Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 22:27:49 +0000 From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org> To: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> Cc: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <20000325222749.D234@parish> In-Reply-To: <38DCC0D3.99AB6F28@originative.co.uk>; from paul@originative.co.uk on Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 01:36:19PM %2B0000 References: <38DB8D34.1A750C81@originative.co.uk> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003241806320.805-100000@acp.swbell.net> <20000325104927.B234@parish> <38DCC0D3.99AB6F28@originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 01:36:19PM +0000, Paul Richards wrote:
> Mark Ovens wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:07:47PM -0600, Jay Nelson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Paul Richards wrote:
> > >
> > > >Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > > In one word: tyranny.
> > > >> >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >Ok, not the best example. I guess the handguns law is a better one since
> > > >it's now illegal to have a handgun in the UK even if you bought it
> > > >before the law changed.
> > > >
> > > >Everyone here who had one was required to hand them in when the law came
> > > >in to effect.
> > >
> > > I hope they weren't foolish enough to actually hand them in.
> > >
> >
> > Most of them did (there was a compensation scheme). The big difference
> > of course is that over here most people realize that there is no real
> > justification for *any* civilian, except farmers, to own firearms (we
> > don't have grizzlies and rattlesnakes, so walking in the hills is
> > safe).
>
> Personally, I think they govt went a bit far because the massacres
> weren't caused by gun owners but by pschycopaths who are know massacring
> people with samurai swords instead, though admittedly there are fewer
> victims from a sword than there are from an automatic weapon.
>
The problem of course is that it is easier for these psychopaths to
get their hands on firearms if civilians are allowed to keep them.
> I think the few Olympic medals that Britain was still able to get in the
> shooting events suffered and I would have thought that there could have
> have been some dispensation for people such as them to carry on their
> sport.
> psychopath
I can't make up my mind about the sport thing. The prime raison d'etre
for firearms is to kill.
>
> > The law was introduced after the massacre at a school in Dunblane,
> > Scotland, which was not unlike Columbine (sp?) in the US, except that
> > the kids were only ~5 years old.
>
> Yes, and I understand the reasoning for the law change but I think it
> was a knee jerk over reaction to the situation.
Of course, it wasn't *just* Dunblane. It had happened before
(Hungerford) and also at that school/kindergarten in the Midlands, not
to mention regular shootings in many inner-city areas (Moss Side in
Manchester springs to mind).
> Those who illegitimately
> need guns can still get them but those that had them for sport now
> cannot.
>
> I have no interest in guns, I've never owned one, have never shot one
> (except for an air rifle in an army open day when I was a kid) and have
> only ever seen one once and that was Jordan's :-)
JKH? Remind me to call him "Sir" if I ever meet him :)
> I just feel strongly
> about the civil liberties issue and the waning of rights that's occuring
> over here.
The problem with civil liberties is who is entitled to what rights?
Too many do-gooders seem intent on making sure that criminals don't
have their rights denied/eroded/abused by the police that the police
are severely hampered in their work. If a police officer physically
restrains a person (s)he is arresting they stand an increasing chance
of being prosecuted for assault. The term "reasonable force" nowadays
seems to mean "no contact". Ironically it was an American who summed
it up on this very list some time ago when they said something along
the lines of, "....end up like the British Bobby who can now only say
'Stop! and if you don't stop, I shall shout Stop! again'".
Perhaps if those who preached about civil liberties focussed on the
rights of victims more than the rights of criminals we may get
somewhere. Publicly castrating a couple of dozen rapists with a blunt
sword would prove a most effective deterrent I suspect, but that would
have the civil liberties crowd up in arms (no pun intended). They'd
much rather make sure the rapist had his rights under Section 43
protected.
> The abolishment of the double jeapordy law being the next
> thing I'm going to be pissed off about, even though I'm fully in support
> of the Lawrence situation that's prodiving the excuse. Sometimes the
> solutions to problems have a greater impact than is justified.
>
IIRC it is, and always has been, possible to be tried twice for the
same crime, but only if major new evidence comes to light that would
almost certainly have resulted in a different outcome in the original
trial. I think though that it needs the approval of the Home Secretary
or the House of Lords for this to happen.
> Paul.
>
> p.s. for overseas viewers, the lawrence case involved a racist murder
> where the white youths alleged to have murdered Stephen Lawrence have
> already been tried once but in a bungled case where the police involved
> in the inquiry have been alleged to have been racist themselves. The
> govt is now proposing to change the law to allow people to be tried more
> than once for the same crime. While I can see the reasoning for this in
> terms of the Lawrence case, the implications for the future are pretty
> scary.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
--
Seminars, n.:
From "semi" and "arse", hence, any half-assed discussion.
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000325222749.D234>