Anyone laughing at the idea of a .22 sniper rifle should be aware that the British government handed these out to the Home Guard Auxiliary units in order to carry out assassination missions and go on silent patrols. A headshot with these rifles was lethal.
As for this case, I agree that it sucks that these guns are illegal without a firearms certificate, but the circumstances of this case makes me believe that they were up to no good and that they were indeed going to use this gun on someone...
Well, you're probably going to beat your spouse, and the presence of that broom handle is more than enough proof. You may turn yourself in at your earliest convenience.
(By the way, I believe one of the big problems with the way this thread is going is that we are all assuming that the article, while horribly skewed on firearms facts, is accurate otherwise. I’d bet a donut that the stiff sentences are due to prior convictions, etc... but of course, the journalism major needn’t worry about facts and details when there are emotions to influence and social norms to create!
Nobody is laughing at the .22, itself. But this is the equivalent of a million dollar judgement for spilling hot coffee. (nobody said the lady didn't get a nasty burn)
As for calling it a "sniper rifle," only if you don't know what a "sniper" is...
That silenced, scoped, .22s have been deployed as "special purpose" weapons by military, assassination, and police units, backed by heavier weapons is similarly not disputed. That's not what happened here.
A legitimate "sniper" would no more carry this weapon in the field than a soldier would carry a tricked out 10/22 for an assault rifle.
See my above message.