Art wrote (personal insults snipped):
> As for the qualifiers you post abovep: Correct it is not my country
...and you show little understanding of it. Ears, 2. Mouth, 1. Use in
that proportion, please.
>have been a participant in competitive shooting events for 15 years.
Aha, a vested interest (apart from the rabid, so-libertarian-I-don't-
need-laws-at-all gung-ho attitude I mean).
>majority of participants are sane well educated and respectful individuals.
I'm sure most drug barons are too.
> I have associates who are fellow citizens of yours who are now to be denied
>access to a legitimate sport because of a pandering political whim.
...that just happens to be the expressed wish of the electorate. If
it's not the 'ooh, I've a big one' attitude, let them shoot air-rifles,
or take up archery.
> The incidents at Dunblane and Hungerford were quite tragic. But they were
>carried out by individuals who could not possibly have been considered sane.
They passed all the tests devised to keep the dangerous away from weapons.
Easily. By all the standards accepted by the shooting community, they were
as sane as you. Perhaps that's the point, you can't accept that you could
possibly be associated with someone who could do this. But you are. Tough.
> They were not the actions of cognizant persons. As to compare consider the
>actions of a motorist who while intoxicated gets behind the wheel of a
>vehicle and proceeds to collide with a school bus resulting in similar tragic
>ends. We do not outlaw the automobile because of the personal actions of
The comparison is not valid. We do not let people drive Formula 1 racing
at speeds in excess of 200 mph in our streets. We do let people drive the
scaled down versions. Thus I'm happy with letting people have low-powered
weapons, like air-guns. Also, we don't let people away with unexpectedly
driving at us, such as in pedestrian precincts. Similarly, we don't let
people conceal their weapons.
> It is merely a tool in the hands of a non-competent. Those
>bent on self destruction and retribution will always find the means to
>execute their malicious plots regardless of governmental regulations.
Sounds like a threat, Art. Ooh, I'm scared.
>is why they are considered criminals they have no respect for the rights of
Our right as a society is to decide amongst ourselves to sanely and
remove the means of destruction. That's our right, so respect it.
This subject is closed.
EASYweb Design - professional Web Design that speaks *your* language
email: [log in to unmask] snailmail: 12 Terrars Croft
tel: +44 (0)131 668 1420 Edinburgh, Scotland
pricelist: [log in to unmask] terms&conditions: [log in to unmask]