The times goes on the Anti-Gun War path.

[JSC]

That second article looks pretty balanced to me, not anti gun. They let the shop owners speak and stress the requirement for a license and background checks etc.

Their leader article in the same issue is not balanced though. Entitled Arms Control, it says that military style weapons must not be available to private gun enthusiasts, and adds "A paucity of guns translates into a low level of gun crime" and "Keeping firearms out of the hands of fanatics is a public duty".

And there's a good example of journalism stirring up negative feeling through the use of words which have more than one meaning:

fanatic

noun
plural noun: fanatics

a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause."religious fanatics"
synonyms:zealot, extremist, militant, dogmatist, devotee, sectarian, bigot, chauvinist, partisan, radical, diehard, ultra, activist, apologist, adherent;

INFORMAL
a person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for a particular activity.
"a fitness fanatic"
synonyms:enthusiast, fan, devotee, lover, addict;

[Plumose]

In think it is possible that we agree that firearms should be kept away from the fist type of fanatic and point out that our current system stops them getting hold of legal firearms.

Edited to add my annoyance at them publicising the evil person who committed the horrible acts in NZ against the wishes of NZ and against good sense.

[GeeRam]

Edited to add my annoyance at them publicising the evil person who committed the horrible acts in NZ against the wishes of NZ and against good sense.

Just shows the hypocrisy of the press.

[Dark Skies]

Edited to add my annoyance at them publicising the evil person who committed the horrible acts in NZ against the wishes of NZ and against good sense.

Personally I think everything about these sort of things should be widely accessible to the public.
Justice should be seen to be done. Once you start hiding things from the public it leaves the system wide open to abuse and suspicion.
We've had plenty of that in the past.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... l-46721297


What next? Secret courts? We already have far too much censorship of the truth. We shouldn't suffer more of it for the sake of gesture politics - we all should know the serious harm stemming from that by now, eh?

Case in point. I've read that the Go Pro footage supposedly uploaded by Brenton Tarrant seemed faked.
I'd like an opportunity to see if that's a load of guff or if it's true. However, if I were to locate and view a copy online that'd be a terrorist offence under S.3 of Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... 003_en.pdf

Having armed officers kicking in my front door for simply investigating the narrative I'm being force-fed doesn't really appeal much.
So, being a suspicious type, I err on the side of it being very likely true and wonder what other bullshit the media are shovelling me.
In a free and open society I want the freedom to make an informed decision. But I can't.

I can't even be sure the person in the pixillated pictures of 'Brenton Tarrant' are the person they say he is. Censorship is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and, ironically, causes more publicity for the killer.

If we continue down this route we're leaving ourselves wide open to false flag operations and disinformation on an unchallenged scale.

[Plumose]

Dark Skies, without going through the whole 100 plus pages what part of it makes watching the video a terrorist act?

I am happy for the reports of the prosecution etc. to be made public but I don't think giving more publicity to the perpetrator by having their name and photo out there does any good.

This person used social media to try and become famous, why not try and frustrate that as much as we can?

This is also important with the american school shootings from bits I have read, as shooters that have been arrested have always mentioned the publicity.

[Hoppum]

I don't know if it's me seeing something that isn't there, but to me it reads that like they're trying to subtly link the UKPSA's 'training people for the defence of the realm' with the NZ shooter's white supremacist views.

[Dark Skies]

Dark Skies, without going through the whole 100 plus pages what part of it makes watching the video a terrorist act?

...

£. Obtaining or viewing material over the internet

(1)Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) is amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (1)—

(a)omit “or” at the end of paragraph (a);

(b)after paragraph (b) insert “, or

(c)the person views, or otherwise accesses, by means of the internet a document or record containing information of that kind.”

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (the section this has been tacked onto can be read at this link:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58

[Plumose]

Thanks for that.
For me the bit you quoted is a bit open, the quote below is the one that cleared it up for me, I was already aware section (a) but wasn't aware of section (b)

I am please section (a) wasn't around when I was a teen as things like the Jolly Roger Cookbook and Anarchists Handbook were going around on floppy disk (I wouldn't recommend searching for them due to bits quoted below).

58 Collection of information.
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."

[GeeRam]

I am happy for the reports of the prosecution etc. to be made public but I don't think giving more publicity to the perpetrator by having their name and photo out there does any good.

This person used social media to try and become famous, why not try and frustrate that as much as we can?

This is also important with the american school shootings from bits I have read, as shooters that have been arrested have always mentioned the publicity.

Exactly, and why this piece of scum wanted to be taken alive, so he can can have his day in court and continue the publicity, and no doubt from his prison cell during the next 50 years.

[GeeRam]

I don't know if it's me seeing something that isn't there, but to me it reads that like they're trying to subtly link the UKPSA's 'training people for the defence of the realm' with the NZ shooter's white supremacist views.

That's my thought as well.