The thing I find funny about this story is that a great emphasis is put upon the fact he did not make any threats to anyone.
Now, correct me of I'm wrong, but a handgun is a prohibited weapon, unless you are authorised to carry by the home office. I think we should assume this person was not authorised to carry, and I'm guessing it wasn't a muzzle loading flintlock pistol.
This person is displaying a certain level of criminality, by the mere possession of the gun. Does he need to make a threat, whether verbal or non-verbal? Does anyone on here consider that his merely having this to hand a tad threatening? I know I do.
Next, lets consider the location. He's on public transport enroute to a very busy airport. Mmm, starting to look like there's some kind of intent. Given recent history, say from 11/09/01, He's either naive, stupid, mentally unwell, or has some kind of criminal intent, or a mixture of all of these – possibly with a few intoxicants thrown in.
Given that the Police cannot be everywhere all at once, they will have had to kit up, rendezvous, receive a briefing of sorts, and come up with a spontaneous tactical plan. This time element has given the person chance to get to Gatwick. At this point I'm asking myself "what's he up to?". And I'm guessing he hasn't just forgot to put it away before going on his Jollies, a bit like forgetting to cancel the milk.
So, here we have someone who is potentially mentally unstable, drunk, drugged, plain stupid or master criminal, in possession of what appears to be an illegal firearm enroute to one of europe's busiest airport. Based on this, is it prudent to challenge the man, giving him chance to draw, shoot, grab a hostage, whatever… or do we give him a pre-emptive strike of less lethal, and question his possession once he's safely detained?
Over to you guys.