From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<Would Ig like to give us examples of the five per cent of certificate
holders
to whom he objects?
Barry Woodward>>
Certainly, see below.
<<Well, IG, I guess that qualifies you as some kind
of psychiatry professional, eh?
Just what, I'd like to ask, is your unique qualification
to denounce another citizen as being unfit to possess firearms,
other than the stated disabilities under your law?
And perhaps even more importantly, what are the
scientific criteria that you apply?>>
Fair comments...see below!
The people I consider shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms are those
that pose a danger to society.
By that I mean characters such as those who have deviant sexual tendencies
towards children, rambo wannabes who fulfill their fantasies with fully
autos, those who provide criminals with firearms, those who reactivate
deacts, convicted murderers, people who associate with any such saddo's.
Shooters aren't like that, I hear you howl!
Oh yes they are, I reply!
What about a certain prominent shooting journalist now in prison?
What about his buddys?
What about the American chappy, now thankfully sent back to his countymen?
What about Ryan?
What about Hamilton?
What about Sartin?
What about Gregory?
What about the formerly vociferous shooting organisation now sunk without
trace?
Need I go on?
No need to be any sort of ologist to work out that people such as these
shouldnt be allowed to walk the streets, never mind own firearms. As to
scientific criteria.........no need to be a scientist to work this out, dear
ET! Common sense rules here!
Anyone disagree with me?
lol
IG
--
Yes I do, because Richard Law did not commit the offence he was
convicted of, it was complete nonsense and Guy Savage was cleared
of an identical charge. Richard can be a bit naive sometimes but
given the actual nature of his conviction and the amount of
resources Dyfed Powys put into his conviction, I know who I
think was the problem there, and it wasn't Richard.
Certainly Hamilton and the American were known to the police
and Hamilton's FAC should have been revoked under the Guidance
and that was the opinion of the public inquiry. The American
you refer to had a criminal record as long as his arm, and
okay fair enough the local police apparently didn't know that
but you have to wonder just how naive they were, sending
him Christmas cards and the like.
Would you have put that American in your "5%"? Apparently the
local police didn't.
You're talking nonsense IG. By defintion, you are actually
making the police look stupid, because you are a police officer
and it is the responsibility of the police to ensure certificate
holders are fit people to hold firearms. If you have any such
concerns you should take action over them, rather than sitting
here giving us a nebulous lecture over some vague assertion.
The police need very little in the way of cause to revoke an
FAC, so please tell us, exactly what characteristics of the
local certificate holders that concern you flag them up as
being in this 5%?
It certainly doesn't inspire me with confidence to hear a copper
saying he thinks he _knows_ certificate holders who aren't
suitable to hold a certificate.
Steve.
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
