who requests a gun license can do so for various reasons: because of their profession, such as a policeman, with the intention to protect themselves in case of assault, such is the case of a jeweler, or to kill, now talking about a hunter. All were granted, but what the reason for the request implies no suitability, or not, mental and even ethics applicant to possess a pistol or a rifle? Let me explain. 
all understand that members of security forces carrying a weapon, or making certain merchants for their particular risk, and almost never hear that people have others used to commit a crime. It is important to emphasize that I am referring to armed habitual criminals, but citizens who decide to shoot a bad day against humans. But now we count how many killings and murders are committed with hunting weapons, or whatever it is, whose author is a hunter. The latter, which occurred in Olot, probably occupied by the number of victims, along with the Left in Puerto Hurraco Brothers, one of the top places in a vast and sinister in our country list, which lists cases of settlement of accounts vendettas, neighborhood disputes and labor or so-called crimes of "gender violence".
-
-
Yes, I know which is required to pass a test psycho, but it seems that this test is critical to detect certain tendencies in the applicant, otherwise returning to the hunter and Olot, is not intended to keep his license current weapons when it was known their rowdiness and many nights out on the street dressed as sheriffs and actually behaving as if it were. And this man is not an isolated case, have the newspaper reported in numerous reviews when it was hopeless, people remembered the threats and violent behavior maintained over time by the individual would end up shooting his hunting weapon against another person. 
Why should, then so lax when it should be very strict requirements they put in the hands of a subject as an instrument for killing distance? The answer is, once again, money. Or hunters think they have to jump into the mountain to get food, let alone for skin that shelter, so it is nothing more than a niche market in which a greedy, consumers, amounts spent nothing negligible equipped to end the life of animals, and others, merchants of arms and ammunition, specialized clothing, dogs, vehicles and trailers, taxidermists, owners of boxes, etc., are profiting from everything that moves the deaths of these creatures. For government is far more profitable electorally appear as supporters of what they call "wealth generation" to precede common sense and ethics to legislate greater rigidity to minimize the risk of foreseeable tragedies, not "fatalities" as they should call them. 
A past with greater purchasing power for many citizens prompted the number of rifles increased to such an extent that some people with the excuse to use for hunting in their homes have numerous weapons - not always declared -. And while that happens to hunters laws have remained unchanged in certain safety standards, such as the ban on shooting at a distance less than 50 meters from a road and 100 meters from a village core, that if long ago, when a gun had a very limited scope, could provide a minimum guarantee today are completely useless, taking into account the specifications of modern weapons. 
Beyond cases like those, in which the hunting gun deaths are intentional, daily news is the existence of so-called "accidents", from the passerby who receives a lethal shot in the head while walking through the woods, the shot that goes inside a restaurant which is celebrating a feast, through impacts on houses built. And in many of these events, the place where the missile hit their target was located hundreds of feet from where the hunt was taking place, which gives a good account of how the law seems more accurate to use a slingshot to the rifles currently used for hunting. Appropriate law in this regard would greatly reduce the shocking number of accidents of this nature that occur in our country. 
Anyway, what is irrefutable is that he asks a gun license to hunt is suing to kill living beings, and that claim would constitute per se an impediment to obtain it, as if you squeeze the trigger on an animal for pleasure it's something evil, we must add the certainty - amply demonstrated and documented by psychiatrists and criminal histories - that is common to find episodes of violence to animals in the history of individuals who then exerted against persons. And who is emotionally and morally stable, with an aptitude for possessing a weapon, no one wants to take to kill and to do so because they find satisfaction in snatching a life. Who wearing paramilitary clothes, shows arrogance and bluntness, is carried forward to living beings from other species, mistreats his dogs and that whole universe becomes violent in his indispensable pastime, is offering undeniable evidence of his lack of conditions to have weapons, but the reality is that it is precisely that type of person who requests a license to possess and who is granted. At that moment he is committing negligence, no matter how legal it is with the current rules, which not infrequently lead to a drama.
For these reasons, beyond the usual hunting pieces, in Spain are rotting bodies of countless hunting dogs killed by their owners or others with whom they held some kind of rivalry, of horses, and the province of Pontevedra is a sad example of the dozens of horses with hunting ammunition lodged in his body, or human beings who were shot by one day their paths crossed a hunter. The new law, which opposed the riflemen fierce resistance, perhaps to ease the hurt, but it will not stop bleeding, it will not through a bureaucratic procedure while anyone can get a type D or E license to kill animals. And yes, the human being is also an animal. Maybe that's why some do not distinguish when they shoot.
0 comments:
Post a Comment