From: "Paul McDermott", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[...]
>Looking at the police helicopter video of the Rochdale
>car-chase shooting case, doubtless everyone said "bad guns!"
>and nobody said "bad cars!". Logically, they should have
>been saying "bad men!", shouldn't they?
>[...]
>Well, if the gist of the reported news is such that
>firearms are being made out to be the premise for the crime,
>then how many people called into the TV station/s and
>gave the station manager a considered piece of mind?
I have always had this debate with other shooters, who adopt the line of
"It's not guns that kill people, it's people" As we are all well aware, it's
usually the combination of a gun and a person that kill. In the above
mentioned car chase, there were many references to 'how the men risked so
many lives the way that they drove' in the commentary. The inescapable fact
is that cars have a legitimate use which doesn't involve killing. AK47's
don't. The idea of ringing up the station that broadcast it to say that the
fact that the man was carrying and using an AK47 had no connection with the
crime that had been committed is laughable. If shooting is to ever remerge
from being thought of as a lunatic fringe activity all legitimate shooters
need to avoid any arguments involving nutcases driving round firing AK47's
at total strangers and the police.
Speak about the sport, yes fine. Promote it. But the moment legal shooters
start getting tangled up in 'how dangerous cars are' or commenting that
there's no burglary in Texas, 'cos everyone's got a gun, the audience roll
their eyes heavenward, and frankly, I don't blame them.
Paul McDermott.
--
The problem with that view is that presenting shooting as a purely sporting
activity means that when some nutter goes off on a rampage, the choice
becomes between "stopping nutters" and "your sport", and sport always
loses.
The reason handguns are still legal in Northern Ireland is purely because
80% of them are possessed for personal protection.
I think in the aftermath of the Tony Martin case people are more open to
the self-defence argument, even Hague is going around telling MPs who've
been attacked he wouldn't mind them shooting their attackers!
If the press focuses too heavily on the weapon rather than the person
who used it, that is biased reporting because clearly the criminal is
the main threat. You don't see AK-47s being put on trial.
When I lived in Florida WSVN news always used to have a picture of a
Glock pistol with bullet holes around it to depict any "crime" story.
So I wrote to Glock and Glock threatened to sue WSVN for misrepresenting
their products. And not surprisingly, they stopped using the picture.
This sort of thing is quite easy to do. The objective is to stop
people from automatically associating guns with crime and violence,
which is what the media portray. Don't believe me?
Then why is it that the Explosives Act 1870 is still the main piece
of legislation governing explosives, even after all the terrorist
bombings? Because the blame was placed on the IRA, not the lax
control of explosives, which is what usually happens when someone
gets shot.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
