auchonvillerssomme Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 In the articles about this subject it appears these were all replicas, can anyone tell us otherwise? If they are then it should really worry some members of this forum in the UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374481/Gun-fanatic-David-Evans-recreated-Private-Ryan-loft-jailed.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 It's in the Daily Mail. I would doubt everything except the date on the top of the page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 It is difficult to say, although on balance I suspect that some if not all of these were live weapons. Note that the only reference to them being replicas was the claim of the accused that he bought them on E-bay. Apart from the usual Daily Mail errors of fact, "MP40 as used by police!", there seems to be no firm indication in the article as to what they were.However, it is difficult to see how he could be charged with illegal transfer if they were replicas. He had a conviction for illegal posession already so was on the radar. Also, in the Act, there is no distiction between a live weapon and a replica if the said item is being used in crime. There are too many unknowns to be able to come to a valid conclusion. Regards Tonye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garron Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 O boy...where to start, I could pick that article apart. American and Israeli military-issue machine guns – some so state-of-the-art that they are issued only to special forces. The Uzi is far from state of the art and was designed in the 50's, it was issued to a lot of people in the IDF, the Bundeswehr also used it for tank crews. The M4 Carbine variant is the only think that comes close to state of the art and that is only as it has a scope flash light and handgrip other wise its the same as the M16A* across from it. MP40 machine gun, similar to those issued to armed police. cant really see how they came to that conclusion as the Mp40 is a blowback open bolt ww2 issue weapons. The Mp5 is closed bolt, delayed blowback thanks to its roller-delayed bolt. The only similarity is its German and its 9x19 apart from that not much to compare too. His defence sucks though... Likes to recreate WW2...he has 3 WW2 weapons (Mp40, you can see the handgrips of a Browning HP and Colt M1911 top right hand side) the rest are modern. Gaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 8 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 8 April , 2011 There is no further info on the internet except what is stated in the mail and other press, so can anyone tell us any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 I would never rely on the Police to put out an accurate news report on firearms nor most news papers. The Police have an agenda that states only the Police should have guns and the newspapers can't tell a .177 air pistol from an 88mm cannon. One report on the Cumbria killings stared a 'high power .22 rifle' had been used. Mmmmm.... I doubt if the average PC could tell a replica from a deact or a live firearm. At least the Police specialists should know what they are doing. 90% of firearms offences in Police statistics relate to people smashing windows or shooting cats with air rifles. Hardly the wild west. If this guy was buying live firearms he deserves every year of his sentence. Shame about the guns though, I expect they will all be destroyed. I'd rather like a deact MP40. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenchtrotter Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 When the "average PC is looking down the barrell of a gun I doubt he wants to take the time to learn if its a real thing , replica or deact!" These will all be live. 16years is for live firearms! TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 After the tragic shooting in Southampton today I expect the Police to recommend the Royal Navy surrenders its firearms. That way it's another step towards only criminals and the Police having guns. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 Do not feed the troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 8 April , 2011 Share Posted 8 April , 2011 I believe that the average American policeman's judgement about when and when not to draw a firearm on a suspect is far greater than that of the typical British armed policeman. The reason is because over here even though every police officer here is armed he has to explain and justify the level of force he decides to use in confrontation situations. Therefore he usually won't escalate to the point of drawing a weapon unless there are pronounced and compelling reasons to do so. Accidents and errors of judgement happen of course, but the amazing thing is that more of them don't. On the other hand the British armed police are only deployed when a suspect is believed to be armed and dangerous. There is therefore an a priori judgement on the part of the British armed police that the guy in question is a serious hazard to public safety and urgently needs to be detained, taken down and/or shot. It's sort of like a police management decision taken in advance that amounts to being a potential death sentence for the suspect. When that kind of logic is taken to extremes it leads to things like the mistaken police shooting on the London Tube a few years ago. The British armed police need to learn how to hold their fire, be more patient and exercise better judgement. It is said that when the British armed police were first formed they received training from SAS on how to take down a threat. That's all well and good, but tactical techniques, the rules of engagement, and the rule of law are separate categories, though they may overlap with each other from time to time. The things SAS taught were only about tactics -- the rest involves basic things like John Bull common sense and decency. Also the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 9 April , 2011 Share Posted 9 April , 2011 Do not feed the troll Troll? What troll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 9 April , 2011 Share Posted 9 April , 2011 Do not feed the troll If you mean me then I regard that as an insult and ask you to withdraw the comment. If you cannot engage in a debate about firearms laws in the UK without casting insults then you need to re-think your approach to discussion forums. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 9 April , 2011 Share Posted 9 April , 2011 I believe that the average American policeman's judgement about when and when not to draw a firearm on a suspect is far greater than that of the typical British armed policeman. The reason is because over here even though every police officer here is armed he has to explain and justify the level of force he decides to use in confrontation situations. Therefore he usually won't escalate to the point of drawing a weapon unless there are pronounced and compelling reasons to do so. Accidents and errors of judgement happen of course, but the amazing thing is that more of them don't. On the other hand the British armed police are only deployed when a suspect is believed to be armed and dangerous. There is therefore an a priori judgement on the part of the British armed police that the guy in question is a serious hazard to public safety and urgently needs to be detained, taken down and/or shot. It's sort of like a police management decision taken in advance that amounts to being a potential death sentence for the suspect. When that kind of logic is taken to extremes it leads to things like the mistaken police shooting on the London Tube a few years ago. The British armed police need to learn how to hold their fire, be more patient and exercise better judgement. It is said that when the British armed police were first formed they received training from SAS on how to take down a threat. That's all well and good, but tactical techniques, the rules of engagement, and the rule of law are separate categories, though they may overlap with each other from time to time. The things SAS taught were only about tactics -- the rest involves basic things like John Bull common sense and decency. Also the law. Pete You raise some interesting points, and I would concede that in a changing world the roles of Police and para military forces changes all the time and needs constant review. I don't think the British police ever took basic firearms training from the SAS but the London Police do train with the SAS at a local Kent range on Anti Terrorist work. I think it is fair to say that the Police in the UK do fire if they believe there to be a real threat to themselves or the public, but there does not seem to be many mistakes. The Stockwell tube shooting was the most obvious case though, but as a British tax payer I fully understand why the Police on that occassion were on edge, being just two weeks after the 7/7 bomb murders. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 9 April , 2011 Share Posted 9 April , 2011 You are getting a bit close to a political discussion here Pete, but I fell the need to defend our local bobbies. Yes, it is true the armed units love playing the "Men in Black" role with all the latest gizzmos and toys. However, they turn out hundreds if not thousands of times a year in London alone and only actually fire on one or two occassions, so I think your comments about holding fire etc. are based on the usual media hysteria with little knowledge of the facts in the UK. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Tiger Posted 10 April , 2011 Share Posted 10 April , 2011 Having on numerous occasions worked closely with CO19 & other armed police, both at pre-planned & spontaneous operations, I have to say I fully agree with Tony's remarks. Amongst other things, each operation has to follow very strict H&S risk assessments (be they dynamic or otherwise) applying to the firearms officers & the public. The constraints British firearms officers work under are far greater than "most" people realise. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 12 April , 2011 Share Posted 12 April , 2011 The constraints British firearms officers work under are far greater than "most" people realise. Andy Hence the very small number of accidents. It would be interesting to see stats for countries where all Police are armed and all citizens can bear arms. Accidents per 100,000 of population etc. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 12 April , 2011 Share Posted 12 April , 2011 My previous statement was not a blanket condemnation of the professionalism and training of British police; I was merely making the observation that American law enforcement officers have about a century's more experience than their British counterparts when it comes to carrying firearms. Tony E made a good point when he said this discussion is borderline-political. Gun laws in the U.S. and Britain are extremely political topics. We should let this discussion fizzle out without the need for Moderator intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 12 April , 2011 Share Posted 12 April , 2011 My previous statement was not a blanket condemnation of the professionalism and training of British police; I was merely making the observation that American law enforcement officers have about a century's more experience than their British counterparts when it comes to carrying firearms. Tony E made a good point when he said this discussion is borderline-political. Gun laws in the U.S. and Britain are extremely political topics. We should let this discussion fizzle out without the need for Moderator intervention. Pete The only point I'd make about that is that British gun owners have been stuffed by politicians of all parties over the years so there is no political bias either way. And this goes back to the 1920's. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now