Ex-Soldier jailed in UK for turning in shotgun

[FX120]

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."

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't really have to say anything, the story speaks for itself.

[iShater]

It will be interesting to see how this ends.

[nick9191]

I seriously ***** hate this country sometimes.

[awmazz]

I don't see what the issue is. Guns are like bombs. If you find a bomb in your garden bin, do you pick it up and carry it into a police station?

Cops in Britain are unarmed, which means the instant he pulled it out his bag the whole place would have gone into lockdown and the armed Tactical Response Unit would have been called out and every known alarm would have been set off for the safety of the officers.

What I like about laws like this is they are blanket. No smart-a lawyer to get you off on a technicality or unusual circumstances or 'intent'. The law is quite clear. Possession is possession. Full stop. Carry it around, you own it. No excuses. Just don't pick a gun up. Ever. Especially one that's not yours.

Just like drug dealers can't claim they just found the heroin in their pocket on the street. This way they can send bank robbers to prison just for having a gun, not having to prove they actually used it in a hold up. Why do you think they dumped it in the first place?

I can well imagine American bleeding-heart gun-hugging liberals who love to go soft on law breakers being outraged by this story though. ;)

[abijnk]

I don't think this is a fair verdict. However, I also don't think this guy made the right decision. He should have called the authorities, not taken it upon himself to transport an illegal weapon.

[Full of Win]

British = Subjects
Americans = Citizens

Just a suggestion people of Britain, but it might be a good idea to stop printing the face of an unelected ruler, who views you as her "property", on your money. Just my opinion :)

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't see what the issue is. Guns are like bombs. If you find a bomb in your garden bin, do you pick it up and carry it into a police station?

Cops in Britain are unarmed, which means the instant he pulled it out his bag the whole place would have gone into lockdown and the armed Tactical Response Unit would have been called out and every known alarm would have been set off for the safety of the officers.

What I like about laws like this is they are blanket. No smart-a lawyer to get you off on a technicality or unusual circumstances or 'intent'. The law is quite clear. Possession is possession. Full stop. Carry it around, you own it. No excuses. Just don't pick a gun up. Ever. Especially one that's not yours.

Just like drug dealers can't claim they just found the heroin in their pocket on the street. This way they can send bank robbers to prison just for having a gun, not having to prove they actually used it in a hold up. Why do you think they dumped it in the first place?

I can well imagine American bleeding-heart gun-hugging liberals who love to go soft on law breakers being outraged by this story though. ;)

Go ahead and imprison your soldiers who are trained to use weaponry, when a real war happens kiss yourselves goodbye. :cool: Guess who is saving the world in the next world war.... the people that know how to use weaponry.

[ucfgrad93]

I guess there really is truth in the old saying....No good deed ever goes unpunished. Hopefully he won't get jail time.

[Eraserhead]

British = Subjects
Americans = Citizens

Just a suggestion people of Britain, but it might be a good idea to stop printing the face of an unelected ruler, who views you as her "property", on your money. Just my opinion :)

Right, because this has anything at all to do with the Queen :rolleyes:.

It sounds like maybe the law has been mis-applied here and certainly morally he isn't guilty, but probably one of the issues here is that everyone's hands are fairly tied by the law. If its possible I think he needs to be pardoned to be honest.

[skunk]

British = Subjects
Americans = CitizensEveryone is subject to the law, even the monarch.

That being said, I'd be quite happy to pension off the lot of them.

[arkitect]

OK, I feel sorry for the guy. But… If I found a shotgun in my garden I wouldn't take it down to the police station…

And why take it out of the bin bag when inside the station?

I'd be quite happy to pension off the lot of them.
I still like the Disneyland idea…

[Eraserhead]

OK, I feel sorry for the guy. But… If I found a shotgun in my garden I wouldn't take it down to the police station…

The thing is he's an ex-soldier and he's used to carrying guns, and knows they are dangerous. Unfortunately sometimes life experience dictates you to do the wrong thing - like I probably cross the road dangerously because I've been in the developing world a lot where that behaviour is considered "safe".

[arkitect]

The thing is he's an ex-soldier and he's used to carrying guns, and knows they are dangerous. Unfortunately sometimes life experience dictates you to do the wrong thing - like I probably cross the road dangerously because I've been in the developing world a lot where that behaviour is considered "safe".
I understand that…
And as far as crossing the road goes, I too have lived in countries where crossing the road anywhere anytime anyhow is fair game. But I also lived long enough in places like Singapore where crossing the road would get me a pretty nasty fine… so that leaves me to always think before I do.

I am not demonising the guy. I do think he is being treated unfairly. But, he really should have thought, hang on, right now I am not a soldier, I am a civilian, and civilians do not carry shotguns into police stations. The average PC will get the ***** scared out of him/her when confronted with a gun. Especially when it gets pulled out of a black bin bag. ;)

[johnrs]

That is the law going crazy and taking it at face value and not taking into account that he was doing the right thing.

If you cannot trust a soldier that is trained to handle weapons then who???

This is why this country is going to **** because of stupid laws that punish those that want to do the right thing but now wont because they end up being the bad guy.

This is a sad day for England...

[skunk]

That is the law going crazy and taking it at face value and not taking into account that he was doing the right thing.

If you cannot trust a soldier that is trained to handle weapons then who???Coming in the wake of the Fort Hood incident, this is quite ironic.

If the guy had a shotgun licence, he would have been OK. If he did not, he had no business taking the thing onto the street, carrying it into a police station or unwrapping it. In addition, he probably destroyed any forensic evidence by handling it.

[.Andy]

If you cannot trust a soldier that is trained to handle weapons then who?.
The simple answer to this question is that nobody can be trusted 100% to handle weapons. Nobody is perfect and hence will make mistakes and everybody is prone to labile emotions from time to time that clouds judgement.


As far as this guy goes he might have acted in good faith but what a moron. Walking around in public with a gun that he has no idea how safe it is. Combined with the fact that if it was used in a crime and he examined it to see if it was loaded he could have destroyed any kind of evidence. Being a soldier he should have known better and just let it be until people properly qualified came by. He certainly didn't show the kind of judgement you'd hope someone in the military might have.

[skunk]

Guess who is saving the world in the next world war.... the people that know how to use weaponry.Somehow I don't think it will be soldiers who save the world. Life is a little more complicated than that.

[The Californian]

I do think he is being treated unfairly. But, he really should have thought, hang on, right now I am not a soldier, I am a civilian, and civilians do not carry shotguns into police stations. The average PC will get the ***** scared out of him/her when confronted with a gun. Especially when it gets pulled out of a black bin bag. ;)

This is exactly why I, as a well trained and experienced Paramedic rarely help people when I am off duty and a "civilian". People will gladly set aside common sense to stand behind laws that were developed for a purpose that are completely irrelevant in a particular incident. I'm not about to chance getting sued because I tried to help someone and they died because I didn't have any equipment since I am off duty. It's truly sad that I have to take that into account.

[Eraserhead]

Can't you perform standard first aid?

[.Andy]

^^^^Yeah there are good Samaritan laws that stipulate that you can come to the aid of people in a way that doesn't exceed your capacity or capabilities.


I'm not about to chance getting sued because I tried to help someone and they died because I didn't have any equipment since I am off duty. It's truly sad that I have to take that into account.
Perhaps it is time for a different job if you value someone's life behind a fear of being sued?

[Heilage]

Well, the verdict seems somewhat overdone. I do think, however, that he should not have taken the gun out of the bag. He should have taken the bag there, and explained that inside is a gun, he found it *somewhere* and wanted to turn it in.


Here in Norway, for a while the Police gave amnesty to anyone who turned in illegal firearms to be destroyed, it was a good take on it. The most important thing was getting those guns off the streets, and they did a good job with it. :)

[xUKHCx]

There are weapon amnesties in the UK from time to time. But walking into a police station saying I have a gun in this bag isn't really different to wacking it out.

If he bothered to phone up the police station and speak to the Chief Superintendent why didn't he say I have found a gun and want to bring it in rather than surprise him with it. Then the policeman would've taken the appropriate steps to recover the gun from his house rather than pose a risk to the public at large.

Do I think that it is a bit too far for prison, yes probably.
Do I think the person was stupid, yes.
Would I have done the same, no.
Would I expect others to do it, yes.

[takao]

so he called the police and asked if he could "pop in and see him" without telling telling him that he found a gun on his property and he wanted to give it to him ?

while the punishment might not fit with his intentions it sure fits with him lacking any common sense

[Thomas Veil]

I don't think this is a fair verdict. However, I also don't think this guy made the right decision. He should have called the authorities, not taken it upon himself to transport an illegal weapon.Pretty much how I feel about it.

As to why not just leave it in the rubbish bin, I can see him fearing that some kid or miscreant might come and take it out.

I seriously ***** hate this country sometimes.Yeah, but look what you'd have to face if you came here:

British = Subjects
Americans = Citizens

Just a suggestion people of Britain, but it might be a good idea to stop printing the face of an unelected ruler, who views you as her "property", on your money. Just my opinion :)

[The Californian]

Can't you perform standard first aid?

Of course I can, and ultimately when it is life or death I never refuse to help someone in need.

^^^^Yeah there are good Samaritan laws that stipulate that you can come to the aid of people in a way that doesn't exceed your capacity or capabilities.



Perhaps it is time for a different job if you value someone's life behind a fear of being sued?

I don't know what you do for a living, but try to walk in my boots for a shift and run into burning buildings, and crawl into demolished cars and then tell me that it's possible to do any of that if you're valuing someone's life behind a fear of being sued.

On that note, I live and work in Southern California which happens to be the most active "Sue Happy Capital" in the world. I have been sued twice already for attempting, in good faith to help someone while off duty.


Pulling over at a car accident and performing the basic first aid I could until on duty personnel arrived, and when the family was told "They most likely would have survived had they received Advanced Life Support sooner" they came after me citing I had identified myself as a Paramedic and I was unable to provide proper care to their loved one because I didn't have my equipment with me. Ultimately the case was thrown out because of the Good Samaritan Law, but only after I spent hours in court and plenty of money on legal advice.
A lady slipped and fell at the store while I was shopping and after assessing her I advised her that she should be checked out by a doctor "Just to be safe". She sued me citing I had given her poor medical advice because upon examination by her physician she was told she had no serious injuries. She wanted me to pay for her doctors visit and x-rays. I ultimately had the same disposition in this case as the previous with the same cost.


As I stated in my response to Eraserhead, I have resorted to only assisting when I know I am truly needed. For some reason there are people that will try to make a buck at anyones expense, and I have a family to take care of ... I can't afford to be wasting my money on frivolous lawsuits.

So ultimately, because of people that lack common sense ( to be thankful that someone stopped to help instead of just ignoring them ) others may suffer. This is how I feel about the topic of this thread, I can imagine that now if people find guns they will either keep them, or dispose of the improperly due to fear of someone that lacks common sense slapping handcuffs on them and sending them to jail because they went "out of their way" to do what they believed was right.

[skunk]

This is how I feel about the topic of this thread, I can imagine that now if people find guns they will either keep them, or dispose of the improperly due to fear of someone that lacks common sense slapping handcuffs on them and sending them to jail because they went "out of their way" to do what they believed was right.This is irrelevant: all he had to do was to tell the police when he called them to come and pick up the gun. Instead, he chose to be a prat.

[Blue Velvet]

Another disingenuous thread title.

First of all, the defendant has not been sentenced yet. Secondly, the five years in jail is the maximum sentence.

Given the judge's remarks about the uniqueness of the case, the probable outcome of this is possibly a fine or a suspended sentence, which under UK law is of a probationary nature.

A suspended sentence is a legal construct. Unless a minimum punishment is prescribed by law, the court has the power to suspend the passing of sentence (generally for a period of three years) and place the offender on probation. It is the passing of the sentence, not the sentence itself, that is being suspended. This means that if the defendant is convicted of another offence during the period when the passing of sentence had been suspended, then the offender may be sentenced for the original offence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_sentence

Uninformed outrage: the cheapest currency on the internet, and as for this:

British = Subjects
Americans = Citizens

It might surprise some Americans that UK citizens have rights under law here that you do not have in the United States. Think carefully before posting.

[awmazz]

Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment

I suppose the judge could still suspend it though. Probably will actually. Unless the his nickname is Hang-em-high. ;)

[Blue Velvet]

^ I stand corrected. :D :o My apologies.

Point still stands, though. There's little public interest in seeing him jailed and the jails are full.

[Gelfin]

British = Subjects
Americans = Citizens

Not since 1983. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject#After_1983)

[Zombie Acorn]

Somehow I don't think it will be soldiers who save the world. Life is a little more complicated than that.

You won't have any left at this rate.

[mkrishnan]

One would hope that someone is working on how this gun came to be in this gentleman's garden... the issue of the most appropriate thing to do when one finds a trash bag with a gun in it being a proper one, it seems at least fairly likely that someone may have committed a more serious crime related to this gun than the crime of bringing it to a police station.

[Sun Baked]

Instead of the "bait car" TV series we have in the US. Can't wait for the "bait gun" TV show to appear on BBC America.

[Full of Win]

Right, because this has anything at all to do with the Queen :rolleyes:.

It sounds like maybe the law has been mis-applied here and certainly morally he isn't guilty, but probably one of the issues here is that everyone's hands are fairly tied by the law. If its possible I think he needs to be pardoned to be honest.

It has to do with a mindset spoon-fed to the British subjects for centuries. To have a system so unfair to the people tell me it was not designed for the control of citizens, but for the control of subjects. The image of the queen just reenforces the programming.

[Gelfin]

While I agree the conviction seems ridiculous on this telling, I cannot help but wonder why, in so anti-gun a nation as the UK, this happened as it did in the first place.

I mean, I certainly would never call my local police station, tell them I had something I wanted to talk to them about (but not what), then open my conversation by placing a shotgun on the table. That just seems to cross some critical threshold of stupidity. And we like guns here.

I simply cannot imagine why the phone conversation would not have begun with, "Hi, I'd like to come around to the station and talk to an officer about something. You see, I've found a shotgun in my garden and I'd like to have it disposed of properly." The police could then have told him about the policy and sent a bomb disposal robot in to collect it or whatever they do.

Perhaps the law would have required the police to search the premises, or the man thought it would, and didn't want that to happen, or something. For whatever reason the man's behavior was awfully peculiar.

Zero-tolerance policies are still idiotic, though, and this is nevertheless yet another example.

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't know what you do for a living, but try to walk in my boots for a shift and run into burning buildings, and crawl into demolished cars and then tell me that it's possible to do any of that if you're valuing someone's life behind a fear of being sued.

On that note, I live and work in Southern California which happens to be the most active "Sue Happy Capital" in the world. I have been sued twice already for attempting, in good faith to help someone while off duty.


Pulling over at a car accident and performing the basic first aid I could until on duty personnel arrived, and when the family was told "They most likely would have survived had they received Advanced Life Support sooner" they came after me citing I had identified myself as a Paramedic and I was unable to provide proper care to their loved one because I didn't have my equipment with me. Ultimately the case was thrown out because of the Good Samaritan Law, but only after I spent hours in court and plenty of money on legal advice.
A lady slipped and fell at the store while I was shopping and after assessing her I advised her that she should be checked out by a doctor "Just to be safe". She sued me citing I had given her poor medical advice because upon examination by her physician she was told she had no serious injuries. She wanted me to pay for her doctors visit and x-rays. I ultimately had the same disposition in this case as the previous with the same cost.


As I stated in my response to Eraserhead, I have resorted to only assisting when I know I am truly needed. For some reason there are people that will try to make a buck at anyones expense, and I have a family to take care of ... I can't afford to be wasting my money on frivolous lawsuits.

So ultimately, because of people that lack common sense ( to be thankful that someone stopped to help instead of just ignoring them ) others may suffer. This is how I feel about the topic of this thread, I can imagine that now if people find guns they will either keep them, or dispose of the improperly due to fear of someone that lacks common sense slapping handcuffs on them and sending them to jail because they went "out of their way" to do what they believed was right.


Both those are example of why we need massive reform in the legal system. You who did nothing wrong and it was proven that you did nothing wrong had to pay out tons of money in legal fees. If something is thrown out like that I feel that the suer should have to pay your legal fees because both were crap cases.

[skunk]

It has to do with a mindset spoon-fed to the British subjects for centuries.No, it has everything to do with history.

[Gelfin]

As I think about it, one other bit of the description bothers me: A sawed-off shotgun in a plastic garbage bag is not exactly hard to identify, even if you ignore that the man is a former soldier.

If I found such a thing, first I would not have needed to bring it inside and take it out of the bag to figure out it was a gun of some sort. Second it would have occurred to me that this probably ended up in my yard because it was used in a crime, and I'd be really keenly interested in not getting my fingerprints on that weapon.

I guess the conclusion I am arriving at is, even in the absence of a law requiring him to respond in a particular way (as, in fact, we have none I am aware of) I probably would have reacted exactly as the UK law requires just as a matter of pure common sense. We can argue about whether lack of common sense should be criminalized, but I think that's what it comes down to.

[Eraserhead]

It has to do with a mindset spoon-fed to the British subjects for centuries. To have a system so unfair to the people tell me it was not designed for the control of citizens, but for the control of subjects. The image of the queen just reenforces the programming.

Understanding that its the process that is at fault here, will mean that people will try and correct that injustice and that this guy may not get off a prison sentence but that even if he goes he'll go to a low security jail and get quick access to the work program etc. etc. and he'll be paroled at the first opportunity.

[Zombie Acorn]

As I think about it, one other bit of the description bothers me: A sawed-off shotgun in a plastic garbage bag is not exactly hard to identify, even if you ignore that the man is a former soldier.

If I found such a thing, first I would not have needed to bring it inside and take it out of the bag to figure out it was a gun of some sort. Second it would have occurred to me that this probably ended up in my yard because it was used in a crime, and I'd be really keenly interested in not getting my fingerprints on that weapon.

I guess the conclusion I am arriving at is, even in the absence of a law requiring him to respond in a particular way (as, in fact, we have none I am aware of) I probably would have reacted exactly as the UK law requires just as a matter of pure common sense. We can argue about whether lack of common sense should be criminalized, but I think that's what it comes down to.

I would have definitely taken it out to make sure it was a gun, probably check what kind/year it was. If I was in my city I would keep it because there hasn't been any gun violence since I was able to read a newspaper. If I was in the UK I would probably call and tell them I found a weapon and they needed to come get it out of my garden before I go to jail for 5 years.

[.Andy]

I would have definitely taken it out to make sure it was a gun, probably check what kind/year it was. If I was in my city I would keep it because there hasn't been any gun violence since I was able to read a newspaper.
Presumably since you've been able to read the town newspaper has been full of reports of sawn-off shotguns being wrapped in plastic and thrown into backyards as gifts.

[Zombie Acorn]

Presumably since you've been able to read the town newspaper has been full of reports of sawn-off shotguns being wrapped in plastic and thrown into backyards as gifts.

Like I said I would check the year, it could have been hidden a few years ago as they are illegal. It wouldn't be the first time I had seen one though, probably just someone having fun.

[Eraserhead]

It wouldn't be the first time I had seen one though, probably just someone having fun.

That's less likely in Britain. Gun ownership is far lower here.

[.Andy]

That's less likely in Britain. Gun ownership is far lower here.
I find the claim that people throw sawn-off shotguns wrapped in plastic into people's yards for "fun" a highly dubious claim irrespective of gun ownership rates.

[Blue Velvet]

I find the claim that people throw sawn-off shotguns wrapped in plastic into people's yards for "fun" a highly dubious claim irrespective of gun ownership rates.


Oh, I don't know. There's nothing I like better on a weekend than to get a group of my friends together, buy and gather a pile of shotguns, wrap them up in plastic bags and throw them over the fences of my neighbours. We're just wild and wacky that way.

[Zombie Acorn]

The likelihood of keeping a sawn off shotgun inside your house is low, for all I know the previous owner could have hid it out in the garden as they are illegal here too. ;) Nothing wrong with investigating presents in your back yard.

Also I wasn't claiming that people throw shotguns in your back yard for fun, just that people saw them off for fun, at which point they are illegal and not likely to be kept inside (more likely to be in a plastic bag in the garden).

[KingYaba]

I don't see what the issue is. Guns are like bombs. If you find a bomb in your garden bin, do you pick it up and carry it into a police station?

I disagree. Guns are not like bombs and I would pick up a gun and clear it for safe handling. Usually throwaway guns are used in crimes so I'd call in the serial number to see if it was reported stolen.

If the serial was scrubbed I'd definitely turn it in.

[skunk]

I disagree. Guns are not like bombs and I would pick up a gun and clear it for safe handling. Usually throwaway guns are used in crimes so I'd call in the serial number to see if it was reported stolen.

If the serial was scrubbed I'd definitely turn it in.By which time you'd have probably contaminated it good and proper.


Also I wasn't claiming that people throw shotguns in your back yard for fun, just that people saw them off for fun, at which point they are illegal and not likely to be kept inside (more likely to be in a plastic bag in the garden).
You appear to be mistaking our sense of fun for yours. People over here do not saw the barrels off shotguns for fun either.

[.Andy]

The likelihood of keeping a sawn off shotgun inside your house is low, for all I know the previous owner could have hid it out in the garden as they are illegal here too. ;) Nothing wrong with investigating presents in your back yard.

Also I wasn't claiming that people throw shotguns in your back yard for fun, just that people saw them off for fun, at which point they are illegal and not likely to be kept inside (more likely to be in a plastic bag in the garden).
So you'd keen an illegal firearm :confused:?

[LethalWolfe]

I'm not sure if the ex-solider or the zero tolerance law lacks the most common sense in this story.


Oh, and firearms are not like bombs.


Lethal

[FX120]

^ I stand corrected. :D :o My apologies.

Point still stands, though. There's little public interest in seeing him jailed and the jails are full.

After being found guilty, aren't convicts held in jail until sentencing?

[harperjones99]

I don't know how charges are filed in the UK but in the US if I was a District Attorney I would throw this out and dress down the arresting officer for being an idiot.

Things like this illustrate clearly why zero tolerance is so stupid...nothing applies to everything all the time. Use some damn sense.

Guns are like bombs? Hehe....geez.

[Full of Win]

The likelihood of keeping a sawn off shotgun inside your house is low, for all I know the previous owner could have hid it out in the garden as they are illegal here too. ;) Nothing wrong with investigating presents in your back yard.

Also I wasn't claiming that people throw shotguns in your back yard for fun, just that people saw them off for fun, at which point they are illegal and not likely to be kept inside (more likely to be in a plastic bag in the garden).

Actually, a short barrel shotgun is not always illegal, as Federal code allows for it with the payment of a 200 $ stamp tax, registration, engravement of your name on the receiver and permission of the local LEO (e.g. CP or Sheriff).

The only exception to this are the few states that disallow them.

[harperjones99]

Actually, a short barrel shotgun is not always illegal, as Federal code allows for it with the payment of a 200 $ stamp tax, registration, engravement of your name on the receiver and permission of the local LEO (e.g. CP or Sheriff).

The only exception to this are the few states that disallow them.

Most people get their gun knowledge from TV and rumors. It's one of those topics like religion, abortion etc that has a lot of very emotional people involved in it with very little fact being said.

[Gav2k]

I'm sorry but no one from the u.s can comment on uk law. Let's remind ourselves that a u.s jury just awarded a family millions because a baseball killed there kid.

The guy used no common sense what so ever.

[takao]

Actually, a short barrel shotgun is not always illegal, as Federal code allows for it with the payment of a 200 $ stamp tax, registration, engravement of your name on the receiver and permission of the local LEO (e.g. CP or Sheriff).
The only exception to this are the few states that disallow them.

any shotgun shorter than 90 cm or with a barrel lenght of less than 45 cm is banned, so are any pump action shotguns

except you get a special permit from the minister of inner security (which is unlikely)

o wait i forgot we are talking about the UK here ... and despite many evidence pointing otherwise the UK isn't a state of the USA just yet

[Chris.L]

Of course I can, and ultimately when it is life or death I never refuse to help someone in need.



I don't know what you do for a living, but try to walk in my boots for a shift and run into burning buildings, and crawl into demolished cars and then tell me that it's possible to do any of that if you're valuing someone's life behind a fear of being sued.

On that note, I live and work in Southern California which happens to be the most active "Sue Happy Capital" in the world. I have been sued twice already for attempting, in good faith to help someone while off duty.


Pulling over at a car accident and performing the basic first aid I could until on duty personnel arrived, and when the family was told "They most likely would have survived had they received Advanced Life Support sooner" they came after me citing I had identified myself as a Paramedic and I was unable to provide proper care to their loved one because I didn't have my equipment with me. Ultimately the case was thrown out because of the Good Samaritan Law, but only after I spent hours in court and plenty of money on legal advice.
A lady slipped and fell at the store while I was shopping and after assessing her I advised her that she should be checked out by a doctor "Just to be safe". She sued me citing I had given her poor medical advice because upon examination by her physician she was told she had no serious injuries. She wanted me to pay for her doctors visit and x-rays. I ultimately had the same disposition in this case as the previous with the same cost.


As I stated in my response to Eraserhead, I have resorted to only assisting when I know I am truly needed. For some reason there are people that will try to make a buck at anyones expense, and I have a family to take care of ... I can't afford to be wasting my money on frivolous lawsuits.

So ultimately, because of people that lack common sense ( to be thankful that someone stopped to help instead of just ignoring them ) others may suffer. This is how I feel about the topic of this thread, I can imagine that now if people find guns they will either keep them, or dispose of the improperly due to fear of someone that lacks common sense slapping handcuffs on them and sending them to jail because they went "out of their way" to do what they believed was right.

Unfortunately, similar events happen in the U.K.

When I was trained as a first aider for my employer, the trainer actually stated that he got sued because while giving CPR to someone he cracked a couple of ribs. The injured then went on to sue him.

It got thrown out, but it still happened. He also advised, while to provide first aid as you should, always be aware of the possibility of come back afterwards. Sad really

In terms of of this topic, ex-soldier or not, his actions were wrong. I also think the cops over reacted a bit as well

[harperjones99]

I'm sorry but no one from the u.s can comment on uk law. Let's remind ourselves that a u.s jury just awarded a family millions because a baseball killed there kid.

The guy used no common sense what so ever.

Right if he had common sense he would have taken it home and hidden it in case the world went upside down and he needed it. I honestly cannot comprehend anyone who thinks it was stupid of him to ty and turn it in...he was trying to keep it out of the hands of bad people or kids...how in the world is that crazy? I simply do not get such "fraidy cat" and "absolutist" attitudes.

Comparing civil law to gun laws is a stretch as well. Crazy civil lawsuits happen all over.

If you want to compare stupidities look at the cases in the UK where criminals are let go (because they got stopped or hurt before actually taking anything) and the people they robbed fined because they had fences so sharp they cut the criminal while he was climbing over or they whacked him with an "illegal mop".

[LethalWolfe]

Right if he had common sense he would have taken it home and hidden it in case the world went upside down and he needed it. I honestly cannot comprehend anyone who thinks it was stupid of him to ty and turn it in...he was trying to keep it out of the hands of bad people or kids...how in the world is that crazy? I simply do not get such "fraidy cat" and "absolutist" attitudes.
Call the cops and keep an eye on it until they arrive. Problem solved. I mean, if you found a trash bag full of crack in your yard would you personally drop it off at the local PD (honestly officer, it's not mine. I swear.) or would you call the cops and have them come get it? Again, I think the zero tolerance law is stupid, but walking into a police station and hand delivering something that is illegal to possess is not a heads up move.

His motives were good but his execution was not.


Lethal

[harperjones99]

Call the cops and keep an eye on it until they arrive. Problem solved. I mean, if you found a trash bag full of crack in your yard would you personally drop it off at the local PD (honestly officer, it's not mine. I swear.) or would you call the cops and have them come get it? Again, I think the zero tolerance law is stupid, but walking into a police station and hand delivering something that is illegal to possess is not a heads up move.

His motives were good but his execution was not.


Lethal

I do not get how you think. I don't see anything wrong with turning something you feel is dangerous in as long as it's not an explosive that would be more dangerous to move (and no guns are not dangerous to just "pick up"...if you are someone who thinks so you are right to leave it alone) I think think charging someone with a crime for turning something in at a police station is ridiculous. What is the point of doing so? Clearly the citizen is trying to help and is not a criminal. Rather than saying "thank you" they arrest him? THAT is what is stupid. In this case it is especially stupid because being ex military he has likely handled weapons more than they have.

[awmazz]

Guns are like bombs? Hehe....geez.

How are they so different if it was a 4 year old toddler who picked up a loaded sawn-off in the garden instead of a grown man?

4 yr old head blown off by shotgun. 4 yr old head blown off by pipe bomb. I'm not seeing the difference, so I'm not seeing either the ridiculous or the funny side of the comparison as you seem to do by your scoffing remark.

It's the comparisons between guns and knives that free-for-all anarchist gun-hugging soft-on-crime liberals (you call them 'conservatives' in the USA) keep bringing up to fight anti-gun laws that I find ridiculous and laughable. An explosive projectile weapon which can kill at 300 yards is the same as a sharp bit if metal? What stand up comedy routine is that from? If it is truly the case as I hear it every time there's a mass shooting in America and gun control comes up as an issue - he would have just used a knives instead - then just take all the guns from your soldiers and send them into battle with swords then. Same thing, no difference, huh.

I'm actually not surprised to read some people claim they would have picked an unknown gun up too to examine it. Some people do that with grenades they find too. But the proper and sensible thing to do is this:

http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/grenades-found-near-farm-shed/1670717.aspx

[jav6454]

British = Subjects
Americans = Citizens

Just a suggestion people of Britain, but it might be a good idea to stop printing the face of an unelected ruler, who views you as her "property", on your money. Just my opinion :)

This brings nothing useful to the table... seriously, comments like this are idiotic and trollish in nature.

[Peterkro]

I'm loath to comment on this as there is obviously more to the story than what has been printed so far. This link about Clarke (although he was found not guilty ) suggests he may not be entirely the honest upright citizen he claims to be:
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html

[anim8or]

I don't see what the issue is. Guns are like bombs. If you find a bomb in your garden bin, do you pick it up and carry it into a police station?

Cops in Britain are unarmed, which means the instant he pulled it out his bag the whole place would have gone into lockdown and the armed Tactical Response Unit would have been called out and every known alarm would have been set off for the safety of the officers.

What I like about laws like this is they are blanket. No smart-a lawyer to get you off on a technicality or unusual circumstances or 'intent'. The law is quite clear. Possession is possession. Full stop. Carry it around, you own it. No excuses. Just don't pick a gun up. Ever. Especially one that's not yours.

Just like drug dealers can't claim they just found the heroin in their pocket on the street. This way they can send bank robbers to prison just for having a gun, not having to prove they actually used it in a hold up. Why do you think they dumped it in the first place?

I can well imagine American bleeding-heart gun-hugging liberals who love to go soft on law breakers being outraged by this story though. ;)

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard and your post only makes me more angry at this case....

What if a child had found it? or what if the soldier had left it where it was and called the police then someone else found it and made off with it in the meantime? By your logic if he had taken it into his home for safe keeping until the police arrived then he should be charged too!

The fact that you seem to think he would have strolled into the police station and simple popped it on the desk, rather than saying to the officers before showing them his find, makes me laugh out loud!

We understand that 'intent' has no bearing on whether you are or are not breaking the law but police officers make judgement calls all the time in their jobs and who to arrest or who to let off with a warning.

People caught speeding have broken the law and should be punished by the terms of the law... but police officers sometimes make a judgement call based on the circumstances.... for example someone caught going 3-5mph over the limit can be given a warning and no points or fine just because the officer decides to do so.

In this case the commanding officer should have made a better judgement call.

Regardless of this the soldier has been found guilty and will now carry that on his record for a while probably hindering his chances to get a job, etc.

We can only hope that the judge who is sentencing him will see the light and go easy on his sentence, after all he doesn't have to give the full sentence or even the recommended time at all... its his decision.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Typical of the UK more and more nowadays, I'm sad to say.

Instead of dealing with violence directly, they treat anything they deem a "weapon" a dangerous virus that has to be quarantined and controlled before it attacks again.

I'm starting to see why people are so terrified of gun control over here. If you get enough people scared, it's a slippery slope into V for Vendetta land, or Orwell's 1984.


How are they so different if it was a 4 year old toddler who picked up a loaded sawn-off in the garden instead of a grown man?

4 yr old head blown off by shotgun. 4 yr old head blown off by pipe bomb. I'm not seeing the difference, so I'm not seeing either the ridiculous or the funny side of the comparison as you seem to do by your scoffing remark.

It's the comparisons between guns and knives that free-for-all anarchist gun-hugging soft-on-crime liberals (you call them 'conservatives' in the USA) keep bringing up to fight anti-gun laws that I find ridiculous and laughable. An explosive projectile weapon which can kill at 300 yards is the same as a sharp bit if metal? What stand up comedy routine is that from? If it is truly the case as I hear it every time there's a mass shooting in America and gun control comes up as an issue - he would have just used a knives instead - then just take all the guns from your soldiers and send them into battle with swords then. Same thing, no difference, huh.

I'm actually not surprised to read some people claim they would have picked an unknown gun up too to examine it. Some people do that with grenades they find too. But the proper and sensible thing to do is this:

http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/grenades-found-near-farm-shed/1670717.aspx


Let me try to help you see the difference:

A pipe bomb is an unpredictable device designed solely for killing and maiming. A shotgun can be used to shoot targets and hunt game animals for dinner.

It isn’t the shotgun’s fault some idiot took a hacksaw to it and dumped it on someone’s front lawn, any more than it’s the fault of a piece of pipe that some sicko stuffed it full of explosives and shrapnel.

You bring up guns and knives, which is an interesting parallel. Many people on your side of the pond do not seem to view knives as anything other than deadly weapons, even though they use knives on a daily basis to complete thoroughly mundane tasks.

The association between “knife” and “ruthless killer” is completely arbitrary. You can use an 8” Chef’s knife to prepare your dinner, or you can use it to savagely gut a hobo. That’s an extreme, but I hope you see what I’m getting at. The knife has no say in the matter, it’s the person wielding the knife who decides what to do with it.

If a toddler got ahold of one of your kitchen knives and maimed themselves, would you cry for public outrage and demand all kitchen knives be outlawed, or would you place the responsibility where it belongs and realize you shouldn’t leave a sharp knife out on your kitchen counter in reach of a little kid?

I'm not singling you out personally, I'm just using your opinion to point out a logical failure that your politicians are exploiting with fear tactics, while the real problems of violence go unsolved.

[skunk]

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard and your post only makes me more angry at this case....

What if a child had found it? or what if the soldier had left it where it was and called the police then someone else found it and made off with it in the meantime? By your logic if he had taken it into his home for safe keeping until the police arrived then he should be charged too!

The fact that you seem to think he would have strolled into the police station and simple popped it on the desk, rather than saying to the officers before showing them his find, makes me laugh out loud!

We understand that 'intent' has no bearing on whether you are or are not breaking the law but police officers make judgement calls all the time in their jobs and who to arrest or who to let off with a warning.

People caught speeding have broken the law and should be punished by the terms of the law... but police officers sometimes make a judgement call based on the circumstances.... for example someone caught going 3-5mph over the limit can be given a warning and no points or fine just because the officer decides to do so.

In this case the commanding officer should have made a better judgement call.The man was a fool. He called the police anyway, so why did he not ask them to come and pick it up instead of carrying a sawn-off shotgun through the streets and playing silly buggers at the police station? He destroyed any evidence by doing so, and they only have his word for it that he found it in his garden rather than put it there himself.

[anim8or]

The man was a fool. He called the police anyway, so why did he not ask them to come and pick it up instead of carrying a sawn-off shotgun through the streets and playing silly buggers at the police station? He destroyed any evidence by doing so, and they only have his word for it that he found it in his garden rather than put it there himself.

I fully understand your point but do you punish him with a five year jail sentence for doing what he thought was the sensible thing.

Saying they only have his word for it is quite harsh too... whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And he was not there for doing anything wrong in the first place.

[yetanotherdave]

I fully understand your point but do you punish him with a five year jail sentence for doing what he thought was the sensible thing.

Saying they only have his word for it is quite harsh too... whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And he was not there for doing anything wrong in the first place.

5 years is the maximum sentence right? He wont get that ,he'll probably get 6 months suspended or something, because, and I'm glad about this, we have zero tolerance for illegal weapons. He should have told the police on the phone that he'd found a gun not that he was going to "pop in and see them" and then followed their directions on what to do.

[alphaod]

Good gracious; that's just cruel.

[awmazz]

If a toddler got ahold of one of your kitchen knives and maimed themselves, would you cry for public outrage and demand all kitchen knives be outlawed, or would you place the responsibility where it belongs and realize you shouldn’t leave a sharp knife out on your kitchen counter in reach of a little kid?

I'm not singling you out personally, I'm just using your opinion to point out a logical failure that your politicians are exploiting with fear tactics, while the real problems of violence go unsolved.

Politicians are actually the ones who drag their feet on the issues of armed violence, appeasing the special interest groups. In Australia we had our own gun lobbyists.

It was after the Port Arthur massacre following several other massacres that the public outrage was too great for them to ignore it any more and the gun lobbyists were overwhelmed by the body count and finally lost. Guns banned. No more massacres. Real problem of violence, resolved.

And yes, knives too are now banned. It was after a spate of robbery stabbings that the public was equally outraged and demanded something be done. All hunting knives and bayonets etc are now banned from sale and illegal to carry in public. In the home, there's no such law as it's the responsibility of the home-owner to ensure kitchen knives are kept safely from children, like pots of boiling water, powerpoints etc.

Outside of the house in the yard, different thing. Public safety and laws, even if it's private property. For example, it's illegal to have a swimming pool without a child-proof fence surrounding it, even if you never any children on the property. Just in case a neighbours kid decides to trespass.

You don't have to invent extreme scenarios. There are a number of countries around the world right now practically applying gun and knife control laws for years now taking into account every known practical scenario and workable or unworkable real-life application you can think of, so there's no need for you to come up with 'what about kitchen knives, where's the public outrage!' hypothetical stuff.

[harperjones99]

How are they so different if it was a 4 year old toddler who picked up a loaded sawn-off in the garden instead of a grown man?

4 yr old head blown off by shotgun. 4 yr old head blown off by pipe bomb. I'm not seeing the difference, so I'm not seeing either the ridiculous or the funny side of the comparison as you seem to do by your scoffing remark.

It's the comparisons between guns and knives that free-for-all anarchist gun-hugging soft-on-crime liberals (you call them 'conservatives' in the USA) keep bringing up to fight anti-gun laws that I find ridiculous and laughable. An explosive projectile weapon which can kill at 300 yards is the same as a sharp bit if metal? What stand up comedy routine is that from? If it is truly the case as I hear it every time there's a mass shooting in America and gun control comes up as an issue - he would have just used a knives instead - then just take all the guns from your soldiers and send them into battle with swords then. Same thing, no difference, huh.

I'm actually not surprised to read some people claim they would have picked an unknown gun up too to examine it. Some people do that with grenades they find too. But the proper and sensible thing to do is this:

http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/grenades-found-near-farm-shed/1670717.aspx

Look...I cannot expect you to understand because you were clearly raised differently. I do not fear firearms and know how they work. They don't just "go off" like explosives can and I am confident one would be safer in my hands (I know how to render them safe) than laying about for some kid to pick up. I would do so with my hands covered to minimize fingerprints in case it was used in a crime and likely take a photo of its position before picking it up. It all depends on the situation...maybe he didn't have time to wait and wanted to try his best to be a "good citizen".

I also know better than to argue gun issues as a whole...it's like arguing abortion...nothing ever comes out of it.
Again I do not find what he did "stupid". I find it honorable.

[Bear Hunter]

And yes, knives too are now banned. It was after a spate of robbery stabbings that the public was equally outraged and demanded something be done. All hunting knives and bayonets etc are now banned from sale and illegal to carry in public.

Nice...that will show em! Someone who was willing to stab someone to death will surely not be brazen enough to conceal and carry a knife in public!


You don't have to invent extreme scenarios. There are a number of countries around the world right now practically applying gun and knife control laws for years now taking into account every known practical scenario and workable or unworkable real-life application you can think of, so there's no need for you to come up with 'what about kitchen knives, where's the public outrage!' hypothetical stuff.

Right on! When are spoons going to be banned so people don't get fat?

[harperjones99]

Right on! When are spoons going to be banned so people don't get fat?

You laugh now...it really is scary how much is "banned" or "illegal" compared to when I was young. It's not working.

There is another thread somewhere in here about some initiative to vote chocolate milk INTO schools...how the hell did it ever get taken out? I am sure a tiny box of chocolate milk a day is going to be the end of civilization as we know it. People are ridiculous.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Right on! When are spoons going to be banned so people don't get fat?

Forget spoons - we clearly need to ban hands so fat people can't lift bacon double cheeseburgers to their gaping maws. ;)

[harperjones99]

Forget spoons - we clearly need to ban hands so fat people can't lift bacon double cheeseburgers to their gaping maws. ;)

Pfft...put a bacon double cheeseburger and a coke in a blender...get a straw...problem solved ;)

[Zombie Acorn]

So you'd keen an illegal firearm :confused:?

Outside in a plastic bag in the garden.

[harperjones99]

Outside in a plastic bag in the garden.

Yep...don't look a gift horse in the mouth. If I was from a country that banned guns and had the chance to have one stashed away for the end of the world I would take it.

Andy would crap himself if he knew how many guns were buried or stashed in attics for a rainy day in the UK and Australia for example. Not everyone who has a gun is a baddie.

[LethalWolfe]

I do not get how you think. I don't see anything wrong with turning something you feel is dangerous in as long as it's not an explosive that would be more dangerous to move (and no guns are not dangerous to just "pick up"...if you are someone who thinks so you are right to leave it alone) I think think charging someone with a crime for turning something in at a police station is ridiculous. What is the point of doing so? Clearly the citizen is trying to help and is not a criminal. Rather than saying "thank you" they arrest him? THAT is what is stupid. In this case it is especially stupid because being ex military he has likely handled weapons more than they have.
Do not get how I think? I think knowingly breaking the law in a room full of cops, even if you mean well, isn't a good idea. Again, right idea but poor execution.

It's not about the gun being dangerous. It's about possessing something that is illegal to possess and waltzing into a police station w/it. For the third time, I agree that zero tolerance laws are stupid, but knowingly violating a zero tolerance law, even if you mean well, isn't too bright either. IMO you can't blame the cops here because they are enforcing the law which is their job. Their job is not to interpret the law or to create laws. Blame the stupid law on the politicians that passed.


Lethal

[harperjones99]

Do not get how I think? I think knowingly breaking the law in a room full of cops, even if you mean well, isn't a good idea. Again, right idea but poor execution.




Lethal

No I still don't get how you think. The law's intent is not to punish someone who brings a gun in in the idea of public safety. It is ridiculous to paint with such broad strokes and I am glad not ALL cops and prosecuting attorneys are so ridiculous. They could have said "thank you" and been done with it. That has likely happened hundreds of times before when people turned things in they found. It's only been made a big deal now because he was punished for it.

People break laws all the time knowingly and unknowingly but a discretion based on common sense should be used. If you are the kind of person who sees things so absolutely again...no I do not get how you think. He did nothing "wrong".

[awmazz]

Nice...that will show em! Someone who was willing to stab someone to death will surely not be brazen enough to conceal and carry a knife in public!

Of course they do. But better they are caught and arrested for carrying a knife than after they've used it to stab someone to death, don't you agree? Because before this law, that's exactly what happened. Someone had to actually be stabbed before the person could be arrested.

Like drink driving laws. Do you agree with that sort of preventative law, or do you think they should only be charged for DUI *after* they've killed someone? People still try to get away with it and take the risk with both DUI and weapons. It's a get pulled over for a running a stop sign and sh** your pants because you're carrying a knife/gun or drunk law.

I think you already have similar laws already anyway, watching shows like COPS I've seen where they find a gun in a car and it makes a difference if there's a round in the chamber or not.

Right on! When are spoons going to be banned so people don't get fat?

I can't tell if you're cracking wise or not as this is exactly the sort of unrealistic extreme ridiculous scenario the gun-hugging soft-on-crime lobby trots out all the time because they can't win with real-world scenarios.

[.Andy]

Outside in a plastic bag in the garden.

Yep...don't look a gift horse in the mouth. If I was from a country that banned guns and had the chance to have one stashed away for the end of the world I would take it.
Ignore the fact that it might have been used in a crime and could get a criminal off the streets. Another example (along with Zombie Acorn's above) that those who are the most pro-guns often have absolutely terrible judgement.

Andy would crap himself if he knew how many guns were buried or stashed in attics for a rainy day in the UK and Australia for example. Not everyone who has a gun is a baddie.
Well they would be "baddies" by definition as they are keeping an illegal firearm.

[harperjones99]

I
Well they would be "baddies" by definition as they are keeping an illegal firearm.

I see your point about the weapon being potential evidence in a crime but there are ways to find out if that is likely. My comment was more tongue in cheek about keeping the "gift" but it doesn't make your viewpoint right. In the US I would make more of an effort to turn it in because I know there I would not likely be arrested for such a benign action. I have lived in countries with extreme gun laws and attitudes so the original article while disappointing is not surprising.

I know you have an entirely different view than me and will never agree but your comment that firearms owners more often have poor judgment is simply an expression of your beliefs and not based in any fact.

And as far as baddies go..."by definition" has little to do with practical reality. Laws are designed to protect society...keeping a gun buried for emergencies doesn't make you bad or harmful...it is a ridiculous absolutist idea. If simply breaking a "law" makes one bad then everyone including you would have to be locked up.

In the end this incident does harm not good because the guy involved and others who read it are more likely to not get involved at all for fear of becoming a victim of such stupidity themselves. Next time he comes across some situation where he could do some good he is going to avoid it and see it as "not worth it". It is where sayings like "no good deed goes unpunished" come from.

[awmazz]

Anyway, I think there's more to this story than is reported. For starters, finding it in his garden was just his version in his statement to the court as to how the gun came to be in his possession. The crown prosecutor didn't even cross-examine this statement. Mainly because they didn't need to I suppose. But I get the feeling they believe the gun was his all along rather than buying his "I found it" story.

Everyone thinking how odd his behaviour was in regards to calling the cops but not telling them what he was bringing in, and even taking it to them instead of them coming to him, examining it himself thus destroying any evidence of the 'previous owner'.... too many odd things about his story.

[.Andy]

I see your point about the weapon being potential evidence in a crime but there are ways to find out if that is likely.
Yet another example of terrible judgement by someone pro-gun. Egotistical belief in their amateur sleuthing abilities.

And as far as baddies go..."by definition" has little to do with practical reality. Laws are designed to protect society...keeping a gun buried doesn't make you bad or harmful...it is a ridiculous absolutist idea.
A gun hidden in the garden is insecure. Anybody can dig it up and get ahold of it. It's breaking safety laws. It's also possible that said "gift-horse" gun is crucial evidence that could get a criminal off the street. There's just two examples of the laws protecting society. But I guess your own material gain trumps the safety of others.

Keeping a gun you find wrapped in a plastic garden is utterly indefensible. If you want a gun and have a reason to use it apply through official channels.

[harperjones99]

Yet another example of terrible judgement by someone pro-gun. Egotistical belief in their amateur sleuthing abilities.


A gun hidden in the garden is insecure. Anybody can dig it up and get ahold of it. It's breaking safety laws.
It's also possible that said "gift-horse" gun is crucial evidence that could get a criminal off the street.
There's just two examples of the laws protecting society.

Keeping a gun you find wrapped in a plastic garden is utterly indefensible.


Ok Andy...you believe as you wish and I will as I wish. Agreed?

You have made judgments about me and my character because I disagree with you on a contentious issue. I am not so naive to think that will change because I post something on a message board.

[LethalWolfe]

No I still don't get how you think. The law's intent is not to punish someone who brings a gun in in the idea of public safety. It is ridiculous to paint with such broad strokes and I am glad not ALL cops and prosecuting attorneys are so ridiculous. They could have said "thank you" and been done with it. That has likely happened hundreds of times before when people turned things in they found. It's only been made a big deal now because he was punished for it.

People break laws all the time knowingly and unknowingly but a discretion based on common sense should be used. If you are the kind of person who sees things so absolutely again...no I do not get how you think. He did nothing "wrong".

Justice and the law aren't the same thing.

I don't see things as absolute as things as they are. I think absolute laws, zero tolerance laws, (like mandatory minimum sentences and 3 strikes) are bad because they don't allow for cops, lawyers, judges, etc., to use their judgement based on the circumstances. But those laws do exist and should be enforced because I don't believe laws should be selectively enforced. If a law is bad it should be changed, not ignored. Do I think this guy deserves to go to jail for being a good samaritan? No. I do hope that his case gets enough attention thought that the zero tolerance law is changed by the legislature.


Lethal

[Zombie Acorn]

Ignore the fact that it might have been used in a crime and could get a criminal off the streets. Another example (along with Zombie Acorn's above) that those who are the most pro-guns often have absolutely terrible judgement.


I live in an area with very little to no crime at all, violent crime is restricted to an occasional bar fight which is usually broken up within a couple minutes. The town I grew up in was similar, no one locked their doors, everyone owned guns, nothing ever happened. Im not living in Chicago here.

Keeping a gun you find wrapped in a plastic garden is utterly indefensible. If you want a gun and have a reason to use it apply through official channels.

I have a couple guns, it doesn't mean I won't take another one for free though. :cool:

[The Californian]

Both those are example of why we need massive reform in the legal system. You who did nothing wrong and it was proven that you did nothing wrong had to pay out tons of money in legal fees. If something is thrown out like that I feel that the suer should have to pay your legal fees because both were crap cases.

I wish.

[harperjones99]

Justice and the law aren't the same thing.

I don't see things as absolute as things as they are. I think absolute laws, zero tolerance laws, (like mandatory minimum sentences and 3 strikes) are bad because they don't allow for cops, lawyers, judges, etc., to use their judgement based on the circumstances. But those laws do exist and should be enforced because I don't believe laws should be selectively enforced. If a law is bad it should be changed, not ignored. Do I think this guy deserves to go to jail for being a good samaritan? No. I do hope that his case gets enough attention thought that the zero tolerance law is changed by the legislature.

Lethal

Then we really only disagree on one point...I do think there is room for discretion in law enforcement. Laws are concrete things and cannot be easily changed (though I agree should be if bad)...therefore it is up to law enforcement to be reasonable.

[Peterkro]

I live in an area with very little to no crime at all, violent crime is restricted to an occasional bar fight which is usually broken up within a couple minutes. The town I grew up in was similar, no one locked their doors, everyone owned guns, nothing ever happened. Im not living in Chicago here.



You live in Mayberry?

[harperjones99]

I live in an area with very little to no crime at all, violent crime is restricted to an occasional bar fight which is usually broken up within a couple minutes. The town I grew up in was similar, no one locked their doors, everyone owned guns, nothing ever happened. Im not living in Chicago here.


It is a fundamental difference is how people are raised and what they are taught. I like you was raised in a home with rifles leaning in the corner and where people didn't lock their doors. I didn't even know people got so upset about hunting and shooting until I went to university. I was disturbed at the attitudes everyone I met in the UK had about firearms...and I realized they had never dealt with or been around them in their lives and were just behaving as they had been taught and believed from retards like Michael Moore. I have seen lots of gun hating people come around with a little education and familiarity but I have never, ever seen someone go the other way and become a hater later in life.

[Zombie Acorn]

You live in Mayberry?

If this is a reference to some fictional town where nothing bad happens, yes, it pretty much is. The retirement home forgetting to add gravy to the potatoes is probably the talk of the town today.

It is a fundamental difference is how people are raised and what they are taught. I was disturbed at the attitudes everyone I met in the UK had about firearms...and I realized they had never dealt with or been around them in their lives and were just behaving as they had been taught and believed from retards like Michael Moore. I have seen lots of gun hating people come around with a little education and familiarity but I have never, ever seen someone go the other way and become a hater later in life.

I didn't really care either way about guns before it became such a political issue (I grew up around them, went hunting as a kid etc), it used to be fairly personal, you either liked them for whatever reason or didn't. Now it defines you as a person.

I try to keep in mind there are people who go over the top on both sides of the fence though, I know people who are stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo, which if done because you like shooting is fine, but if you do it because you are fearful its a bit unfounded.

[.Andy]

You have made judgments about me and my character because I disagree with you on a contentious issue. I am not so naive to think that will change because I post something on a message board.
I made no such judgements. You posted that you'd keen a sawn-off shotgun that was thrown into your yard in a plastic bag. You also said instead of calling the police you'd do some amateur sleuthing to see if you could keep it. That's objectively incredibly poor judgement. It's also the type of poor judgement that would get you a criminal record and make you unable to get a firearms license (quite rightly).

I was disturbed at the attitudes everyone I met in the UK had about firearms...and I realized they had never dealt with or been around them in their lives and were just behaving as they had been taught and believed from retards like Michael Moore.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is an uneducated, blind sheep who can't think for themselves". Please :rolleyes:.

[Blue Velvet]

Just a reminder to those in the US, a sawn-off shotgun is the main weapon of choice for armed bank and cash-van robbers in the UK, hence the minimum sentence of five years for possession.

Anyone who has lived in the UK will understand the foolish risk this man took. If he'd been seen carrying it to the police station, even getting out of a car, there could have been an armed police incident, and those guys don't mess around at all.

If his story was true, then given how things are over here, the sane response would have been to keep an eye on it while calling the police on his mobile phone. Simple.

[harperjones99]

I made no such judgements. You posted that you'd keen a sawn-off shotgun that was thrown into your yard in a plastic bag. You also said instead of calling the police you'd do some amateur sleuthing to see if you could keep it. That's objectively incredibly poor judgement. It's also the type of poor judgement that would get you a criminal record and make you unable to get a firearms license (quite rightly).


"Everyone who disagrees with me is an uneducated, blind sheep who can't think for themselves". Please :rolleyes:.

Firstly...thankully I don't need to ask permission and get a "license".

Secondly...if you have such a strong opinion and actively fight against something that you have no experience with then yes you are a sheep following things you have been told. I have not heard anything but emotion from most anti gun folks. They don't know anything about them really yet choose to define their owners. Anyway...like I said no sense in this discussion.

[Queso]

It is a fundamental difference is how people are raised and what they are taught. I like you was raised in a home with rifles leaning in the corner and where people didn't lock their doors. I didn't even know people got so upset about hunting and shooting until I went to university. I was disturbed at the attitudes everyone I met in the UK had about firearms...and I realized they had never dealt with or been around them in their lives and were just behaving as they had been taught and believed from retards like Michael Moore. I have seen lots of gun hating people come around with a little education and familiarity but I have never, ever seen someone go the other way and become a hater later in life.
Dunblane Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre)

Hungerford Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre)

This is why nobody in the UK wants easily available firearms. What more needs to be said?

[Rampant.A.I.]

I can't tell if you're cracking wise or not as this is exactly the sort of unrealistic extreme ridiculous scenario the gun-hugging soft-on-crime lobby trots out all the time because they can't win with real-world scenarios.

Did you read the real-world scenario in the original post in this thread?

Dunblane Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre)

Hungerford Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre)

This is why nobody in the UK wants easily available firearms. What more needs to be said?

Blaming the availability of guns without investigating the social reasons horrible events like that happen is a sure recipe to make sure events like that happen again, only with black market guns.

[.Andy]

Firstly...thankully I don't need to ask permission and get a "license".
I never claimed you had to :confused:. Just stated the fact that if you keep illegal firearms and/or hamper a police investigation (as you quite readily claimed you'd do) you will likely end up with a criminal record and not be able to keep any weapons.

Secondly...if you have such a strong opinion and actively fight against something that you have no experience with then yes you are a sheep following things you have been told. I have not heard anything but emotion from most anti gun folks.
Stereotypes will get you nowhere.

They don't know anything about them really yet choose to define their owners.
"People who are for restrictions on guns don't know anything about them". What an amazing sophisticated argument.

[harperjones99]

Dunblane Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre)

Hungerford Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre)

This is why nobody in the UK wants easily available firearms. What more needs to be said?

Yeah bad people will do bad things...and they will do them regardless of what you bad or what you say is illegal. I prefer to have a means to defend myself if something bad happens than just holding up my hands screaming and dying when those bad people DO come alone. You are free to not have a firearm...that's the beauty of personal rights.

[harperjones99]

I never claimed you had to :confused:. Just stated the fact that if you keep illegal firearms and/or hamper a police investigation (as you quite readily claimed you'd do) you will likely end up with a criminal record and not be able to keep any weapons.


Stereotypes will get you nowhere.


"People who are for restrictions on guns don't know anything about them". What an amazing sophisticated argument.

Andy...we are not going to agree...if you want to "win" an internet argument ok I forfeit you are the champ. But I will continue to own firearms and I will continue to be a good and responsible person. Nothing you say will change that just as nothing I say will make you agree with me. Have a good day sir.

[.Andy]

I have not heard anything but emotion from most anti gun folks.
I prefer to have a means to defend myself if something bad happens than just holding up my hands screaming and dying when those bad people DO come alone.
Any chance you see the hypocrisy?

Andy...we are not going to agree...if you want to "win" an internet argument ok I forfeit you are the champ. But I will continue to own firearms and I will continue to be a good and responsible person. Nothing you say will change that just as nothing I say will make you agree with me. Have a good day sir.
Which is all very good and patronising but if you're going to continue to post awful arguments and stereotype people that are for gun restrictions as uniformed sheep you can bet your bottom dollar I will call you on it.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Politicians are actually the ones who drag their feet on the issues of armed violence, appeasing the special interest groups. In Australia we had our own gun lobbyists.

Thank you for re-iterating what I just said. However, I think you have me mixed up with some invisible adversary. I am not a gun lobbyist. I don't have any guns in my home. Associating me with a special interest group is not only a logical fallacy, but shows you do not believe in the interests of minority groups.

It was after the Port Arthur massacre following several other massacres that the public outrage was too great for them to ignore it any more and the gun lobbyists were overwhelmed by the body count and finally lost. Guns banned. No more massacres. Real problem of violence, resolved.

No, it was temporarily abated. Taking away weapons doesn't do anything about the underlying reasons something like that happened, so it will happen again.


And yes, knives too are now banned. It was after a spate of robbery stabbings that the public was equally outraged and demanded something be done. All hunting knives and bayonets etc are now banned from sale and illegal to carry in public. In the home, there's no such law as it's the responsibility of the home-owner to ensure kitchen knives are kept safely from children, like pots of boiling water, powerpoints etc.

I don't know what more I can do for you here. I know you don't like hypotheticals, but try to stay with me here:

A crime was committed with guns, so guns were banned. A crime was committed with a hunting knife, so now hunting knives are banned. If a crime is committed with a kitchen knife, what do you think will be the plausible outcome?

[harperjones99]

Any chance you see the hypocrisy?


Which is all very good and patronising but if you're going to continue to post awful arguments and stereotype people that are for gun restrictions as uniformed sheep you can bet your bottom dollar I will call you on it.

Most of them ARE uninformed. I now this because I AM informed and the things they say do not match up with what is factual.

And there is no hypocrisy in my comments. You trying to twist some out of them out of context doesn't count.

I think it is cute how you have appointed yourself my nemesis here but it's getting boring. Go donate to some anti gun site and put your money where your mouth is.

[.Andy]

And there is no hypocrisy in my comments. You trying to twist some out of them out of context doesn't count.
They're not out of context at all. One post you're claiming that "people for gun restrictions appeal to emotion" then a post of two later you're delving in hyperbolic fantasy about not being armed and "putting you hands up and screaming and dying". It's there for everyone to read.

I think it is cute how you have appointed yourself my nemesis here but it's getting boring.
Not your nemesis at all. Just not a fan of ridiculous stereotypes and anecdotes to make a point and belittle those with a differing opinion.

[harperjones99]

They're not out of context at all. One post you're claiming that "people for gun restrictions appeal to emotion" then a post of two later you're delving in hyperbolic fantasy about not being armed and "putting you hands up and screaming and dying". It's there for everyone to read.


Not your nemesis at all. Just not a fan of ridiculous stereotypes and anecdotes to make a point and belittle those with a differing opinion.

It is not 'fantasy" buddy...it happens. I hope never to me or my loved ones but it does happen. You are free to not care or take steps...but you have no right to try to prevent me from doing so because of your fears of tools in the hands of normal citizens. Gun control does not keep guns out of the hands of bad people because bad people do not follow rules. Either some people are too stupid to see that or their motives are more to force EVERYONE to submit to their belief system good people included.

Mind your own business comes to mind. You live your way and I will live mine. But for some reason there are those who can't stop meddling in other people's affairs.

[.Andy]

It is not 'fantasy" buddy...it happens. I hope never to me or my loved ones but it does happen. You are free to not care or take steps...but you have no right to try to prevent me from doing so because of your fears of tools in the hands of normal citizens.
If you're going to make a case why having a gun makes you objectively safer why not provide some research instead of these appeals to emotion. If it's such a foregone conclusion and you're as informed as you claim this should be easy for you to produce....

Gun control does not keep guns out of the hands of bad people because bad people do not follow rules.
Neither do you. You quite happily claimed you'd illegally keep a sawn-off shotgun if you found one. You'd consider it a "gift-horse". Again do you have any objective evidence that gun laws don't decrease the amount of gun crime besides your assertions? Or even that gun-restrictions lead to an increase in crime?

Either some people are too stupid to see that or their motives are more to force EVERYONE to submit to their belief system good people included.
Stereotyping again.

[Queso]

Yeah bad people will do bad things...and they will do them regardless of what you bad or what you say is illegal. I prefer to have a means to defend myself if something bad happens than just holding up my hands screaming and dying when those bad people DO come alone. You are free to not have a firearm...that's the beauty of personal rights.
You miss the point. The "bad people" used to find it much easier to obtain guns than they now can. Therefore the law has produced a result the vast majority of people in this country are very happy with, myself included.

You can run round with rifles all you like for all I care, but in the UK it's illegal because people want it that way. It's not the government being dictatorial and it's nothing to do with freedom.

[harperjones99]

You miss the point. The "bad people" used to find it much easier to obtain guns than they now can. Therefore the law has produced a result the vast majority of people in this country are very happy with, myself included.

You can run round with rifles all you like for all I care, but in the UK it's illegal because people want it that way. It's not the government being dictatorial and it's nothing to do with freedom.

No YOU are missing the point. They can still get them if they want them and they clearly have many other ways to kill....to the point that a chef carrying his knives to work can be arrested for having "dangerous weapons" because of draconian laws against knives now...it has become ridiculous. I know plenty of people in the UK who DO oppose the nanny state nonsense the govt there puts on them so I know you don't speak for all or most even.

[sushi]

those who are the most pro-guns often have absolutely terrible judgement.
Thanks for insulting many law abiding and responsible gun owners who are on MR.

Anyway, I think there's more to this story than is reported.
There always is.

I live in an area with very little to no crime at all, violent crime is restricted to an occasional bar fight which is usually broken up within a couple minutes. The town I grew up in was similar, no one locked their doors, everyone owned guns, nothing ever happened. Im not living in Chicago here.
Reminds me of where I grew up. :)

[.Andy]

Thanks for insulting many law abiding and responsible gun owners who are on MR.
Whoa there cut quoter. Finish the sentence.
Another example (along with Zombie Acorn's above) that those who are the most pro-guns often have absolutely terrible judgement.
Both Zombie and Harper Jones both demonstrated terrible judgment. I can mine some more quotes to back my position if you like. I most certainly didn't direct it at all gun owners on MR.

[Queso]

No YOU are missing the point. They can still get them if they want them and they clearly have many other ways to kill....to the point that a chef carrying his knives to work can be arrested for having "dangerous weapons" because of draconian laws against knives now...it has become ridiculous. I know plenty of people in the UK who DO oppose the nanny state nonsense the govt there puts on them so I know you don't speak for all or most even.
Chefs can carry their knives to work. Anyone that says otherwise has fallen for tabloid sensationalism and is not to be believed. How do I know this? I regularly carry a great big serrated diver's knife when going diving, and have been told by multiple police officers that it is fine to do so under those circumstances. However, if I were to carry the same knife whilst shopping or going clubbing that most certainly would not be OK. It's the same for chefs. Link (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/CrimePrevention/DG_078569)

Anyway, I miss the relevance of that when discussing longstanding gun laws that pre-date our current government. There is no majority of Brits that wish looser gun control. Quite the opposite.

[Zombie Acorn]

Whoa there cut quoter. Finish the sentence.

Both Zombie and Harper Jones both demonstrated terrible judgment. I can mine some more quotes to back my position if you like. I most certainly didn't direct it at all gun owners on MR.

I always have excellent judgment, especially when it comes to obtaining new fire arms. In my particular situation there is no reason to think a gun was used in a crime.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Chefs can carry their knives to work. Anyone that says otherwise has fallen for tabloid sensationalism and is not to be believed. How do I know this? I regularly carry a great big serrated diver's knife when going diving, and have been told by multiple police officers that it is fine to do so under those circumstances. However, if I were to carry the same knife whilst shopping or going clubbing that most certainly would not be OK. It's the same for chefs. Link (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/CrimePrevention/DG_078569)

Anyway, I miss the relevance of that when discussing longstanding gun laws that pre-date our current government. There is no majority of Brits that wish looser gun control. Quite the opposite.

Yes, fear of the unknown and misinformation are powerful tools. Scare someone enough times with the threat of gun violence, and they'll never want to touch a gun, let alone let their neighbor have one.

Guns are like a virus, infecting everyone who touches one, causing them to commit unspeakable acts of deranged criminal violence.

Just as this news story shows, as soon as someone even touches a gun, we need to lock them up to make sure they're safe, and not contaminated with Gun Violence.

[LethalWolfe]

Then we really only disagree on one point...I do think there is room for discretion in law enforcement. Laws are concrete things and cannot be easily changed (though I agree should be if bad)...therefore it is up to law enforcement to be reasonable.
I agree that there should be room for discretion in law enforcement too which is why I disagree with zero tolerance type laws that take discretion out of the equation. I don't advocate law enforcement or court officers selectively breaking, or selecting letting others break, the law which is what would happen if zero tolerance type laws were not properly enforced. Bad laws need to be changed, not selectively ignored or broken by the people responsible for enforcing them. Doing anything less sends the message that all laws are optional and that undermines a civilized criminal justice system.

A good person can justify breaking a bad law for a good reason as easily as a bad person can justify breaking a good law for a bad reason. Unfortunately good and bad is all subjective which is why the law should try to be as objective as possible.


You miss the point. The "bad people" used to find it much easier to obtain guns than they now can. Therefore the law has produced a result the vast majority of people in this country are very happy with, myself included.
Actually the "bad people" seem to have no problem finding firearms in the UK as the rate of gun crime there has gone up since the big gun ban of the late '90s. By comparison, over the same period of time the rate of gun crime in the US has gone down. From what I've read much of the increased rate of gun violence in the UK is being attributed to an increase in gang violence related to drug pushing. This is similar to what happened in the US 20-some-odd years ago. Gun crime is symptom of a bigger problem.


Lethal

[awmazz]

Thank you for re-iterating what I just said. However, I think you have me mixed up with some invisible adversary. I am not a gun lobbyist. I don't have any guns in my home. Associating me with a special interest group is not only a logical fallacy, but shows you do not believe in the interests of minority groups.

You're publicly lobbying for free gun ownership right now on this thread. Not saying you're actually working for any group etc.

No, it was temporarily abated. Taking away weapons doesn't do anything about the underlying reasons something like that happened, so it will happen again.

Not temporary. Since 1996 and counting.

Dealing with the underlying reasons is better? Like you did after Columbine to prevent Virginia Tech. Like you did after Virginia Tech to prevent Fort Hood? Like you're doing now after Fort Hood?

You'll get to a point in America eventually where we did where the 'underlying reasons' for psychos going postal don't matter any more. They all have their own reasons; religion, hearing voices, off their meds, lost their job, wife left them, being bullied... all different reasons. Only one thing is constant in all cases - someone who wants to go postal can because of their easy access to firearms.

I don't know what more I can do for you here. I know you don't like hypotheticals, but try to stay with me here:

A crime was committed with guns, so guns were banned. A crime was committed with a hunting knife, so now hunting knives are banned. If a crime is committed with a kitchen knife, what do you think will be the plausible outcome?

No, not 'a' crime. A spate of them, one after the other, getting to the 'enough is enough' public demands. It took three massacres in a row in a very short period in Australia before the politicians finally had to listen to an angry public. Ditto, it took years of one senseless stabbing after another on the TV news every evening.

Think of it like all the airport security now which the American public demanded after the spate of hijackings. How many hijackings have occurred in America after your own 'enough is enough' 9-11 straw that broke the camel's back event? None within the USA. Zero. Nada. Preventative public safety laws work. One shoe-bomber attempt outside of the USA if I recall correctly. Not even a lone psycho can succeed now. Ditto with gun laws. No a single psycho going on a shooting spree in Australia since the 'enough is enough' one in 1996.

And it's not that I don't like hypotheticals (hey, what if someone pushes someone down the stairs, do they ban stairs?), but nearly every one you can come up with has already been addressed in reality. As I said, other countries have been dealing with the real world scenarios of implementing weapon control laws and their practical real-world application workability or unworkability for years now.

The plausible outcome of someone being sliced by a kitchen knife in-home (either during a domestic or by an intruder) is post-facto arrest. Post-crime laws as opposed to public safety preventative laws. Like no-smoking laws, public safety preventative laws don't apply in-home on private property. Trying to create an extreme hypothetical where the govt is getting into peoples' homes is just scare mongering and not based on reality.

[iBlue]

Zero Tolerance is stupid, full stop. ;) What this man did was stupid but so is cramming our already overfilled prisons with people like this. This whole story and thread is overwhemled with stupid.
Speaking of which...
It has to do with a mindset spoon-fed to the British subjects for centuries. To have a system so unfair to the people tell me it was not designed for the control of citizens, but for the control of subjects. The image of the queen just reenforces the programming.

Know much about living in Britain, do you? :rolleyes:

[jecapaga]

Zero Tolerance is stupid, full stop. ;) What this man did was stupid but so is cramming our already overfilled prisons with people like this. This whole story and thread is overwhemled with stupid.
Speaking of which...


Know much about living in Britain, do you? :rolleyes:

Full of Fail has an alter ego?

[iBlue]

Full of Fail has an alter ego?

Maybe but the username thing is just my editing, in case you really were wondering.

[Peterkro]

If anyones still interested here is a blog on the case, it seems there is quite a lot of previous between Clarke and the local plod,it also seems that everyone involved has an axe to grind,plus it appears to be a bad law:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/11/paul-clarke-anatomy-of-injustice.html

It's my guess sentence will be suspended.

[mactastic]

so he called the police and asked if he could "pop in and see him" without telling telling him that he found a gun on his property and he wanted to give it to him ?

while the punishment might not fit with his intentions it sure fits with him lacking any common sense
That was the first thing that caught my eye. If you've got an illegal weapon in your possession, you damn well better provide a bit more info to the police when you call them up. Probably would have saved this guy a whole lot of hassle. If he was telling the truth about the matter.

If I was in my city I would keep it..
That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What happens a few years down the line when you try to sell it, or someone steals it, or what have you; and it turns out that the weapon can be traced to a bunch of crimes for which you now are the prime suspect, all protestations of "I just found this in my garden" aside?

And that's separate from the whole "do I need to turn in found objects of value?" moral question. Keeping a weapon that you've "found" is just a really really bad idea, and bespeaks poor judgement.

I'm not sure if the ex-solider or the zero tolerance law lacks the most common sense in this story.
Christ, you're not kidding. I can't figure out who to be madder with, the legislators who crafted such a piss-poor piece of legislation that can't allow an exemption for this kind of case, or the level of stupidity shown by a soldier who can't figure out that he probably shouldn't call the police to tell them he want's to pop by for a visit, then upon arrival whip out an illegal weapon and say "hey, check this out. i totally found this in my yard".

Dumb as a sack of rocks on both sides...

Most people get their gun knowledge from TV and rumors. It's one of those topics like religion, abortion etc that has a lot of very emotional people involved in it with very little fact being said.
Or like homosexuality?

Firstly...thankully I don't need to ask permission and get a "license".

Secondly...if you have such a strong opinion and actively fight against something that you have no experience with then yes you are a sheep following things you have been told. I have not heard anything but emotion from most anti gun folks. They don't know anything about them really yet choose to define their owners. Anyway...like I said no sense in this discussion.
And yet you feel free to define non-gun owners. You'd think that level of hypocrisy would be debilitating, but you're still here...

[Zombie Acorn]

That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What happens a few years down the line when you try to sell it, or someone steals it, or what have you; and it turns out that the weapon can be traced to a bunch of crimes for which you now are the prime suspect, all protestations of "I just found this in my garden" aside?

And that's separate from the whole "do I need to turn in found objects of value?" moral question. Keeping a weapon that you've "found" is just a really really bad idea, and bespeaks poor judgement.


You have no idea of the context of which I speak unless you have lived in a small town. If a crime had been committed I would know about it by the next day.. once again I don't live in Chicago.

[mactastic]

You have no idea of the context of which I speak unless you have lived in a small town. If a crime had been committed I would know about it by the next day.. once again I don't live in Chicago.
And I suppose your small town is not connected to the rest of the world in any fashion? Never get anyone from "out of town" in your town?

Must be quite the fairy tale world you live in...

[KingYaba]

If you're going to make a case why having a gun makes you objectively safer why not provide some research instead of these appeals to emotion.

Let's stick with emotion for now. :D