Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Network Blinds Direct

DAY SEVEN: America is being governed in accordance with laws created by people who thought the Earth was flat?

Worksop Guardian Editor George Robinson on the Neil Entwistle trial

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
10 June 2008
TODAY I would like to take umbrage with an issue that has perplexed me for some time.

The so called 'right to bear arms'. The Second Amendment. The untouchable written clause in the American way that gives anyone - from a yeehaa Texan President to a yahoo Detroit drug dealer - the God-given right to wield a weapon capable of causing death.

How? Why? I don't get it. This is not something level-headed and even sane people should do. Unless you're a farmer with a need to shoot vermin, perhaps.

For anyone who doesn't know, America is governed by a written constitution. A series of amendments cast in stone - like the Commandments handed to Moses.

The UK is governed by an unwritten constitution. The UK's laws are not easily changed, but if a law becomes archaic, out-dated or unworkable, it can be changed. You've got more chance of hell freezing over than you have of changing the US constitution.

These laws were adopted in 1789, a time when a police force per se did not exist. The reason people kept arms was because the people WERE the police. They were asked to keep watch on the community and confront any suspicious persons.

So let me get this straight. The most powerful and developed country in the world is being run in accordance with rules set when people still thought the Earth was flat?

Well, not quite, but you can see my point through the hyperbole.

Had Joseph Matterazzo not been allowed to keep guns, his .22 calibre Colt couldn't have killed his step-daughter and her baby, if indeed it did. And I dare say this mantra could apply to a whole host of senseless killings in the US.

How can anyone justify owning something which is created to cause destruction, death and misery?

Why can't the second amendment be scrapped? All guns could be taken into a police station and destroyed. Following this period of amnesty, anyone caught with a firearm, without an appropriate licence, should be arrested.

I'm not saying British law is better at all. I'm saying the Second Amendment - the right for everyone and anyone to own a gun - is absurd.

I may be misjudging the vociferousness with which Americans will defend their 'right' to own something which, in the wrong hands, can - as in this case - take away the lives of a doting mother and her nine-month-old baby.

Will Joseph Matterazzo have his guns melted down? Will he hand them in? Will his conscience move him to rid he and his family of these weapons? Somehow I doubt it.

I'd be interested to hear from people on both sides of the Atlantic on this one. Maybe I can be convinced that owning guns is a good thing.

I doubt that too.

To see more of your thoughts on this subject and to have your say, click here

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 June 2008 4:23 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Worksop
 
Prev
1
2 3 4 5
Next
Last
1

worksoplad,

Los Angeles 10/06/2008 20:24:58
With all due respect, it's not the ownership of guns that causes death and injury, it's the criminal mind and intent of the people who use them. Banning guns is a useless exercise, because criminals will always find a way to get their hands on a gun when they need to.

There have been numerous shootings in recent years in Britain, where guns are supposedly banned. Britain also has laws against knives, yet every day there is a different tale of death and injury through stabbings in the daily papers.
2

Oggmonster,

UK 10/06/2008 22:03:56
With all due respect, I don't think he said that banning guns would totally eradicate gun crime. At the end of the day the rate of gun murders in America (in terms of the ratio of number of people murdered by guns to the size of the population) is way, way higher than it is in the UK and most of the western world. Fact.
3

HerWeGoAgain,

USA 10/06/2008 22:09:43
Where has it been established that the 22 is the murder weapon? Could you provide a link to the evidence presented at trial?
4

HerWeGoAgain,

USA 10/06/2008 22:14:45
Better take a history lesson, Mr. Editor. At the time of the Revolution about half of the people in "America" thought of themselves as British. At least in Boston (sister city to Boston, England), the citizens complained that they were not being given the rights of British Citizens. Part of their emphasis on the rights of the accused came from their experience with England. They fear government with too much power. Another influence was what was happening in France. Perhaps you should read the entire Constitution. Your newspaper isn't very good at reporting facts. Strange since I discovered you when someone posted from your paper, trashing American reporting. Please do tell where the murder weapon has been established at trial?
5

worksoplad,

11/06/2008 01:07:56
Well, it may not have been established at trial YET, but clear foundation has been laid, and the Prosecutor's opening statement makes clear, that the Prosecution intends to prove the murder weapon was the .22 belonging to Rachel's father. If the Prosecutor is to be believed, and there seems not much room for doubt, Neil Entwhistle's Dna was found on the trigger/handle and Rachel's Dna was found on the muzzle of that .22, even though she had never handled the gun before.
6

HerWeGoAgain,

USA 11/06/2008 03:23:52
worksoplad, none of what you have just posted has been introduced as yet and certainly not proven. You are relying on what you have read in papers. In America that is not the same as evidence in a court of law before an impartial jury. If you have been watching the trial you would know that much of what had been reported as fact has been discredited by the defense. Shame on your paper and you for believing gossip and taking away the defendant's right to the presumption of innocence. As I have said before in America it is relatively easy to get an inditement since no allegations have to be proven.
7

HerWeGoAgain,

USA 11/06/2008 03:28:01
Intending to prove and proving are two different things. Are you in favor of a police state in which the police merely make allegations and never have to prove them? What foundation has been laid? What DNA evidence has been presented at trial to date? Your paper looks foolish for publishing something that has not been proven and further establishing that NE cannot get a fair trial because of pre trial publicity. At this point when the evidence is presented I am sure your paper and reporter will get the details wrong. It is called ignorant Bias.
8

worksoplad,

11/06/2008 05:53:07
Hey HerWeGoAgain, I have nothing whatsoever to do with this paper. I am an Expat who lives in L.A,who also happens to be a Lawyer. It is commonplace throughout the USA for the press (remember: US Constitutionm: Freedom of the Press?) for reports of both Prosecution's and Defence's case to be reported ahead of trial. The Jury receives explicit written and verbal instructions that they can only be persuaded by evidence that is actually introduced AND ADMITTED BY THE JUDGE during the trial. As a lawyer who has seen the system work flawlessly time after time for bmore than 30 years, I see nothing wrong with that. What;\'s your perspective?
9

Speed reader,

London 11/06/2008 09:29:09
Is it me?

"Shame on your paper and you for believing gossip and taking away the defendant's right to the presumption of innocence."

I cannot see anywhere where this editor is saying Neil Entwistle pulled the trigger of this gun. He seems to have resigned himself to the fact the actual murder weapon is beyond doubt - not the murderer. You should read more carefully.

As for the gun debate. Nobody should be allowed to keep a gun - nobody. Farmers can use poison. They cause nothing but harm to people and animals.
10

charley horse,

Humboldt, Tenn.--1400 miles SW of the Court House 11/06/2008 12:55:27
Gun control is one of the most devisive issues here in the states. There is a lot of money involved on both sides of the issue. Presently, there is a case that the Supreme Court has accepted to review called "District of Columbia v. Heller".
My personal view on gun ownership in this country is that we need to stop the sale of all guns especially the hand guns and semiautomatic military style long guns/rifles.
When comparing the statistics across the world, it is very evident that the people in this country who promote the right to gun ownership are wrong to do so.

Below, I have included some info from library.med.utah.edu.
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).......................
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S............

The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females. (CDC, 2004).............................

Prev
1
2 3 4 5
Next
Last

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 

More Entwistle Murder Trial

More Entwistle Murder Trial >>

Today's Vote

Do you think crime is out of control in Worksop?
Yes - I live in fear every day
No - it's just a minority and the police do a good job


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.