Tweet
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-size: 17pt">In this gun debate let's not shoot from the lip</span></span></span>
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
There is merit in the arguments advanced by both sides in the current debate on relaxing the rules governing the ownership of licensed firearms.
Those opposed make a strong case that ownership of a gun carries with it a great degree of responsibility and that licensed firearm holders are often the target of criminal gunmen eager to increase their armoury.
One teacher with whom the Observer spoke last week made another significant point that there is already a heavy gun culture in the country that has had a negative effect on the minds of the young.
"There are already too many guns in our society, and I think bringing more into the mainstream would only make matters worse," the teacher said.
Other opponents of the gun lobby have also raised the issue of temperament, fearing that if more people were armed the country would experience an increase in shootings.
For example, <span style="font-weight: bold">bad driving and discourtesy on our roads are so rampant that angry motorists, it is conceivable, could resort to gun violence, if they were carrying a firearm at the time.</span> Same thing goes for someone who is robbed of a parking space after a long wait. We remember vividly the case of the July 2001 incident at Our Place Jerk Centre on Hope Road in Kingston when three men died in a gunfight over parking.
These things happen elsewhere.
The gun lobbyists, on the other hand, make an equally compelling case, arguing that too many people are defenceless in the face of growing acts of violence committed by armed thugs.
If criminals knew that people had the ability to defend themselves they would think twice about their actions, the lobbyists claim, adding that training in self-defence and the use of firearms is essential to their proposal for a relaxing of the legislation.
There are, of course, many studies from other jurisdictions that provide data supporting the arguments raised by both sides in this debate. And those data, we expect, will eventually be highlighted as this issue is further ventilated.
We feel, though, that any decision taken by the authorities on this matter should be influenced by facts relative to Jamaica rather than emotion. For instance, how many licensed firearm holders are held up and/or killed and robbed of their guns each year? How many acts of violence are prevented by licensed firearm holders? How often does the mere sight of a firearm discourage an attacker? How many cases of accidental shootings by owners of legal firearms have been recorded? And what level of training are the owners of licensed firearms exposed to?
These are some of the questions that need to be answered before any decision is taken either way on this matter. For as we said, valid points have been raised by both sides.
The police, we suspect, should have some of this data, but there is need for a wider and more detailed study devoid of the dangers of advocacy research.
However, I don't agree but a feel yuh still.
Comment