Some people are obviously destined to repeat history rather than learn from it as Israel reiterates its intentions over a ship carrying aid and people seeking to make a point. Actually, I think the point will be made by Israel as it seeks to maintain its blockade of the Gaza Strip.
As I write this, the MV Rachel Corrie is heading towards Gaza and will soon be in a location close to that of the other ships Israel acted against earlier this week.
Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Leiberman is quoted as saying, "We will stop the ship, and also any other ship that will try to harm Israeli sovereignty." Ironic when a spokesperson for the UNHCR said that the only nation at risk here was Palestine!
Benjamin Netanyahu adds his voice, saying: "There is no chance the Rachel Corrie will reach the coast of Gaza." By so saying this he confirms the intention of his nation to continue to practise piracy and exhibit an illegal lack of proportionality as well as punish innocents. International crimes of many flavours here. How long can the US continue to support such stances and Christians claim these are God's people?
I believe Israel is in grave danger, from it's own flawed and illegal policies.
I also believe Christians are in danger of supporting a flawed and God-denying nation through a misplaced understanding of Israel thanks to some fallible and flawed Zionist claptrap.
How anyone can claim God's support for this amazes and saddens me in equal measure.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
Friday, 4 June 2010
When Chefs go bad!
It's odd but considering the discussion at the moment and the observation that almost anything can be use to kill should someone 'flip' out (why has that word suddenly re-appeared?).
Today's news carries a story concerning a chef who killed his wife with a griddle pan and hid her body in a freezer for three years. Mind you, not a lot of 'flipping out' in evidence here or the other area under consideration. In this tale the victim was apparently sleeping when she was killed and so again there appears to be a degree of premeditation and perhaps a healthy dose of malice aforethought present.
It will be interesting to see whether the Home secretary is canvassed to introduce laws to restrict griddle ownership - if so I guess we're about to enter our salad days!
Today's news carries a story concerning a chef who killed his wife with a griddle pan and hid her body in a freezer for three years. Mind you, not a lot of 'flipping out' in evidence here or the other area under consideration. In this tale the victim was apparently sleeping when she was killed and so again there appears to be a degree of premeditation and perhaps a healthy dose of malice aforethought present.
It will be interesting to see whether the Home secretary is canvassed to introduce laws to restrict griddle ownership - if so I guess we're about to enter our salad days!
Caption Contest - 12
Time for a bit of lightness . . Saw this outside my very front door and thought it would make a great caption contest candidate:
There's another couple of vans behind these!
There's another couple of vans behind these!
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Gun Crime - some dialogue
A friend of mine has responded to my thoughts thus:
"Sorry, Vic, I've got to disagree with you on this. I can't see any reason why someone would need to keep guns at home if the only time they get used is at gun clubs. If you (shooters) enjoy shooting at inanimate targets, and claim to be whiter than white, then the way to prove that is to ensure that your guns _cannot_ be used to murder people, even on that day when the owner - the person "who everybody liked", perhaps even you! - flips his lid.
Maybe 'gun crime' has gone up and illegal guns are more prevalent than ever, but all the "someone going off the rails and shooting a load of people" incidents, that I'm aware of, have been done with legally held weapons. If those weapons had been securely kept in a gun club, I believe these events would have been _much_ less likely to happen."
Some great opportunity for dialogue here (and it's great to have a friend with whom I can disagree), so let's get started:
Having a gun at home has never really been part of the problem (other than the obvious involvement of the weapon itself). At one stage in the firearms legislation debate the practice of storing guns in one location (club, Police station, etc,) rather than separately at home was assessed and was thought that the weapons not all being in one place was a positive (for many reasons).
If you read my blog you will see that I say that for some people (those who only shoot on their club range doing club competitions, postal competitions and 'social' shooting), keeping their weapons in the club is a logical and practical step. For some who might shoot at different ranges (competition shooters) this would not be so good and you're adding to the time the weapon is in transit too and of course the weapon is still outside the clubhouse/storage area walls. I know many who might visit three of four ranges (outside their club range) every month - just not practical.
I'm not claiming shooters are 'whiter than white' but the words indicate that there might be an assumption that shooters might not be. I recall reading that shooters were amongst the highest scoring types when asked/checked regarding compliance with the law (often through fear of doing something that caused them to lose their ticket?).
As I've already pointed out, target shooters shoot at bits of paper (hunters shoot animate objects) and only when I'm doing Mil Skills have I seen people getting taught to shoot people and whilst people can flip, those I've known who were shooters did so using a kitchen knife, a car and (ironically) a golf club. as you so rightly say, you can kill with almost anything. Considering the number of people we train to shoot people, I am always impressed at the small number of flippers we have from them and other shooters. The reality is that the majority of shooters are taught to handle weapons correctly and in such a way that when/if they flip, guns are not the method of choice.
Concerning the 'going off the rails' episodes, the sadness here is that two of the three gun tragedies we've had owe a great deal to the poor management of those people concerned (I have no idea about the current situation in this respect but assume this does not apply). To return to Hamilton, (loaded) illegal weapons were found in his home and rather than confiscate and remove his ticket, they were added to his collection and made legal!! We don't need tighter gun laws, but we need those laws to be applied properly.
I did make the (tongue-in-cheek) comment that, golfers use clubs (also lethal) to put little white balls near their target whilst shooters use guns (animate target shooters are called hunters of course). The majority of shooters are balanced and never a problem - same with golfers (recall story where bloke killed with with club recently - best outlaw golf too? No, don't really thinks so ;)).
The reality is that shooters and golfers have killed with the tools of their hobby and so have many other with the tools or focus of their hobby (I think that stamp collecting is probably one of the very few safe hobbies here). I must reiterate my view that had Hamilton done his stuff in Dunblane by killing the kids and their teacher with a car, no one would have been looking to outlaw cars. Mind you, as there's more car crime than gun crime, perhaps this is the way forward!
Hopefully we have the makings of some good debate here.
"Sorry, Vic, I've got to disagree with you on this. I can't see any reason why someone would need to keep guns at home if the only time they get used is at gun clubs. If you (shooters) enjoy shooting at inanimate targets, and claim to be whiter than white, then the way to prove that is to ensure that your guns _cannot_ be used to murder people, even on that day when the owner - the person "who everybody liked", perhaps even you! - flips his lid.
Maybe 'gun crime' has gone up and illegal guns are more prevalent than ever, but all the "someone going off the rails and shooting a load of people" incidents, that I'm aware of, have been done with legally held weapons. If those weapons had been securely kept in a gun club, I believe these events would have been _much_ less likely to happen."
Some great opportunity for dialogue here (and it's great to have a friend with whom I can disagree), so let's get started:
Having a gun at home has never really been part of the problem (other than the obvious involvement of the weapon itself). At one stage in the firearms legislation debate the practice of storing guns in one location (club, Police station, etc,) rather than separately at home was assessed and was thought that the weapons not all being in one place was a positive (for many reasons).
If you read my blog you will see that I say that for some people (those who only shoot on their club range doing club competitions, postal competitions and 'social' shooting), keeping their weapons in the club is a logical and practical step. For some who might shoot at different ranges (competition shooters) this would not be so good and you're adding to the time the weapon is in transit too and of course the weapon is still outside the clubhouse/storage area walls. I know many who might visit three of four ranges (outside their club range) every month - just not practical.
I'm not claiming shooters are 'whiter than white' but the words indicate that there might be an assumption that shooters might not be. I recall reading that shooters were amongst the highest scoring types when asked/checked regarding compliance with the law (often through fear of doing something that caused them to lose their ticket?).
As I've already pointed out, target shooters shoot at bits of paper (hunters shoot animate objects) and only when I'm doing Mil Skills have I seen people getting taught to shoot people and whilst people can flip, those I've known who were shooters did so using a kitchen knife, a car and (ironically) a golf club. as you so rightly say, you can kill with almost anything. Considering the number of people we train to shoot people, I am always impressed at the small number of flippers we have from them and other shooters. The reality is that the majority of shooters are taught to handle weapons correctly and in such a way that when/if they flip, guns are not the method of choice.
Concerning the 'going off the rails' episodes, the sadness here is that two of the three gun tragedies we've had owe a great deal to the poor management of those people concerned (I have no idea about the current situation in this respect but assume this does not apply). To return to Hamilton, (loaded) illegal weapons were found in his home and rather than confiscate and remove his ticket, they were added to his collection and made legal!! We don't need tighter gun laws, but we need those laws to be applied properly.
I did make the (tongue-in-cheek) comment that, golfers use clubs (also lethal) to put little white balls near their target whilst shooters use guns (animate target shooters are called hunters of course). The majority of shooters are balanced and never a problem - same with golfers (recall story where bloke killed with with club recently - best outlaw golf too? No, don't really thinks so ;)).
The reality is that shooters and golfers have killed with the tools of their hobby and so have many other with the tools or focus of their hobby (I think that stamp collecting is probably one of the very few safe hobbies here). I must reiterate my view that had Hamilton done his stuff in Dunblane by killing the kids and their teacher with a car, no one would have been looking to outlaw cars. Mind you, as there's more car crime than gun crime, perhaps this is the way forward!
Hopefully we have the makings of some good debate here.
Lessons to be learned - Gun Crime
Lord Mackenzie (of Framwellgate) spoke this morning of the 1996 shootings in Dunblane (actually he said, Hungerford, but we know what he meant!) and how the subsequent ban on hand guns was the right outcome. This is a viewpoint that I consider to be more than just a little flawed for a number of reasons. the greatest of these is that it has done little or nothing regarding illegal gun crime, it is the product of a flawed logic and that it was a vehicle that gave the then government the popular support for something they intended to do (a bit like the image of fluffy foxes and cruel hounds did for fox-hunting!).
Ironically, since our ennobled gentleman was a representative of the Police Superintendent's Association I would have thought that he'd know a little bit of our gun crime and law-changing as a result history. Still, he has his personal opinion and he's welcome to it.
Hungerford saw a man that the local guns clubs had refused membership to given a FAC (Firearms Certificate). Now, the anecdotal story is that this happened because someone forgot to do the visit and merely signed the paperwork to clear their desk before their holiday. Whether or not this is true, this saw an end to automatic weapons being held by legitimate shooter (although, from what I've read, he did the damage with non-automatic weapons).
Dunblane and that nice Mr. Hamilton was at large and sixteen children and their teacher were killed. The loss was awful, the fact that various gun clubs had asked that the man be 'dealt with' by the police and the revelation that upon inspection loaded weapons, illegally held, were discovered and the inspecting officer added them to his ticket (Hamilton's FAC) thus making them legal, was, and is, something that makes my blood boil. Shooters called for his weapons to be seized and they (the police) gave him more!!!
After Dunblane we had to endure such fallacious arguments as, "If you get rid of all legal weapons then there can't be any illegal weapons, as all illegal weapons start out as legal!" An interesting and valid thought and therefore we could extend this to say the same for murderers, for all murderers start out as innocent children . .
For those of you who don't know shooters I will try to explain some of the realities.
When someone first comes to a gun club (well the ones I've belonged to) they are not allowed to use any weapons (and this will mean club weapons as they won't have an FAC) until they've visited a few times and been through the initial safety training. During this period, the committee and other club members watch the new person and assess them. Any feelings of unease and they are not offered membership. I have even called other club safety officers and warned then of 'dodgy' people.
They then need to shoot for a period of time (three to six months) under supervision and then after that, they can apply for an FAC. Many people don't need to have one, they can merely have a weapon stored at the club (which is a good option for many) and for those who want to do competitions and the like, they have gun cabinets at home.
there are then police and medical checks, which should include a couple of visits from the police (which to be honest doesn't always happen - I had a telephone call from one gun officer as he was 'busy'!) and the like.
Shooters work on the theory that to have the right to have weapons (they're our golf clubs!) requires responsibilities and certain attitudes and conditions. We are self-regulatory and keep the nutters out, provide a place for people to drop weapons in (I'll tell you some stories some day) and are committed to getting as many rounds into the centre, struggling against ourselves as we struggle for that elusively consistent 'poss) (ten out of ten) every time.
Please don't jump to conclusions regarding Cumbria - please don't see shooters as dodgy or whatever, they're the ones who haven't gotten into club (generally). Gun crime increased by over 40% in the two years after Dunblane and to be honest, it hasn't generally slowed that much in the years since then to now. Last year the Met Police area saw a 19% rise in gun crime.
As much as some will seek to point the finger at legally held weapons and shooters, they don't generally do the gun crime. I see from the latest that Bird was licenced, holding a .22 rifle and a shotgun . . .
I hope some find this informative and useful (sorry it's so long).
Ironically, since our ennobled gentleman was a representative of the Police Superintendent's Association I would have thought that he'd know a little bit of our gun crime and law-changing as a result history. Still, he has his personal opinion and he's welcome to it.
Hungerford saw a man that the local guns clubs had refused membership to given a FAC (Firearms Certificate). Now, the anecdotal story is that this happened because someone forgot to do the visit and merely signed the paperwork to clear their desk before their holiday. Whether or not this is true, this saw an end to automatic weapons being held by legitimate shooter (although, from what I've read, he did the damage with non-automatic weapons).
Dunblane and that nice Mr. Hamilton was at large and sixteen children and their teacher were killed. The loss was awful, the fact that various gun clubs had asked that the man be 'dealt with' by the police and the revelation that upon inspection loaded weapons, illegally held, were discovered and the inspecting officer added them to his ticket (Hamilton's FAC) thus making them legal, was, and is, something that makes my blood boil. Shooters called for his weapons to be seized and they (the police) gave him more!!!
After Dunblane we had to endure such fallacious arguments as, "If you get rid of all legal weapons then there can't be any illegal weapons, as all illegal weapons start out as legal!" An interesting and valid thought and therefore we could extend this to say the same for murderers, for all murderers start out as innocent children . .
For those of you who don't know shooters I will try to explain some of the realities.
When someone first comes to a gun club (well the ones I've belonged to) they are not allowed to use any weapons (and this will mean club weapons as they won't have an FAC) until they've visited a few times and been through the initial safety training. During this period, the committee and other club members watch the new person and assess them. Any feelings of unease and they are not offered membership. I have even called other club safety officers and warned then of 'dodgy' people.
They then need to shoot for a period of time (three to six months) under supervision and then after that, they can apply for an FAC. Many people don't need to have one, they can merely have a weapon stored at the club (which is a good option for many) and for those who want to do competitions and the like, they have gun cabinets at home.
there are then police and medical checks, which should include a couple of visits from the police (which to be honest doesn't always happen - I had a telephone call from one gun officer as he was 'busy'!) and the like.
Shooters work on the theory that to have the right to have weapons (they're our golf clubs!) requires responsibilities and certain attitudes and conditions. We are self-regulatory and keep the nutters out, provide a place for people to drop weapons in (I'll tell you some stories some day) and are committed to getting as many rounds into the centre, struggling against ourselves as we struggle for that elusively consistent 'poss) (ten out of ten) every time.
Please don't jump to conclusions regarding Cumbria - please don't see shooters as dodgy or whatever, they're the ones who haven't gotten into club (generally). Gun crime increased by over 40% in the two years after Dunblane and to be honest, it hasn't generally slowed that much in the years since then to now. Last year the Met Police area saw a 19% rise in gun crime.
As much as some will seek to point the finger at legally held weapons and shooters, they don't generally do the gun crime. I see from the latest that Bird was licenced, holding a .22 rifle and a shotgun . . .
I hope some find this informative and useful (sorry it's so long).
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Cumbria shootings - What we should be doing
It's all gone Pete Tong in Cumbria today and as I write this I am aware that twelve people are dead as a result of the actions of taxi driver Derrick Bird. In addition to this there are a further twenty-five wounded (three said to be critical) as a result of this man's apparently random shooting spree.
In addition to those killed or wounded Mr. Bird appears to have added his name to the list of casualties by having taken his own life.
So, leaving aside the BBC styled, "Do you know anyone who's been shot, or do you live in the area of know someone who might not but can talk about it as if they do. Send us an email," approach to news (think it's the result of cuts and due to a lack of regional reporters these days), what should we be doing?
Firstly we should be praying for those who have been wounded and for their families and the families of those who have been killed.
Secondly, we need to be praying for those who have been caught up in this unfortunate incident as eyewitnesses or as part of the blue-light response teams (Police and Ambulance) and in the NHS support of those who have been injured.
Lastly, we need a balanced and measured response (unlike that which we saw when Dunblane happened!) and should encourage people against kneejerk responses, the majority of which (like Dunblane) are ill-thought through and of limited or, more realistically, no real value at all.
Hopefully out thoughts are with the families of all victims and the community at this time.
In addition to those killed or wounded Mr. Bird appears to have added his name to the list of casualties by having taken his own life.
So, leaving aside the BBC styled, "Do you know anyone who's been shot, or do you live in the area of know someone who might not but can talk about it as if they do. Send us an email," approach to news (think it's the result of cuts and due to a lack of regional reporters these days), what should we be doing?
Firstly we should be praying for those who have been wounded and for their families and the families of those who have been killed.
Secondly, we need to be praying for those who have been caught up in this unfortunate incident as eyewitnesses or as part of the blue-light response teams (Police and Ambulance) and in the NHS support of those who have been injured.
Lastly, we need a balanced and measured response (unlike that which we saw when Dunblane happened!) and should encourage people against kneejerk responses, the majority of which (like Dunblane) are ill-thought through and of limited or, more realistically, no real value at all.
Hopefully out thoughts are with the families of all victims and the community at this time.
Sitting around the fire
Have you ever tried taking people you love camping? If not, can I suggest that you give it a try sometime soon?
If you do you'll (if you're as blessed as me) find that you get stimulated, challenged and also mocked (nicely though). Leaving aside the fairy, the dancing bear, the knotted hankie (with two pencils), the penchant to return to Monty Python and many, many, many (did I mention Police Academy?) issues we've visited, doing some great theology, lived out some really excellent Church and put the world pretty much to rights on the way!
Isn't Church wonderful? it's about flawed people living with others as if they weren't flawed and others returning the compliment. Seems like a great basis for Church n a larger scale to me.
PTL!
Ave Verum Dominatrix Destructus!
If you do you'll (if you're as blessed as me) find that you get stimulated, challenged and also mocked (nicely though). Leaving aside the fairy, the dancing bear, the knotted hankie (with two pencils), the penchant to return to Monty Python and many, many, many (did I mention Police Academy?) issues we've visited, doing some great theology, lived out some really excellent Church and put the world pretty much to rights on the way!
Isn't Church wonderful? it's about flawed people living with others as if they weren't flawed and others returning the compliment. Seems like a great basis for Church n a larger scale to me.
PTL!
Ave Verum Dominatrix Destructus!
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
The buck stops (W)here?
Some interesting questions about Dog-collars (DC) popped into my comfortable reality yesterday. How accountable are we and who runs the church? What do the churchwardens do and do I really work for them?
I see the DC as someone who is primus inter pares, that is 'first among equals' and as the person who is, at the end of the day, ultimately responsible. If it happens on my watch then it's my responsibility, regardless. It is the same as being a Commanding Officer (CO) of a military unit in that they are responsie for the actions of those they command.
The wardens exist to 'maintain good order' and are the eyes and ears that quell disquiet and settle discord by acting as honest brokers for the BOPs (Bums on Pews)and between them and others without partiality, let or favour (and this means taking it to the DC too!).
Where there are teams, these should be supported by the DC, the greatest demonstration of this being by sound leadership and listening outside of that team (to the members). Often I find colleagues pushing the church into a position, programme or policy when they should be discussing the goals and getting 'buy in' by discussion and open leadership.
It's an easy place to find oneself pushing forward because the team (or inner circle of friends or sycophants) applaud a policy or direction, but this can destroy rather than build!
There's always the "Don't stand against the Lord's annointed defence - problem is, aren't we all annointed? Are we not all called as Laos (God's people)?
To be leaders we need to be accountable. We need to be approachable. We need to be adaptable.
We need to listen and respond the right way.
We need to lead (just like what Jesus taught us by His example).
Paul* writes "Be imitators of Christ, just as I am." This should be our model and our call - wish I was more like Him!
1 Cor 11: 1
I see the DC as someone who is primus inter pares, that is 'first among equals' and as the person who is, at the end of the day, ultimately responsible. If it happens on my watch then it's my responsibility, regardless. It is the same as being a Commanding Officer (CO) of a military unit in that they are responsie for the actions of those they command.
The wardens exist to 'maintain good order' and are the eyes and ears that quell disquiet and settle discord by acting as honest brokers for the BOPs (Bums on Pews)and between them and others without partiality, let or favour (and this means taking it to the DC too!).
Where there are teams, these should be supported by the DC, the greatest demonstration of this being by sound leadership and listening outside of that team (to the members). Often I find colleagues pushing the church into a position, programme or policy when they should be discussing the goals and getting 'buy in' by discussion and open leadership.
It's an easy place to find oneself pushing forward because the team (or inner circle of friends or sycophants) applaud a policy or direction, but this can destroy rather than build!
There's always the "Don't stand against the Lord's annointed defence - problem is, aren't we all annointed? Are we not all called as Laos (God's people)?
To be leaders we need to be accountable. We need to be approachable. We need to be adaptable.
We need to listen and respond the right way.
We need to lead (just like what Jesus taught us by His example).
Paul* writes "Be imitators of Christ, just as I am." This should be our model and our call - wish I was more like Him!
1 Cor 11: 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)