From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have stayed out of this debate because I thought both sides were generally
interested in generating more heat than light. However, I do find a several
points in IG's latest posting that I would like to take issue with:
~I realise now that is because I am corresponding with entrenched views,~
Sorry IG, but that comment cuts both ways.
~I have tried to point out the stance of the police and the public at large,~
Yes, but that doesn't make it right. At one time in this country fox hunting
was popularly tolerated and sodomy was illegal. Soon I guess the reverse
will be true. Just which stance is right? They were both held by the majority
at the time. From my point of view, neither is right, but then maybe I'm in
a minority. Being in a minority doesn't make you wrong, just vulnerable when
somebody in authority needs to hand out a kicking.
~I have even been blamed for the way the Met behaved at the visit of the
Chinese premier!~
I posted a comment on this and I most certainly did not intend to hold you in
anyway responsible. If I even inferred this I humbly apologise.
~That took some beating! (as did the practical shooters one!)~
I sent you a posting off list about practical shooting, which you chose not
to reply to (your privilege) but if this comment refers to me I would be
obliged for an explanation.
~Parliament isn't going to change anything for that number of votes. ~
Absolutely true, mainly because shooters are in this mess because all most
politicians are interested in is vote grubbing. Thus they will happily
persecute minorities if they think it will get them re-elected.
~Contrary to what Steve states, it is not the strength of the views, but the
number of people who are prepared to place their vote on the basis of a
single issue.~
Patently untrue, homosexual law reform and the current moves against
foxhunting have both originated from minority pressure groups. The appalling
Gill Marshall-Andrews is another clear example of a vociferous minority
gaining the ear of government.
~Instead of blindly lashing out at every authority figure.~
Agreed that one should never blindly lash out but it has been my experience
of life that authority generally works in favour of those wielding it and to
the detriment of those to whom it is being applied. I believe that one
should always be sceptical of authority figures.
~There can only be one answer to that, and that is a united front. We will
never, ever have that in this country, because all the organisations fight
each other. ~
Unqualified agreement. You could not be more right.
~I would be howling because I don't want to see complete freedom of movement
of firearms.~
No, nor do I. What I want is the lightest possible controls that operate
towards preventing criminals, lunatics and the incompetent from having access
to firearms. If the a licence to own firearms operated in much the same way
as a driving licence then I think it would be entirely justifiable. We need
a test to establish competence followed by the right to own whatever you can
afford (I do draw the line at weapons of mass destruction just as I would not
expect to meet a Formula 1 car on the M25). This would be balanced by the
duty of the courts to withdraw the right of ownership following any
conviction that proved the owner to be a danger to society. I feel this
would strike about the right balance between the rights of the individual and
the right of society at large to be protected against the abuse of firearms.
I'm sure that very few people in the country agree with me but only reasoned
argument will convince me that I'm wrong, weight of numbers never will.
Unfortunately as I perceive it, the current controls miserably fail to
achieve any significant degree of armed crime control and should be swept
away. They won't be, of course, because they are not meant to achieve this
objective. They are meant to fulfil the twin objectives of:
1. For the Home Office and ACPO, preventing the ordinary person from owning
firearms. This, for some reason, is an end in itself.
2. To get politicians re-elected by a misguided electorate when the chance
to whip up some hysteria arises.
This is proved by the fact that as controls have become ever more stringent
over the last 90 years, firearms related crime has increased. There is just
no correlation and no rational person can therefore believe that the
objective of all this legislation is crime control. To quote your words:
~Does anyone else see this?
Hmmm.no, perhaps not.~
Well, certainly not those whose interests are best served by not seeing it.
Kenneth Pantling
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
