GUN CONTROL IN THE
AMERICAS -
YOUR SECURITY (USA) IS
OUR SECURITY (CARIBBEAN)
Tragically, it happened again in the US of A.
An angry young male took up some high powered gun weapons, went to a
school and shot dead a lot of innocent people in an evil rampage. The usual
predictable responses ensue - Why did he do it? What was the background? How
can this be allowed to happen? Can't we do something about it?
This is an opportune time for leaders EVERYWHERE to step forward - especially
in the US of A. and from its well-wishers in the Caribbean, Mexico, Canada (its
closest neighbours) - to ACT NOW and implement practical solutions to this
growing problem in society.
Although these media-frothing events unfortunately happen from time to
time (usually in the USA) they provide a focal point for what happens on a
DAILY SCALE - smaller, but cumulatively FAR MORE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGING - in Caribbean
countries touched by the plague of the hand gun culture and lawlessness
mentality.
That is to say, EVERYDAY in the Caribbean, someone, somewhere, takes a
gun out and kills someone else.
CONTEXT
Since on such heart-wrenching occasions it is always invoked and
referred to I thought I would look at the American Constitution, which states
in its Second Amendment:
"A well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
First up, I see no
connection between loners firing off weapons at random domestically and
"militia"
Nor is there any connection
between "security of a free state" and individuals living in fear because
their fellow citizen may have a gun.
In truth the Constitution
literally doesn't even tally up to support what some people says it does - that
anyone in American can get and carry arms as a RIGHT - period!!
No, there is a context and
a rationale which people have lost perspective on.
So let's go back to basics
and the spirit and OBJECTIVE of what the Constitution in saying in this matter.
The principle is surely about citizens in that country being safe and secure
and about protecting oneself. And we need to revisit this principle with
reference to how Americans now live in the 21st Century, not in some pioneering
western days on some frontier-land.
The Security of a Free State
The clear objective of the
Constitution is that of security in a free state. Ergo, people should be able
to go about their day to day living without fearing that those around them may
decide to go on a random shooting spree at any time. So here are some
principles to make this more likely to happen - firstly for those citizens who
choose NOT to bear arms and then for those citizens who DO choose to bear arms:
The Rights of those choosing NOT to Bear Arms
The personal security of the
citizen is equally important should they chose to bear arms or not.
Detectability
I would like to have the
right to know if people have weapons in their possession and who they are so I
can act to defend myself if necessary. Be they my community neighbour or the
person who just walked into the bank or cinema where I am at.
Fore-warned is Fore-armed.
I understand that to some
extent this is already required whereby weapons cannot be concealed in public
places in some states. The need is there to extend this visibility principle
and modern technology makes it possible in so many practical ways.
All guns will be required
to have a chip embedded in them, at point of manufacture, identifying them and
allowing them to be detectable from say a mobile or cell phone within a certain
radius. These chips should not be able to be disarmed or dismantled without
rendering the gun useless. Principle here is like a smoke alarm in the toilets
on board passenger airliners.
Manufacturers should be
required to incorporate these into their manufacturing process.
If the chips are not
passive but require an energy source then the functioning of the gun should
also be contingent on said energy source.
One should look to see if
existing guns could be retrofitted with such traceable chip technology. If not
then perhaps obsolete-rendering measures should be imposed to gradually phase out the functionality of such
guns already in circulation. e.g. by fiat, order the cessation of bullet
manufacture specific for such existing weapons etc.
Liability
The principle of compensation
and restitution needs to be applicable so that if, unfortunately, I fall victim
to use of a gun by a third party, someone needs to be held liable for such a
scenario. And I don't mean just
the gunman - who is usually insane anyways at these mass shootings.
This liability should be
able to be extended all the way back to source of supply - directors of gun manufacturing
companies should not be excluded. The principle here is similar to that applied
to cigarette manufacturing companies and
resultant deaths from smoking. You make things that kill people and this needs
due care and attention.
The penalty of the
liability needs to be meaningful, financially punitive so as to be
transformational to the whole supply chain of gun manufacture, gun ownership, the
marketing, sales and distribution of such arms.
Accessibility
One could argue this horse
has long bolted from the stables on this matter. And it is impossible to reign
in the gun access now in the USA. But I believe we should still try and reduce
the degree of accessibility of most guns to all and sundry in the population.
To choke off those out
there already one could start by requiring manufacturers to stop producing
bullets for the destructive guns we wish to phase out and limit public use of.
Or at the very least restrict the public distribution of bullets for such
weapons - semi-automatics and automatics known to be popular with gun
enthusiasts. Ownership of such weapons will now be enforced as illegal and
future sales banned, preceded by an amnesty announced for calling them in.
The Rights of those Bearing Arms
A right is not a license
and neither does not come free from responsibilities.
The responsibilities that
come with bearing arms need to be properly defined and implemented.
Traceability
Since we are dealing with a
potentially lethal instrument that can be used to kill another person the
principle of licensing guns has been well argued and understood. However it is
not fully implemented and today's technologies allows for so much more to be
done in this area.
Already items in the food
chain are more traceable, and are being more enforced as traceable, than
weapons!! And that includes food originating from "Third World"
countries!!
Look to the food supply
chain and adopt best practices of being able to trace ALL GUNS from their point
of manufacture ALL along the supply chain to those who buy and trade in them. (Ergo,
guns should not be able to be pawned).
So at any point in time the
authorities responsible for "the security of the free state" will
know, from a database, who has which guns - or should have each gun - and be
able to trace where it got "lost" in the supply chain, if that
happens.
This traceability can be
implemented by spot checks and/or requiring regular roll calls of the owners.
Such spot checks can be
made through assignation of priorities and intelligence gathering.
And the loss of a gun
somewhere in the supply chain should have meaningful and commensurate consequences
for those involved.
Accountability
Those who bear arms also
have a responsibility. To show others in the society that they are taking care
of them safely. They should be required by law to report to the authorities and
show them, at the owner's expense, that they still retain the guns in their
possession and to the specification imposed by law. e.g. ID and tracking chip installed
at manufacture is still there and working.
The owner of the gun is
accountable for its whereabouts and proper functioning at ALL times.
Failure to report loss or
theft promptly - within 24 hours - will be charged as a felony.
Those who "lose"
a gun in the above supply chain should be held responsible for the ensuring
consequences resulting from that gun's use - civil lawsuits for example. The "It's your property" principle.
Responsibility
The right to bear arms comes with a responsibility to use it safely
and appropriately. So since the initial context was a "militia" they
should be sent to an appropriate training facility to ensure they are
adequately educated and trained - at their expense.
Also the one-off expenditure of buying a gun should extend to a
recurring expense of owning it responsibly - such a cost reflects the true
nature of the responsibility. This includes need to keep it secure, proof of
keeping it safely, proof of still possessing it, operating with detectable
function, etc
If the gun owner loses a gun they should be black-listed from owning
further guns as this is a clear sign of an irresponsible person.
So there you have it USA - re-visit your Constitution.
You don't even need to change it but you do need to re-visit what it
was meant to achieve and re-interpret how that can be done in the 21st
Century.
This home grown terrorism is as important to Homeland Security as the
external threats of foreign agents.
