From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As there has been so much venom vented on this topic, I would love to know
what views the contributors hold on the subject of who should not be allowed
to hold a firearm or shotgun certificate.
I take it that it is the general consensus that there should be at least
some restriction somewhere along the line?
I would find it most illuminating to know whether the classes of people I
categorise as dodgy are different to anyone else.
The amount of hate mail I got after this one is astounding! It only leads me
to think that it is the view of some people that sexual offenders, deviants,
murderers and other types of unsavoury characters should be allowed to
wander around the streets with every peice of military hardware ever
invented hanging about their persons.
I find that on this topic, as with many others, people are very quick to
shout and scream, but very few are prepared to be constructive and actually
tackel the issue in question.
BTW, the figures from the home office do not show the number of times people
withdraw applications or revise them after a little consultation with the
police. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
I will not change my opinions on this one.
I see them all. You only see some.
IG
--
The only gun law I have ever really felt is worthwhile is a background
check before a person takes possession. Licensing, registration,
all the rest of it is largely worthless because once a person has
a gun, they can misuse it if they choose. I did submit a very
comprehensive paper to the HO outlining a new licensing system,
although that was based largely with an eye on the political
realities of the situation.
Our system is not based purely on public safety in the classic
sense of ensuring people who own guns are safe to do so. It is
based more on the flawed logic that if you make it complicated
enough to own guns you will reduce ownership even by law-abiding
people to minimal levels, therefore criminals will have a smaller
pool to steal from and less people will have guns if they
suddenly go nuts. The problem with that is that any reasonable
cost/benefit analysis would indicate that far more crime would
be stopped and more lives saved if all those resources were
poured into policing in the classic sense of the word.
The amount of BS that ACPO pour out about how they are worried
about people with long-barrelled this or military-pattern that
is simply incredible. If they spent half as much effort on
proper policing strategy I have no doubt it would be far more
effective.
The other problem with our system is that frankly it was never
intended to secure public safety, it was designed to stop the
Government from being overthrown. It was never intended to
stop any single individual from misusing a gun, it was designed
to stop large groups of individuals banding together and
misusing them. It has never been significantly redesigned. It
is only in the last 30-40 years that this misconception that
it is some wonderful anti-crime tool has evolved, yet Switzerland
has more guns per capita than any other country in Europe, but
our levels of firearm-related crime are very similar.
If our system was intended to secure public safety then more
checks would have been put in to stop people who have been
committed under the Mental Health Acts from being able to
get a certificate, I can think of several cases where people
involuntarily committed have successfully obtained certificates
after release. (And no I never met them, so don't start
calling me a hypocrite).
If it was intended to protect public safety it would have long
since been centralised under a central administration, like
virtually everything to do with cars, planes and most other
things has.
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
