From: "Paul McDermott", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>It is a disgrace for several reasons. The organisation behind
>the sculpture seem to be using Lennon's popularity as a means
>of promoting anti-gun propoganda to the masses, as if to say
>"if there were no guns Lennon would be alive today" - which of
>course we all know is utter rubbish because Hinckley was a
>class A fruitcake and could have killed Lennon with any number
>of potentialy deadly impliments.
I acknowledge that theoretically he could, but I have doubts that he would.
Some years ago I worked in the 'protection' business. Like many in the
business, (Including those who were ex-forces), I graduated form being a
nightclub doorman. Guns were our fear.People aren't easily killed, generally
speaking. Knives obviously pose a real risk, but generally people have to be
stabbed many times to be killed. A single stab wound killing is quite
unusual. You also have to be "in someone's face" to do it. Looking in their
eyes, smelling their breath, hearing their screams, hearing the knife hit
their ribs, feeling their blood spraying onto you. Not many individuals have
the bottle to do it, fruitcake or not. Most people who use knives are drunk,
loaded with dutch courage, and in gangs.
Clubs, baseball bats, etc are not usually an option for the intending killer
in a non-domestic situation. Hard to conceal, unwieldy to use, and again,
you have to reconcile the sickening noise as the blows land. Most people
couldn't kill that way, I feel.
But most people could pull a trigger. It's remote. You're not killing
someone, you're pulling a trigger. I feel that's the thrust of people's
argument in cases like Lennon.
As a side point for comparison, George Harrison was able to fight off the
fruitcake who was stabbing him.
For myself, although I come from Liverpool, I didn't know Lennon but quite
like his music. I feel no more or less pity for him than any other victim.
I believe people have a right to have statues, symbols or emblems put up if
they feel strongly enough and make the effort to gain some support in the
'right' places. I don't think it's an issue whether I happen to agree or not
with their argument. I saw so much personal vitriol directed at the woman
who ran the 'snowdrop campaign'. Now THAT, I did feel was a disgrace. I
wasn't happy at losing my handguns, but those parents who lost children
fought that campaign because they believed in it. I fully accept that the
decisions made were purely political, and would have no effect upon crime
overall, but I understood people's reasoning. (Or at least, many of them.
All campaigns have camp followers) I think for many of them it was a form of
therapy which helped get them through their grief. I didn't agree with most
of what they said, but they have the right to campaign. Ultimately, it was
put to a vote and laws were passed. Most of us, at least some of the time,
feel that we live under a democracy. This is democracy at work. They won the
vote. We all lost. That happens. We were the minority on this occasion.
Democracy is designed to put the will of the majority first. I don't like it
when I lose either, but the majority made the decision.
As a further side point for comparison, (and I'm sure you know what I'm
going to say ;-), Thomas Hamilton could not have committed this act, to this
extreme with anything other than guns.
Many of the thoughts I hear from shooters seem not to be 'pro-shooting', but
anti anyone perceived as not being 100% behind scrapping gun control in all
it's forms. I am a 'pro shooting' shooter, but because I'm not prepared to
go along with all that others say, I feel I am often marginalised or cast as
the enemy. Maybe a key pointer to succeeding in a democracy is not to turn
on those who are on your side? (Even if some of your beliefs differ.)
:o)
Paul.
--
Anne Pearston was criticised for the simple reason that she was not
from Dunblane and had no direct connection to any of the victims or
their families. For Tony Blair to put her on the stand at the 1996
Labour Party conference was outrageous, because that was giving a
platform to someone who was simply a political campaigner with no
right of reply to the other side. Also I point out that the only
reason for the handgun ban at the end of the day was because the
Secretary of State for Scotland threatened to resign if handguns
weren't banned, and also because he thought the Conservative Party
was finished in Scotland if they didn't ban them. Any moron could
see the tories were doomed in Scotland either way, so instead of
sticking with their original plan of locking up handguns in clubs
they came up with this cock-eyed idea of banning everything except
.22s locked up at clubs, after all the media after the 1996 Labour
Party conference.
The whole thing was a travesty and about as far removed from "democracy"
as it gets. And frankly democracy stinks anyway, few countries
have what could be called democracy, they generally have a republican
form of government with certain rules - we don't, which is one of
the reasons why we were shafted.
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
