LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=201513)

ForeverNight 11-14-2009 04:36 PM

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Surrey Today
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."


The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"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.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

Source

I found this on a forum I regularly ghost on and originally thought it was a satire piece. After reading the article I'm slightly confused about this situation, maybe a resident Englander could explain this? I think the guy was slightly crazy for just taking it out, but still! 5 years?!

Otherwise, discuss.

Darth InSidious 11-14-2009 04:43 PM

... Nope, sorry. There's no adequate explanation for the sheer stupidity of this.

ForeverNight 11-14-2009 04:54 PM

Damn, I was afraid of that.

jonathan7 11-14-2009 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth InSidious (Post 2687871)
... Nope, sorry. There's no adequate explanation for the sheer stupidity of this.

The judicial system is run by a bunch of egotistical, mindless bureaucrats? Apparently abusing baby P - results in the same number of years in prison as handing in a gun you found.

The law is moronic and stupid, it with no sense of irony I say whoever came up with the law should be shot.

JediAthos 11-14-2009 05:30 PM

Wow...that's pretty asinine. I can't guarantee it, but I'm relatively certain there's no case of anything like that happening here in the U.S. so I don't really have any comparison to draw from, there certainly are plenty of other idiotic laws here though :) IMHO I think it's ridiculous that he was arrested and somewhere beyond insane that he could spend five years in prison.

Remind me not to try to be a good Samaritan if I ever find myself in the U.K.

Samuel Dravis 11-14-2009 05:33 PM

Crazy. Although I certainly wouldn't walk into a police station with a gun, unless I had called and made certain it was ok first. Government buildings are a big no-no for gun toting even in Texas. It doesn't sound like the man warned the police what he had, just asked to see the Chief while carrying a friggan shotgun. I mean, seriously.

Ping 11-14-2009 05:55 PM

Arrested for turning in a gun? Geez. I'm all for gun restrictions, but this is ridiculous. Who was the idiot who made that law?

Q 11-14-2009 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ping (Post 2687887)
I'm all for gun restrictions, but this is ridiculous.

And I'm not, because they allow for precisely this type of stupidity. :dozey:

Way to go, Airstrip One. :golfclap:

What's next, cameras all over, watching your every move? Oh, wait...

jonathan7 11-14-2009 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Q (Post 2687890)
And I'm not, because they allow for precisely this type of stupidity. :dozey:

Way to go, Airstrip One. :golfclap:

What's next, cameras all over, watching your every move? Oh, wait...

Since the UK banned Hand guns, and made most fire-arm ownership illegal, with the exception of rifles and shotguns which are highly licensed there have been no repeats of Dunblane (the shooting which caused the anti-gun legislation). In the period since 1996 the U.S. has had 51 School shootings, with at my count at least 47 of those shootings involving at least 1 fatality. In the same period the U.K had 0 school shooting incidents....

Darth InSidious 11-14-2009 06:43 PM

The US has had 9,236 reported gun homicides in 2004 alone. See table 2.9, page 11.

By comparison, 50 gun homicides were reported in the UK in 2005/6.

Q 11-14-2009 06:47 PM

So you're both in favor of oppressive gun control, just not the inevitable stupidity, such as this incident, that accompanies it.

Got it.

jonathan7 11-14-2009 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Q (Post 2687898)
So you're both in favor of oppressive gun control, just not the inevitable stupidity, such as this incident, that accompanies it.

Got it.

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.

Q 11-14-2009 06:56 PM

This type of stupidity is inevitable because laziness and incompetence in government is inevitable.

But, if you are correct and the majority of your population actually wants that type of legislation, then it should have it. I'm just glad that I don't live in the UK.

Totenkopf 11-14-2009 07:27 PM

Reminds me of the addage "no good deed goes unpunished". If "oppressive gun control" actually could prevent a bunch of dead people and was carried out by a truly benign power.......maybe. Problem is a little thing called borders and human ingenuity. Don't think someone won't kill you just b/c they don't have a gun. Just look how many people get killed by suicide bombers.........(as well as stabbings, beatings, hit-n-run-n -run over-and then run over again, ad nauseam...)

ForeverNight 11-14-2009 08:24 PM

Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

I can understand some gun restriction, I don't exactly want .50 caliber Sniper Rifles in just anybody's hands, but I've always thought more of a permit system than a blanket ban...

Oh well, I'm still in shock after reading/posting that article, if simply handling a gun is a crime...... well, I'm just amazed that my lack of faith in humanity's intelligence has been confirmed.

Darth Avlectus 11-14-2009 10:09 PM

^^^Yeah but we have RINO douche-nozzles like Mike Bloomberg and Ahnuld Schwarzzenazi who cop an attitude and call current laws "unenforceable".

Since in America we're not a mertiocracy, we are no longer hiring and electing on a basis of best qualified. Seeing as how we are right next to cartel land I don't see how making handguns illegal is going to stop people from hopping the border and buying them, only to come back the USA and stick people up. I only see that the criminal would be further enabled to do more damage in that case.

Having worked alongside law enforcement at one point, I've learned that the criminal mindset is that of a predatory one, less likely to prey upon those who can fight back. They don't *want* a fight or a shootout, they want "easy pickin'zzz". They want to dominate their lack of competition.

All the laws in the world ain't going to stop a determined criminal--or bring their victims back to life. So that in mind I am with you on this.


@ suject: Ok, What the ****? This sounds like an extreme version of playing the blame game. Obviously, the gun had an owner at one point. So, since he didn't know he got pinned with the blame.

That's all it is. Got to have someone to blame, and hell, let's just make everyone potentially and/or circumstantially involved just absolutely guilty. Even if they can prove innocence of any actual crime. Boom, possession is just as bad because even with undeniable proof "we don't *know* that you're innocent". That's just total BS. It's the letter of the law and not the intent behind it. :dozey:

I have $50 that says an officer, or a senator, governor, etc. would get off scott free if not a slap on the wrists for the SAME. ::

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7 (Post 2687874)
The judicial system is run by a bunch of egotistical, mindless bureaucrats? Apparently abusing baby P - results in the same number of years in prison as handing in a gun you found.

The law is moronic and stupid, it with no sense of irony I say whoever came up with the law should be shot.

Multiple times. If not impaled, Vlad Tepes Dracul style.

vanir 11-14-2009 11:03 PM

Fellers you're missing the agenda here. What we're talking is district regulation (local government) and the way the parliamentary legal process works. In the county of Surrey obviously local council administration related to firearms is hopelessly outdated, but this is not going to reflect regional or national legislation. It is most likely this case is being used as a proxy by the county to secure greater legislative freedom, the constant argument of local government under the parliamentary system.

The defendant isn't going to go to jail for five years, what's going to happen is it gets bumped to the district court (surrey, is that in wales?) and they're going to rule he acted in good faith and is of good character, performing a duty to benefit of the community. If need be, which is unlikely the lower house will convene to pass minutes of parliament enshrining the new legislation nationally.

This is simply how the legal system in parliamentary democracies remains contemporary. It's bureacratic and full of red tape, but it beats US jury trial and constitutional law any day of the week, being there will be a higher authority to adjudicate on this, presided over by reasonable minds. The very premise of parliamentary democracy lay in the ultimate authority of the legislative council, they can wipe anything and everything with a wave of their hand and there is simply no higher authority, not juries, not local courts, not a national constitution.

It's just a matter of playing the game.

Astor 11-15-2009 06:29 AM

I agree that the police have been astronomically stupid in this instance, but I think Mr. Clarke really should have thought about the situation a little more before walking into his local Police Station with a shotgun. Pulling out a shotgun from a binbag and then it on the reception desk doesn't exactly strike me as a clever thing to do.

I doubt he will go to prison - it's more likely he'll be given a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

And as for gun control, I don't see why our Firearms legislation is labled as 'oppressive' when the vast majority of the population don't want guns in the first place. There isn't an enshrined constitutional entitlement in Britain for gun ownership - we don't need (or, in many cases, even want) handguns - legal gun ownership is mostly still reserved for the local shoots, and historical re-enactors (black powder weapons requiring a shotgun license).

jonathan7 11-15-2009 07:25 AM

Here's a facsinating table - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

The general rule, that funnily enough the tighter a countries gun control laws the less and less people die from being shot. There will be those who sight knife crime as being more prevalent here in the UK; I haven't been unable to find any stats on death rates from knife crime. But what is true is that you are four times more likely to die from a gunshot wound that you are a knife wound.

What however doesn't lie is homicide rates; found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate The US is top of all Western Nations with on average 5.8 homicides per 100,000 of the population. England and Wales by Comparison has a homicide rate of 1.37 per 100,000.

The lowest Sub-region is Western Europe with only 1.5 homicides per 100,000; this also features the greatest number of nations with the strictest gun control laws.

Darth InSidious 11-15-2009 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor Kaine (Post 2687996)
There isn't an enshrined constitutional entitlement in Britain for gun ownership

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

Quote:

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:
...
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;...

Trench 11-15-2009 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf (Post 2687907)
Reminds me of the addage "no good deed goes unpunished". If "oppressive gun control" actually could prevent a bunch of dead people and was carried out by a truly benign power.......maybe. Problem is a little thing called borders and human ingenuity. Don't think someone won't kill you just b/c they don't have a gun. Just look how many people get killed by suicide bombers.........(as well as stabbings, beatings, hit-n-run-n -run over-and then run over again, ad nauseam...)

This.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ForeverNight (Post 2687918)
Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

I can understand some gun restriction, I don't exactly want .50 caliber Sniper Rifles in just anybody's hands.

QFT.

It isn't people with guns who are the killers (just listen), its stupid people with guns. If the people who "run" this country (USA) would get off there *sses and do something about educating Americans, and cleaning all the gangs and slime of our street, then we would be okay. But the government isn't doing a d*mn thing.
I own a shotgun, but I've never even thought about shooting it at someone (unless they were to try to break into my house, but that's a different story).

@Thread: The guy should have called first, but I don't think he should go to prison for five years because of an honest mistake. Give him a warning, a slap on the wrist, and send him home.

Darth InSidious 11-15-2009 02:08 PM

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

Darth Avlectus 11-15-2009 02:50 PM

The lilly-living acceptance by the euros in this thread no less surprising. :xp:

Astor 11-15-2009 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth InSidious (Post 2688016)
Actually the Bill of Rights (1689) enshrines the right of Protestant citizens to bear firearms.

Ah, I hadn't realised that. I'll go fetch my Matchlock, then. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Te Mirdala Mand'alor
I own a shotgun, but I've never even thought about shooting it at someone.

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

jonathan7 11-15-2009 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2688045)
The lilly-living acceptance by the euros in this thread no less surprising. :xp:

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. 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FN
Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

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.

In reality, there are only really two logical routes to go, either a near total ban, or every citizen is allowed a gun. In terms of saving lives, I think it a mere matter of logic that a society which has very few guns, will have a lot less in the way of violent death (as backed up by the statistics).

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.

Darth Avlectus 11-15-2009 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7 (Post 2688052)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J7
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. :p

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.

Quote:

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 11-15-2009 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2688066)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2688066)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2688066)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2688066)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2688066)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2688066)
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 11-15-2009 06:32 PM

@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 11-15-2009 07:05 PM

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

Originally Posted by Darth InSidious (Post 2688039)
The Pavlovian reaction of the Americans in this thread is simply astonishing.

YEEEEEHHHAAAAWWW! :D

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

Trench 11-15-2009 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor Kaine (Post 2688050)
Wait, you mean to say that a 14 year old is allowed to own a shotgun in the USA? :confused:

As far as you know, yes. :carms:

:xp:
Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7 (Post 2688052)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Q (Post 2688100)
YEEEEEHHHAAAAWWW! :D

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! :D

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 11-15-2009 08:03 PM

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 11-15-2009 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7 (Post 2688081)
Firstly I didn't state guns should be banned in the US.

Nor I claim specifically you said that.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.


Quote:

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!)

Quote:

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... :D

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

Q 11-15-2009 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ping (Post 2688138)
I don't see it as a step towards oligarchy.

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

Originally Posted by Ping (Post 2688138)
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ping (Post 2688138)
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 11-15-2009 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7 (Post 2688052)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7 (Post 2688081)
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 11-16-2009 12:00 AM

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 11-16-2009 04:16 AM

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 11-16-2009 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Reiper (Post 2688191)
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 11-16-2009 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SW01 (Post 2688169)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SW01 (Post 2688169)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SW01 (Post 2688169)
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 :xp:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

mimartin 11-16-2009 01:38 PM

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 11-16-2009 02:36 PM

Quote:

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.