CS: Legal-Certificate Holders
From: "pa49", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There seems to be an almost self-destruct air about the debate regarding who
should and who should not be "allowed" firearms. Why would anyone want to
remove an individuals right to defend him or herself in the appropriate
manner? The appropriate manner can only be justified by the applying
circumstances so the use of a firearm would be justified in certain
circumstances and the use of your fists unjustified in others. Having the
appropriate personal method of defence was debated long and hard before our
Bill of Rights was written in the 15th century. The men involved seem to
have had a clearer view than we ("modern" society) have of just what this
means. They were "uneasy" about armed Catholics, but accepted that even they
had the right to defend themselves and so were allowed firearms for their
defense. Spurious laws (usually enacted as Game Laws) were not heavily
applied and when they were it was the tools of the poachers trade that were
confiscated, leaving alone any wrong doers defensive firearm. Stockpiling
(unless you were nobility and showed allegiance to the crown) was not an
acceptable practice as the crown felt uneasy about any perceived threat.
Defensive firearms were not worthy of being considered a threat.
If this was how human life and the right to it's defence was considered in
those times, what has happened in the intervening years that leads to the
view that life and it's defence is now worth less?
Are the contemporary restrictions a thinly veiled attempt to curtail a
perceived threat to an incumbent Government (the threat to overthrow the
Monarch has long receded) and does this point to the real reason why an
applicant needs to had good reason to obtain an FAC and thus have his or her
character acknowledged as supposedly good enough to own and use a firearm
without danger to anyone.
We are all surely potentially dangerous with or without firearms and the
ownership of the same does not make us any different in that respect. Should
the test not be all are fit unless they show/prove otherwise? This would not
be a charter for disaster as some would have us believe but would rather
generate, in us all, a healthy respect and regard for what is after all the
most important single thing that we all possess, namely our lives. This is a
respect that is singularly lacking from recent political thinking on both
sides of the fence, but is crystallized in the current manic and desperate
attempts to curb armed criminal activity by the misdirected and sometimes
downright illegal imposition of restrictions on legitimate firearms owners.
Neil Saint
(N.B. The term illegal is used meaning unlawful when referring to a system,
which is designed to administer justice for all and is clearly manipulated
by the unjust use (abuse?) of power.)
(A full background to the above historical references and further
fascinating information can be found in Joyce Lee MalcolmÆs book ôTo Keep
and Bear Arms æThe Origins of an Anglo-American RightÆö)
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-gcn membership
From: nick royall, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob Marshall-Andrews, the "maverick" MP is indeed Gill Marshall-Andrews' husband. They live in a hole in the ground in Wales that won some architects prize. Couldn't make it up could you. Nick Why me? Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Certificate Holders
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find that disturbing coming from a dealer. (I presume..'Jackson rifles?) This is a very dangerous statement. Why is the simple stating of an opinion disturbing? We've been down this potential path before. No credible political party subscribes to the theory and it will never appear on any election manifesto during the remainder of my life. And a creadible political party would be??? It is held by a very small number of people. No matter how honourably and passionately those people hold the view, by very virtue of the fact that they are so committed to the viewpoint, they will never ever be prepared to countenance the moderate stance. They will remain, hoewver, in the minority. That fact is inescapable. I don't know about this. There seems to be plenty of support for people who shoot burglars. Jonathan Laws -- There was a classic from the NRA of America some years ago, I think it was after some Labour MP criticised them as an "extreme" organisation with a minority view that was not supported by people. To which I think it was Warren Cassidy who said something like: "Well, we've got 2.5 million members, how many members has the Labour Party got?" The NRA has nearly five million members now. The Labour Party has less than a million, if I recall correctly. It doesn't matter how many people hold this or that view, it depends on how _strongly_ they hold it. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-IGs bad apples etc
From: "Christopher Gould", [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG wrote I am not prepared to reveal what the vetting procedures are. I have no doubt that someone will respond with a pack of old rubbish, saying that he knows because a friend of a friend told him. There are procedures and they are adhered to. Like all procedures inviting opinions, they are not foolproof. No diferent to the FAC system. As far as references are required, yes, they are and will continue to be. Is that a satisfactory answer? I bet it isn't! Thank you IG, I feel that this is a reasonable answer, but I am very puzzled by your reluctance to discuss the selection procedure for AFOs. Is this not a matter of very legitimate public interest? I would be happier if you could either state (or imply) that you are not able to answer this question (we will all then know what you mean.) So far I have not been able to think of any advantage that a criminal could gain from gaining such information, but many advantages in terms of restored public confidence. I have to say that many members of the public (non-shooters) seem to be terrified of the armed police units, viewing them more as a hazard than as any kind of protection. Maybe this is simply an unavoidable side effect of the media hysteria about firearms in general, or maybe something deeper, but in any event distrust flourishes in the dark. Chris Gould -- There are all kinds of things the police and military keep secret that are available in most public libraries. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Crime-Homeopath's killer may have psychic grudge
From: "Tim Jeffreys", [EMAIL PROTECTED] This incident rather invites the comment: - the victim couldn't have been all that psychic then Tim Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Certificate Holders
From: "pa49", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have to agree to disagree on this. I have no wish to live in a society where guns are as freely available as you want them to be. I find that disturbing coming from a dealer. (I presume..'Jackson rifles?) As I said elsewhere, this viewpoint of freedom from gun control is not the majority nor even a popular viewpoint. No credible political party subscribes to the theory and it will never appear on any election manifesto during the remainder of my life. It is held by a very small number of people. No matter how honourably and passionately those people hold the view, by very virtue of the fact that they are so committed to the viewpoint, they will never ever be prepared to countenance the moderate stance. They will remain, hoewver, in the minority. That fact is inescapable. I am not alone in the shooting world, not even alone on cybershooters, in being an advocate of sensible restrictions on ownership. It is amazing, and amusing it has to be said, to see the frenzied outbursts from people when someone has the sheer nerve to state an opposite viewpoint. From some of the hate mail I have received outside of the public area, I can tell that there are some deranged people out there. They know who they are. To be fair, the email addresses from them do not appear amongst the regular posters. IG, I read your posts and admire your ability to express your views cojently and with conviction (NPI), but, if you re-read the above all you do is make statements without any backing arguments whatsoever. If you believe that you take a "moderate stance" you are being extremely dogmatic about your stated views, which is a pity. Please don't take this the wrong way. I am sure we are all genuinely interested in your opinions, given your position, but could you expand your points a little more? Going to zero controls in this country would be a disaster, if only because by the end of the week a hundred or more people would have accidentally shot themselves because your average person in this country does not know how to use a firearm safely. Fuzzy logic? Steve, I think you did the same thing. If you gave everyone without a vehicle a car, by the end of the week you would have XXX number of casualties because the majority of them would not know how to drive safely. Fuzzy logic? Neil Saint -- No, personal experience. I have let people I know handle one of my deactivated pistols, if it was live they would surely have shot themselves or someone else accidentally. Okay, fair enough, if it wasn't deactivated and they knew that, they may have been more careful and read the instructions. However, this is not the US or Switzerland. Your average person in the street truly knows nothing about how to use a gun. Nor are there even people knocking around who they might question in most urban and surburban areas. I see all kinds of accidents reported in the paper involving people who have found guns or illegally gotten them. There was one in Handsworth where a guy left a cocked and loaded Browning on the nightstand, safety off, his daughter found it and fatally shot herself. There was another one in Birmingham where two children found a MAB pistol in an alley, they took it home to show a parent, and discharged the pistol into the door frame. I have never ever advocated zero controls on firearms because I truly think it is a poor idea. As I've said many times I'm not a Libertarian. An age limit on acquisition and unsupervised possession as well as a criminal/mental health history check prior to acquisition are two controls that do work, not 100% but then nothing is, but they do reduce criminal misuse. And if you want to get into the statistics we'll be here a very long time. (And I say that because there are about a zillion studies on the Brady Act and it would require a seperate email list to go through them all comprehensively with all the ifs and buts about waiting periods, coverage of the background check and so on). Suffice to say there is an alternative viewpoint but I don't agree with it. I've looked at the systems of control in a much larger area than just the US. My viewpoint is tainted once again by my personal experience. One day I showed up to the range (in Florida) and there was someone there trying to buy a gun. When I came out of the range the dealer was giving a police officer a witness statement, because the guy had been arrested for illegally trying to buy a gun and was apparently a fugitive the police had been after for some time after he had killed his wife or something along those lines. I've read similar accounts of things happening in Virginia where they have a similar checking system. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Death Penalty
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is probably certain is that the abolition of the act whereby if one member of a gang committed a murder ALL were guilty of it and thus ALL hanged did lead to a rise in murder during the course of armed robberies by gangs. Read something recently about Florida. Apparently if you are comitting a felony and your accoumplice gets killed by your intended victim then anyone else involved in the crime can be convicted of Murder regardless of weather or not they actually had anything diretly to do with the death. Jonathan Laws -- I think I've had my fill of Florida law for the time being! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-IGs bad apples etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not prepared to reveal what the vetting procedures are. Why? Jonathan Laws -- Because it's a confidential ACPO policy, probably. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-police corruption
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Firstly, this all kicked off with your statement that 5% of people who have FAC's are unpleasant, objectionable and potentially dangerous. It had nothing to do with those who had applied and been refused or have in your view applied for "spurious variations". etc etc I repeat. You only see what you want to see. A small number of people. Do I? This is what you originally posted "Having worked with licensing for some years, I now realise the amount of unpleasant, potentially dangerous and thoroughly objectionable people that own firearms certificates. Before I hear the howls of protest, let me state that these form about 5% of the total in the area that I work." This quite clearly states that 5% of the FAC holders in your area are "unpleasant, potentially dangerous and thoroughly objectionable people". Your words, not a case of me reading anything that isn't actually there. I make NO aplology for being outspoken. Neither do I. Look at the responses yourself. One moment you are slagging the government off for everything, the next you are saying that the laws should be applied. If the Laws were applied properly the Government wouldn't need to introduce new ones to persecute shooters with. You dont really know what side of the fence you want to sit on. I do, quite clearly. I stand by the fact that 5% of the people I deal with are unpleasant, objectionable or potentially dangerous. Often all 3. But you didn't say 5% of the people you deal with, you said 5% of FAC holders, thats not the same thing. The law requires me to make a judgement. Like it or not, that is the way of things in this country. Accepted, there is total freedom for people to be objectionable and unpleasant and still own a firearm. Not so for the potentially dangerous. The point is this. Numbers do not matter. But numbers *do* matter, 0.2% is a world away from 5% There are people who should not, in any circumstances, be allowed near a firearm. Agreed! I do my job and try to ensure that this is the case. I make no apologies for doing so. After all, even Steve tells me that this is the job of the police, so I don't expect any criticism for ensuring the safety of the public. The law requires evidence before a revocation is made. Not merely 3rd hand hearsay. It is very difficult to get that evidence. I thought that appeals against revocation or renewal or grant could indeed take into account hearsay? Does anyone know any person who has justifiably had a cert revoked? As I have pointed out, Yes. I wager that no one will admit it here! (as it seems the overiding view is that anyone should be able to carry anything they want at any time and at any place.) No it isn't, you are being overly dramatic here. Jonathan Laws. -- Section 44 appeals can take into account hearsay and the police in my appeals used a hell of a lot of it. Judges aren't too impressed when they do though. In fact, the police don't even have to tell you why your certificate was revoked, and you can turn up to court not having the vaguest idea what is going on. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the basis that IG feels free to pass judgement on the character of members of the shooting fraternity, I feel just as free to state that he is just a "wind-up artist", bent on provoking hasty and unwise comments by the use of provocative statements. I cannot understand why subscribers rise to the bait like ravenous trout and get hooked in the process. Well, you would wouldnt you. This is a constantly recurring one as well, when someone doesnt like a few unpalatable home truths, this is a convenient little argument to throw out. If yopu think anyone has been hooked, then read the posts again. It is pretty fair to say that all the subscribers here are more than capable of sticking up for their beliefs. I am pleased, however, with your agreement that many of the comments are hasty and unwise. An ally at last! People with convictions joining the met: I am not aware of the type of convictions that are under consideration. The generla school of thought in my area is that it is a publicity stunt to tell the HO how short of manpower the met is. If the offences involve dishonesty or violence, I do not know of any of my colleagues who would share the same air. So the answer to your question is, I suppose, I dont know but I dont think so. If you or anyone else gets wound up by that or make a hast or unwise response, pass me my hat and a knife and fork. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-The Gun Control Network
From: "Jeff Wood", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve wrote: "We have at least two subscribers who are in that constituency (Dunblane/Stirling - JW), either of you been to see your MP about the ban, chaps?" Although resident in Dunblane in 1996, I am now in a neighbouring MP's jurisdiction, so won't be bothering Anne Maguire. However I actually voted for her, the purpose being to vote out Michael Forsyth, who precipitated the full-bore ban by threatening to resign if something wasn't done. I should think this was the course followed by all the shooters in the area, and given that Stirling was long a marginal seat, there would be no harm in shooters reminding La Maguire that if they switch their votes again she may be out next time. There is a general election coming up in the next year. Prior to the elections for the Scottish Parliament, I issued an invitation to the like-minded to join in a plan to affect close votes. After receiving an enthusiastic response, I promptly fell unpleasantly ill and took no further part in anything until after the election. I therefore apologise all those who responded but unless one of the national organisations have got their rear ends in gear and have set up a US NRA-style briefing process for shooting voters, we'll have to do it ourselves. Work-wise I am up against it so am not offering to take an active part. However if the List can stand another thread I will post the guidelines I dreamed up before for people to work on and perhaps improve. Better still, get the UK NRA, SAGBNI, BASC and other outfits to take up the scheme, preferably under one roof, and get the process going in good time. The 1997 general election produced a crop of Labour MPs who never expected to win, but who want to keep their seats now they are in the Club. Conversely, their Tory opponents want to win the seats back. There are no votes in being an Anti, but if shooters can convince candidates there are votes in being Pro, results may come. There won't be a better time. Yours Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public PGP Key at: ldap://certserver.pgp.com Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-The Hartlepool monkey
From: "Kay, Martin (DEI)", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have heard a version of this which has it that the monkey was from a French or Spanish warship which came to grief on the coast during one of the many disagreements between England and our continental neighbors over the centuries, possibly dating as far back as the great but ill-fated Spanish Armada expedition. It was a mascot/pet as it was evidently wearing a miniature uniform when it was found, which resulted it it's trial and subsequent "execution" as an enemy of the realm. Regards Martin Kay (Originally a native of Wallsend On Tyne) Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-airsoft guns
From: "jim.craig", [EMAIL PROTECTED] For the benefit of subscribers who might be wondering what all the fuss id about. so-called 'air-soft' guns are plastic or die-cast metal replica guns which operate either by spring /piston power or by freon gas from an on-board reservoir. Some of the more expensive models use an electric (battery) powered pump and can fire full automatic. Their 'ammunition' is a 6mm plastic BB and their power level is below 1 ft lb! As far as I know they are legally classified as toys!They are specifically exempted from the restrictions applied to even the 'low powered airguns' available without an FAC (air pistols with a power of below 6 ft lbs and air rifles below 12 ft lbs) and for a local police force to impose the kind of requirement mentioned is a frightening example of the abuse of police powers, if it is indeed true. To my knowledge, the majority of retailers of soft-air guns comply with a voluntary code of conduct regarding their sale but their has been much tabloid hysteria surrounding cases where children have apparently taken such guns on to school premises and the police have complained that they have no powers to prevent this. Sounds as if some local copper might have decided to try to put the frighteners on or maybe some local retail outlet is simply saying that such a restriction exists to prevent local children from buying the 'ammunition.' -- Airsoft guns are not classified as toys, but they're not classified as firearms either. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police corruption
From: "Tom Charnock", [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG I have followed your lengthy and mountainous volumes of comment on this thread. Like another poster I have to wonder if this is just to incite responses, wind-ups, or as the US say, "trolling". As you declare your position then perhaps not the latter. However, you go to great lengths spouting about the Law, the Police and the shooting person. You have not forgotten that you are supposed to serve the public as (Star Treck style) a prime directive. You acknowledge that the actions taken by the police in respect of the Chinese visitors demonstrators was wrong. But that police action WAS against the public interest, their right to peaceable demonstration. My simple question was, "at what point do you, and fellow police officers, draw the line in over-riding the public rights". I guess from your weasel worded reply that there is no line, that whatever you are told to do, you, and your fellow officers will obey. If nothing else worries ordinary people in this country, then that blind obedience to Orders from above should. I expect a weasel worded, "but it's my duty to do as I am told" reply (my dad heard that style of response 50 odd years ago). Of course some bright spark from a behavioural science university could do a "controlled experiment" issuing randomly chosen police with electric shock machines to be applied to randomly picked public and see how far they would go with Orders from above. I have a feeling that in today's society, the option to refuse would not feature as the Officer would lose pension, salary etc. Why are there Defence Lawyers? well to pursue actions taken by police officers that they themselves understand are wrong, but are Orders from above and need to be carried out, never mind the publics rights. If you agree that there are limits, then how are they defined, by each Officers personal opinion? how he/she feels on THAT day? arbitrary to say the least. In one of your threads you ask as to what are the parameters of acceptable crimes that are OK for people to hold a FAC / SAC. Of course, the repost to this is to ask the Police Officers, just how far do you accept orders, before you say NO? Surely you have some sort of guidelines from your Federation on this? If so, what did they say about the Chinese demonstrators and the wrongful police action against them? I guess NOTHING as it was only a "small personal infringement of freedom". A step along a road to where??? Tom C PS for the "file" I have always believed in the death penalty for murder, nothing to do with if it was guns used. Just based upon just the Bible. And yes I have drawn a line, in business, it lost me my job and a six figure salary 10 years ago, but it was on a point of belief. Old fashioned? Yes, but to my personal standard. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Certificate Holders
From: Peter H Jackson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The restrictions which you have in mind, be they heavy or light, bear only on people who have no desire or propensity to commit crime. Such restrictions are not in the interests of society as a whole. So the answer to your assumption is no. Guns should be sold and exchanged as freely as apples, individually or by the pound. Have to agree to disagree on this. I have no wish to live in a society where guns are as freely available as you want them to be. I find that disturbing coming from a dealer. (I presume..'Jackson rifles?) Disturbing? Because a firearms dealer, who is an integral part of the licensing system, sees and writes that it is worthless? I am, and have been for many years, openly critical of the Firearms Act. But we haven't quite got to the point in the construction of the British police state where such criticism is lawful grounds for suspecting or implying that a person will offend. Well, not in this part of Scotland, anyway... As I said elsewhere, this viewpoint of freedom from gun control is not the majority nor even a popular viewpoint. No credible political party subscribes to the theory and it will never appear on any election manifesto during the remainder of my life. It is held by a very small number of people. No matter how honourably and passionately those people hold the view, by very virtue of the fact that they are so committed to the viewpoint, they will never ever be prepared to countenance the moderate stance. They will remain, hoewver, in the minority. That fact is inescapable. Because the people of Britain are allegedly in favour of something, therefore it is not only good, but also inescapable? The public infatuation with gun control is a late 20th century phenomenon. If a few people of integrity argue against it with intellectual rigour there is every chance that their point of view will be picked up by a mainstream political organisation. That is the fate which befell socialism and nationalised industry in the 1980s. I am not alone in the shooting world, not even alone on cybershooters, in being an advocate of sensible restrictions on ownership. Then please explain what your "sensible" restrictions are, what net benefit they are intended to achieve, and how they will work in practice. Let us see and discuss a proper cost-benefit analysis. Peter. www.jacksonrifles.com Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-The Gun Control Network
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have at least two subscribers who are in that constituency, either of you been to see your MP about the ban, chaps? Steve. I can see this as not being a particularly good idea. We may have all the best argumants, but after a community has had something like this happen to it (and I know that sounds very TV "sound bite'ish") you can't expect people from it to judge things in an unbiased way. It's exactly the problem we had in the first instance in that you just can't argue against someone who has had their child murdered by a deramged gunman, it dosen't matter how good your argumants are they just aren't going to accept it and to be honest it perfectly understandable given the circumstances. Jonathan Laws -- I'm not suggesting that they do organise a protest, I just wondered whether their MP was responsive to the argument (which I seriously doubt). Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-police corruption
From: "Tim Jeffreys", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does anyone know any person who has justifiably had a cert revoked? I wager that no one will admit it here! (as it seems the overiding view is that anyone should be able to carry anything they want at any time and at any place.) It would be a fine line between whether the FAC lapsed, or whether it was revoked, but the person chucked out by a club I belong to no longer has it as far as I know. With a bit of effort, I could find out for sure, or IG could contact me off list and use his resources to do so. The person concerned seemed reasonable enough to start with - a bit exuberant perhaps - but he took a couple of years to cause the club major concern. Tim Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Certificate Holders
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jonathan writes, If we had a system that issued FAC's, or any type of licence or privilege for that matter, based on the grounds that you didn't like the look of someone then no one would get them. That's what this comes down to - suggestions that X% of FAC holders are dodgy is, ultimately, dangerous prejudice. If people commit crimes they should be prosecuted under the law, but not pre-judged. Even though I've met a few shooters I didn't much care for, they represent a small proportion of the shooting community - a much smaller one than the sizeable portion of the general population I don't care for... And IG writes, Well IG (Don't Mention The War! - just kidding...) in general I agree with Peter Jackson's position, and those who flinch away from suggestions that anyone should have access to firearms should consider the situation of less than 100 years ago: when my grandad was a young man pre-WW1 Englishmen could buy just about whatever guns they wanted, and while gun ownership was widespread, gun crime was so scarce as to be almost non-existent by today's standards. A different world, you say? It was not a golden age of peace and tranquility: there was football hooliganism, violent crime, anarchist bombers, Fenian terrorism etc - but citizens were accorded greater individual responsibility. Decent people vastly outnumber criminals; treating all decent people as potential criminals is a police-state measure; agreeing that this or that category of people (I except those convicted of violent crime) should "of course" not be allowed to have guns is the sort of thin-end-of-the-wedge policy which has led to the present state of bureaucratic oppression. I want my 1911 back. BTW one of the most reckless pieces of gun-handling I've ever seen on the range was by a serving police officer... Anthony Harrison Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
