTE] I agree, it's just two different worlds with different legislation and values on gun culture.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50145900]You guys have rifle and pistol clubs over there, right? How many rounds does the average member burn through on a typical range-day? How many over the course of their time with the club? You might not need a lot of ammo when it comes time to use a weapon in deadly earnest, but it takes months and thousands of rounds of ammo to reach any kind of proficiency.[/QUOTE] nowhere on the scale that america does you have to remember this is a country where very few people own guns, and even fewer use them on a regular basis. almost nobody even has access to the kind of guns that most americans can get like i've literally only seen guns (with the exception of shotguns) held by soldiers or in muesuems

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145922]I would argue that a bomb or an airplane will kill a lot more people than a gun. Takes longer to prepare, but a lot more people will die. Anyways it is obvious we disagree and probably wont come to a consensus, lets leave it as is. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] Both should get life if they actually use the weapon illegally and kill someone. I am talking about just having one in your possession.[/QUOTE] Yeah and how many mentally ill people are going to be able to build a big enough bomb that can get past airport security out of legal household items? Hey security dude do you mind if I take my pressure cooker on board, no no you don't have to look inside it I promise you it's all good man.

It is also important to remember that both Australia and the U.K are Islands. So it is a hell of a lot harder to get even illegal firearms in due to both being surrounded completely by water. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;50145948]Yeah and how many mentally ill people are going to be able to build a big enough bomb that can get past airport security out of legal household items? Hey security dude do you mind if I take my pressure cooker on board, no no you don't have to look inside it I promise you it's all good man.[/QUOTE] Who said you had to put the bomb on an airplane? I believe you misread. EDIT: Also [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/[/url] I would argue that the Oklahoma city bomber was mentally ill, yet he managed to kill hundreds.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50145910]He wasn't authorized to bring it back in the first place though. If he were, it ought to have been grandfathered in.[/QUOTE] See this is why everyone else in the world hates Americans, you are arrogant in your ignorance you think America's system applies to the entire world. There was no grandfather clause in the United Kingdom in 1997; even if you had an handgun license that was still valid through 1998 it was illegal for you to keep an handgun after December 1997.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50145962]See this is why everyone else in the world hates Americans, you are arrogant in your ignorance you think America's system applies to the entire world. There was no grandfather clause in the United Kingdom in 1997; even if you had an handgun license that was still valid through 1998 it was illegal for you to keep an handgun after December 1997.[/QUOTE] Yeah fuck all Americans because this one guy thought grandfathering was allowed in the UK. Get off your high horse, bro.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145893]I agree he did break the law and should be punished, we can agree on that, but yes, why wouldn't the gang member get 15 months and the banker gets 10? A gang member is a hell of a lot more likely to actually use that gun for illegal purposes than some rich banker who probably has it for some other reason.[/QUOTE] what if that gang member only kept it for self defence of his family after escape his gang life and making amends and the banker kept it to shot his boss if the stock market fell through? This right here is the problem, you can't just assume or guess about anyone in the face of the facts. Would the gang member get a gun legally in the first place? Likely no Would the banker get a gun legally in the first place? Possibly But in this scenario neither had the right to own the gun, both should be treated the same. So again if you give the Ex SAS soldier leeway, where do you draw the line?

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;50145969]what if that gang member only kept it for self defence of his family after escape his gang life and making amends and the banker kept it to shot his boss if the stock market fell through? This right here is the problem, you can't just assume or guess about anyone in the face of the facts. Would the gang member get a gun legally in the first place? Likely no Would the banker get a gun legally in the first place? Possibly But in this scenario neither had the right to own the gun, both should be treated the same. So again if you give the Ex SAS soldier leeway, where do you draw the line?[/QUOTE] Thankfully in most countries the courts will look at each case and the circumstances surrounding it. We draw the line in every court case, each one should be treated carefully. Again, if the gang member was really escaping gang life and wanted it for protection against retaliation, good for him. If the banker kept it to shoot his boss, that's bad. Every case is different.

[QUOTE=simkas;50145560]He had an illegal gun so I don't see how this is wrong or anything in any way? If he actually was only keeping it in order to remember his friends, he wouldn't have kept it with 177 fucking rounds for it.[/QUOTE] Exactly. He was totally gonna go on a shooting spree with it. Seriously man...

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145980]Thankfully in most countries the courts will look at each case and the circumstances surrounding it. We draw the line in every court case, each one should be treated carefully. Again, if the gang member was really escaping gang life and wanted it for protection against retaliation, good for him. If the banker kept it to shoot his boss, that's bad. [B]Every case is different.[/B][/QUOTE] Not in the eyes of the ATF. Any form of criminal record in the United States of America is pretty much a death sentence in terms of owning weapons of any kind. You physically would not be allowed to own, purchase, or even handle firearms as it would be considered as a felon owning weapons.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50145993]Not in the eyes of the ATF. Any form of criminal record in the United States of America is pretty much a death sentence in terms of owning weapons of any kind. You physically would not be allowed to own, purchase, or even handle firearms as it would be considered as a felon owning weapons.[/QUOTE] Which is why I really don't like the ATF, they blanket everyone and refuse to give any leeway. Even to non-violent felons.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145951]It is also important to remember that both Australia and the U.K are Islands. So it is a hell of a lot harder to get even illegal firearms in due to both being surrounded completely by water. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] Who said you had to put the bomb on an airplane? I believe you misread. EDIT: Also [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/[/url] I would argue that the Oklahoma city bomber was mentally ill, yet he managed to kill hundreds.[/QUOTE] Yeah I misread or as on. One bombing 20 years ago is your reasoning that guns should be legal? Yes they could still have bombings like that here but that's not even really a noteworthy thing on the homicide rate is it? Heck when you look at other things besides homicide, the suicide rate here is half of what it is in the US. The availability of guns and lack of freely available mental health care in the US are probably big contributors to that. The UK also has the channel tunnel which allows people to take cars, trucks or whatever from the UK to France. So yes we are an island but we aren't detached from mainland Europe completely.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50145986]Exactly. He was totally gonna go on a shooting spree with it. Seriously man...[/QUOTE] Do you know the guy? do you know his reason for leaving the SAS? Do you know if he's got a job, do you know he's in a stable relationship, do you know ANYTHING about the guy and his mental stability? You know precisely the square root of fuck all about him other than he was in the SAS and you're just assuming 'dude must be alright because the SAS are cool' In fact fuck it just to prove the point [URL="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sas-man-who-killed-ex-970279"]here's a story about an Ex SAS soldier who murdered his Ex-Partner with an AK47 because she cheated on him[/URL] That AK was an Illegal, unregistered war trophy

[QUOTE=Morgen;50146000]Yeah I misread or as on. One bombing 20 years ago is your reasoning that guns should be legal? Yes they could still have bombings like that here but that's not even really a noteworthy thing on the homicide rate is it? Heck when you look at other things besides homicide, the suicide rate here is half of what it is in the US. The availability of guns and lack of freely available mental health care in the US are probably big contributors to that. The UK also has the channel tunnel which allows people to take cars, trucks or whatever from the UK to France. So yes we are an island but we aren't detached from mainland Europe completely.[/QUOTE] Your border is much more secured than ours though, America's borders are massive. Cartels are still able to get a fuck ton of contraband and ghost guns in. Banning guns doesn't stop crime (at least in the U.S, again we aren't an island nation) Paris attacks still happened, as did Brussels.

I'm still kinda stunned how people are acting like this guy is a mass murderer for having a revolver with what could be considered one and half boxes of ammo. Not to mention people flipping shit because the ammo was hollow points... Ya know something which can legally still be bought in the United Kingdom.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50146015]I'm still kinda stunned how people are acting like this guy is a mass murderer for having a revolver with what could be considered one and half boxes of ammo. Not to mention people flipping shit because the ammo was hollow points... Ya know something which can legally still be bought in the United Kingdom.[/QUOTE] I guess their culture is just different than ours.