Unfortunate Events in Austria.

Terribly sad the events in Washington as I was watching the news last night all they seemed to focus on was gun control not the fact that he'd been given a security clearance!
 
In the Washington case, there was a suggestion that budgetary constraints were leading to lax vetting procedures.

I don't know anything about Austrian firearms licensing procedures, but the article mentions that the murderer told his friend about his schizophrenia two weeks prior to the incident.
 
The Austrian firearms licensing procedures were toughened up last year while I was there on a project 01 Oct as I remember was the end date for having to register what you have got in the way of firesticks.
Ammo is still freely available over the counter without any paperwork as I did prove by buying some.
Martin
 
The Austrian firearms licensing procedures were toughened up last year while I was there on a project 01 Oct as I remember was the end date for having to register what you have got in the way of firesticks.
Ammo is still freely available over the counter without any paperwork as I did prove by buying some.
Martin

I'm surprised that the self-serving European Parliament hasn't yet taken steps to harmonise and standardise firearms licensing across the EU.
 
I'm surprised that the self-serving European Parliament hasn't yet taken steps to harmonise and standardise firearms licensing across the EU.

They have, but many member states are far more stringent than anything the EU requires anyway. If we just stuck to EU rules, we'd have a much easier time of it. The reason for the harmonisation is to make the European Firearms Pass system work better. It's all part of the free movement of peoples and goods.
 
All the EU do is to make problems and all we do is to adhere to silly laws that no other country seems to.As are the human rights also over the top. I would vote to leave!
 
All the EU do is to make problems and all we do is to adhere to silly laws that no other country seems to.As are the human rights also over the top. I would vote to leave!

I really don't want to be drawn into this discussion because it always degenerates massively within about three posts. It's up there with trying to discuss badger culls in the topics that can't be discussed sensibly anymore. But The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are nothing to do with the EU. And just because every so often some people abuse the protection that HR legislation affords, it doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing that we have it.
 
I really don't want to be drawn into this discussion because it always degenerates massively within about three posts. It's up there with trying to discuss badger culls in the topics that can't be discussed sensibly anymore. But The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are nothing to do with the EU. And just because every so often some people abuse the protection that HR legislation affords, it doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing that we have it.

It's not all bad in some respects. Some just aren't in favour of European Federalism interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. Human rights legislation is admirable. However, it's questionable when it protects criminals. Anyway, in the words of a noted European:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire.
 
However, it's questionable when it protects criminals.

Well criminals are humans too. It doesn't specify anywhere that human rights legislation is only for the benefit of nice people. It's easy to sympathise with them. It's treating people that you don't identify with or like much that's difficult.
 
Well criminals are humans too. It doesn't specify anywhere that human rights legislation is only for the benefit of nice people. It's easy to sympathise with them. It's treating people that you don't identify with or like much that's difficult.

I'm not denying criminals their humanity. However, when it takes years to extradite criminals and individuals with terrorist leanings to face trial in their country of origin, then clearly there are failings which have been exploited. If Human rights legislation was fair and efficient, there may not be quite the public backlash against it that there has been. It's not the principle of human rights legislation, so much as the execution of it. I'm not suggesting kangaroo courts, summary executions or public amputations as practised in some countries. Legislation must be applied fairly to the criminal and victim. In recent years there has been a distinct bias towards the criminal. Just my opinion.
 
I think you can bet your bottom Euro that they won't be repeating the mistakes that they made with the Abu Qatada fiasco... In the same way as they messed up Milosevic's trial in the Hague and learned lessons from that. It's a comparatively recent area of law and takes a while to work out the jurisprudence.
 
I think you can bet your bottom Euro that they won't be repeating the mistakes that they made with the Abu Qatada fiasco... In the same way as they messed up Milosevic's trial in the Hague and learned lessons from that. It's a comparatively recent area of law and takes a while to work out the jurisprudence.

Fair comment.
 
[

I don't know anything about Austrian firearms licensing procedures, .[/QUOTE]best say nothing then
 
[

I don't know anything about Austrian firearms licensing procedures, .
best say nothing then[/QUOTE]

Sir,
Your post is weak and pointless and you only partially quote my original post. To what end should I not post this statement? At least now I'm better informed. If you don't have a point to make or constructive comments to offer, perhaps, with respect, you should follow your own advice.
 
Last edited:
I'm not denying criminals their humanity. However, when it takes years to extradite criminals and individuals with terrorist leanings to face trial in their country of origin, then clearly there are failings which have been exploited. If Human rights legislation was fair and efficient, there may not be quite the public backlash against it that there has been. It's not the principle of human rights legislation, so much as the execution of it. I'm not suggesting kangaroo courts, summary executions or public amputations as practised in some countries. Legislation must be applied fairly to the criminal and victim. In recent years there has been a distinct bias towards the criminal. Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]


Your replies have good comments with the exception of criminals and victims, which I think the victims should have more rights than the criminals. My wife was a prison officer for 16years and it would open peoples eyes if they saw the soft treatment they are given and in no way does it put them off doing the crime again. Once they are sentenced all there rights should be removed. Most of the ones that rally for there rights do not live among them.The crimes that are publicized are only but a few and if people knew the amount of bad people and types of crimes that are carried out and not put in papers then they too would be worried about the rights they have.
 
Human rights are inalienable. If they're human, they have human rights, no matter how nasty they are. Because we aspire to be better than they are. Well we should anyway.

Your sentiments are idealistic. But I think howy308's comment demonstrates the need for human rights to be balanced with the application of justice and the welfare of greater society (Hey...that's the sort of thing John Stuart Mill or Jeremy Bentham might have said). There is a tendency for human rights laws to be viewed as unimpeachable. This isn't borne out in practice. If you commit a crime which puts you beyond the pale, should you really have the same rights as the rest of society? Should you be allowed to vote, for example? Too many individuals are aware of their rights, but not their responsibilities.

To go back to the original subject of this post; if you possess a firearm but are then diagnosed with schizophrenia and are told by the local authorities that they are revoking your FAC, are your human rights being infringed? I personally don't agree that human rights are inalienable. Some people believe that animal rights are inalienable, but I think I know where many of us stand in those regards. Criminals or people who pose a danger to others by virtue of their mental state can still be treated humanely, but I think there should be a limit to their rights, human or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Your sentiments are idealistic.

Oh I freely admit to that. That's why I used the verb "aspire". I think that the expression "human rights" is often misunderstood because of the media reporting of seemingly frivolous court cases where people have really pushed the whole concept to its' limit. You don't have a human right to have a firearm. But as you say, you do have a right to be treated humanely.
 
Back
Top