BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / The gun and the money?

**Posted by Davina** June 15, 2012 7:44 am

Perhaps I have missed something but two things have occurred to me that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else...I don't think so anyway. They are both in the pool scene at the end of The Great Game.

1. How does Moriarty know that Sherlock has a British Army L9A1 in his pocket? He does not have x-ray vision so he might guess a gun but how can he be so specific? Does it leave open the idea that he has found out with which type of gun the cabbie was shot and that I was John who shot him and that he knows Sherlock has accessed John's gun?

2. So Moriarty was behind the faked picture all along and was willing to sacrifice the 30 million quid it was worth just to get Sherlock to play the game. Or was it that the security man unexpectedly realised the painting must be a fake and that the whole thing was likely to be discovered anyway? Moriarty suggests the former but I think the latter is more likely.

Your thoughts please.

**Posted by m0r1arty** June 15, 2012 5:59 pm

Moriarty draws Sherlock's attention to the security guard via a photograph on the pink phone, the police would likely consider it a suicide or accident, not something which would get Lestrade onto Sherlock to look into.

As for the gun. Well it could be that Moriarty has the same deductive powers as Sherlock and knows how each model of various guns sag, or sit, in pockets but I'd rather fancy with the distance between them and Moriarty just out of sight that it's background research on Sherlock. Incorrect background research too as Sherlock is holding a SIG Sauer P226R rather than the other standard issue firearm of the British Military (The Browning L9A1).

I think Moriarty, and perhaps the audience, assume that Sherlock has John's gun.

-m0r

**Posted by Davina** June 15, 2012 8:48 pm

I did! I confess I didn't look at the gun properly. I think that he assumes that Sherlock's got John's gun.

Which gun does Moriarty use in TRF? Just out of interest, like.

**Posted by m0r1arty** June 15, 2012 10:38 pm

Moriarty uses a Beretta 92FS Inox on the rooftop of St Bart's. Like

-m0r

**Posted by Davina** June 15, 2012 11:03 pm

Hmm! Interesting choice. I suppose the stainless steel was a good choice what with all the blood 'n' all. Plus not much risk of it jamming.
So Italian v. German pistols at dawn then.
Sig Sauer good choice but I wonder where he laid his hands on it? Big brother? Special Forces?
Interesting!

Will this start another thread on...weapons used in Sherlock?

like

Last edited by Davina (June 15, 2012 11:03 pm)

**Posted by Sherlock Holmes** June 15, 2012 11:08 pm

So are you saying that Sherlock DOESN'T have John's gun in that scene, or that it's a mistake and that the props team have not done their research properly and provided the wrong type of gun?

I always assumed that it was John's gun he had because at no point in the series do you see them using any other type of gun other than the one John has and it would be a lot more acceptable within the law for John to posess a gun because he's ex military (although still actually illegal) whereas if Sherlock owned a gun that just wouldn't be legal at all....

And I always found that line acceptable because the Browning is the British Army standard so Jim would know that was the type of gun John had.

**Posted by kazza474** June 15, 2012 11:15 pm

Oh please. Sherlock doesn't kill people.
He does however smoke on the odd occasion.

He had the cabbie's 'gun'.

**Posted by ancientsgate** June 16, 2012 12:19 am

Davina wrote:
Hmm! Interesting choice. I suppose the stainless steel was a good choice what with all the blood 'n' all. Plus not much risk of it jamming.
So Italian v. German pistols at dawn then.
Sig Sauer good choice but I wonder where he laid his hands on it? Big brother? Special Forces?
Interesting!

Will this start another thread on...weapons used in Sherlock?

like

I live about two miles from the Sig Sauer factory here in the US. Big employer here. And yes, they do major contracts with the military and also law enforcement.

**Posted by m0r1arty** June 16, 2012 2:56 pm

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
So are you saying that Sherlock DOESN'T have John's gun in that scene, or that it's a mistake and that the props team have not done their research properly and provided the wrong type of gun?

Sherlock uses a SIG Sauer P226R at the pool, which is the same model as John's gun (So it could be John's gun).

It is standard issue for British military personnel stationed in Iraq.

Moriarty's incorrect guess of the weapon may be a touch of humour as the Browning L9A1 is standard issue for everywhere else.

-m0r

**Posted by Davina** June 16, 2012 4:05 pm

I think we should have a 'weapons used in Sherlock' thread, or is this it? I think it might be. Hmmm!

So Moriarty could be guessing wrongly or having a bit of a joke- albeit one that usually has sexual overtones or is it undertones?

**Posted by kazza474** June 16, 2012 10:04 pm

Wow, you guys are into guns huh?
I know nothing of them and want to know nothing of them.
blech

**Posted by m0r1arty** June 16, 2012 10:08 pm

I'm not into guns Kazza.

I dislike them and find it odd that people carry them or have them in their homes.

I just ambled upon this information during research.

-m0r

**Posted by ancientsgate** June 16, 2012 10:54 pm

The right to bear arms is one of our Constitutional guarantees in the US. Nowadays there are lots of local, state and federal laws on the books, in an attempt to control how guns are bought, sold, registered, and stored... at least for the honest people. But crooks can get hold of illegal guns in various ways, if they know who to ask and have the $$$ to pay.

As private citizens, we're not allowed to own assault weapons, but we can own as many hand guns, rifles, shotguns as we want, as long as they're legally purchased from a legit arms dealer and then legally registered. This is why, in the US, being called out on a "domestic dispute" call is one of the most dangerous calls law enforcement can get-- more officers are killed going up to and inside of the homes of quarreling family members and friends than in any other way. *All* of our police and other law enforcement people are armed, all the time, even off duty. This is for their own protection and for them to be able to do their job, since the citizenry, both honest and criminal, are often armed to the teeth. Add drugs and/or alcohol into a bad scene, and the potential for gun-related mayhem is very real.

I grew up in a non-gun home and have always kept a non-gun home. My two adult sons and their families are not gun owners. So by no means is the right to bear arms something that all Americans are interested in or take advantage of. But as I said, the Bill of Rights guarantees us the freedom to own guns for our own protection and for legal game hunting. And it's a biggie-- we take it very seriously.

**Posted by kazza474** June 16, 2012 11:02 pm

It's a 'biggie'?
You see that is what I cannot understand. You embrace passionately "the right" but you yourself do not own a gun. So why is it so important to you that you call it a "biggie"?

Some politicians, centuries ago gave that "right" to the people, in a country far removed from what it is today, at a time when that "right" was justified.
It's not justified in today's society & to me that just shows an archaic way of thinking that the "rights" of today's society to live in a less dangerous environment are totally neglected.
It's like a kid who fights with all the others just to have the biggest toy in the toybox. They can't or won't play with it, but they have it & that is good enough for them.
What's the point?

**Posted by ancientsgate** June 16, 2012 11:32 pm

kazza474 wrote:
It's a 'biggie'?
You see that is what I cannot understand. You embrace passionately "the right" but you yourself do not own a gun. So why is it so important to you that you call it a "biggie"?

Some politicians, centuries ago gave that "right" to the people, in a country far removed from what it is today, at a time when that "right" was justified.
It's not justified in today's society & to me that just shows an archaic way of thinking that the "rights" of today's society to live in a less dangerous environment are totally neglected.
It's like a kid who fights with all the others just to have the biggest toy in the toybox. They can't or won't play with it, but they have it & that is good enough for them.
What's the point?

We grew up with the right to bear arms thing, as did our American ancestors; it's always been there and most of us do not question it. The forefathers thought it was important enough that they actually stuck it in the Bill of Rights, which is the group of the first 10 amendments to the original Constitution. These documents have existed unchanged and AFAIK basically unchallenged for nearly 250 years. The rights they guarantee us as citizens are very nearly sacrosanct.

As for our "archaic way of thinking", well, human nature has not changed in the eons since we appeared on this earth. What America fought for in the late 1700s has not changed. We have technology now that our ancestors did not have, but tyranny is still very real in this world, both globally and locally, as is hatred and envy. And so we have the right to protect ourselves, both as individuals and as a nation. We believe that the old adage "speak softly and carry a big stick" works.

As for my personal decision not to own guns, well, I am guaranteed lots of rights that I don't take advantage of. Or have never had to take advantage of. But that doesn't mean that each of my rights is irrelevant to my life or unimportant. Yes, to me, my Constitutionally guaranteed rights are biggies. I stand on them.

**Posted by kazza474** June 16, 2012 11:59 pm

So first & foremost, it's still a case of 'its ours & we won't give it up'? One wonders about how the writers of the amendment actually thought it would be interpreted. I am sure they never imagined it would come to mean there was one gun for every man, woman & child in the country - well over 200 million of them.
To have a society where every person can have an object that can instantly stop the life of another person is to me incomprehensible. I am sure that was not the intent of the writers at all.

You don't think Human nature has changed over time? Don't you believe people have become very diverse in their ways of thinking, from the extreme radicals to the placid philosopher?
Stating that tyranny is a good enough reason to have guns really doesn't wash with me. There are many ways to avoid conflicts and many ways to combat conflicts that do not relate to firearms in any way.

I am proud that our country, as a whole can live together without the need for hardware to bolster one's power and worth. And that is the bottom line of owning these weapons, they give people perceived power. They can hide behind these objects from the 'bad people'. How very weak they must be.

I'm sorry, I know you people were brought up believing that gun ownership is the only way to go. Having anyone say different from what you have been programmed to believe can be very intimidating but it's the truth.
I am heartened that very 'big' people over there are fighting hard against guns and that with their peaceful ways they will in fact win eventually. Maybe then you guys will understand what living in peace really is.

**Posted by Sherli Bakerst** June 17, 2012 12:13 am

There are approximately 300 million people in the US. There are many, many opinions on what the Second Amendment actually intended. Not everyone interprets it to mean that every individual person in America has the right to own a weapon.

**Posted by m0r1arty** June 17, 2012 12:24 am

Kazza,

Aboriginals could legally be shot dead until the 70's if perceived to be 'trespassing'.

I think we should lay off each others cultures when it comes to what is right or wrong about them.

-m0r

**Posted by kazza474** June 17, 2012 12:36 am

Well while I admit our own country's past has had ridiculous laws such as that, we have as a nation move forward & rectified past indiscretions. If you see this an an attack on anyone's culture, I would say yes it is against the gun culture. But it is not an attack on any particular country.
That said, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I am a citizen of the Planet Terra and as such all people are equal, all people are worth something.
Guns kill, that is their purpose.
That purpose brings about the ending of lives of my people.
They are unnecessary for most to own.

**Posted by ancientsgate** June 17, 2012 2:20 am

Sherli Bakerst wrote:
There are approximately 300 million people in the US. There are many, many opinions on what the Second Amendment actually intended. Not everyone interprets it to mean that every individual person in America has the right to own a weapon.

This discussion sent me to the internet, where I did a few minutes of reading about gun laws in the US. They're complicated. Way complicated. Federal laws. State laws. Federally licensed gun dealers. Local gun dealers. Private sale of guns. Who can buy from whom. Paperwork or no paperwork. Type of shotgun/rifle/handgun/pistol allowed at what ages. Concealed or not concealed. Crossing state lines with said weapon. Exceptions for law enforcement personnel. On and on it went.

I think that, like anything else that's under our personal jurisdiction, a) of course there are differing opinions about it, both as it applies to us as individuals and to the locality we live in, to the whole country etc, and b) it's a free country, therefore, as long as the 3rd amendment guarantees us the right to arm ourselves for our own reasons or for what seems like no reason at all, then we can do that. Our neighbors, our cousin twice removed, some guy who lives one town over, the President himself-- all of them can do as they please. And meanwhile, they don't get to tell me I can't own a gun if I so choose, not as long as I've followed the letter of any applicable laws concerning that ownership. That's my (all of ours) Constitutional guarantee, at least the way the law stands now.