[plug] What do you school-age members think of SlashDot'sHellMouth articles?

[Bret Busby]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-plug at linux.org.au
> [mailto:owner-plug at linux.org.au]On Behalf
> Of Greg Mildenhall
> Sent: 04 May 1999 11:28
> To: plug at linux.org.au
> Subject: Re: [plug] What do you school-age members think of
> SlashDot'sHellMouth articles?
>
>
> Removing guns will not stop anyone with serious criminal intent.
> It might stop accidents, it might stop spur-of-the-moment
> shootings, but
> so does the careful enforcement of WA's pre-Port Arthur laws. Only in
> redneck Harradine country could that sort of thing have occured.

In (wannabe) President Harradine's redneck country, it must be remembered,
that, after the slaying, the nice people there made threats on the lives of
the medical staff, who were treating the gunman after the incident. He was
just part of the mentality that appeared to have been evident there. Medical
staff have a duty to save life, regardless of whose it is, and for them to
have their lives threatened, for trying to fulfil that duty, shows that
gratuitous killing appears to be the way of life there. So, was he really
any worse than the other psychotics there? It appears that the only real
difference was that he was the one who had the gun.

> In general, I am very much against government restriction in
> most areas,
> but I also feel that the govt. has a responsibility to protect it's
> citizens. For a known psychiatric outpatient to have access to such
> heavy-duty weaponry is a breach of the govt's responsibility.
>
> That is why I favour our old system under which guns were
> available if:
> 1. They could be proven necessary.
> 2. The owner could prove they were trustworthy.
> 3. The strictest of measures were taken to keep them out of
> other hands.
>
> Unfortunately, some guns are no longer allowed to farmers,
> professional
> sportspeople, etc. even if they fit #1.

So, who in built up areas, can really justify a need for guns? Apart from
possibly the police, only farmers can really justify the need for firearms.
>
> > > Also, it would be nearly impossible to remove guns from
> American society.
> > > It's actually part of our constitution that an individual
> has a right them.
> > As I recall, the term is "right to bear arms." The problem
> seems to me the
> > interpretation of that phrase. It would not surprise me if
> it was intended
> > to mean that everyone is entitled to take part in the
> defence of the
> > nation.

That is my understanding of the intent of that part of the constitution,
but, as with constitutions and legisaltion, it appears to have been
forgotten, and misinterpreted, to suit the personal interests of particular
groups of people.

One point worth remembering; Kalashnikov, who created the AK47, said that he
believed that he did nothing wrong in creating the weapon, and the weapon
was not responsible for what it had been used for; it was the people who
used it, that were responsible for the uses to which they put it.

If the proper regulations were instituted, and applied, the people who have
abused these firearms would not have been as likely to have so done.

I once worked for a man, who brought into the workplace, an 9mm Glock
handgun, to show it to the workers, out of pride. It was something that he
had brought on the black market, for about $800. There was no justification
whatsoever, for something like that, in Perth.

If something like a mandatory 10 year custodial sentence was instituted, for
possession of a firearm, in towns and cities, then, perhaps, we might have
less of a problem with firearms.

And, in the rural areas, a farmer should be allowed something like a
semi-automatic rifle, and a shotgun, for vermin control, and for stock
maintenance, and, possibly the same provision, for professional vermin
hunters, and that should be the total need for firearms, apart from the
police.

I have used various firearms, and was required to show that I knew how to
clean and maintain them, and I was checked out, before I was allowed access
to most of them, and before owning one of them, as hould have occurred. But,
how often does that occur, now? That is one of the problems.

Another problem, as I have previously mentioned, is what is going on in the
real world. Watch the television news some time. Listen to the radio news
some time. How many innocent lives are being taken, each day, in the quest
for world domination? Consider all the gratuitous violence that is being
performed by the world leaders.

What respesct for human life, can you expect people to have, with all of
that going on?

 The 'net
> takes control of the media out of the hands of the
> centralised powers, and
> that is why governments are so keen to attack freedom of speech on the
> 'net.
>
> Funny that in Australia such restrictions of freedom are
> being propounded
> by the loonie right.

Quite right. See other thread, about Internet oppression.

>
> -Greg Mildenhall
>

Bret Busby
___________________