From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<Firstly, this all kicked off with your statement that 5% of
people who have FAC's are unpleasant, objectionable and
potentially dangerous. It had nothing to do with those who
had applied and been refused or have in your view applied
for "spurious variations". etc etc>>
I repeat. You only see what you want to see. A small number of people.
I make NO aplology for being outspoken. 'Look, the Emperor isnt wearing any
clothes!'
Look at the responses yourself. One moment you are slagging the government
off for everything, the next you are saying that the laws should be applied.
You dont really know what side of the fence you want to sit on.
I stand by the fact that 5% of the people I deal with are unpleasant,
objectionable or potentially dangerous. Often all 3. The law requires me to
make a judgement. Like it or not, that is the way of things in this country.
Accepted, there is total freedom for people to be objectionable and
unpleasant and still own a firearm. Not so for the potentially dangerous.
The point is this. Numbers do not matter. There are people who should not,
in any circumstances, be allowed near a firearm.
I do my job and try to ensure that this is the case. I make no apologies for
doing so. After all, even Steve tells me that this is the job of the police,
so I don't expect any criticism for ensuring the safety of the public. The
law requires evidence before a revocation is made. Not merely 3rd hand
hearsay. It is very difficult to get that evidence.
Does anyone know any person who has justifiably had a cert revoked? I wager
that no one will admit it here! (as it seems the overiding view is that
anyone should be able to carry anything they want at any time and at any
place.)
IG
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
