Education or Ignorance?

There has recently been a social experiment, produced and underwritten it would appear by the local police. Their mission, to prove that children and guns do not mix! In a staged scenario, a room was filled with toys and other such things that children of today would be interested in. additionally, a strategically placed firearm was also left in the room. This firearm, although real, was rendered inoperable by the group conducting the “study”.

Whilst it cannot be considered a great scientific study, after all there were only 8 subjects in the test group, the result of the test is all but ignored by not only the group conducting the study, but by pretty much all the media. So why has this unscientific study been almost completely ignored and swept under the carpet. The answer, the result was not quite what they wanted. The selected children were left to play in the room, monitored on CCTV. Eventually one of the children found the gun and started playing with it, pointing it at the other children and pretending to shoot them.  Out of the 8 children left in the room 6 played with the firearm in the manner previously described. However 2 did not, and this is the reason why the video did not get considerably more coverage in the media.

You see of the 8 children involved, 6 came from homes where guns and gun ownership was not permitted, for whatever reason, by the parents. Therefore the children had no experience, or education, on what to do when they came across the firearm. The remaining 2 children came from homes where guns and gun ownership was permitted. These children and been brought up with firearms and were aware, by virtue of training in their upbringing, that they should not touch the gun, and what they should do if they found one.

In conclusion, the experiment was designed to show that guns and children do not mix. The unintended consequence was that, education from an early age, especially concerning the safe handling of firearms is not something that should be ignored, even if you do not have a gun in the house.

To watch the video please click HERE.

MEP responds to firearms concerns.

The following is the response from Richard Ashworth MEP, in response to concerns raised regarding the latest EU firearms control measures.

-0-

Thank you contacting Richard Ashworth MEP concerning the proposal to amend the EU legislation on the control and possession of weapons (The “Firearms” directive). 

 As you are aware on 18^th November 2015, the European Commission proposed amendments to the current EU Directive which has been in place since 1991 and which was last reviewed in 2008. This new proposal includes elements that will improve the sharing of registers across borders between Member States, enhance the marking of weapons and enable the tracking of deactivated arms, such as those of a historical nature.

In the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks last year, it is right that to look at what can be done on a practical basis to tackle terrorism and criminal activities. Effective gun controls are part of this, especially given that some weapons used in the Charlie Hebdo attacks were legally acquired weapons that had been reconverted from blank-firing acoustic weapons into live firearms in Slovakia.

However, there was much discussion about the need to ensure the rules are proportionate and that they tackle real problems supported by real figures. A number of concerns have risen about the new proposals as currently stand, not least the absence of an impact assessment and the lack of clarity of some of the language. These concerns have come from museums, collectors, re-enactors, those involved in the film industry, “airsoft”, sports shooters and those using firearms for pest control as well as military reservists in some countries.

Many parts of the proposal are unclear, which has led to confusion about which semi-automatics are to be banned. The exact nature of the responsibilities for museums, collectors and those doing historical re-enactments is also remains unclear.  Furthermore many concerns have been correctly raised in regards to the impact the legislation on activities such as paint balling and the use of guns in films and television productions.

Conservatives in the European Parliament agree on the need for a new directive; but believe there does need to be wider consideration of some of the proposals, particularly in regards to sporting activities. The Commission has agreed its drafting of the proposal is not perfect and has asked parliamentarians to work on it.

Given this, Conservatives in the European Parliament have taken the lead to ensure the views of all stakeholders are heard. Mr Ashworth works closely with his Conservative colleague Vicky Ford MEP, who is the Chairman of the European Parliament's Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee.  Mrs Ford will be leading the European Parliament's work on this file, which involves scrutinising the Commission’s proposal and proposing amendments where necessary. Throughout this process Mr Ashworth will work closely to ensure the report is both fair and balanced. It is completely normal for MEPs to propose amendments to any proposal from the Commission and it is likely to take many months before there is a vote on both the proposal and any amendments.

Mr Ashworth has expressed his concerns regarding deactivated weapons, as the Commission and Member States took 7 years to put in place rules to ensure such firearms are properly rendered inoperable. We need to ensure that these new rules are effective and they clearly need to be taken into consideration during the scrutiny process.  

It is also important to clarify what is meant by the need for a medical test to be carried out before a license is granted and the distance selling requirements.

 Mr Ashworth will be working closely with colleagues in the coming months to make sure the correct is in place and believes it will also be important to work closely with experts especially those representing stakeholders. 

 Whilst it is right that at this time to check for any loopholes in the law and improve communication, any new legislation must be coupled with much greater enforcement against illegal arms, crime and terrorism.

 Thank you again for contacting Richard Ashworth MEP, he is always pleased to hear from his constituents.

 Kind regards,

 Claire

Lead or Cats.

I like so many others, like shooting, and like a good many others like cats and dogs. Both of these creatures offer a welcome relief as pets to many, many people, and they both have proven worth for the elderly as well as the sick. I’m not against anyone having either or both of these creatures, but if they are not controlled by their owners both are capable of doing sever damage to either stock or wildlife. In the UK wild dogs are not, as yet a major problem, unlike some parts of the USA, where packs of dogs roam unimpeded. Here, dogs, left uncontrolled by their owners whilst out walking in the countryside can wreak havoc on a heard of sheep or cows, often the dogs end up being shot by the farmer or his staff, much to the dismay of the dog owners.

                Cats on the other hand are not a considered threat to sheep or cattle, but over the years many domestic cats have gone feral, and live in the wild without the need for man. Many domestic cats too are quite able to survive without their can of cat food, which leads me to a point I’d like to draw your attention to.

                Recently an article appeared, based upon some very old surveys, about the effects that lead from shooting may have on the wild bird population here in the UK, and by extension elsewhere in the world. The report admitted that it could not verify its figures, and had extrapolated its results based upon the information available. The report concluded that between 50,000 and 100,000 birds may have died, each year, due to the effects of shooting and the lead shot used. As I said, this was a report taken from old study material, and since the original study was undertaken, all responsible shooters have sought out cartridges using a suitable lead replacement; This combined with legislation regarding the taking of wildfowl, and shooting over wildfowl habitat, and only using lead substitutes, have made considerable in roads to preserving both the birds and their habitat.

                As I say, I’ve no axe to grind here, but a quick look at the RSPB web site regarding the cat populations, wild and domestic, effect upon the wildlife of the UK, there seems to be a disparity in their approach. The RSPB details that somewhere in the region of 275,000,000 items of prey are taken each year by cats, of this 55,000,000 are birds. Added to this figure is the unknown quantity of creatures that are caught and escape, only to die later of the wounds. The RSPB web site goes on to say that, “Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide.”  They go to say, “It is likely that most of the birds killed by cats would have died anyway from other causes before the next breeding season, so cats are unlikely to have a major impact on populations. If their predation was additional to these other causes of mortality, this might have a serious impact on bird populations.”

                It would appear that there is, as usual, an agenda lead reason for justifying the acceptable disparity between shooting and cat ownership. Or put another way, and I hate it when people talk in percentage terms, but this time it really brings home what the RSPB find acceptable, or un-acceptable. Using only the figures that are widely available to everyone on this issue, if you take the time to look, the 50,000-100,000 figure, based on surveys and reports conducted over thirty years ago, when lead shot was widely used in wildfowling, represents a figure of less than .2% or two tenths of one percent of the 55,000,000 acceptable birds killed by cats. So will we at any time soon hear the RSPB call for stricter controls on cats, or the use of a cat substitute, I don’t think so!

Ballistic fingerprinting.

I’m sure we all have experience of something in our lives that sounded like a good idea, but in reality, it was either not practical or realistic. A good example of this is ballistic fingerprinting, anti-gunners love it, and have sold it to a number of countries, states or jurisdictions as the ultimate tool for solving crimes that involve a firearms.

What’s involved? Well in this particular example every gun sold undergoes a sample firing, the resulting bullet and cartridge case have their individual markings recorded digitally. This information, and the spent case and bullet are then stored, to be made available if required. I can hear some of you saying it now “Well that’s a good idea!” But wait, and have a think, every gun sold, that would be quite a lot. Additionally, for those in the know or with criminal intent, this can all be made an irrelevance with a few household products. Then add in the fact that, and here we go again, honest, law abiding people, by definition do commit crimes, and law abiding gun owners are in that group, and are less likely to commit a crime of any description than your local police officer.

With all this in mind, the state of Maryland U.S.A. has, after 15 years, and millions of dollars spent, decided to pack up their database and storage facility, and why have they decided to do this? Well, in all of those 15 years the information contained within all those databases, and using all of those spent rounds for cross reference solved exactly zero cases of a criminal act. That’s right, not a single criminal in the state of Maryland used a legally obtained and fingerprinted firearm. You can if you wish view the story as run by the Baltimore Sun HERE

All of this is not to say that taking the information from bullets and cartridge cases is not a good idea, it is, but only when it is used in conjunction with other evidence obtained at a crime scene in order to confirm the use of a firearm in a particular crime or crimes, as has been done since the time of this forensic sciences birth. So when your local government or police pronounce that they a new system for preventing and solving crime, just think back to this, and the other examples that have gone before. It will not do a thing that it says it will in the brochure, but it will cost more and more tax money, year on year, to administer. Money that would be better spent in other areas of the worlds police departments.

Media arrogance!

Why is this man still allowed to work instead of being prosecuted by the law? In yet another show of arrogance by a member of the media, who for some reason fell they are above the law, not only does this writer break a minimum of two laws, but he then has the arrogance to admit his felonious deeds in the newspaper that he works for. Now don’t misunderstand, if there is a problem with society or its laws, then feel free to address those problems, write about them in whatever medium you have available to you. It is beholden upon you to engage with the relevant individuals, group, or authority to have this problem recognised and removed. This does not however entitle you to break the law in pursuit of proving your perceived problem, real or otherwise.

In a similar scenario, David Gregory, another media worker, this time in the United States, illegally obtained a 30 round magazine. In the District of Columbia, also known as Washington D.C., it is illegal to obtain, or possess any magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Despite this, Gregory openly flouted the law when presented the magazine, in his hand, on his T.V. show. So was Gregory charged and prosecuted to the extent of the law, $1000 fine and 1 years’ imprisonment? No, his friends in high places decided that to prosecute him would not serve public safety or be in the public interest. Funny then how in 2012, 15 other individuals were prosecuted under the same laws.

The full report  of the first writer’s criminal activity in his words, is available HERE!, you may need to scroll down 2 or 3 articles first. In both of these cases, and there are numerous others out there in a similar vein, the media appears to get free rein to break the law. If any other member of society tried to pull these sort of stunts, and were caught, let alone openly defying or publishing their criminal activity in a major paper, I have no doubt they would be prosecuted and made an example of. But it appears that the authorities, perhaps afraid of negative publicity being hurled at them by the very media that breaks the law, seem unwilling to proceed in these or any other case where a member of the media is concerned relating to these issues.

The law is, as they say, the law, and until such time as it is disseminated evenly and fairly, there will be one law for those with power or influence, and another for the rest of us!