[Godstud]

@MistyTiger Most people who make their own homemade guns are gunsmiths who are legally licensed to do so. Most WOULD pass an inspection.

Calling a gun crude, because it is, isn't bad. A gun made of a pipes is crude AND dangerous to the user as well as the people on the other end.

[Puffer Fish]

A gun made of a pipes is crude AND dangerous to the user as well as the people on the other end.

Making something that is dangerous to oneself is not very good reason to criminalise it, is it?

And if the U.K. wants to criminalise having guns, then one would think that to some extent the danger it might pose to another person who illegally purchased it would be CANCELLED OUT by the government's desire to punish and dissuade those persons from illegal purchase of a gun. What I mean is that, from the government's point of view, risk that something bad might happen is not entirely a bad thing. The government does after all want to create a risk that the person will go to prison and that their life will practically be ruined. Which (somewhat paradoxically) means there is LESS reason to punish someone for creating a risk to someone else.

[Godstud]

Making something that is dangerous to oneself is not very good reason to criminalise it, is it?

Read the rest of what I said, instead of making an asinine comment ignoring the important part.

as the people on the other end.

Society makes laws to protect people within its society. If you can't understand that basic premise, then I can't help you.

[Puffer Fish]

A gun made of a pipes is crude AND dangerous to the user as well as the people on the other end.

Read the rest of what I said, instead of making an asinine comment ignoring the important part.

I'm sorry, I am not sure I understand what you mean, or what you were trying to insinuate. Please state it plainly.
I don't like to play the guessing game.

If you're talking about a victim who did not choose to take part in anything illegal, then isn't it true that a dangerous crude gun is no more dangerous than a regular gun?
(Indeed, it may likely be LESS dangerous to the victim)

[Godstud]

FFS, I actually quoted the part you missed... Read my whole post instead of just partially, and you might get some understanding.

Godstud wrote:
as the people on the other end. - See?

If you're talking about a victim who did not choose to take part in anything illegal, then isn't it true that a dangerous crude gun is no more dangerous than a regular gun?
(Indeed, it may likely be LESS dangerous to the victim)

If it is illegal, then how well the gun works is irrelevant. Intent is very important in law.

eg. If marijuana is illegal then it does not matter if you get wasted on it, or if it gets you mildly buzzed. It's illegal. The intent is to get stoned.

The person in this instant is not a victim. They are the perpetrator of a crime.

Of course, an ACTUAL victim of a gun doesn't care how well the gun works, the caliber used, or the accessories on said gun, Captain Obvious.

[Puffer Fish]

If it is illegal, then how well the gun works is irrelevant. Intent is very important in law.

The person in this instant is not a victim. They are the perpetrator of a crime.

Apologies, Godstud. It had seemed to me like you were trying to mix up the danger the crude gun posed to the operator with the danger the gun could pose to a crime victim.
You should have perhaps phrased things better and not tried to combine both in the same sentence.

Can you agree that this person should NOT be punished any more because it was a crude (possibly unsafe) gun, rather than a regular normal gun?

[Godstud]

The gun posed a threat to the operator and the people around him. Most guns do this, but a home-made gun poses a greater threat to the operator.

Can you agree that this person should NOT be punished any more because it was a crude (possibly unsafe) gun, rather than a regular normal gun?

If there are additional laws, pertaining to making homemade guns, then he could possibly face more charges. Society wants to punish people who attempt to skirt existing laws. Sometimes that means making examples of people who do this. Is it always "fair"? No. That's the nature of the beast, though.

[Puffer Fish]

The gun posed a threat to the operator and the people around him.

You're doing it again. You seem trying to confuse two separate different issues.

Can I ask you not to combine both those issues in the same sentence, or at least take more care to differentiate them?


The gun itself does not really pose a danger to people around him.

I really hate this oversimplification of "danger", to the point that you seem perfectly comfortable discussing the "danger to society" of a person having a gun, mixed up together with the danger that a crudely constructed gun could pose to the person operating it.

[Puffer Fish]

If there are additional laws, pertaining to making homemade guns, then he could possibly face more charges.

But that's not really right or fair at all, is it?

Society wants to punish people who attempt to skirt existing laws. Sometimes that means making examples of people who do this. Is it always "fair"? No. That's the nature of the beast, though.

Couldn't it be argued that the real danger comes from these laws being enforced?

After all, who's to say the law making an example out of someone is any more right than someone making an example out of the law?
At that point I think our society has just devolved into terrorism.

Or to state it in other words, the law has lost its position as the moral high ground. People obey not because it is right but because they are afraid.

[Godstud]

But that's not really right or fair at all, is it?

It is right and fair. eg. Growing drugs is illegal, as is possession. if you are in possession of illegal drugs you will get penalized, as well as making them. Do you understand? If you break two different laws, pertaining to the same thing, it does not mean that they ignore one of them.

Couldn't it be argued that the real danger comes from these laws being enforced?

No. You can't possibly have a reasonable argument for such a statement, either.

After all, who's to say the law making an example out of someone is any more right than someone making an example out of the law?
At that point I think our society has just devolved into terrorism.

No. Society has made laws and if you flaunt them, then you will be punished more severely. People who deny guilt when they are absolutely in the wrong, will serve more time than a person who admits guilt for their actions(takes accountability and shows remorse). Also, if there are laws against making AND possessing firearms, you will be punished for them all, not just one.

Or to state it in other words, the law has lost its position as the moral high ground. People obey not because it is right but because they are afraid.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. People are a PART of society. Most people see value in the laws, even if they might not agree with every one of them.

Most laws are RIGHT according to what society deems is right, and moral. If that keeps a few who are afraid of society(outliers) in line, then so be it. You cannot please everyone, no matter how hard you try. You are evidence of this.

[Puffer Fish]

No. Society has made laws and if you flaunt them, then you will be punished more severely.

What a wonderful example of morality government is setting for everyone else.

"Do what I tell you or you will be punished severely"

What type of society do you think that is going to lead to?
That is not ruling by moral virtue; that is ruling through fear, terrorism, and absolutism. It really seems like a Communist or authoritarian mentality in thinking. That you presume government, or the collective of people, can decide what is right.

Now, if you had utilitarian arguments for why such a law should exist, that might be another thing, but that does not appear to be the thrust of your argument.

[Godstud]

What a wonderful example of morality government is setting for everyone else.

Society determines the laws, not government. Governments change constantly, but you'll notice most laws do not.

"Do what I tell you or you will be punished severely"

No. It's more like, "Do not do things that hurt society and the people in it, or you will be punished accordingly.".

It really seems like a Communist or authoritarian mentality in thinking.

You want chaos and anarchy. What we are talking about is neither Communism or authoritarianism. It's about justice, equality, and fairness. You seem to be against these basic tenets in society.

Now, if you had utilitarian arguments for why such a law should exist, that might be another thing, but that does not appear to be the thrust of your argument.

There are, but you aren't interested in them, so stop being disingenuous and ignoring arguments already made.

[Puffer Fish]

Society determines the laws, not government. Governments change constantly, but you'll notice most laws do not.

If the institution of slavery still existed and you saw a slave trying to run away, you'd call the police, wouldn't you?
Or if you found out your neighbor was harboring Jews in their attic.

Governments change constantly, but you'll notice most laws do not.

You seem to want to argue that laws remain constant, but did this specific law really exist 100 years ago?

I don't believe that it did. I think your argument fails there.

This wasn't murder, rape, or robbery, theft or fraud. Not one of the totally obvious crimes that everyone knows is morally wrong and clearly should be and need to be criminalised.

[Godstud]

If the institution of slavery still existed and you saw a slave trying to run away, you'd call the police, wouldn't you?
Or if you found out your neighbor was harboring Jews in their attic.

Irrelevant. Slavery does not exist in our society, and neither does the racism of Nazi Germany. You are trying to make an emotional argument and compare a criminal with victims.

You seem to want to argue that laws remain constant, but did this specific law really exist 100 years ago?

I never said they remain constant, but laws do not change with every government. Are you capable of following basic logic?

Many laws from 100 years ago are still in existence, today. That is fact. Murder laws and most major laws have refinements added, but don't change, overall.

This wasn't murder, rape, or robbery, theft or fraud. Not one of the totally obvious crimes that everyone knows is morally wrong and clearly should be and need to be criminalised.

You're not very smart so I will explain it slowly, to you.

If it is illegal to own a gun.

Owning a gun is illegal, even if you make it yourself.

Part of the law is proving intent to commit a crime. Making an illegal gun with the intent to kill or injure people, is illegal, and breaks yet another law set in place to protect society.

It's not rocket science.

[Puffer Fish]

You're not very smart so I will explain it slowly, to you.

If it is illegal to own a gun.

Let me ask you, is there any part in you that senses it might be excessive and wrong to sentence someone to EIGHT AND A HALF years for this type of crime?

It was only a single-shot gun too. If you think this is "normal", then the situation in the U.K. seems insane to me.


If someone shot that judge and I knew who they were, I would strongly consider not reporting them.

[Puffer Fish]

related threads:
UK gun owner loses licenses because of internet presence (posted 30 Mar 2021 in Libertarianism section)
British boxer has license suspended because of video comments (posted 30 Mar 2020 in Europe section)
Man jailed for refusing to give police password to personal computer files (posted 28 Oct 2019 in Anarchism section)

[Godstud]

Let me ask you, is there any part in you that senses it might be excessive and wrong to sentence someone to EIGHT AND A HALF years for this type of crime?

If his intent was to make a gun and kill someone, then yes. He also said that his intent was to make, sell, and distribute weapons. He has gone to jail for multiple offenses. You just ignore that part since it doesn't fit your narrative.

You're argue any form of law even if it's completely rational and logical. Get some help.

[Puffer Fish]

If his intent was to make a gun and kill someone, then yes.

Do you think, in your mind, that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that because he made a gun he intended to murder someone?

Maybe it is just because I do not live in the UK, but that type of thinking sounds insane to me!
Is it normal for people to think that way in the UK?

Is so, kind of sounds like a crab in hot water being slowly warmed up on the stove top that doesn't realise it's being boiled alive.

[Puffer Fish]

He also said that his intent was to make, sell, and distribute weapons.

He just casually made a comment like that on the internet. I don't believe you can take it seriously.

There was no evidence that he had sold any guns, no physical evidence that he was trying to sell any guns or had several guns to sell.

It's silly and wrong to punish people based on "intent" and thought-crimes when the only evidence is comments casually posted in a public social site on the internet.

But you have to already know this, Godstud. You're coming up with an incredibly flimsy argument here. You're just kind of desperately trying to look for anything to help further justify your position because you know your side is on a shaky foundation.

[Godstud]

Do you think, in your mind, that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that because he made a gun he intended to murder someone?

You are a fool. You ignore the facts and even evidence that showed that it WAS his intent to harm people with his weapons.

He also posted to chatrooms about creating a hand-held "cannon" and talked about mixing gunpowder.

Dolphin, from the Aldridge area of Walsall borough, additionally shared footage of terrorist incidents from around the world including a gun attack in Buffalo, New York, in which 10 people were killed by a white supremacists in May last year.

Sentencing on Thursday, Judge Melbourne Inman KC told him: "It's an aggravating factor that you were in contact with a number of extremists" and had dealt in content featuring "an horrific recording of multiple murders".

Paraphernalia found at Dolphin's property "related to making items that could be used to kill or seriously injure people", the judge added.

The offences were committed over a three-month period, the hearing was told.

Dolphin was convicted of six offences of possessing terrorist information, two of recklessly disseminating a terrorist publication, two of having an explosive substance and one of possessing a firearm without a licence.

He was also handed a 12-month extended period on licence to be added to the end of the detention term.

He was told he would not become eligible for parole until he had served five years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-65559610

You like to ignore facts when it comes to criminals. Your empathy for the worst pieces of shit in society reflects poorly on what passes for your morality and character.