In a lot of ways the reaction to any terrorist event
is entirely predictable, there are always calls for greater powers for the
security services. This strikes me as a gut reaction as I heard one security
professional comment, “if you are searching for a needle in a haystack, you do
not increase the amount of hay”. There are also proposals for making more
rigorous the controls on firearms ownership. Now this got me thinking, and
forgive me here I am not seeking to be rude to my North American friends in
this blog, just curious.
In the last few weeks I have read about three tragic
killings in the US. The first was when a toddler riding in a supermarket
trolley opened their mother’s purse, removed the weapon inside, pointed it at the
mother and fatally shot her. In the second case a husband seeking to treat his
wife to breakfast in bed returned to the marital bedroom to be shot by his wife
thinking that he was an intruder. Lastly only yesterday a toddler again found
hone of his parent’s guns, turned it on their self and fired a fatal shot.
All of these deaths were entirely preventable and would
be less likely to happen in Europe where there is no right to carry firearms.
Yet I do not hear a clamour in North America to make gun ownership more
restrictive. The constitution of the US framed in very different times seems to
guarantee the contrary. So I pose a rhetorical question, does a potential
terrorist have the right to carry weapons just not the right to use them?
Perhaps I am approaching this through the lens of a
Briton where even the ability of the police to carry firearms is much agonised
over. But it does seem to me the right of the individual to carry firearms is
in reality much more threatening and the consequence of which are utterly
preventable. The malign effects of this have been far more extensive than
domestic terrorism. It is also some thing that government can control, whereas
countering terrorism is difficult, that is not to say that we should not
attempt difficult things, of course we should. I am a believer of doing the
simple things first, the principle of taking the low hanging fruit before
climbing to the top of the tree.
My apologies for my lack of understanding here, but I
am really curious.
You are not rude at all, Nigel. Rather you raise very good questions which are being discussed here, much too slowly for my personal liking and the safety of many. Recently, several states have taken steps to increase control over fire arms. In Burlington last year, three ballot measures calling for restriction on guns in the city (limited, not enough in my opinion) were passed. They conflict with state law, referred to as the sportsmen bill of rights, so it is up to the legislature to change state law or grant an exception to Burlington. I believe it wil be debated this session. It is a start. Overall, I think this is just one example of American hubris around individual rights at the expense of others, a fear of "other". I suspect there are more explanations that involve the power of the NRA, National Rifle Association, money and control.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting perspective particularly around the rights of the individual. I suspect that despite Thatcher's best endeavours their is still the concept of community in Briton, where sometimes individual rights are curtailed for the greater good.
ReplyDelete