Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Scenic areas in England

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Scenic areas in England

 
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2009
On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.


Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.

My main objection is to the falsified logic rather than to guns per
se. Two lobbies, quite disparate, start from the answer they want and
reverse engineer their logic to get the question they want. Both have
to rely on a false definition of "dangerous".
They are road safety and pro gun.
One wants drivers to be the focus of blame for accidents (they also
try to redefine "accident" as "avoidable incident" rather than
"unintentional incident") so they discount the inherent danger in an
unguarded cliff or icy bend and insist "all danger lies with drivers",
instead of the logical "(nearly) all *blame* lies with drivers"
They use the gun lobby equivalent of "no gun jumped out a box and shot
somebody" of "no bend ever jumped out in front of a car".
They choose to try and blur "danger" into "harm", when in fact
"danger" is the "potential for harm". The risk in this is that it
ignores both the safety gain available by crash barriers, anti skid
surfaces, locked away guns etc. If you try to tell them a howitzer is
more dangerous than a popgun you get the usual rehearsed nonsense that
makes them sound like Homer Simpson. I don't know if they actually
know its rubbish or not. But I once spend days pinning down a road
safety advocate, who eventually pleaded "but don't you want safer
roads?" so I assume these lies are known to be lies deep down.

Both court unforeseeable problems when these wooly lies get taken over
by groups with objectives they do not approve of. The road safety
people should just say instead "99% of accidents are the
responsibility(blame) of drivers"
--
Mike
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith Willshaw
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2009

"Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.

>
> Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
> as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
> better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
> than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.
>


Unfortunately it wasnt a single case or had you forgotten Hungerford ?
They assured everyone they had strenghtened the rules on gun licensing
after that incident. Then came Dunblane.

Keith


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2009
In message <BcCPl.22298$(E-Mail Removed)2>, Keith Willshaw
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>"Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.

>>
>> Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
>> as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
>> better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
>> than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.
>>

>
>Unfortunately it wasnt a single case or had you forgotten Hungerford ?
>They assured everyone they had strenghtened the rules on gun licensing
>after that incident. Then came Dunblane.


They had strengthened the rules on gun ownership and banned many guns
(and lost track of over 100,000 pump and semi auto shotguns*)

The rules had already stopped Hamilton... the gun clubs had already
alerted the Police to Hamilton several times in the preceding years and
the local Police did not want to renew his FAC. This would have avoided
the tragedy

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Willshaw
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2009

"Chris H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <BcCPl.22298$(E-Mail Removed)2>, Keith Willshaw
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>"Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.
>>>
>>> Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
>>> as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
>>> better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
>>> than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.
>>>

>>
>>Unfortunately it wasnt a single case or had you forgotten Hungerford ?
>>They assured everyone they had strenghtened the rules on gun licensing
>>after that incident. Then came Dunblane.

>
> They had strengthened the rules on gun ownership and banned many guns
> (and lost track of over 100,000 pump and semi auto shotguns*)
>
> The rules had already stopped Hamilton... the gun clubs had already
> alerted the Police to Hamilton several times in the preceding years and
> the local Police did not want to renew his FAC. This would have avoided
> the tragedy
>


But they did, the police did NOT oppose the revocation, some junior
officers thought it was a bad idea and even submitted memoranda stating
it but in the end his firearms certificate was renewed as senior officers
felt there was insufficient evidence to oppose the renewal.

The critical factor was that the system supposed to protect the public
had tragically failed for a second time. In a country where shooting
was very much a minority interest it was politically impossible
for an elected government to ignore the public outcry that ensued.

Personally I dont think it was justified but I know dammed well that
all the people I worked with as well as family and friends did.

Keith



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2009
In message <VWEPl.154186$(E-Mail Removed)2>, Keith Willshaw
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>"Chris H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In message <BcCPl.22298$(E-Mail Removed)2>, Keith Willshaw
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>
>>>"Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.
>>>>
>>>> Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
>>>> as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
>>>> better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
>>>> than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately it wasnt a single case or had you forgotten Hungerford ?
>>>They assured everyone they had strenghtened the rules on gun licensing
>>>after that incident. Then came Dunblane.

>>
>> They had strengthened the rules on gun ownership and banned many guns
>> (and lost track of over 100,000 pump and semi auto shotguns*)
>>
>> The rules had already stopped Hamilton... the gun clubs had already
>> alerted the Police to Hamilton several times in the preceding years and
>> the local Police did not want to renew his FAC. This would have avoided
>> the tragedy
>>

>
>But they did, the police did NOT oppose the revocation, some junior
>officers thought it was a bad idea and even submitted memoranda stating
>it


SO the firearms team did not want to renew.

> but in the end his firearms certificate was renewed as senior officers
>felt there was insufficient evidence to oppose the renewal.


This is back to front. For a shot gun certificate they had to issue
unless there was good reason not to. For an FAC they the reverse was
true. You had to show good cause.

>The critical factor was that the system supposed to protect the public
>had tragically failed for a second time.


No. The Police failed us.

> In a country where shooting
>was very much a minority interest it was politically impossible
>for an elected government to ignore the public outcry that ensued.


So you are saying the Government reacted to ill informed knee jerk
reactions that were plain wrong?

>Personally I dont think it was justified but I know dammed well that
>all the people I worked with as well as family and friends did.


The masses are seldom right when led by tabloids.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Scenic areas in England Mike Digital Photography 132 07-05-2009 07:35 AM
Scenic areas in England Shawn Hirn Digital Photography 274 06-16-2009 10:47 AM
Re: Scenic areas in England Mike Digital Photography 2 05-12-2009 04:46 PM
Re: Scenic areas in England Mike Digital Photography 3 05-12-2009 01:16 PM
Re: Scenic areas in England Mike Digital Photography 5 05-12-2009 12:30 PM



Advertisments