See? ... guns ARE dangerous!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FatalException0E

One thing that was missed before the thread got hijacked.....people were wondering why the law was so hard on the guy, as he'd already shot himself in the sack.

I'm wondering why the law was so easy on him. It sure sounds like he inteded to blast his friend with that shutgun. He was arguing with the guy, then went home to grab his gun, then came back....and obviously the gun was loaded. He probably even had it cocked on the way back to the pub. Any cop around here would instantly realize he planned to walk into the bar, pull his gun, and blast his friend in the chest...or head, or gut, etc. Maybe I'm just too American, but that's the way I see it.

---

I think because of the time needed spent in proving his intent ;
"As he was returning to the pub, which had closed by this time, he accidentally fired the weapon. "
and probably hoped the guy had and will suffer from shooting himself enough that he wouldn't likely be a threat in that way again .
and the guy admited having the gun so they to get him for that .
"He admitted possessing a banned firearm when he appeared at Sheffield Crown Court on Tuesday. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FatalException0E

One thing that was missed before the thread got hijacked.....people were wondering why the law was so hard on the guy, as he'd already shot himself in the sack.

I'm wondering why the law was so easy on him. It sure sounds like he inteded to blast his friend with that shutgun. He was arguing with the guy, then went home to grab his gun, then came back....and obviously the gun was loaded. He probably even had it cocked on the way back to the pub. Any cop around here would instantly realize he planned to walk into the bar, pull his gun, and blast his friend in the chest...or head, or gut, etc. Maybe I'm just too American, but that's the way I see it.

---

It was a sawed off shotgun I presume from the article, although it didn't actually say. That sort of modified scatter gun is illegal to possess and carry…I think that was all that they charged him for. In other words, the attempted premeditated murder went uncharged. I agree with you, very disturbing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff the Brit

I didn't intend to start a gun thread :) it was just a funny story of idiocy.

---

I know , I tried to change it . :devil:
It was funny tho , had needed a laugh yesterday . :thumbs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff the Brit

I gather that US cops frequently miss when shooting at baddies, even at very close range. If cops, who are trained to shoot, get in regular range time and have rather more experience of stressful siituations than most of the public, can miss, how do you regular gun owners feel about your chances of hitting a baddie? I'm thinking here of a street situation, mugging etc when you are jumped by a baddie waving a knife or a gun rather than the finding a burglar in your home scenario where you might have more time to grab a gun and aim carefully.

I didn't intend to start a gun thread :) it was just a funny story of idiocy.

---

What makes you think that civilian gun owners in the US don't get "regular range time" or training?

Grew up with Dad hunting, 11 years USAF to reinforce gun safety and use, and now I have a few rifles of my own plus I live only 2 blocks from the local gun club (complete range setup, 25 thru 100 yards, plinking range, archery, the works).

Quite a few gun owners in the US do the same thing.

As far as the mugging scenario, I'd still rather have a piece of my own in such a case...the "give the criminal what he wants and he'll go away" idea doesn't always work; there's plenty of instances where the criminal in question would still do you in after you hand him your wallet, probably just to experience the "thrill of the kill"; whereas I would only injure or kill another human being in a case of true self-defence.

America's founding fathers allowed for the possession of guns because they realized the very real possibility that ANY government can become tyranical and that a well-armed population is a last physical check to keeping the government in line. The crimes and blunders commited by miscreants and morons is a small price to pay for that check. Just think of the tens of millions that died because of the Nazis and remember that at the dawn of the 20th century the Germans were paragons of an intellectual and rational society. That can happen to any society. Unfortunately, America is teetering on just such a brink now. As tragic as the attack on September 11 was, I personally would rather live with a little less security to retain much greater liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FatalException0E

One thing that was missed before the thread got hijacked.....people were wondering why the law was so hard on the guy, as he'd already shot himself in the sack.

I'm wondering why the law was so easy on him. It sure sounds like he inteded to blast his friend with that shutgun. He was arguing with the guy, then went home to grab his gun, then came back....and obviously the gun was loaded. He probably even had it cocked on the way back to the pub. Any cop around here would instantly realize he planned to walk into the bar, pull his gun, and blast his friend in the chest...or head, or gut, etc. Maybe I'm just too American, but that's the way I see it.

---

I agree, it sounds like pre-meditated attempted murder.... the 5 years is standard for possession of an illegal firearm, so I figure as he shot himself and didn't cause any public distress (apart from to the queues of ladies lining up to date such a highly intelligent individual) the law figured 5 years was enough. Lets face it in Britain that's more than he would probably get for attempted murder anyways....