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

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;50149925]There's the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_border"]Irish border[/URL].[/QUOTE] 300mi < 2,000mi

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50150178]well i can tell you what they were made for and i can tell you what theyre currently doing 1851 colt navy replica - target shooting (CAS) 1873 colt peacemaker replica - target shooting (CAS) 1906 sxs 12 gauge - hunting game 1915 mauser c96 - demonstrating to the imperial navy that mauser's self loading sidearm was viable 1924 remington model 10 - fbi gun, probably used during prohibition for raiding shiners 1942 mosin nagant 91/30 - russia's primary infantry rifle during ww2 1944 lee enfield no 4 mk1 - britain's primary infantry rifle during ww2 1945 mauser karabiner 98k - germany's primary infantry rifle during ww2 annnd some others i dont have them all with me but the point is i own them because the history they represent is fascinating and it's fun to take them to the range and shoot paper and junk i've never shot anyone, i don't own them for shooting people, ergo they are serving a purpose other than shooting people, so the "u can only shoot people with a gun" argument is bullshit. you have to be willfully ignorant to reach this conclusion, like to the extent of literally sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes so you can pretend nobody in the world does anything but murder people with guns[/QUOTE] what's the difference between a gun made for target shooting or hunting and one that's not?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50150207]what's the difference between a gun made for target shooting or hunting and one that's not?[/QUOTE] principally none as far as the concept of putting bullets downrange goes but there are differences in sight and stock setups, target guns can be pretty wild looking but none of mine are modern military arms are designed for lightness and maneuverability, hunting arms are heavy for stability and control, old military arms are pretty much the same as hunting weapons in that regard usually with primitive fixed sights etc. but any gun designed for one thing can be used for another so dedicated military arms can certainly be taken to the range and used to shoot paper like i do and someone who's cracked can probably grab an olympic air pistol and put fine holes in people it's an extremely small minority of people who do that however and a blanket ban on guns punishes a lot of law abiding citizens with a valid and fun hobby, not to mention the amount of historic items that get destroyed in the process e: m4a1, military version of the ar15, capable of fully automatic fire [img]http://i.imgur.com/cJ95L4e.jpg[/img] this is an ar-15 with a couple thousand dollars worth of modifications for high end target shooting, not capable of fully automatic fire [img]http://i.imgur.com/2nywmeL.jpg[/img] this is my ar-15 fitted with a golf ball launcher. without the golf ball launcher it fires the same 223/5.56 as the military model but isn't capable of automatic fire. i shoot paper with it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/opVGJDj.jpg[/t] that said the ar-15 i'd probably not lose much sleep over if it was taken, it's the historic ones i want to protect e2: here's another wild looking target rifle [img]http://www.targetshooting.ca/graphics/equip-guns/walther/Walther_KK300.JPG[/img] and here's my ww2 bringback kar98, same action as the above (though the above is chambered for a smaller round) [t]http://i.imgur.com/zPawvQb.jpg[/t] a lot of people still hunt with these kar98s since they work fine for that purpose but i don't really care for blood and i don't like killing animals so i just shoot paper with it and taking care of it is a good feeling because of the history it represents

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50149898]"Maniac" Excuse me the proper term is "Enthusiast" thank you very much.[/QUOTE] we don't want your damned guns here like literally the only people to benefit will be the arms manufacturers who will make a lot of money by convincing people they need to own guns for self defence

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50150243]we don't want your damned guns here like literally the only people to benefit will be the arms manufacturers who will make a lot of money by convincing people they need to own guns for self defence[/QUOTE] Fair enough, but we don't want your laws here. So, in all fairness, we're just pissing in the wind.

[QUOTE=AK'z;50149963][img]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg[/img] hallelujah.[/QUOTE] Well isn't that something interesting

[QUOTE=simkas;50149687]Oh yeah? And what if that highly trained soldier with 20 years of experience suddenly decides that he doesn't like how the government treats him or just feels like he wants to start doing crime? Then he becomes a serious fucking threat and he just so happens to have the guns and enough ammo to kill over a hundred people.[/QUOTE] Yes, an ex SAS totally needs a gun to do it.

Honestly the fact he's SAS shouldn't even factor into it. But then again "Man breaks law, gets arrested" isn't a sensationalist headline is it. If anything I'd say that his position should have made him more aware of firearm law in the UK as he'd be trained in their use. Just because he's served his country shouldn't mean he should be exempt from its laws.

[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 what improper gun control does Proper gun control would have given him an option allow him to own it completely legally (Not a gun registry, gun registries are stupid) [editline]17th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Fox Powers;50150614]Well isn't that something interesting[/QUOTE] Problem is most of the weapons used in crimes are stolen. Its not as simple as having proper gun control (sure as hell would help though)

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50149629]Yes let's go ahead and compare your 'successful' gun laws with America's and ignore the fact that: The UK has a population less than 20% of America's The UK shares no connected land border with any nation The UK is an isolated island state with a relatively small border which is easily monitored and policed The UK has a population of sheep that have accepted the fact that they live in a nanny state and seem to enjoy their near constant violations of privacy in the name of 'security' The UK does not have a lawless wasteland nation near enough to it that shit spills over The UK has a much less diverse population compared to America[/QUOTE] you keep saying its really shit to compare the uk and us which is fair then your points directly compare the uk and us and come to the conclusion that the uk is shit it's impossible to argue about gun shite without comparing the two

[QUOTE=viperfan7;50151316] Problem is most of the weapons used in crimes are stolen. Its not as simple as having proper gun control (sure as hell would help though)[/QUOTE] What I actually meant in there was the fact that my country was 2nd

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50150228]that said the ar-15 i'd probably not lose much sleep over if it was taken, it's the historic ones i want to protect[/QUOTE] I know I'd lose sleep if mine were taken. As a member of the National Guard, I'm required to qualify with the M16A2 once a year. The only practice we get is the 10-20 rounds needed to zero our weapons prior to qualification. If we want more practice, it's on our own dime, which is what I do. I put 300+ rounds through my AR15 yesterday, and I'm still sucking.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50152375]I know I'd lose sleep if mine were taken. As a member of the National Guard, I'm required to qualify with the M16A2 once a year. The only practice we get is the 10-20 rounds needed to zero our weapons prior to qualification. If we want more practice, it's on our own dime, which is what I do. I put 300+ rounds through my AR15 yesterday, and I'm still sucking.[/QUOTE] I'm active duty AF and minimum is 10 rounds fired at Basic, for potentially your entire career. This is also without any gear on which vastly effects your shooting as well.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50146070]Yeah but in the UK they really don't believe that you should be able to harm someone else in the name of self defense, absurd in my opinion, but that's what they usually think. [/QUOTE] what is this fucking garbage where do people get this idea that because we actually judge self-defence cases for validity rather than going 'lol he entered your house free game', that self-defence is illegal or disliked here [B][I]"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."[/I][/B] this is the law this means you can defend your property or yourself, and you won't be charged for it provided you use [I]reasonable force[/I] the case that everyone brings up was a case where a guy with a [I]shotgun[/I] shot a burglar [I]in the back when he was running[/I]. That is not self-defence, that is murder.

[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] He should have known UK gun laws, even if you get caught with 1 round of ammunition you can get 5 years in prison.

I'm personally of the opinion that the ex-SAS guy ought to have known better and at least granfathered the handgun. The ammunition regardless of the kind and the quantity made me dubious of his real intent with the gun since he claims that he didn't intend to occasionally go to the firing range. That being said, the fifteen months does seem harsh considering the circumstances as to how he kept it: it clearly wasn't within easy reach so at least he wasn't thinking of going mental with it until now, so some leniency should have been shown there, IMO. In terms of gun laws, I'd be in favor of something in the middle between the UK's super draconian gun laws and the US' more lax ones. I personally think that just having a permit for owning a weapon and having a background check prior to a store selling you a rifle at most is perfectly reasonable. The problem with some Americans is that for some reason they see this being too stringent (I mean, ffs you don't need to show [I]anything[/I] other than cash if you're buying at a gun show). I never actually owned a gun, but back in Africa my dad owned a pellet hunting rifle and we'd occasionally take it out for shooting practice in the backyard after he explained to me and my brothers (I was around 10 at the time) about guns and how they need to be handled with care and respect. I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm used to treating stuff with respect like wild animals like elephants (unlike [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UVnGcaL9Uk"]some idiots[/URL]). I think it's really a matter of education about it, imo.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50145812]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.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;50145877]Being SAS does not stop you from being a fallible human being capable of just snapping one day and shooting someone[/QUOTE] Considering the number of shootings committed by upstanding, law-abiding citizens who just suddenly [i]snap[/i] one day and start shooting people is basically nil, this kind of attitude has always struck me as people uncomfortable with firearms projecting onto others. Shouldn't you be afraid that an armed active-duty soldier or policeman is going to suddenly snap and shoot up the public?

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50153952]I'm personally of the opinion that the ex-SAS guy ought to have known better and at least granfathered the handgun. The ammunition regardless of the kind and the quantity made me dubious of his real intent with the gun since he claims that he didn't intend to occasionally go to the firing range. That being said, the fifteen months does seem harsh considering the circumstances as to how he kept it: it clearly wasn't within easy reach so at least he wasn't thinking of going mental with it until now, so some leniency should have been shown there, IMO. In terms of gun laws, I'd be in favor of something in the middle between the UK's super draconian gun laws and the US' more lax ones. I personally think that just having a permit for owning a weapon and having a background check prior to a store selling you a rifle at most is perfectly reasonable. The problem with some Americans is that for some reason they see this being too stringent (I mean, ffs you don't need to show [I]anything[/I] other than cash if you're buying at a gun show). I never actually owned a gun, but back in Africa my dad owned a pellet hunting rifle and we'd occasionally take it out for shooting practice in the backyard after he explained to me and my brothers (I was around 10 at the time) about guns and how they need to be handled with care and respect. I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm used to treating stuff with respect like wild animals like elephants (unlike [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UVnGcaL9Uk"]some idiots[/URL]). I think it's really a matter of education about it, imo.[/QUOTE] To buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show, you have to pass the same background check as at a bick and mortar store.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;50154116]To buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show, you have to pass the same background check as at a bick and mortar store.[/QUOTE] From the majority of vendors yes but not all. The small time ones can get around that. Thats a fact and some people on facepunch argued awhile back that shouldn't be changed because they don't like paying the extra cost of background checks. Personally I'm a fan of Switzerland's gun laws but minus the conscription stuff and add in mandatory training to get a licence.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50154251]From the majority of vendors [B]yes but not all. The small time ones can get around that. Thats a fact[/B] and some people on facepunch argued awhile back that shouldn't be changed because they don't like paying the extra cost of background checks. Personally I'm a fan of Switzerland's gun laws but minus the conscription stuff and add in mandatory training to get a licence.[/QUOTE] You don't know what you're talking about. All legal gun sales in the US, if they're on the internet or in a store or buying a gun from a third party REQUIRE a Federal Firearms License holder to oversee the sale/commence the sale. Anything else is illegal.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50154860]You don't know what you're talking about. All legal gun sales in the US, if they're on the internet or in a store or buying a gun from a third party REQUIRE a Federal Firearms License holder to oversee the sale/commence the sale. Anything else is illegal.[/QUOTE] Private parties can sell without an FFL? :speechless: But even a fair amount of those who do private sales (myself included) will not sell to someone without a CCW license, which proves they have passed the background checks ran when going through an FFL.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50154865][B]Private parties can sell without an FFL?[/B] :speechless: But even a fair amount of those who do private sales (myself included) will not sell to someone without a CCW license, which proves they have passed the background checks ran when going through an FFL.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about buying from FFL holders or through an FFL, IE the proper process when buying a gun for the first time through those means. You can easily buy a gun off a relative but in my own opinion I'd rather have them go through the FFL process too so everything is air tight. It's not required, but it's my own belief.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50154860]You don't know what you're talking about. All legal gun sales in the US, if they're on the internet or in a store or buying a gun from a third party REQUIRE a Federal Firearms License holder to oversee the sale/commence the sale. Anything else is illegal.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35229220[/url]

[QUOTE=Morgen;50154925][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35229220[/url][/QUOTE] These never went through (yet). Also, the gun show loophole that everyone cries wolf over is really blown out of proportion and near non-existent. It's simply another word for individuals selling to each other. 99% of people at a gun show aren't selling you guns from their table without checking you out. Other than that, it's people who are walking the floor doing trades with other people. <-- THAT is the "gun show loophole" that you speak of Last gun show I was at, I walked around with my Sig-Sauer case and people would come up and ask to see, or if they can make an offer. Those, do not, nor ever have, required background checks. Just what I mentioned in my last post.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50154925][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35229220[/url][/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole[/url] [quote=States requiring background checks for private sales]As of September 2015, 18 states and Washington D.C. have background check requirements beyond federal law. Eight states require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers, [B]including purchases from unlicensed sellers.[/B] Maryland and Pennsylvania laws in this regard are limited to handguns. Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey require any firearm purchaser to obtain a permit. Four more states (Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina) do the same, but only for handguns. Illinois requires background checks at gun shows. Nevada allows but does not require unlicensed sellers to do background checks on buyers. A majority of these jurisdictions require unlicensed sellers to keep records of firearm sales.[/quote] We do recognize the issue and are dealing with it, if that makes you feel any better.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50154967][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole[/url] We do recognize the issue and are dealing with it, if that makes you feel any better.[/QUOTE] So turns out I do know what I'm talking about. It's good that it's being dealt with but it should be done on a federal level IMO.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50154983]So turns out I do know [B]what I'm talking about.[/B] It's good that it's being dealt with but it should be done on a federal level IMO.[/QUOTE] No you still don't, because very simply those people are few and far between at gunshows to begin with. Most people there are FFL holders, and they go through the proper means to sell someone a gun. Now, when it comes to private sales, which can include those at a gunshow but 99.9% of the time do not occur at a gunshow, like private sales between family members and friends, honestly I believe they need to go through some sort of check themselves, and be able to do the proper paper work with the government if they want to take the FFL holder out of the equation. Give private sellers the same liberties that FFL holders have, like access to the NICS database, so they can make proper, informed sales decisions.

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50153952]I'm personally of the opinion that the ex-SAS guy ought to have known better and at least granfathered the handgun. The ammunition regardless of the kind and the quantity made me dubious of his real intent with the gun since he claims that he didn't intend to occasionally go to the firing range. That being said, the fifteen months does seem harsh considering the circumstances as to how he kept it: it clearly wasn't within easy reach so at least he wasn't thinking of going mental with it until now, so some leniency should have been shown there, IMO. In terms of gun laws, I'd be in favor of something in the middle between the UK's super draconian gun laws and the US' more lax ones. I personally think that just having a permit for owning a weapon and having a background check prior to a store selling you a rifle at most is perfectly reasonable. The problem with some Americans is that for some reason they see this being too stringent (I mean, ffs you don't need to show [I]anything[/I] other than cash if you're buying at a gun show). I never actually owned a gun, but back in Africa my dad owned a pellet hunting rifle and we'd occasionally take it out for shooting practice in the backyard after he explained to me and my brothers (I was around 10 at the time) about guns and how they need to be handled with care and respect. I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm used to treating stuff with respect like wild animals like elephants (unlike [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UVnGcaL9Uk"]some idiots[/URL]). I think it's really a matter of education about it, imo.[/QUOTE] Thing is, while that much ammo sounds like a lot. It really is next to nothing. Thats like 3 and a half small ass boxes. I've went through over a thousand rounds in a day before. That said, I can see why Europeans wouldn't want firearms in their countries. They do make killing a lot easier. Were we to introduce laws providing more restriction. I have no doubts they would help to lower homicide rates here. But I am not a fan of having something like that restricted to me so I can't go along with that idea. Guns are fun.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;50156651]That said, I can see why Europeans wouldn't want firearms in their countries.[/QUOTE] Europe is more densely populated than the US, meaning there's less room to shoot safely, and easier access to social services. In the US, especially in the vast rural regions, police response time can reach in excess of 45 minutes. When one lives far from civilization, one must learn to rely on themselves, for food, shelter, and yes, defense. There are still parts of the world where a good firearm is, in fact, as much of a necessity as a car.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50157661]Europe is more densely populated than the US, meaning there's less room to shoot safely, and easier access to social services. In the US, especially in the vast rural regions, police response time can reach in excess of 45 minutes. When one lives far from civilization, one must learn to rely on themselves, for food, shelter, and yes, defense. There are still parts of the world where a good firearm is, in fact, as much of a necessity as a car.[/QUOTE] This is something that eludes people and is a critical factor in the whole debate. I am one of those people. I can speak for it myself as well. My house was on fire due to an off-road vehicle battery sparking in the garage, lit the gas. It took 20+ min for the first fire trucks to arrive. Police/Sherrif would be even longer. Rural areas are prime targets for criminals because of that fact alone, and it is easier to get away. But I am sure that some people will say, "you don't need an AR-15, etc.". Ballistically speaking, it is more responsible to use that than a shotgun or a handgun. The round from a 5.56 won't penetrate walls and is pretty much designed to stop on impact, preventing overpenetration. Shotgun shells are not good because of their spray and they maim. Handguns are largely unreliable in a defense situation for obvious reasons. So sure, you probably don't need a gun in metro UK to defend yourself. But in rural America, it is no where near comparable.