From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The new laws requiring club membership may not have benn in force in 1987
>but "good reason" and a place to shoot were. Depending on the outcome, the
>issuing of a FAC with such speed and without many checks can be read as
>either sloppy work or as an unburdening of unneccessary paperwork etc.
--snip--
>Nick
>Why me?
>--
--snip--
>
>I personally think that going on about Hungerford is totally
>fruitless because without a public inquiry we will never know
>what actually happened in enough detail, and even then it's
>pretty iffy.
>
>Steve.
Steve, & Nick,
As regards the above, I agree that it matters not one iota
that your man was in possession of an FAC. The fact of the matter
is that just anyone can go off the deep end at any moment. There
is no guarantee that a law abiding citizen will continue to be law
abiding for the term of his or her ticket possession. That's also a
given when you renew your driver's license, or just any other license.
That is where the antis get their message through to
everyone else, and manage to scare the politicians into just every
hair brained scheme of 'gun control'.
But the point of reality is that no human is guaranteed to
have possession of his faculties 100 percent of the time. That said,
then it must be understood that there is always a certain amount of
risk which must be entertained as a matter of living in a 'modern'
world. It seems that there is a missing element which is not allowed
to be presented to the Parliament: that before those onerous and
utterly useless gun laws were enacted by scare mongers, that your
crime rate conducted with them was insignificant.
And, more importantly, the police had better things to do
instead of micro-manage the bejesus out of the law abiding, like for
instance real law enforcement.
The argument about the 'wild west' of America, is largely
a myth, and most of the altercations were made-up stories that were
intended to entertain. That almost all of those stories are excessively
embellished by the authors (and have been proven to be so) is more
to the point.
Taken in total, the number of real and dangerous exploits
by the embellished and often exaggerated acts by bad people were
essentially few and far between: That's why their stories sold so well.
If the acts by bad people were such a normal happenstance
for that period of time, then it would not have been news, and only
the most gruesome details would have been reported.
The fact is that one story tended to have several aspects of
it which amounted to several different stories by several authors.
The word here: synthesis.
Some people of late have intended to portray your nation
as exhibiting the effects of that era of American history. They should
be corrected and made to state just what is their source for the remarks
the made: Hollywood movies, or real and documentable historical
reports of the time.
Chances are that the answer you'll get are one of a dissembling
nature. But still, if they can be made to answer in a public forum, that will
work towards their effective dismissal as having much credence.
ET
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
